Глава X. «Вы просите у императора мира для своих богов, мы же испрашиваем у Христа мира для самих Императоров»

The end of 383 and the first half of 384 were marked by events that contributed to some strengthening of the position of paganism. Many associated Gratian's death with his anti-pagan measures and attributed it to the revenge of the ancient gods excommunicated from the state. And although the religious policy of Maximus, who was baptized, did not leave hope for the restoration of paganism, Valentinian II had not yet been baptized, and this gave the pagans certain chances. True, the young emperor was a catechumen and was strongly influenced by the Arians, but his immature age, inexperience and fragility of his political position made it possible to hope for the success of the new Senate delegation. A sign that clearly indicated, in the opinion of the pagans, the revenge of the gods, offended by the measures of Gratian, was the famine in Italy and the lack of provisions in Rome at the end of 383, which caused such an extreme measure, condemned among others by Ambrose, as the expulsion of foreigners from the city. It cannot be ruled out that famine and food shortages in Rome were artificially caused in order to cause discontent among the people and clearly show what the “wrath of the gods” could lead to. By the summer of 384, the leading leaders of the pagan faction in the Senate occupied the most important government positions: Praetextatus was appointed consul, Flavian became praetorian prefect in Italy, and Symmachus became prefect of Rome. It is interesting that in 384, Pretextatus, while still serving as prefect of Italy, managed to obtain a decree that the plundered property of pagan temples that ended up in the hands of honest persons should be taken away, and these persons should be put on trial as robbers. In addition, under the leadership of Symmachus and Praetextatus, the pagans began to restore their temples and their decorations at their own expense. A convenient moment to appeal to the emperor presented itself when Ambrose, whose influence the pagans could not underestimate, was not in Milan. The sources say nothing about the reasons for the bishop's absence and his whereabouts. Apparently, he was absent for a short time and did not go far, since his intervention in the matter was immediate. It should be noted that the long absence of Ambrose during his embassy to Maxim in the winter of 383–384. the pagans did not take advantage, probably for the reason that the position of Valentinian II himself was then still too uncertain. The controversy that flared up in connection with the new appeal of the pagans to the Roman emperor went down in history as a dispute about the Altar of Victory. The Relation of Symmachus and Ambrose’s response to it (letters 17 and 18), which can be dated relatively accurately, allow us to examine in detail the course of this controversy. The controversy took place when Symmachus was prefect of Rome, that is, not earlier than the summer of 384, and not later than the death of the Roman bishop Damasus, whom Ambrose speaks of as living, that is, until December 11, 3 84. Perhaps fearing another refusal of an audience, Symmachus this time drew up a written appeal to the emperor. There were both pagans and Christians at the court of Valentinian II, so the outcome of the case depended on the eloquence and persuasiveness of the arguments. Symmachus understood this very well, having drawn up his Relation according to all the rules of oratory. Ambrose himself recognized her high artistic merits. In historical literature, the Relation of Symmachus is called “a masterpiece of eloquence” (W. Hyde) and “a document full of the greatness of the Roman people” (H. Litzmann). Symmachus begins the Relation with a complaint about injustice in relation to the pagan cult and appeals to antiquity and the customs of his ancestors: “What else does the defense we (the Senate - M.K.) undertakes of the institutions of our ancestors, domestic laws and destinies serve, if not the glory of centuries? And the latter increases when you understand that you should not do anything against the custom of your ancestors.” According to Symmachus, the glory of Rome is inextricably linked with the rites of the ancestors: “Let us now imagine that Rome is present here and talks to you like this: best of sovereigns, fathers of the fatherland, respect my venerable age, to which piety has led me! Let me perform the rites of my grandfathers, you will not repent! Let me live according to my custom, because I am free! This cult subjugated the whole world to my laws, these victims drove Hannibal away from my walls, the Senones from the Capitol. Am I really preserved to endure reproaches in my old age?” Symmachus' social ideal lies in the past, and he asks "for the restoration of that state of religion which has long been for the benefit of the state." The pagans saw the role of religion primarily in the benefits it brings to the state, and did not imagine the policies of religious institutions separately from the policies of the state. Symmachus emphasizes that the well-being of the Roman emperors is possible only with the veneration of primordial rites, or, in extreme cases, religious tolerance, which was shown by the predecessors of Valentinian II, and that is precisely why Constantius’s policy turned out to be fragile because he moved away from the usual. Only barbarians, the speaker believes, may not want the restoration of the Altar of Victory. “Your well-being,” says Symmachus, “owes a lot to Victory and will owe even more. Let those to whom it brought no benefit turn away from it - you will not reject the friendly support that helped your triumphs. This is the power that everyone covets; no one will refuse to honor the one whom he recognizes as desirable.” Symmachus, and with him other representatives of the pagan aristocracy, opposed innovations, which at that time were inevitably associated with Christianity, which was persistently gaining ground from the old religion in the political arena. R. Marcus makes a valuable observation that explains another side of the aristocracy's opposition to innovation: “The conservatism of the senatorial aristocracy was brought into play in order to lay the foundation for something deeper than narrow class interest: a public commitment to the traditional way of life and thought.” In a broader sense, the conservatism of the aristocracy advocated by Symmachus should be understood as an expression of political loyalty to the emperor. The future is generally of little concern to Symmachus, who sees the