Глава VII. «Алтарь Христа не принимает Твоих даров, потому что Ты принес жертву алтарю идолов»

(Ambrose. Letter 17, 14) The first years of Ambrose's bishopric were not marked by any significant events related to the confrontation between Christianity and paganism, which filled the entire 4th century and which can be called the main antagonism of the era. Ambrose was so closely connected with his pagan past and owed so much to this past that from the very beginning of his new ministry he simply could not declare war on the old religion. And the policy of religious tolerance pursued by Valentinian I and, at first, by Gratian, forced the bishop for the time being to refrain from demonstrating his position in relation to the fact of the peaceful coexistence of two hostile religions in one state. However, the severity of the problem did not allow its resolution to be postponed indefinitely. The process of the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire is usually called the term “Christianization,” and it includes not only the quantitative growth of supporters of the faith in Christ, their appearance in different regions of the Roman world and in different social strata of Roman society. Christianization also includes the formation of the Christian church, as an element of the superstructure of the social system, and the interaction and confrontation of pagan and Christian cultures. A very important aspect of this process was the religious policy of the Roman emperors, starting with Constantine, and their attitude towards paganism and Christianity. Consideration of this particular aspect of Christianization will allow us to better understand the role and place of Ambrose of Milan in the victory won by Christianity over paganism at the end of the 4th century. Emperor Constantine, who realized the importance of the Christian factor in politics before his rivals, continued to patronize Christianity even after the Edict of Milan. True, he still acted quite cautiously and granted privileges to the church with certain reservations. Thus, Christian clergy were exempted from municipal duties, but, based on financial considerations, Constantine prohibited the transition to the clergy for curials who had large fortunes, and laws were issued on the return to the curia of persons previously appointed to church positions. In 326, Constantine even tried to reduce the excessive growth in the number of clergy and establish church staffs: a decree was issued that new clerics should be accepted only to replace the dead. However, even then the state was unable to regulate the growth of the church organization, and in the end the care of the church staff was transferred to the competence of the bishops. The law of 315 exempted the church from real estate taxes, but it applied only to church buildings as places of worship, and did not apply to church lands. Constantine granted the churches the right to free slaves, but only with the consent of the owner and in the presence of witnesses. Christian churches were entitled to the right of refuge, but pagan shrines and statues of emperors also had the same right. The church was also granted judicial privileges: in 318, the episcopal court was recognized as equivalent to the state court if both parties referred the case to the bishop; in 321 it was decided to consider the verdicts of bishops final and peremptory, and in 333 the bishop acquired the right to consider civil claims at the request of only one party. However, all these privileges, with the exception of judicial ones, did not go beyond the benefits that paganism had enjoyed for many centuries. And only one act of Constantine is truly worthy of being written in golden letters in the history of Christianity: after the Council of Nicea, the emperor ordered that the collection from a certain part of the taxable land of each city be given to local churches. This laid the foundation for the future economic power of the growing church. Granting privileges to Christianity, Constantine actually remained a pagan all his life and did nothing that could seriously undermine the position of the pagan religion. He bore the title of Pontifex Maximus, being the official head of the entire Roman pagan cult; under him, the cult of the emperor was preserved, to which was also added the cult of the Flavians - the family from which he came; for many years his coins retained a cautious ambiguity that allowed his pagan subjects to understand their symbolism in a traditional spirit, and even his supervision of the affairs of the Christian church could be presented as part of traditional imperial duties. And although Constantine did not hesitate to shamelessly plunder pagan temples to resolve financial issues and to build the new eastern capital of the empire - Constantinople, founded in 330, he never deprived paganism of the support that the old religion had received from the state for many centuries. Moreover, this emperor, truly great for Christianity, accepted the rite of baptism only in 337, when he was on his deathbed. One cannot but agree with those authors who explain the ambiguity of Constantine’s religious policy with the insight of a statesman. His alliance with Christianity was primarily of a political nature, and he in no way wanted to break with paganism. Constantine's religious policy is characterized by fairly broad religious tolerance, thanks to which a strong social base was created for the regime and favorable conditions were created for carrying out measures to strengthen the system of dominance. Constantine raised his sons in a Christian spirit, and they acted in relation to the religions of the empire within the framework of their father's policies. Of their laws, noteworthy is the Edict of Constans of 349, by which he attempted to introduce the clergy into the rank of a hereditary caste. True, this was not successful: although there were families of clerics, the Christian clergy never became a caste in the strict sense. A new stage in the coexistence of paganism