Глава VI. «Превосходнейшему Августу Грациану и христианнейшему принцепсу Амвросий епископ»

Gratian was the son of Valentinian I by Severa, his first wife. In 367, the emperor proclaimed his son Augustus when he was only 8 years old. Once, the no longer young Severa had the imprudence to praise to her husband the charms of a woman whom she had met in the thermal baths. This was by no means an inconsolable widow and a very sexy person named Justina. Valentinian was so inspired by his wife’s colorful story that he became eager to meet the beautiful widow. The acquaintance that took place soon did not disappoint the emperor's expectations, which resulted in a divorce from Severa, with whom Valentinian had three children (Gracian had two sisters - Constance and Leta), and marriage to Justina. Before his sudden death, the loving emperor managed to give birth to another daughter, Galla, who later became the wife of Theodosius, and another son, Valentinian, whose birth created difficulties for Gratian, who had already tasted power. The death of Valentinian I in 375 entailed the automatic transfer of power in the west to Augustus Gratian, whose co-ruler in the east remained Valens. However, even the replacement of father by son on the imperial throne in the Roman Empire, tormented by previous civil strife, could no longer take place calmly and without complications. Apparently, at the court of the new emperor, as had happened before, a regrouping of political forces took place. As a result of palace intrigues, the possibility of which was facilitated by the youth of the emperor, representatives of the senatorial class of the central regions, in particular Italy, won, pushing into the background the provincial nobility, mainly of Pannonia and the Balkan provinces, which dominated the court of Valentinian I. The widow of the deceased Emperor Justin did not remain passive either. 5 days after the death of Valentinian, November 1–22, 375, the troops in Pannonia proclaimed Justina’s four-year-old son Valentinian P. emperor. Although Gratian unexpectedly received a rival in the person of his half-brother, he had the prudence not to start a civil war. He only expressed dissatisfaction with this event and punished some of the most zealous participants in the proclamation of Valentinian II. Gratian’s position on the throne was not strong enough, and he had no choice but to come to terms with the appearance of a minor co-ruler. “Gracian was an educated person above the average level,” Aurelius Victor characterizes the emperor (Extracts on the life and morals of the Roman emperors, 47), “he composed poetry, spoke beautifully, and knew how to understand controversies according to the rules of rhetoric.” He owed this to the outstanding rhetorician and poet of late antiquity, Ausonius, who was his teacher for 10 years. Ammianus Marcellinus characterizes Gratian as follows: “He was a young man, widely gifted, eloquent, reserved, warlike and at the same time gentle, and he could have followed in the footsteps of the best emperors of the past, if not for his penchant for fun, which, under the corrupting influence of those closest to him, turned him to an empty pastime...” (History XXXI, 10, 18). True, for the time being, this tendency of Gratian had little effect, and at the beginning of his reign he was more concerned with strengthening his position. After 375, two political factions clearly emerged in the western part of the Roman Empire, which were concentrated around the imperial courts of Gratian and Valentinian II. In religious terms, Gratian’s entourage probably consisted of orthodox Christians, since the emperor himself adhered to the Nicene faith, and pagans, who still occupied prominent places in the state apparatus. The proportion of both seems to have been the same at first, although perhaps the pagan element predominated somewhat. Valentinian II's entourage consisted mainly of provincial nobility who adhered to the Arian faith, to which Empress Justina was committed, and also some part of the pagans. This alignment of religious and political forces forced Gratian at the beginning of his reign to follow the policy of religious tolerance of his father. Trying to use this policy to rise above the warring religious and political groups, Gratian, nevertheless, could not help but understand that the balance between them was rather ephemeral and could not last indefinitely. With the growing Gothic danger, perhaps even before the Adrianople disaster, the court of Valentinian II moved from Sirmium to Mediolan, and Gratian experienced pressure from his overbearing and capricious stepmother Justina. The latter sought to subordinate the young emperor to her influence, and used Arianism as one of the means to achieve this goal. At the same time, Ambrose also experienced pressure from the Arians. Thus, real ground arose for a rapprochement between the bishop and the emperor: Gratian needed the support of Ambrose and the church to resist Justina and her Arian entourage; Ambrose needed the support of Gratian and the imperial power to fight the Arians and other heretics and strengthen the authority of the Milanese Church. Sources have not preserved any data about the first meeting of Ambrose and Gratian. Some researchers, for example A. Paredi, consider such a meeting very possible in the summer of 376 or 377, when the emperor paid an official visit to Rome and passed through Mediolan. However, it can be assumed with