guarantee of his well-being in the absence of mistakes in the present: “We care about the eternity of your glory and name, so that future generations do not find anything in your policy that needs correction.” The Altar of Victory in the Senate was not just a simple decoration symbolizing the conquests of Rome. It was at this altar that the senators took oaths of allegiance to the emperors, and this altar was, according to Symmachus, a kind of indicator of political reliability, a support for unanimity in the Senate and a guarantor of the senators’ loyalty to their decisions: “This altar supports general unanimity, this altar secures the loyalty of each individual, and nothing gives such authority to decisions as the fact that the Senate makes all decisions as if under oath.” In his Relation, Symmachus advocates religious syncretism, according to which there are different paths and different philosophies that help to penetrate the mystery of divinity: “That which is revered by all should justly be considered as one. We see the same luminaries, we have a common sky, we are surrounded by the same world: what difference does it make, how someone seeks the truth with his mind? After all, such a great secret cannot be reached by following only one path.” Symmachus does not at all object to the fact that Christianity can be one of these paths, and consistently defends the principle of religious tolerance. The speaker is particularly indignant at the deprivation of the pagan cult and its servants of material support from the state. From the very beginning of Rome, paganism existed at the expense of public and state funds. Deprivation of the subsidy meant the end of the official existence of paganism, which, in the form of the state, lost not only economic but also political support. For Symmachus and his circle, the loss of financial support was quite a serious blow, but more significant for them was the separation of the state and the state religion: they sincerely believed that if the cults were not officially recognized, then they ceased to be effective and lost their effectiveness. According to Symmachus, the maintenance of churches and their servants was not a private, but a public matter and should have been done at the expense of the state. If this is rejected, then damage will be caused to the state. This is the central theme of the Relation. Symmachus also advocates for the privileges of clergy: “Does Roman law really not apply to the Roman religion?” - the speaker is indignant and sincerely indignant at the fact that vestals and clergy are partially deprived of the right of inheritance, while slaves and freedmen enjoy such a right. Symmachus considers this situation offensive to the state. One of the main arguments of the Relation is the reference to the fact that sacrilege towards the ancient gods caused a famine. “The pitiful harvest,” says Symmachus, “deceived the hopes of all the provinces. The poor quality of the soil was not to blame here, we cannot blame the winds, and it was not the powdery mildew that damaged the crops, nor the weeds that choked the ears: the year turned out to be lean because of sacrilege. Everything that was denied to the shrine had to perish. Of course, if disasters of this kind occur, we are inclined to attribute them to the alternation of times; but this famine had a serious cause. They support life with forest bushes; need again drove the peasant masses to the trees of Dodona 46. Did the provinces tolerate anything similar when the ministers of religion received honorable food at public expense? Did it happen that oak trees were shaken off, that grass roots were pulled out, that fertility, which mutually covered what was lacking in certain areas, ceased, in those days when the people and the holy virgins ate from the common food fund? Appealing to Roman law, Symmachus says: what was allocated from the common property is no longer and is not considered the property of the treasury, therefore it is illegal to take away these funds: “what was at first a donation, under the influence of custom and time, becomes obligatory.” In conclusion, Symmachus refers to Valentinian I, who, according to the speaker, willingly followed the custom, and to Gratian, who carried out anti-pagan measures on someone else's advice, without knowing the opinion of the Senate. Symmachus is firmly convinced: precisely so that the opinion of society would not reach the emperor, the Senate delegation was not allowed to have an audience. In his Relation, Symmachus emphasizes that he acts as a supplicant, but at the same time he tries to rely on the authority of the Senate and show its importance as the main political body of the Roman Empire. For Symmachus himself, the Senate was still the highest authority, and his ardent conviction that he was right gave even greater weight to his Report. The struggle for the altar of Victory was for Symmachus and his circle a struggle to preserve at least the appearance of the former importance of the Senate, and in this the political side of the struggle between paganism and Christianity clearly appears. Noteworthy is the fact that Symmachus never mentions Christians and, moreover, does not allow any attacks against the Christian church. Less than a century had passed since the last persecution of Christians, when the church turned into a formidable force, which even the leader of the senatorial aristocracy, the highest class of the Roman Empire, did not dare to openly criticize. Symmachus' defense of the old religion has nothing to do with showing its advantages over Christianity, with the exception of the old argument about the patronage of the gods to whom Rome owes its power. Symmachus refers to formal and legal grounds and appeals to the impartiality of the emperors, but without criticism of the enemy, the defense of the already weak positions of paganism was ineffective. Symmachus' report was read out in the consistory in the presence of the emperor, and all those present received it quite favorably. The eloquent phrases of the famous speaker touched not only pagans, but even Christians. Ambrose himself testifies to this (On the Death of Valentinian, 19). What Symmachus was talking about was in tune with the ideals and feelings of true Romans, brought up with respect for the traditions of their ancestors and admiration for the heroic past of Rome. The speaker’s arguments looked very convincing, and historians believe that if there had not been a decisive intervention in Ambrose’s case, the pagans’ request would have been granted. True, Valentinian II himself was against everyone’s opinion (Ambrose. On the death of Valentinian, 19). It can be assumed that by this time the emperor had already received the first warning letter from Ambrose, who in one way or another learned about the plans of the pagans. It is also possible that young Valentinian simply avoided a final answer, awaiting the opinion of Ambrose on this matter, whose authority at court after the embassy to Maxim was very high. It should also be noted that, in contrast to the new petition of the pagan part of the Senate, no new counter-petition of Christian senators was drawn up. This can be explained by the fact that this time, based on previous experience, the petition of the pagans was drawn up in secret. In response to the Relation of Symmachus, Ambrose wrote two letters. The first - letter 17 - was written even before the bishop became acquainted with the text of the Relation and, in general, represents a warning to the young emperor to refrain from rash actions, which, in the opinion of Ambrose, could lead to serious consequences. The purpose of this letter is to convince Valentinian II, if not to reject the Senate’s petition out of hand, then, in any case, to delay the final decision. The letter was written in haste and does not contain detailed argumentation, but, unlike the Relation, it is replete with accusations against pagans and praises of the Christian religion. “And those who complain about losses,” says Ambrose, “are those who never spared our blood, who destroyed the very buildings of the churches. They are seeking that you grant them privileges - those who, by the last law of Julian, denied us the usual need to speak and teach; and those privileges with which Christians were often deceived, since with some of these privileges, partly through ignorance, partly by evading the burdensomeness of public needs, they wanted to confuse us, and due to the fact that not everyone had enough firmness, many fell even during the times of Christian sovereigns.” The bishop remembers with gratitude Gratian, who abolished the “abuses” of the pagans in favor of the “true faith,” and calls on Valentinian not to cancel his decisions. Although Ambrose below tries to substantiate the principles of Christian tolerance: “If military matters are discussed, the opinion of a person experienced in battles is sought, and the fidelity of his advice is confirmed; when it comes to religion, think about God. There is no harm to anyone if the almighty God is preferred to him. He has an opinion. Do not think of forcing someone who does not want to read what he does not want; This is what you are allowed to do, Emperor, and let everyone endure it patiently: he cannot force the Emperor to do something that he himself would have painfully endured if the Emperor really tried to force him. The state of hypocrisy is usually unpleasant for the pagans themselves; for everyone must openly defend the faith and follow the plan of his mind.” However, from the context of the letter it is clear: the words about the reluctance to honor what a person does not want refer only to Christians, and not at all to pagans, whose gods Ambrose calls demons. To convince Valentinian not to agree to the request of the pagans, Ambrose resorts to a kind of political blackmail: he deliberately exaggerates the consequences of restoring the Altar of Victory and says that if the altar is returned to the Curia, Christian senators will stop coming to the Senate and participating in meetings, and if they are forced to do this, then such a measure will be considered as persecution: “If today some pagan emperor, who in fact does not exist, would erect an altar to idols and force Christians to gather to it so that they would participate in sacrifices, so that the breath and lips of the believers would be filled with ashes from the altar, the soot of sacrilege, the children of the conflagration; and in that curia he would pronounce a decision, so that those who swore at the altar of idols would be forced to thus agree to this decision (for the same reason they explain the location of the altar, so that thanks to their oath, as they themselves think, every meeting would act for the general benefit, although the curia is already filled with a large number of Christians), a Christian who would be forced to come to the senate to carry out such a will, would have to consider this persecution; what would really happen, because they were forced to gather with the help of violence. Consequently, would you, Emperor, force Christians to take an oath before the altar? What does it mean to take an oath if you do not acknowledge the divine power of the one whom you certify as the patron of your faith? When you are an emperor, they ask and seek that you order the construction of an altar and provide funds for unholy sacrifices? In general, when reading letter 17, the tone of Ambrose’s communication with the emperor attracts attention: this is not a conversation between a subject and the ruler of the Roman world, but a list of instructions to the emperor on what to do, how to behave in this situation, and these instructions are given not only in the form of “fatherly” advice, but sometimes also contain direct threats. Ambrose obliges earthly emperors to serve God and the sacred faith in the same way as people under Roman rule serve them. If the emperor does not act in accordance with the “instructions” of the bishop, then, upon entering the church, he either will not find a priest there, or will encounter resistance (Letter 17, 13). Thus, the conviction gradually grew stronger in Ambrose that he was a representative of a power higher than the emperors, and the emphasis on the political role of Christianity, in contrast to paganism, was made quite clearly here. Indeed, the bishop could speak so harshly, because he knew that the court of Valentinian II would not risk starting an open fight with him: Maximus would be glad to find a pretext for intervention under the guise of a defender of the Christian faith. Ambrose urges Valentinian not to rush into a final answer and suggests seeking advice from Emperor Theodosius, whose piety could not be in doubt, and also asks for the full text of the Relation of Symmachus in order to give a more complete and reasoned answer. The letter ends with rhetorical questions that Ambrose asks on behalf of the priest, the brother of the Emperor Gratian and their father Valentinian I. The questions are asked almost in the affirmative, and Valentinian II had no need to puzzle over the answers to them. Moreover, the last phrase of the letter left no doubt: “From here, as can be seen, the emperor, if anything