and Christianity was the reign of Constantius II, who not only continued the policy of distributing privileges to Christianity, but also began the fight against paganism. Back in 343, Constantius exempted clergy from taxes on trade, in 353 they were exempt from public duties, and in 361, Constantius decreed that bishops, no matter what property they had, were exempt from curial duties, and, from presbyters to lower clergy, the clergy could freely dispose of their property if these persons were elected to church positions at the request of the people and with consent of the curia. Along with this, Constantius became the first emperor to launch a whole series of repressive measures against paganism. The beginning of a new policy was the law of 341, which prohibited sacrifices in a general form. In 353, night sacrifices were prohibited, and in 356, Constantius ordered the closure of all churches and imposed the death penalty on anyone caught making sacrifices and worshiping idols. In 357, two laws were issued against divination, which were practiced by pagan fortune-tellers. However, the effectiveness of these rather harsh measures was apparently very low. They were more of a declarative nature and were practically not implemented. In any case, not a single case was known in which the death penalty was applied to a pagan who was captured while performing his religious rites. And Constantius himself turned out to be inconsistent. In 357, during a visit to Rome, the Christian emperor admired the beauty of pagan temples and statues, performed literally all the functions of the high priest, confirmed the privileges of the Vestals, established the usual allowances for pagan rituals, and appointed members of the Roman pagan nobility to various positions. The only anti-pagan measure Constantius took during his visit to Rome was the order to remove the Altar of Victory from the meeting room of the Senate Curia. In general, Constantius’s religious policy turned out to be untenable: discord among Christians intensified under him to such an extent that they turned many hesitant and even converts away from Christianity; measures against paganism turned out to be ineffective: the prohibitions, despite their severity, remained a dead letter, and the pagan cult was not separated from the state. An attempt to strike a blow at the ancient religion in conditions of weakening by internal strife and external pressure of the church was doomed to failure from the very beginning and led to the opposite result - a short but bright period of revival of paganism under Julian. The short years of reign - from 361 to 363 - of this undoubtedly talented and bright emperor turned out to be a turning point in the coexistence of paganism and Christianity and were of great importance for the fate of the latter. Julian essentially made it clear to Christian leaders that the Christianization of the Roman Empire would not happen automatically, and forced them to think seriously about what the "conversion" of Christianity to the empire might entail. In addition, Julian gave Christians examples of how to fight a hostile religion in conditions of “peaceful” coexistence, and Christians could judge their effectiveness from their own experience. Julian's measures in relation to Christianity were by no means as severe as those of his predecessor in relation to paganism. Direct repression can only be considered the removal of Christians from public positions and the restriction of their access to education, which was expressed in the ban on Christian teachers teaching in schools. At the same time, Julian not only granted Christians freedom of religion, but even returned from exile the bishops exiled by Constantius, not without reason, thereby hoping to plunge the church into new destructive internecine strife. But Julian tried to do in relation to Christianity what two decades later doomed paganism - he deprived the church of state subsidies and abolished the laws of Constantine and Constantius and the privileges of clergy that existed in this regard. In fact, this stopped the process of merging church and state. Acting wisely, carefully and prudently in relation to Christianity, Julian did not give reason even to church historians to call him a persecutor of Christians, 38 although the anti-Christian orientation of his policy was never questioned. Julian's policy towards paganism can be characterized as an attempt to create a kind of state pagan church or as a desire to reshape paganism in a Christian way. Julian's religious reforms stemmed from the internal needs of paganism, which needed restructuring in the spirit of the times and changing conditions. Under Julian, the ancient religion experienced all the benefits of state patronage for the last time: churches and altars were restored and rebuilt, old rituals and festivals were resumed, priests and church servants were showered with honors and privileges and were freed from duties, money and grain reserves taken from them were returned to the churches. However, the triumph of paganism was very short-lived. The resuscitation of an ancient religion in new historical conditions could not succeed. Christianity already had the historical initiative, which possessed much of what Julian wanted to give to paganism. At the same time, the “pagan reaction” showed that the ancient religion still has significant strength and a large number of supporters who actively resisted Christianization. And a decisive break with Julian’s religious policy occurred immediately after his death. Emperor Jovian abolished all the anti-Christian measures of his predecessor, restored almost completely the privileges of Christians 39 that existed before Julian, and returned those who were exiled “for not deviating from piety” (only three cases of expulsion of the most active bishops and the future emperor Valentinian I are known). No repressive measures were taken against paganism. On the contrary, Jovian issued an edict of toleration, in which he guaranteed the safety of the