greater certainty that a personal acquaintance between the bishop and the emperor took place in 378. Ambrose himself says that Gratian asked him to give an explanation of the faith before sending him to the east to help Valens. (Ambrose. On faith I, 3). The bishop, as already stated, complied with this request, and the basis for their further rapprochement was laid. However, the relationship between the emperor and the bishop in the 4th century. could not just be a relationship - friendly or business - between two specific people - Gratian and Ambrose. In their person, two social institutions came into interaction - the church and the state, and their relationship had a long and contradictory history, which could not but leave its mark on Gratian and Ambrose. The question of the relationship between religion and its institutions and state power did not arise in the ancient world until the emergence of Christianity. The state itself was the sole organizer and administrator of religious rites and ceremonies, which were inseparable from political actions. Most priestly positions in the policies of Ancient Greece and the Roman Republic were elective, and service to the gods itself was considered a public matter. In pagan thought there was not even a division between the categories of religion and politics until the time of Julian the Apostate, who created his “pagan church” already under the influence of Christianity. The Christian religion arose and developed in completely different historical conditions than pagan cults and traditional Roman religion. The early Christians suffered persecution and persecution both from the Roman inhabitants, who were suspicious of their secret meetings and preaching of love and goodness, and from the official authorities, who feared that the preaching of equality before God might come with a call for a violent reorganization of society on earth, and who saw real political opposition in the refusal of the followers of Christ to follow official religious rites and sacrifices. For their part, the early Christians, at least some of them, directed their ideology against the Roman Empire: Rome was declared the “great harlot” and the “incarnation of the Antichrist,” the Empire was opposed to the “kingdom of God,” etc. These ideas received a particularly vivid embodiment in the “Apocalypse of John” - precisely that part of the New Testament that was the last to be included in it only at the beginning of the 5th century. And, if the first Christians did not call for an open struggle with the authorities, then in any case they treated them with deep distrust and hostility. But there was another tendency aimed at achieving a compromise with the outside world and allowing Christians to survive in it. Its supporters showed complete loyalty to the secular authorities, and even when going to execution, they did not express any seditious ideas. In the Holy Scriptures, both of these trends found a unique reflection: on the one hand, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew XXII:21), “My kingdom is not of this world” (John, XVIII:36), words about the equal position of secular and spiritual power (Rom. 13:1) and even about some predominance of the second over the first (Acts 4:19); on the other hand, the prohibition of rebellion against the divinely established authorities, the preaching of complete submission to them, patience with persecution and oppression, respect for them and prayer for them (I Pet. 2:17-20; Rom. 13:1-5; Nim. 2:2). Until the beginning of the 4th century. Christianity remained a persecuted religion, whose adherents were subjected to repression and were not able to openly propagate their views. By this time, according to the most daring estimates, they constituted no more than 1/10 of the total population of the Roman Empire, but their number, despite persecution and repression, not only did not decrease, but, on the contrary, grew rapidly. The persecution did not break the Christians, but gave them an aura of martyrdom, so attractive to all people and nations languishing under the yoke of a huge empire. But Christianity attracted not only the oppressed. No other religion of antiquity touched the deeply hidden strings of the human soul, did not give hope for future deliverance from all the hardships of harsh existence in the mortal world, did not open the souls of people towards each other, did not rely on all those moral values ​​that in the true sense made man the crown of creation. At the beginning of the 4th century. in principle, all the necessary prerequisites for the union of Christianity and the Roman Empire have developed: Firstly, the dominant system created by the reforms of Diocletian - Constantine needed a new ideological support, qualitatively different from paganism, which, being associated with polis values, had historically become obsolete; 2, despite the repressive policies of the authorities, the popularity of Christianity continued to grow, and, consequently, the opposition within the state also grew; in 3, Christians in the 4th century. had in their ranks not only slaves, coloni and lumpen, but also representatives of the middle and upper strata of Roman society, and their number increased, and the social doctrine of Christianity over three centuries underwent significant changes: the spirit of opposition of the first Christian communities gradually evaporated, and the atmosphere of the churches was increasingly filled with the