like this is decreed, damage will be caused first to God, then to father and brother; I ask that you do what you know will contribute to your salvation before God.” The following letter 18 was written by Ambrose after he had become acquainted with the text of the Relation and represents a thoughtful and detailed response to the arguments of the pagans. Here the bishop sets out to convince Valentinian II to completely reject the Senate’s petition and prove the usefulness of Christianity and its advantages over paganism. The form of this letter is very close to speech and is replete with rhetorical devices. And although the speech of Symmachus, built on classical models, in form and style of presentation is superior to the speech of Ambrose, which bears the imprint of a church sermon, in terms of content and persuasiveness of argument the bishop significantly surpasses his opponent. Ambrose skillfully used the traditional arguments of Christian apologists, developed in the time of Clement of Alexandria, and they proved quite relevant. In letter XVIII, the Mediolan bishop consistently responds to the three main points of the Relation: that Rome demands the fulfillment of old rites, that priests and vestals need to be paid, that refusal to pay priests led to famine. Responding to the first point of the Relation, Ambrose makes a bold and unexpected attempt for a bishop to look at the history of Rome without religious bias and convincingly proves that it was not the gods who decided the destinies of the Roman people: “Hannibal insulted Roman shrines for a long time and, although the gods fought with him, he reached the very walls of the city as a conqueror. Why did the gods allow them to be besieged? For whom did the gods fight with their weapons? Indeed, what can I say about the Senones, who were not prevented by Roman relics from entering the Holy of Holies of the Capitol, if they had not been betrayed by the cry of frightened geese? What magnificent defenders of Roman churches! Where was Jupiter then? Or was it his voice heard in the goose's cry? But why should I deny that their shrines were fought for the Romans? However, Hannibal also worshiped the same gods! Therefore, the gods can choose whoever they want. And if the shrines won among the Romans, then, therefore, they were defeated by the Carthaginians; if they triumphed over the Carthaginians, then, therefore, they did not bring good luck to the Romans.” Next, Ambrose resorts to the rhetorical device of his opponent and addresses the pagans on behalf of Rome: “The guarantee of your victory is not in fortune-telling by entrails, but in the valor of warriors. I conquered the world with a different art. My soldier was Camillus, who threw the victors from the Tarpeian rock and tore down their banners, already raised above the Capitol: those who were not defeated by the pagan 5ogs were defeated by military valor.” But, the bishop continues, the pagan gods did not prevent such emperors as Nero from committing lawlessness and shameful bloodshed. Ambrose is ashamed of the shameful pages of Roman history, for the defeats of the Romans, for the emperors who were captured by the barbarians. “Wasn’t there an altar of Victory then?” - he asks sarcastically, and here he regretfully admits his own mistakes: “on my gray head there is a red reflection of shameful bloodshed. But I am not ashamed to be reborn along with the entire old world. In any case, the truth is that it is not too late to learn it at any age. Let those who are unable to improve be ashamed. In old age, it is not the gray hair that deserves praise, but the character. There is no shame in changing for the better.” Truly the wisest words! The bishop condemns with disgust pagan rituals, in particular the sacrifice of entire herds of “innocent animals.” At the same time, he cannot miss an opportunity without complaining to the emperor about the infringement of the property rights of the church. True, it must be admitted that Ambrose does this quite subtly and uses it as another argument against the pagans: “We grew up thanks to losses, thanks to need, thanks to sacrifices, but they do not believe that their customs will be preserved without financial help.” And after a vivid description of the difficulties of priests in connection with the law of Valentinian I, which prohibited church ministers from inheriting the property of private individuals, and the difficult conditions for the release of persons who wished to take holy orders from municipal duties, Ambrose especially emphasizes: “I have stated all this not because I am complaining, but so that they know that I am not complaining, for I prefer that we have less money than grace.” And below: “The Church owns nothing except faith. What is donated is income. Church property is spent on the poor. Let them count how many prisoners the churches ransomed, how much food they distributed to the poor, how many exiles they provided the means to live.” It seems that Ambrose here is trying more to correct people’s incorrect, in his opinion, ideas about the church, about the self-interest of individual clergy, than to answer Symmachus. The personal wealth of some members of the clergy put him in a difficult position, and he tried to rearrange the emphasis and avoid sensitive topics. His main focus is on the fact that pagan cults cannot exist without the support of the state. This argument from the bishop cast paganism in a selfish, unfavorable light, and government financial support was interpreted as part of a solemn deal with the gods. In response to Symmachus' thesis about the existence of different ways of knowing the great mystery, Ambrose clearly points out that the ways of the pagans differ from the ways of Christians: “everything that we know has been taught to us by the voice of God. And what you are trying to find out with the help of guesses is not the very wisdom of God and the truly established truth that we possess. So your paths do not converge with ours.” Here the bishop openly declares the political advantage of the Christian Church over paganism: “You ask the emperor for peace for your gods, but we ask Christ for peace for the emperors themselves.” Very serious, in the opinion of many Romans, was Symmachus’s argument about the famine that befell them as punishment for neglecting the ancient gods. Ambrose brilliantly answers this point of the Relation: “Of course, many years ago the rights of temples were abolished all over the world, and only now did it occur to the gods of the pagans to punish them with anger for their grievances? Is this why the Nile did not change his usual