ancient rites. Succeeding Jovian, who reigned for less than a year, Valentinian I ushered in the last period of religious peace. Although the new emperor, according to Christian sources, was a zealous Christian, external danger from the barbarians, internal instability in the empire and pagan opposition to Christianization, which was seriously shaken by the reign of Julian, forced him to return to the principle of toleration. Regarding Christianity, Valentinian acted rather restrainedly. He again allowed Christian teachers to teach in schools, confirmed Christian immunities and privileges and prohibited the posting of Christian soldiers at posts near pagan temples, and also decided not to force Christians to participate in gladiatorial games. However, according to G. Boissier, Valentinian I “never agreed to give Christians privileges that were contrary to the interests of the state,” and issued a number of laws limiting their rights. Thus, the right of refuge was limited, persons who had joined the clergy were returned to the curia in order to avoid municipal duties, clergy engaged in trade were taxed, and finally, the already mentioned law was issued, prohibiting clergy from visiting the homes of widows and orphans and declaring their wills in favor of clergy invalid. Paganism under Valentinian I was not subject to any serious restrictions or oppression, and the policy towards the ancient religion was determined primarily by the emperor’s concern for the internal peace of the state and the idea of ​​religious tolerance. Although Valentinian took away the property returned to them by Julian from the pagan temples, he did not give it to its former owners, the Christian churches, but annexed everything to state property. Having confirmed the legal status of paganism, Valentinian nevertheless renewed the laws abolished by Julian against secret sacrifices, fortune telling, fortune telling and ordered their strict application, and also equated magical rituals with serious crimes. In general, the religious policy of Valentinian I aroused the approval of both Christians and pagans. Ammianus Marcellinus characterizes it with the following words: “The glory of his reign lies in the restraint with which he treated religious discord; He did not offend anyone, did not issue orders to honor this or that, and did not force his subjects under strict compulsion to bow to what he himself believed in, and he left these matters in the position in which he found them” (History XXX, 9, 5). Thus, from the tolerance of Constantine through the extremes of Constantius and Julian, the religious policy of the Roman Empire returned again to the tolerance of Valentinian I. However, this did not mean at all that the same situation returned as it was under Constantine. If the toleration of the creator of the Edict of Milan was intended to expand the social base of his regime, only opening up opportunities for Christianity, then the toleration of Valentinian I meant the realization of these opportunities by the church over the past half century and reflected the approximate balance of power between paganism and Christianity. Valentinian himself was forced to take this balance into account in his religious policy and did not dare to change the balance in favor of one of the religions, although he had a clear inclination towards Christianity. To understand the events associated with the last battle between Christianity and paganism in the Roman Empire at the end of the 4th century, the question of the degree of Christianization of Roman society is very important. The sources do not contain any statistics on this matter, and information about the social composition of those converting to Christianity is extremely scarce. In addition, the overall picture was never stable, and the line between paganism and Christianity, both in public and private life, was not always clear enough. By the 70s of the 4th century. Christians were already present in all levels of Roman society and in all provinces of the Roman Empire, as well as outside its borders. With some certainty it can be said that among Christians of the 4th century. the most significant part were the “suffering and disadvantaged” both in the social and in the life sense. In a social sense, this included the urban poor, freedmen, slaves and small peasants who fell into debt bondage, or abandoned their meager plots, joining the ranks of the lumpen. In the “life” sense, these were people who, due to some troubles, were knocked out of their usual rut, who had physical disabilities and suffered from illnesses. It was these people who were disadvantaged in this life who found a way out of their hopeless situation in the path that Christianity offered. It was to them that church sermons were addressed, containing expressions of love for one's neighbor, willingness to help and promises of justice in the future. And it was precisely this language that was unfamiliar to the pagans. We can agree with A. Jones that in the 4th century. Christianity was mainly an urban religion and found its supporters among the lower and middle urban strata, mainly manual workers and merchants. The process of Christianization of the village was not completed in the 6th century. Free landowners who used slave labor, were associated with communal property and belonged to the decurion class were the basis of deep socio-religious conservatism and resisted Christianization for the longest time. Although back in the I-III centuries. Among the Christians there were representatives of the ruling class; the legalization of Christianity and the growing privileges of the state in relation to this religion could not but lead to a large increase in the number of its supporters from the upper strata of Roman society. Thanks to legalization, the risk (from a social point of view) of being a Christian has disappeared; Moreover, conversion to Christianity and joining the clergy also promised some material benefits. The growth in the number of adherents of Christianity from the