sweet aroma of flattery towards those in power; 4, Christianity had by that time a fairly powerful organization - the church, which could become an important support of the dominant as an additional element of control - parallel to the bureaucracy, the activities of which did not extend to all spheres of life, primarily spiritual and ideological; 5th, the church itself felt an urgent need for legalization, since in connection with the spread of Christianity it became urgently necessary to expand and strengthen the material base, which was extremely difficult to achieve under conditions of persecution. The “birth certificate” of the union of the Church and the Empire was the Edict of Milan in 313, issued by Constantine and Licinius, which gave Christians the right to openly practice their worship and own property, returned property confiscated during the persecution and prohibited the involvement of Christians in public pagan sacrifices. The change in the position of the church in the state, its formation as an important and necessary element of the political and social organization of the Roman Empire, the growing material base of the church - all this required the formalization of its relations with the imperial power. The emerging union had to take a certain form, and both parties were interested in this. And due to tradition, which preserved the spirit of opposition to the secular power of the early Christians, and due to the process of Christianization of the Roman Empire, which gradually placed the church in the position of a state within the state, and due to transitional processes in the depths of Roman society, when the state still personified the ancient way of life, and the church, forming in new conditions, was increasingly associated with the proto-feudal way of life, and, finally, due to the very opposition of the secular and spiritual - a clash between two social institutions Late Antiquity - church and state - in the 4th century. was inevitable. However, the struggle between them was not for the victory of one over the other, but for identifying the most convenient and advantageous form of union between them, for the main goals of the church and the state coincided, and the main one was to ensure the most effective functioning of the entire late Roman civilization in such a complex and contradictory era. The search for such forms of union was conducted throughout the 4th century. and resulted in the emergence of two doctrines of relations between church and state - Caesaropapism and Papism. The doctrine of Caesaropapism, in a certain sense, was a legacy of the pagan understanding of the role of religion in the state, and its first signs clearly appeared immediately after the legalization of Christianity. Constantine saw in Christianity the support of his power and sought to give this religion the status of a state institution, subject to and serving the imperial power. He without hesitation intervened in the affairs of the church, convened and dissolved church councils, contributed to the election of candidates pleasing to the authorities for episcopal sees and removed those who were undesirable. Although in his legal actions the emperor scrupulously avoided usurping episcopal powers. A definite contribution to the formation of the doctrine of Caesaropapism was the work of Eusebius of Caesarea “The Life of Constantine”, in which the emperor is described as the representative of God on earth, appointed by him to implement the divine plan for humanity. However, the doctrine of Caesaropapism received its most complete embodiment during the reign of Constantius P. This emperor elevated interference in the affairs of the church to the rank of state policy and, treating the bishops more tactlessly than Constantine, made a system out of this interference. Constantius is often called the theologian on the throne, and his position in relation to the church is most accurately characterized by the words put into his mouth by the Bishop of Alexandria Athanasius: “What I command, let it be considered canon.” The activities of Constantius, generally aimed at ensuring the unity of the church, resulted in exiles and removals of objectionable bishops, in forcing them to make decisions pleasing to him, in the constant convening and dissolution of church councils. “Entire bands of bishops,” writes Ammianus Marcellinus, “traveled back and forth, using the state mail, to the so-called synods in their efforts to organize the entire cult according to their decisions. He caused terrible damage to the state postal service” (History. XXI, 16, 18). In general, many church writers and historians viewed the reign of Constantius II as a real disaster for the church, as tyranny over its affairs, and then this emperor was remembered not as a restorer of unity, but as a heretic who imposed his will on the church. To summarize, we can say that in the first half and middle of the 4th century. emperors try to take the church under their guardianship, defend what seems harmful to their policies, give their authority force and legitimacy to the decisions of the church, and generally try to subjugate the entire church institution, presenting themselves as “bishops of external affairs.” The doctrine of Caesaropapism found its supporters not only in the imperial environment, to which, for example, Eusebius belonged, but also in the church, both in the east and in the west. It is interesting that it was the Western