course to avenge the losses of the city priests when he could not avenge himself? Well, if they thought so, that last year the grievances of their gods were avenged, then why were they neglected this year? Now the rural population does not feed on the torn roots of plants, does not seek relief in wild berries, does not extract food from thorn bushes: but rejoicing at the successful work, while they themselves were surprised at their harvest, they quenched their hunger by satiating their desires - the earth returned the harvest to us with interest. Who, therefore, is so unaccustomed to human experience that he can be amazed at the succession of years? However, even last year, as we know, many provinces were abundant in food. What can I say about Gaul, who were richer than usual? The inhabitants of Pannonia sold the wheat that they did not use for sowing; and the fertile Rezia suffered envy because of her fertility, because by the fact that she is usually more protected from hunger, her fertility aroused enmity towards herself; Liguria and Venice were fed by the bread of autumn. So, that year did not fade because of sacrilege, but this year blossomed with the fruits of faith. Let them also try to deny that the vineyards abounded with a bountiful harvest. So, we have received the harvest with interest, and we have additional benefits from the grape harvest.” Ambrose's information looks so convincing that the conclusion inevitably arises that the pagans deliberately caused a shortage of food supplies to Rome. Finally, Ambrose responds to the last and, as he says, “most significant point” of the Relation. Here he is even more brief, but no less convincing: “should you, emperors, restore those means of assistance that would be useful to you; for he says: let them (the gods) protect you, and be honored by us. This is what, most faithful sovereigns, we cannot bear, since they reproach us with the fact that they pray to their gods using your name. But you did not order that this monstrous sacrilege be committed. They interpreted your inattention as consent. Let them have their defenders; their own, if they can, will protect those who worship them. After all, if they cannot help those who revere them, how can they protect you - who does not revere them? Although Ambrose responded to all the main points of the Relation, the letter does not end there. The bishop was clearly aware that the polemic with the pagans required an answer to other questions that were not posed by Symmachus. Ambrose further not only strengthens his arguments already expressed in the letter, but also responds to those attacks against Christians that were common in his day, but were not mentioned by Symmachus. Rejecting the ancient orientation towards tradition and relying on Christian historicism of thinking, Ambrose sets out his concept of the universe and puts forward the idea of ​​progress, which later turned out to be alien to Christian ideology, but in polemics with paganism it turned out to be a powerful argument. “What is it,” exclaims the bishop, “that everything subsequently progressed for the better? The world itself, which at first was formed from related elements thanks to an incorporeal first cause in the young firmament, or was covered in darkness and cold with still randomly confused entities; subsequently, did he not, through the orderly discrimination of heaven, seas and earth, receive those forms of things that seem beautiful? The lands, freed from damp darkness, marveled at the new sun. The days did not shine at the beginning, but as time passed they sparkled with increasing light and increasing warmth.” Next, Ambrose speaks about the growing moon, about the fact that the earth, softened by cultivation, has lost its wild character, about the gradual ripening of fruits and, finally, about the people themselves: “We, too, at an early age have an infantilism of feelings, but, changing over the years, we discard the knowledge of first experience.” These arguments, not devoid of wisdom and very effective in form, end with a convincing conclusion: “So let them say that everything should remain in its beginnings, that they do not like the world covered with darkness, because it is illuminated by the brilliance of the sun. And how much more pleasant it is to remove darkness from the soul than from the body, so that the light of faith, not the sun, shines. Consequently, the youth of the world, like all things, was shaken, since it followed the old faith of venerable old men. Those who care about this, let them blame the harvest because fertility came late; let them blame the grape harvest because it occurs at the end of the year; let them blame the olive tree because it bears fruit later than all others.” In order to expose the patriotic character of the Roman cult proclaimed by Symmachus and the conservative wing of the Roman aristocracy, which was deliberately emphasized in the Relation for an apologetic purpose, Ambrose, with condemnation, lists foreign cults (Phrygian, Egyptian, Mithraism) adopted by the Romans. By this, the bishop not only tried to undermine the political-religious traditionalism of the pagan party, but also tried to convince the emperor and his entourage of the incompatibility of Christianity with paganism, considering religious tolerance to be the most important drawback of the old religion. Having touched upon almost all the issues that caused controversy between pagans and Christians, Ambrose finally returns once again to the impossibility of the altar of Victory remaining in the Senate Curia. The bishop could put an end to this. However, there remained one more very sensitive point, which the bishop decided to address only at the very end of his long letter. The most difficult question remained to answer: why did Gratian, who removed the altar of Victory from the Senate and did so much for Christianity, suffer such an inglorious death? Ambrose understood that it was impossible to avoid this issue, nor, indeed, to find any convincing explanation for it. And the bishop finds a very original way out. First, he cites a very sophisticated passage that makes the reader strain in search of the hidden meaning: “After all, what wise man does not know that the difficulties of human affairs are located in a certain circle, and also in regular repetition, since they do not always have the same result, but change their position and change their alternation.” This phrase, which plunges into intellectual shock, is followed by examples of outstanding people of antiquity - Gnaeus Pompey, the Persian king Cyrus, the Carthaginian commander Hamilcar and