upper and middle strata was also facilitated by the social reorientation of the church. Of particular interest is the problem of the Christianization of the aristocracy - the highest senatorial class in the Roman Empire. The old aristocratic Roman families in the 4th century, as throughout Roman history, were considered the guardians of ancient traditions and were a kind of symbol of the glory and greatness of Rome, inextricably linked with the pagan past. The original Roman aristocracy has long been part of the Roman Senate, which became, in the words of A. Momigliano, “the last bastion of paganism.” By the 380s, a radical pagan group had formed in the Roman Senate, which held the highest military and civil posts in its hands. But the senatorial class as a whole was already a rather mixed group, and along with the old families that owned large land holdings and many slaves, it also included representatives of the new nobility, which emerged during social changes in connection with the establishment of the dominant system. It was this part of the senatorial class that turned out to be most receptive to Christianity and by the end of the 4th century. almost completely Christianized. In the 4th century. the number of Christians among officials of the imperial administration increased. This social stratum was most dependent on the emperors, and the direction of their religious policy could not but affect the religious consciousness of the direct conductors and executors of this policy. At the same time, the regular repetition and confirmation of some imperial decrees concerning religion indicates that the Christianization of the bureaucracy did not proceed at such a rapid pace, and the number of pagans in this environment until the end of the 4th century. it was still big. The most important support of the dominant was the army, and it, as Western researchers believe, was predominantly pagan throughout the 4th century. However, different units of the Roman army throughout the vast territory of the empire were subject to varying degrees of Christianization. Obviously, to the greatest extent in the last quarter of the 4th century. Mobile units that played a major role in the military activities of the emperors were Christianized. In any case, in the struggle between paganism and Christianity, the army played a predominantly passive role, and the soldiers equally obeyed the ardent Christian Constantius, Julian Apostatus, and the tolerant Valentinian I - discipline and the habit of obedience were stronger for them than religious convictions. The penetration of Christianity among the Roman intelligentsia was probably slow. This is supported by the fact that until the end of the 4th century. in the Roman Empire there were not even Christian schools, and education was mainly pagan, although there were already Christians among the teachers. Christian philosophy was still in its formative stages, and the vast majority of Roman philosophers believed in the old gods. In late antique philosophy one can see the strengthening of religious motives, especially in the most popular movement of this time - Neoplatonism, but the synthesis of philosophy and religion was still carried out on the old, pagan basis. The common basis of Roman literature and fine arts also in the 4th century. paganism remained, and the appearance of Christian works had not yet become so noticeable as to speak of a turning point in favor of Christianity in this area, especially since many of them, in form and content, either echoed the works of pagan authors or included pagan elements. However, in general, the intellectual life of this time was characterized by a noticeable decline, which one of the most prominent writers of the 4th century states with obvious regret. Ammianus Marcellinus: “Educated and serious people are avoided as boring and useless people. Even those few houses that in former times were famous for serious attention to science are now immersed in the amusements of shameful idleness, and songs and loud ringing of strings are heard in them. Instead of a philosopher, a singer is invited, and instead of a rhetorician, a master of amusing affairs. The libraries are locked forever, like tombs, but water organs, huge lyres the size of carts, flutes and all sorts of bulky instruments of acting equipment are being built... Others are afraid of science like poison...” (History XIV, 6, 15, 18; XXVIII, 4, 14). This decline undoubtedly contributed to the growing popularity of Christianity and the influx of part of the Roman intelligentsia into the ranks of supporters of this religion. Despite the obvious successes of Christianity in the “conversion” of the Roman Empire, the position of paganism until the 80s of the 4th century. remained strong enough. Unlike Christianity, paganism did not represent a single religious system, just as there was no single pagan cult throughout the entire Roman Empire. Only the cult of the emperor can be considered such an official imperial cult, but in the 4th century. it loses all meaning as the emperors themselves convert to Christianity. In the provinces and even in Italy itself, in areas remote from the centers of civilization, rural residents professed a religion that still retained a clear imprint of primitive beliefs. The most widespread in the Roman Empire was Roman paganism itself, which included a powerful layer of ancient Greek religion. It enjoyed the support of the aristocracy, peasants and curials in the provinces; there were many pagans in the urban environment. Finally, in the eastern provinces and in some centers of the western provinces, a variety of ancient Eastern and Hellenistic mystical cults enjoyed wide popularity, among which Christianity’s rival, Mithraism, especially stands out. In the 4th century. Roman paganism was increasingly associated with the past, but it was based not only on tradition. By the last quarter of the century, all the attributes of the pagan cult had been preserved, the priests and temples of which continued to