Donatist bishops who were the first to turn to Constantine to settle internal church disputes, asked him to prohibit the deprivation of church communion from his supporters, and also agreed to his right to convene councils and receive reports from them. The principles of the absolute power of the emperor, including over the church, were proclaimed by the African bishop Optat, who clearly formulated a number of provisions of the doctrine of Caesaropapism: no one is higher than the emperor except God; all people, including bishops, are subject to the emperor, even in ecclesiastical matters; the church in the state, but not the state in the church. The appearance of such ideas was natural for both the East and the West in the first half of the 4th century, while Christianity was still gaining strength. But it is also natural that the doctrine of Caesaropapism in the second half of the 4th century. turns to the east and soon firmly establishes itself there. The West ultimately turned out to be alien to Caesaropapism, and this was explained not so much by its adherence to the Nicene faith and traditions (monarchy-east, republic-west), although this played a certain role, but by the growth of the economic and political power of the church in the west by the end of the 4th century. in conditions of reduction of the state (imperial) sector of the economy and weakening of the political power of Western emperors. One more circumstance should be taken into account. The Dominat system virtually destroyed the traditions of municipal self-government, and the bishop, still elected by the population, was increasingly perceived as the leader of the civil community, who, in addition to the main episcopal functions, often acted as a judge, patron of widows and orphans, a mediator between the population and the authorities, and even sometimes as a military leader, and this was more typical for the western part of the empire. As A. Murray noted, by getting involved in the management of cities, bishops “turned Caesar-papism upside down and appeared in the Late Empire as a type of feudal theocracy.” The doctrine opposite to Caesaropapism, which gradually formed into the doctrine of papism, also originates from the time of Constantine. It is interesting that its heralds were the same Donatists who, having received an unfavorable verdict from the emperor, came up with the slogan of independence of the church from the state. However, this opinion was heard more widely and loudly in the church in response to the policy of Constantius, against which Athanasius, Hilary of Pictavia and their supporters expressed protest. Denouncing Constantius as the Antichrist and expressing the idea of ​​​​the independence of the Church, they, however, did not reflect the general mood in the church at that time. Although these protests found sympathy, Constantius was condemned more for following Arianism to the detriment of the Nicene faith than for interfering in the affairs of the church, which almost everyone then considered normal. In the middle of the 4th century. the conditions were not yet ripe for the slogan about the subordination of the state to the church. And yet, at this time, a precedent was already created for the opposition of the leader of the church to imperial power, which was never forgotten. The Alexandrian Bishop Athanasius, for his unshakable adherence to the Nicene faith, was expelled 5 times and spent almost a third of his bishopric outside his diocese, but never submitted to the emperors, setting the limit of their power with his truly stoic behavior. There was another fairly compelling reason that forced the church to seek independence from secular authorities. Julian's reign clearly showed that the instability of relations between church and state could lead not only to the triumph of heretical Christianity, as under Constantius (but still Christianity!), but also generally return to the times of persecution and the triumph of paganism. We can say that by the last quarter of the 4th century. The conditions were ripe for the emergence of the doctrine of papism and the practical application of the idea that was already in the air about the independence of the church from the state and the superiority of spiritual power over secular power. The nature of Ambrose of Milan's relations with the imperial power was undoubtedly determined to a large extent by the personality of the bishop, but such relations could not have taken place before the ground was prepared for them. Until the early 380s, Caesar-papist sentiments prevailed among bishops, including in the West. This was once again confirmed by the Roman Council of 378. Ambrose’s participation in the work of this council is not reliably recorded by sources, but the possibility cannot be ruled out that he was present there and even participated in the drafting of the emperor’s conciliar message. The participants of the Roman Council turned to Gratian with two “bills”: that bishops convicted by the church council should be forced into exile by civil authorities, and also that bishops evading church court would be brought to Rome by civil authorities; and that the bishop of Rome is not subject to the jurisdiction of any court except that of the emperor. Gratian's response was an instruction to the prefect, in which the emperor agreed with the first part of the bishops' request, but limited himself to a vague declaration regarding the second. While agreeing in principle