Emperor Julian, who, according to the bishop, were distinguished by their devotion to the pagan gods, but did not escape tragic death. “Consequently,” concludes Ambrose, “in ordinary death there is no general damage, for our promises have not fooled anyone.” These examples must have had an effective influence on the young emperor; and the bishop sums it up this way: “I answered those who challenged, ... my desire was to refute the Relation, and not to show superstition. But you, Emperor, their very Relation should make you more cautious. After all, telling about previous sovereigns that the earlier ones honored the numerous rites of their fathers, the recent ones did not eliminate them, I would also add: if the example of the old religion does not matter, neglecting the latest examples will matter; It is clearly shown what you owe to your faith, so that you do not follow the example of pagan rites, and what you owe to piety, so that you do not violate the decrees of your brother.” Letters 17 and 18 were read out in the imperial consistory. Ten years later, Ambrose specifically singled out Bauton and Remoridas from those present, two of the highest dignitaries of the empire who patronized paganism, which made the position of Christians even more difficult. However, Ambrose defined the general outcome of the controversy in the following words: “Then Valentinian listened to my report and did nothing except what the cause of our faith required. And his entourage agreed with this” (Ambrose. Letter 57, 3). Undoubtedly, Ambrose's arguments sounded more convincing than those of Symmachus. However, it should be noted that the success of Christians was also facilitated by a political factor: the imperial court was well aware that agreement with the pagans could cause strong opposition from Christianity, whose support was so necessary in conditions of obvious danger from Maximus. The dispute over the Altar of Victory took a central place in the struggle between paganism and Christianity in the west of the Roman Empire at the end of the 4th century. However, first of all, attention is drawn to the fact that this dispute was not properly reflected in the sources. Even Augustine and Jerome are silent about it. This silence from contemporaries can be explained by the tactics of Ambrose himself, who sought to limit the public outcry from this event in order to downplay the significance of the conversion of the pagans and not cause discontent among the people with an offensive attitude towards the religion of their ancestors. But no matter how hard Christian leaders tried to downplay the significance of the dispute about the Altar of Victory, it went far beyond the private question of whether or not there should be an altar in the Senate Curia, but was a clash of two hostile ideological and social concepts. Ultimately, this dispute resulted in a struggle for the political dominance of one religion over another. In the ideological field, to the view of Symmachus that the ancient and traditionally accepted cult of the state, precisely because of its antiquity, should continue to receive love and recognition, Ambrose contrasts with the fresh concept of a young, dynamic church, vigorously growing and spreading in the world and most subject to change. Ambrose's theory of progress was the product of an era when a new style of life was making its way, and the ideological justification for change due to historical conditions turned out to be uttered by a prominent figure in the Christian Church. Ambrose, himself brought up in a pagan culture, recognized the importance of the old religion, Roman patriotism was not alien to him, and the arguments of Symmachus made a deep impression on him, so he had to fight not only with the arguments of the pagan speaker, but also with his own feelings. But Ambrose himself sincerely believed that the old religion had the right to exist only at a certain stage of human development, its infancy. The new phase of universal human life, according to the bishop, brings about a new phase of spiritual life. However, recognizing the gradualness of spiritual development, Ambrose rejects the similarity of material content and uses this idea to justify the religious policy of the Roman emperors of the second half of the 4th century. In the political field, Ambrose contrasts the instrumental and utilitarian understanding of the role of religion, which exists only at the expense of the state and sanctifies its policies, that is, a view generally associated with the defense of the political system established in the empire, with the idea of ​​an independent church. But, proclaiming the neutrality of the state in religious affairs, he insists on the need to distinguish between political power and religious power and shows the practical significance of the church organization as a support for the state. At the same time, according to Ambrose, the state is obliged to intervene in religious affairs when a threat to Christianity arises. The elimination of paganism from the political arena by separating religion from the state inevitably led in the conditions of the 4th century. to the acceptance of the role of the state religion by Christianity, but in a fundamentally new capacity. Paganism was generally deprived of its right to exist. The dispute over the Altar of Victory and its results should be seen in the broad context of the process of Christianization and changes in the socio-economic structure of Roman society in the 4th century. The Roman aristocracy had a strong economic and political position, but by the end of the century the process of Christianization, which was a reflection of deep phenomena in the entire structure of the Late Roman Empire, caused ideological and political stratification in it as a social class. Ambrose's victory in the controversy ultimately demonstrated not so much the weakness of paganism as a religion, or even so much the weakness of the political position of pagan senators, as the strength and cohesion of the aristocracy as a class, marking the boundary of its transition from the old religion to the new. This milestone can also be considered as an important moment in the process of feudalization of the ruling class of the Roman Empire. The social aspect of the dispute is also indicative in this regard. If among Symmachus and those who stood behind him, pride in Roman civilization is combined with arrogant contempt for the oppressed sections of the population and slaves, that is, for the true creators of this civilization; then among Ambrose and Christians, the promises of fair posthumous retribution for all