enjoy centuries-old privileges and state support and possessed enormous wealth. Pagans occupied the most important positions in the imperial administration, and even the court etiquette of the “most Christian” emperors remained pagan in its religious overtones. However, paganism was not prepared for the fight. As an official religion, it always counted on the support of the state, it did not have an organization similar to the church, which allowed Christianity to survive persecution, it did not have a united party of supporters capable of defending its interests, and finally, paganism was not going to fight with anyone at all, because in essence it was a tolerant religion and was ready to peacefully coexist with Christianity. It should be borne in mind that in the Roman Empire in the 4th century. There were also people who were indifferent to any religion. They were not atheists in the full sense of the word and could even formally relate to pagans or, less often, to Christians. Their faith was often dependent on circumstances or position, and was not sincere or deep. And in general, in those days the line between paganism and Christianity was not as sharp as it might seem at first glance. Paganism got along quite well with Christianity, and the latter for the time being was tolerant of the ancient religion. It is significant that religious affiliation in the 4th century. did not interfere with the occupation of government posts and public positions. Up until the time of Gratian, paganism was the “norm” among those occupying the praetorian, urban and Egyptian prefectures, the most prestigious proconsular positions and the posts of chief of infantry and prefect of the East. But Christians also occupied equally important positions at the same time. Both had equal access to the court and the emperor, and often collaborated in the performance of public service, regardless of differences in faith. An indifferent attitude towards the state pagan religion often prevailed among the lower strata of Roman society, especially in the countryside: rural residents passively resisted Christianity, but at the same time looked indifferently at the destruction of pagan temples. The lower classes of the city sometimes rose to the defense of pagan temples, but it was rarely difficult for Christian rulers to bring them to obedience. A certain part of the Romans was characterized by religious syncretism: by combining together the habits and superstitions of various cults, they created for themselves, in the words of G. Boissier, “a very motley religion” in which a wide variety of religious ideas coexisted. The historical conditions of the 4th century contributed to the fact that the rejection of paganism as the state religion of the Roman Empire and the transition of this role to Christianity did not mean a final break with the past, but the preservation of basic secular traditions and their transformation in relation to the new situation. The fathers of the Christian Church did not think about social changes and a radical restructuring of society. The Church only sought to take its rightful place in the existing system of social relations. Until the 80s of the 4th century. Christianity practically did not interfere in the political life of the empire. The influence of the new religion on traditional morality, in particular on the patriotic spirit, was not great: patriotism was still associated with the old gods, who personified the great victories of the Romans. Christianity did not lead to any changes in slavery, did not abolish gladiatorial fights, did not soften judicial punishments, did not stop corruption and other social and human vices. Thus, the degree of actual Christianization of Roman society by the 80s of the 4th century. was not so significant, and paganism still had a strong position and had numerous adherents. The main struggle between the two religions occurred in the last two decades of the 4th century, and although by 400 pagans still made up about half the population, the Roman Empire entered the next century largely Christianized, and Christianity became the dominant religion. Ambrose hurried to the palace as soon as he learned of Gratian's arrival in Milan. Having easily passed the guards, who habitually saluted the spiritual father of their emperor, he entered the imperial chambers with a decisive step. Gratian lay on luxurious pillows, resting after a long and tiring journey, and read some kind of scroll, which, as Ambrose noted, did not look like state papers. Seeing the bishop, the emperor smiled with joy and stood up from his bed to greet him: “I knew that you would come without my call, and I am very glad to see you, Father Ambrose.” Finally, I had a little time to chat with you and talk about topics that concern my soul. “Oh, Emperor, it is always flattering for a bishop to hear that the souls of his charges need the guidance of a shepherd,” Ambrose said modestly but with dignity. “I also have something to talk to you about, and that’s why I immediately came to you, putting aside all bishop’s affairs.” “Now you will tell me what the Christians lived during my absence, but first let me read to you this little masterpiece, written by the hand of my teacher Ausonius.” I can't wait to do this because, believe me, I have never read anything better about Mediolan, so close to my heart. Gratian unrolled the scroll and began to recite in a sonorous voice: “Diven Mediolan and full of much wealth: The houses in it are innumerable and magnificent, gifted People and morals are cheerful; surrounded by a double wall, There is a circus there, a beauty to the city, a delight to the people, And behind the same wall, the theater steps slope down. Magnificent churches, heights of palaces, treasuries in abundance And the canopy of Hercules over the bathhouse famous among people, Everywhere palaces and gardens in marble sculptures shine, And they go around the ramparts fortified with a wall. Everything here argues with greatness and everything surpasses each other, Not