with the policy of non-interference by the state in the affairs of the church, the bishops nevertheless felt unable to do without the assistance of the civil authorities in certain cases and directly asked to sanction such assistance. And consent to the jurisdiction of the Roman bishop over the emperor testifies to the understanding of imperial power as the highest authority for the church. Gratian, however, did not want to interfere in church affairs and did not consider himself a sufficiently experienced, subtle and strong ruler to accept the role of “theologian on the throne”, determining church policy. And his religious position, as is clear from the emperor’s request to Ambrose for instruction in the faith, was not strong enough. This is also supported by the fact that the basilica in Mediolan was confiscated at the beginning of 379, as already mentioned. Apparently, it was this fact that made it clear to Ambrose that to attract Gratian to his side, one treatise on faith was not enough, but closer contacts and persistent actions were necessary. Early in 379, Gratian wrote a letter to Ambrose, probably from Trier, on his return from the east. “Ambrose, priest of the religion of almighty God, Gratian the Emperor. I really wish that, just as I remember the absent one, as I am with him in mind, I would also be present with him in body. So, hasten to me, the priest of the religion of God, so that you can teach me the teachings of the true faith, so that I will not just study religious controversy, but so that divinity will take root in my open soul.” Ambrose looked up from reading the emperor's letter to adjust the wick in the lamp. Adding more fuel to him, the bishop thought that the emperor seemed to have learned his lesson well, taught by the treatise “On Faith.” And if so, then the instructions should be continued. And if the emperor becomes a firm supporter of Niceneism, he can be persuaded to issue laws in favor of the true faith. And then... Ambrose's dreams about the future of the church were interrupted by the servant, who announced that dinner was ready and the clergy of the Mediolan Church were already waiting for their bishop for the evening meal. After a light dinner, consisting of bread, vegetables and fish, Ambrose hurried to his office and once again ran his eyes over that paragraph from Gratian’s letter, in which the emperor set out his understanding of the faith, although not yet clear enough, but completely Nicene. Then the bishop re-read with satisfaction the last lines of this short, but very gratifying letter to his pride: “I ask you to add to the treatise that you have already provided me with a discussion about faith in the Holy Spirit, so that you prove that this is God by passages from Scripture and arguments. May divinity protect you for many years, father and admirer of the eternal God, whom we also worship - Jesus Christ." Putting aside Gratian's letter with reverent respect, Ambrose picked up the style and thought about addressing the emperor. Then slowly but surely he wrote: “To the most excellent Augustus Gratian and the most Christian princeps Ambrose the Bishop.” “Such an appeal,” thought Ambrose, “should emphasize not just my respect for him as an emperor. The title “most Christian” means that he remains untouched by the Arian infection, and at the same time makes him obliged to defend the Christian faith.” This innovation of Ambrose subsequently took root, turned out to be popular and did not leave the title of monarchs until the Age of Enlightenment. Ambrose continued to write, almost without stopping and only occasionally pondering individual phrases in an effort to give them greater persuasiveness and brilliance: “I do not lack feeling, most Christian princeps, for I cannot say anything more true than this; I do not lack, I say, feeling, but it was precisely the feeling of respectful respect that kept me from hastening towards your mercy. However, if I did not rush to meet you upon your return with my feet, I rushed to you with my soul, I rushed to you with prayer, which is the highest duty of a priest. Did I say I was rushing towards you? When was I not with you: who did I follow with all my love, with whom was I closely connected in thoughts and feelings? And of course, the presence of the soul is more important. I read daily about your journey, night and day, with feeling and care, placed in your camp, I posted a guard of prayers. And if I am weak by merit, I am tireless in experiences. And this despite the fact that when we took care of your well-being, we thereby took care of our own. There is no flattery here, which you do not need and which I consider alien to our position, but there is favor that you bestowed. Our Judge himself knows, whom you acknowledge and in whom you piously believe, that my inner strength is restored through your faith, your well-being, your glory, and that I pray not only because of your public service, but also because of my personal love. For you returned to me a peaceful church, you closed the mouths of unbelievers, oh, if only you had closed their hearts! - and you did this no less by faith than by the authority of power. What can I say about your recent letter? You wrote the entire letter with your own hand so that the manuscript itself speaks with your faith and piety.” Here Ambrose stopped writing, got up from his seat and walked around the small office, stretching his legs and thinking about continuing the