are supported by at least a rhetorical denunciation of social oppression. The second position undoubtedly corresponded to the trend in the restructuring of the social structure of late Roman society, and the sympathies of those in power were on the side of the bishop. Finally, another aspect of the dispute about the Victory Altar is cultural. The dispute marked not only the transition of Rome from the old faith to the new, but also the radical turn of Roman society to a new Christian culture, to a new scale of aesthetic values. The victory of Christianity in this clash of two worldviews, two concepts of life, two cultures turned out to be, to a certain extent, decisive for the fate of the entire Western civilization. Shortly after Valentinian II's decision in the case of the Altar of Victory, at the end of 384, one of the leaders of the pagan opposition, Praetextatus, died. Symmachus, who sincerely felt his defeat and the death of his comrade-in-arms, was attacked as prefect of Rome by Christians and Pope Damasus and was forced to ask the emperor for his resignation. The struggle for the Altar of Victory ceased for a while. At the same time, despite the defeat, paganism did not lay down its arms. Pagans remained in government positions and in the Senate. Not everyone abandoned the religion of their ancestors for opportunistic reasons and to please the emperor. Pagan rituals and sacrifices continued to be performed. The pagan opposition was waiting for a new favorable moment to resume the fight. “AND I WENT AGAIN AS YOUR AMBASSADOR TO GAUL, AND I WAS PLEASURED BY THIS DUTY.” (Ambrose. On the death of Valentinian, 28) As soon as the dispute about the Altar of Victory subsided and the excitement caused by it subsided, Ambrose was again asked to take on the functions of a diplomatic envoy, unusual for a bishop, but already familiar to him. As a result of contacts between Trier and Constantinople, in September 384 Maximus and Theodosius finally concluded an agreement. Although in the summer the eastern emperor tried to organize a military expedition to the Rhine, but for reasons unknown to us this campaign did not take place. The terms of this agreement are also unknown. It can be assumed that Theodosius recognized Maximus as emperor and agreed that his power would extend to the provinces he had already captured. Meanwhile, Maxim's relationship with Mediolan was still unclear. Moreover, since the first mission of Ambrose, they have also worsened due to the increased military activity of the master of infantry Bauto against the barbarians attacking Raetia. Maxim saw these military operations as a threat to his possessions, and the need for new negotiations arose. The choice of the Milan court again fell on Ambrose. This time the bishop took on this mission, already having diplomatic experience and being indebted to Valentinian II for his decision in the case of the Altar of Victory. As Ambrose himself later said, the first embassy was undertaken for the well-being of the emperor, the second for peace and piety (On the Death of Valentinian, 28). Ambrose describes the circumstances of this mission in full detail in his report letter to Emperor Valentinian II, which has reached us in full and speaks for itself: “...The day after I arrived in Trier, I came to the palace. Gallican, the sleeping bag and the royal eunuch came out to me. I asked him if it was possible for me to enter. He asked if I had a rescript from your grace 47. I answered: “I have.” He said that I could be accepted, but not otherwise than in the consistory. I said that this does not correspond to the rank of a priest, in any case, there is something about which I seriously must talk with my sovereign. He went to ask him, but I assumed that he would return with the same thing, so that it would be clear that he was doing this at the behest of others. However, I said that although it is alien to our position, I will not neglect the duties I have assumed, especially because of you and because of the troubles in connection with your piety towards your brother 48 . When he was sitting in the consistory, I entered. He rose to kiss me. I stood between the members of the consistory. Some began to recommend that I go up to meet him, and he called me. I replied: “Why do you greet someone you don’t recognize with a kiss?” After all, if you had recognized me, you would not have met me in this place. “Bishop, you’re upset,” he says. – Not from resentment, but from shame that I am in the wrong place. – But during the first embassy you came to the consistory. - It was not my fault: it was the fault of the one who called, and not the one who came. - Because then I asked for peace as from an inferior, now - as from an equal. - By whose grace is it equal? - Almighty God, who preserved the royal power given to Valentinian by Him. “Because you and that Bauton deceived me, who wanted to appropriate the kingdom for himself under the guise of ruling the boy, who even sent barbarians against me, as if I myself did not have so many thousands of barbarians whom I could bring with me, who serve me and who receive payment from me. What would have happened if I had not been detained at the time you came to Trier? Who would hinder me and my power? To this I calmly replied: – There is no need to be upset, since there is no reason to worry, but listen patiently to my answer to this. That’s why I came, because with the first embassy, ​​when you trusted me, as you announced, you were deceived by me. Glory to me that I saved the orphan boy - the emperor. What is higher for a bishop than the duty to protect orphans? For it is written: “Save the oppressed, defend the orphan, intercede for the widow” 49 ; and another: “father of orphans and judge of widows” 50. However, I will not reproach myself for the services I rendered to Valentinian. To tell the truth, when did I prevent your legions from invading Italy? By what forces? What troops? By what cohorts? Or did I block the Alps from you with my body? Oh if I could do it! I would not be afraid of your reproaches, I would not be afraid of your unfair accusations. With what promises did I deceive you so that you would ensure peace? Did not the commander Victor, whom you sent to ask for peace, meet me in Gaul near Mogontiak? Therefore, in what way did Valentinian deceive you, whom you asked for peace before he asked himself? In what way did Bauton deceive you, who showed his reverence for the emperor? The fact that he did not betray his sovereign! How did I deceive you? The fact is that when I came for the first time, you said that Valentinian should come to you like