overshadowed by anything, not even by the proximity of eternal Rome” 40. - Well, how? – Gratian asked with boyish enthusiasm, clearly expecting the approval of these beautiful lines from the well-read bishop. Ambrose smiled wryly, but nodded his head in approval, because he really liked the poems. After hesitating a little, in the hope that Gratian’s joyful excitement would subside, he looked at the emperor with a piercing, searching gaze and, carefully pronouncing the words, said: – Does Ausonius have anything similar about Rome? “My glorious Ausonius gave me a whole series of poems about the famous cities of the Empire and, of course, Rome is in his first place. But for some reason he dedicated only one line to the eternal city. However, I seem to understand: so much has already been said and written about Rome that its name alone speaks for itself. And yet listen: “Golden Rome, abode of the gods, the first among the cities” 41. “The Abode of the Gods,” Ambrose repeated as if in an echo, growing more and more gloomy. “I know that this does not sound very pleasant to the bishop’s ears, but this one-line is magnificent and then,” here Gratian hesitated, choosing the right words, “Rome arose long before Christ came to earth.” “However, three and a half centuries have already passed since the moment when the evil Jews and cruel Romans put him to death on the cross. And all this time, Rome remains the abode of the gods, whose adherents destroyed the Savior and persecuted his followers. -What are you getting at, Bishop? – the young emperor asked with emphasized firmness in his voice. “You were raised Christian, my son.” Your father, Valentinian of blessed memory, was a good Christian and even suffered for his faith from the Apostate. In the east, Theodosius, appointed by you, defends the churches of Christ from heretics and pagans with a firm hand. Already the third generation of Christians is enjoying the benefits of state patronage thanks to the wise and glorious ruler of Constantine, of blessed memory, who opened the gates of the Empire and let in the flock of Christ. But what is this? I come on episcopal business to Rome - the capital of the Empire, which is finally gaining true faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and I see: innocent animals are being sacrificed everywhere, on every corner there are altars and statues of pagan gods, whom one cannot even dare to call gods, for they are nothing more than demons; everywhere you can hear unholy oaths and commemorations of the inhabitants of Olympus and the Capitol, where no one has ever seen them; Priests and vestal virgins in luxurious clothes walk along the streets of the City and feel like masters of the situation. And the pagan temples! Even you, the emperor, could envy their luxury. The Bishop of Rome Damasus told me that one day the Christians tried to count them. So what do you think? Having reached 400, they lost count and stopped this empty activity. Does my pious princeps, in whose power lies the Roman Empire, the princeps, whom not so long ago I called the most Christian, obliging him to defend the faith, know how many Christian buildings there are in Rome, where believers in Christ could satisfy their piety? “I’m ashamed, Ambrose, but I really don’t know,” Gratian said embarrassedly, looking down, like a schoolboy who doesn’t know his lesson. “Does the most Christian princeps know,” the bishop continued his interrogation, “how much money and grain from state reserves are consumed annually by pagan temples and their priests, while both your subjects and your army are in constant need?” – But, Ambrose, the emperor cannot know everything about everything in his empire. “Besides, I have officials who can always give me the necessary information,” Gratian tried to object, not counting, however, that his ignorance could excuse him in the eyes of his strict spiritual mentor. “Perhaps you don’t have to know everything about everything, but when it comes to religion, the emperor must be fully armed and defend the true faith with all his might,” Ambrose said sternly and suddenly fell silent. Gratian indulged in thought for some time, and then seemed to shake off his stupor, and, taking Ambrose by the hand, meekly said: – Father Ambrose, I understand that I am guilty before you and before the Church of the true God Jesus Christ. I know that I did not always act correctly in relation to religion. But, glory to our Lord! - I finally found a wise adviser - a servant of the faith of Christ. Tell me, Father Ambrose, teach me what to do, how to act. Oh, if you only knew how heavy the burden of state power is, how much strength it takes. I am still young, and the affairs of the Empire take up so much time that there is no time left even for the usual entertainments for my age - hunting and reading, I mean that which does not contradict the Christian faith. And I so need good and faithful advisers, and as for religion, I rely only on you in everything. - Okay, my son. I am pleased with your speech and do not doubt the sincerity of your words, confirming that you remain a pious son of the church, honoring the true God, light from light. I bless you as the emperor of the Christian empire, and if you are truly ready to help make it such, I will help you. But I ask you one thing. I don’t want our ill-wishers to think that you are not capable of making independent decisions. Let no one think that you are acting on someone else's advice. After all, do you really sincerely want to help the church? Gratian nodded affirmatively, and the bishop continued in a completely confidential tone: - Let your measures not be formalized in the form of written edicts - give the appropriate orders orally. We'll have to see what kind of reaction there is to this. I believe your orders should be as follows... The turn in Gratian's religious policy from tolerance to the rejection of paganism as a state religion is indicated by a set of measures that were not preserved in the main legal monument of the era - the