letter. It was already night outside, but the bishop did not want to sleep. After all, he wrote to the emperor himself, and his future position and the fate of the church itself largely depended on this letter. Ambrose returned to the letter, turned the style in his hands, as if tuning it in the right way, and continued his message with a discussion about Abraham from the Book of Genesis, developing it with thoughts about the faith of the emperor. Ambrose held Gratian's letter in front of him and with satisfaction confirmed the emperor's correct thoughts about God. Then the bishop decided that Gratian would be pleased if he wrote how eager he was to meet him: “Of course, I will come and hasten, as you order, to hear this, personally present, so that, personally present, I will listen to the words when they come out of your mouth. But I sent two books, the danger of which I no longer fear, since they are approved by your grace. Meanwhile, I ask permission to write about the Holy Spirit...” Having written a short passage on this topic, as if anticipating a future treatise, Ambrose realized that the letter would have less effect if it turned out to be too long. And he decided to end his message with a vivid panegyric, which, in his opinion, should have endeared Gratian even more to both the church and its bishop: “The most blessed and most beautiful God Almighty, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who favors your era and your reign in the highest glory, and the permanent peace is pleased to strengthen, sovereign Emperor Augustus, chosen by the will of God, most glorious of sovereigns” (Ambrose. Letter I). At the end of July 379, Gratian arrived in Milan. Sources do not testify to the details of the meeting between the emperor and Ambrose, but there is no doubt that the edict of August 3, 379 on the abolition of toleration was issued under the influence of the Bishop of Milan. However, it would be wrong to accuse Ambrose of gross interference in politics, and Gratian of childish subordination to the bishop: in the summer of 379 the situation in the Empire was already different from that of the year before, and from a political point of view, religious unity had clear advantages. However, from this moment on, Ambrose no longer weakened his influence on Gratian: he addressed dogmatic treatises to the emperor, regularly met with him in Milan, and advised him on issues of religious policy. It is the influence of Ambrose that is credited with the publication at this time of a number of laws in favor of the Christian Church, as well as the implementation of a set of measures against paganism, which will be discussed below. One can agree with F. Dudden, who wrote that “Ambrose became not only the emperor’s mentor in the Catholic faith, but also an adviser on the politics of the empire.” Along with this, it should be recognized that Ambrose’s influence on Gratian was not undivided. Thus, the chief of infantry 37 Merobod, who took part in the division of the empire and the elevation of Gratian to the throne, had a significant influence on the young emperor, which to a certain extent obliged him towards himself. Macedonia played a major role at court, holding the post of head of the imperial administration. Finally, despite his youth, inexperience and exposure to influences, Gratian’s reign cannot be imagined as if he acted only at someone’s prompting. The emperor, undoubtedly, was capable of independent action and correlated the advice of his courtiers with his own opinion and understanding of the political situation. Many of the decisions taken by Gratian seem quite logical and in response to the needs of the time, and not to the random moods of the monarch himself or those around him. Yet Ambrose’s relationship with Gratian as a whole contributed to a significant increase in the authority and prestige of the bishop and the formation of the first elements of his concept of the relationship between church and state. In his early works of the late 370s - early 380s. Ambrose advocates the independence of the church in matters of faith and doctrine. The church serves the state with prayers, but the state, the bishop believes, must support the church, protect it from the attacks of pagans and heretics, who should be deprived of all state support. Ambrose recognizes the imperial power's right to convene church councils, ratify their decisions and implement them, in particular, to apply civil sanctions against bishops who do not obey the decisions of the councils. However, he does not recognize the right of civil authorities to interfere in the course of church councils. According to Ambrose, the church and the state are two independent but allied powers; religion and politics must pursue the same goal, and the highest good of the empire is to harmonize state activities with the precepts of Christianity. As far as can be judged from sources, Ambrose never allowed direct pressure on Gratian, limiting himself to general recommendations and appealing to the religious feelings of the emperor. Thus, sources did not record a single case of confrontation between Gratian and Ambrose. Probably, the Bishop of Mediolana himself did not yet feel strong enough to resist the emperor, and believed that he could achieve his goal by playing the role of a spiritual mentor. True, this was not always possible, especially in the last months of Gratian’s life. One of the highest military positions in the Roman Empire.