Code of Theodosius, but they are easily reconstructed from the letters of Ambrose and the Relation of Symmachus. By the way, Ambrose himself, ten years later, in a rather vague phrase, denied his involvement in the development of these measures (Letter 57, 2), but it can hardly be explained by mere coincidence that these measures were taken after Gratian’s visit to Milan in the fall of 382 and after Ambrose visited the pagan Rome of the Christianizing Empire in the summer of the same year. Probably Gratian's first step, which marked a turn away from the old religion, was his renunciation of the title of Pontifex Maximus. This title placed the emperor at the head of the entire pagan cult of the Roman Empire, and it was worn by all Roman emperors, starting with Caesar and Augustus. Pagan historian of the 5th century. Zosimus, the only one of all, reports this fact: a delegation of priests came to Gratian with an offer of the clothes of the pontiff, but the emperor proudly refused their offer, which was followed by a threat from the head of the delegation to transfer this title to the usurper Maximus who rebelled in Britain (Zosimus IV, 36). Although some researchers consider this threat, framed by the historian in a spectacular phrase: “If the princeps does not want to be called pontiff, then Maximus will soon become pontiff” 42, a fiction, it can be assumed that even if they did not say it directly to Gratian, when the news of Maximus’s uprising reached Italy, this phrase was on the lips of many pagans. But it is most likely that there was no delegation of priests at all, but the title of the Great Pontiff was simply removed as unbecoming of a Christian emperor, and this emphasized the separation of imperial power from the pagan religion. Perhaps, due to the fact that this title existed since Republican times, it was rejected for political reasons. This was followed by a whole series of measures against paganism, which surpassed everything that had been done in this direction before Gratian and which were aimed at separating the old religion from the state. The measures were as follows: state monetary expenditures for pagan rites and sacrifices, as well as for the maintenance of priests and vestals, were denied; the pagan temples and their priests were deprived of the privileges they had enjoyed for many centuries; the secularization of the land of temples and clergy was carried out and, finally, the altar of Victory was removed from the meeting room of the Roman Senate 43. These measures related to the traditional Roman religion and did not yet affect other cults, and they were not directed against individuals, but against paganism as a whole and its institutions. Thus, Sozomen cites a curious episode of Ambrose’s intercession for a pagan from among the courtiers, sentenced to death for calling Gratian unworthy of his father (Ecclesiastical History VII, 25). Ambrose's intervention was precisely due to his desire to emphasize that Gratian's measures were not religious persecution. According to Sozomen, Ambrose managed to persuade Gratian to pardon the perpetrator of lese majeste. As the history of the 4th century shows, the process of separation of the old religion from the state went in parallel with the Christianization of the Roman Empire, and the growth of the power of the church was inevitably accompanied by losses from paganism. However, until 382, ​​paganism continued to be considered the state religion of the empire, although after Julian this was more of a tribute to tradition. Gratian's anti-pagan measures marked the separation of pagan religion from the state, but did not prohibit the worship of gods and worship. The emperor sought to win the favor of the Christian church, but at the same time he was afraid to completely break with paganism, so an interesting point is observed in his policy: paganism was no longer the state religion, and Christianity could not yet be considered such. The first reaction of the pagans to Gratian's measures, in addition to natural indignation and indignation, was to support the cults at their own expense. At the same time, opposition to the anti-pagan policies of the emperor arose in the Roman Senate. It should be noted that by this time the Roman Senate had already lost all republican functions and ceased to be the supreme body of the state. Its functions were partially transferred to the imperial consistory, partially assigned by the emperor-dominus, and in fact the senate no longer had any influence on the policy of the empire, resolving minor and private issues that concerned mainly the urban life of Rome. So Ambrose said that the senate has its head in the person of the emperor, that the emperor convenes its meetings and that the senate meets for the emperors and provides them with its conscience (Letter 18, 33). At the same time, if the role of the Senate as a government body was low, then the same cannot in any way be said about the senators themselves. The senatorial class continued to be the highest in the Roman Empire, its representatives occupied the most important government posts and possessed the lion's share of land holdings and significant material resources. Of the entire complex of anti-pagan measures, the senators were most outraged, at least outwardly, by the removal of the Altar of Victory from the Senate Curia. This altar, together with a statue of the goddess, was installed there by Octavian Augustus in 29 BC. e. to commemorate the end of the civil wars. For four centuries, senators took oaths of allegiance to the emperors at this altar; it was a shrine of the Roman people and a symbol of the victories of Roman arms. In the 4th century. In connection with the growing influence of Christianity, the Altar of Victory also became a symbol of adherence to ancient traditions, inextricably linked with the pagan cult. As already mentioned, by the middle of the 4th century. There were many Christians among the senators, and the most zealous of them believed that the Altar of Victory offended their religious feelings. It was for these reasons that the altar was first removed from the Curia by Constantius. However, under Julian he was returned. The new removal of the Altar of Victory from the Senate Curia was also carried out by Gratian for religious reasons - to remove obstacles for Christian senators forced to participate in pagan rituals. But the pagan senators perceived this measure as an insult to tradition and their religious feelings. Moreover, the removal of the altar was seen as an encroachment on the last vestiges of the former greatness of the Senate as a political body. Therefore, the struggle for the altar of Victory also had a political connotation. The Senate in this struggle acted exclusively by legal methods, although the overall outcome of the entire struggle was decided not by a verbal dispute, but by a bloody battle. As soon as the Senate became aware of Gratian’s measures, it apparently gathered for an emergency meeting, at which it was decided to use all legal means to ensure that the emperor cancels the unjust order. For this purpose, a part of the senators, led by the famous and influential Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, was delegated to Gratian. At the very end of 382, ​​a delegation of senators arrived in Mediolan. However, neither the eminent representatives of the Roman aristocracy nor their magnificent leader were even allowed to have an audience with the emperor. “As soon as the most honorable senate,” Symmachus said later, “considered the errors that had crept into the laws and saw that thanks to pious sovereigns the glory of our time had again shone, he, following the principle of the good old times, uttered a cry of long suppressed grief and again ordered me to become an attorney for his complaints. But unscrupulous people were not allowed to have an audience...” (Relation III, 1). Who are these “unscrupulous people”? Symmachus does not give an answer to this question, but Ambrose contains complete information on this matter. It turns out that while the Delegation of pagan senators was about to leave for Mediolan or was already on the way, the Bishop of Rome Damasus sent a counter-petition of Christian senators to Ambrose. They protested the decision of the pagan senators and warned that they would stop attending meetings of the Senate if Gratian canceled the anti-pagan decisions. Ambrose immediately conveyed this complaint to the emperor, and the first mission of the pagans in defense of the altar of Victory ended in complete failure (Ambrose. Letter 17, 10). Recounting this story, as well as throughout the subsequent polemic with Symmachus about the Altar of Victory, Ambrose persistently convinces the emperors and their entourage that Christians constitute the overwhelming majority in the Senate. This statement caused great controversy in the literature, which continues to this day. For a long time, the absolutely prevailing opinion about the pagan majority in the Senate was based more on “common sense” 44 than on an analysis of the sources and their interpretation. But it should be borne in mind that Ambrose could neither be mistaken in his statement nor resort to conscious falsification. Any distortion of facts could easily be used in polemics by his opponent, and, representing the church before the emperor, Ambrose, presumably, carefully selected his arguments. And Symmachus does not even hint that Ambrose is deliberately distorting the truth. The problem of the relationship between Christians and pagans in the Roman Senate can be resolved if we assume that Ambrose had in mind not only the senators themselves, but the entire senatorial class. The predominance of Christians in the entire class by the beginning of the 380s was quite acceptable. Moreover, it can be assumed that Christians could prevail in the Roman Senate in quantitative terms, but they were greatly inferior to the pagan senators in wealth, position, and authority. In this case, it turns out that both Symmachus and Ambrose had sufficient grounds for the dispute: Ambrose opposed what Symmachus spoke on behalf of the entire Senate; Symmachus had reason to say so, because the decision to send a delegation to the emperor was made at an official meeting of the Senate. In letter 17, Ambrose makes it clear that Christian senators were not present at the meeting of the Senate at which the decision was made to seek the repeal of anti-pagan measures. The nature of Ambrose’s statement gives reason to conclude that this was done intentionally: by mutual agreement, the Christians boycotted the “pagan” meeting. As for the Christian counter-petition handed over to Ambrose by Damasus, it was probably not accepted at a similar meeting of the Christian “faction” of the Senate, but the signatures of Christian senators who did not participate in the pagan meeting were collected. The reason for this should be seen in the fact that the Christian senators were mostly new people and, apparently, were afraid of shaking their positions by entering into an open conflict with the most authoritative persons of the Roman Empire. Be that as it may, the bottom line is that one can agree with J. Matthews, who noted that if there could be any doubt as to the extent of the changes in the composition of the Senate, there could be no doubt as to their direction, and Ambrose knew that he was in an advantageous position. However, the further development of events turned out to be not as smooth as one might have expected at the end of 382. For example, Sozomen directly says that there was no persecution in his name. Theodoret reports that Jovian, due to famine, was able to return to the churches only a third of the amount of grain that had been established by Constantine. In Latin, the name of the usurper and the appendix to the title of the pontiff “Great” sound the same. See letters of Ambrose 17, 18 and 57 and Symmachus' Relation. As E. Gibbon wrote: “Ambrose constantly asserts, contrary to common sense, that Christians had a majority in the Senate” (p. 281).