a son to his father, and I replied that it was not right for a boy with a widowed mother to enter the Alps in the harsh winter; Without his mother, how could he go on such a journey, full of difficulties? Our embassy was sent to ask for peace, and not to promise its arrival. There is no doubt that we could not promise what was not committed; in any case, I didn’t promise anything, especially since you said: “Let’s wait to see what Victor will bring in response.” What was clear was that while I was detained in Trier, he reached Milan and was denied what he asked for. I was authorized to agree only to peace, and not to the arrival of the emperor, who should not have moved. I was present when Victor returned. Therefore, how could I dissuade Valentinian? Legates were once again sent to Gaul, who met me at Valentine of Gaul and who denied his arrival. Returning, I came across troops on both sides, guarding the mountain passes. Which troops of yours did I turn away? Which 51 eagles did I deflect from Italy? What barbarians did Bauton unleash on you? And what is surprising if Bauto, a man of Trans-Rhine origin, would have already done this, when you yourself threaten the Roman Empire with the help of barbarians and foreign tours 52, to whom the food reserves of the provinces were paid as tribute. But look at the difference between your threats and the meekness of young August Valentinian. You sought to fall upon Italy surrounded by hordes of barbarians; Valentinian turned back the Huns and Alans, who were approaching Galia through the lands of Allemania. What is wrong with Bauton forcing barbarians to fight barbarians? Since while you are occupying the Roman soldiers, while they are stretched on both sides against themselves, the Jutungs devastated Raetia in the very center of the Roman Empire, and therefore the Huns were invited against the Jutungs. However, he, trampling Allemania from his borders and oppressing the misfortunes of Gaul with his neighborhood, was forced to renounce his triumphs, so that you would not be afraid. Compare the actions of both: you raided Raetia, Valentinian bought you peace with his gold. Look also at the one who stands at your right hand, 53 whom Valentinian, although he could have avenged his grief, returned to you with honor. He kept him in his lands and yet at the very moment when the news of the murder of his brother was received, he curbed his anger and did not reward you with equals for equal, although not equal position, but equal kinship. So, like a judge, compare the actions of each side. He returns your brother to you alive, you return his brother to him, even if he’s dead. How can you refuse the remains of your brother to someone who did not refuse to help you against himself? But you are afraid that the return of the remains will not renew the soldiers’ grief, for this is what you cite as proof. Whom they left alive, will they protect the deceased? Why are you afraid of him dead, whom you killed, although you could have saved? “I killed,” you say, “my enemy.” He is not your enemy, but you are his. He no longer perceives protection, but think about the reason. If someone today in these areas usurps power against you, how will he be considered, I ask, are you his enemy, as you say, or is he your enemy? If I'm not mistaken, the usurper starts a war, while the emperor defends his rights. So you're denying honor to the remains of someone you shouldn't have killed? Let Emperor Valentinian have the remains of his brother as a pledge of your peace. And how can you prove that you did not order his death if you refuse to bury him? In this case, will they be able to believe that you did not take the life of someone whom you are depriving even of a funeral? But let me return to my person. I hear you complaining that those who were with Emperor Valentinian chose to go to Emperor Theodosius. What did you hope for if you demanded that the refugees be punished and the captives killed; Did Theodosius shower them with gifts and give them honors? “Who,” he says, “did I kill?” - Valliona. What a man! What a warrior! Was not the fact that he faithfully served his emperor a sufficient reason for his death? “It wasn’t me,” he says, “who ordered him to be killed.” “We heard that it was ordered to kill him.” “But if he had not committed suicide, I would have ordered him to be taken to Kabillon and burned there alive.” “Therefore, that’s why they believe that you killed him.” Who will think that he will be spared if a brave fighter, a faithful warrior, a useful leader is killed? So then I left so that he could say that he had looked into the matter. After he saw that I did not communicate with the bishops who dealt with him, and with those who asked to put certain people to death, even if they had deviated from the faith, he became angry and ordered me to leave without delay. I really set out willingly, although many did not believe that I would escape from his ambushes, only excited by sadness that the old Bishop Hyginus was forced to go into exile, for whom nothing remained but his last breath. When I appealed to his companions not to send away the old man without clothes and without a bed, I was driven away myself. This is a description of my embassy. Be healthy, Emperor, and be careful with the man who hides war under the guise of peace.” In his letter, Ambrose may be exaggerating things somewhat, although we have no reason not to believe him. However, the accusations brought by the bishop to the usurper could cost him his life, especially since they were not pronounced face to face, but in the presence of Maximus’s associates. The latter, as we know, did not stop before killing the legitimate emperor and even people of clergy, which will be discussed below. Perhaps Ambrose did not speak so boldly and sought to exalt his courage in the eyes of Emperor Valentinian, but in any case, in his conversation with Maximus, the bishop aimed to create the impression that Mediolanus was safe. In general, from Ambrose’s letter it is clear that in fact in these negotiations there was a clash of ambitions of two people who fell into ambition and wanted to show each other their superiority, and not at all agree on peace. As is clear from this letter, Ambrose's mission ended in complete failure. Moreover, the threat of war and invasion of the usurper in Italy increased even more. Ambrose's biographer Paulinus reports that the bishop deprived Maximus of church communion because he refused to do repentance “for shedding the blood of his master” (that is, Gratian) and innocent people” (Life of Ambrose, 19). Possibly, Peacock misinterpreted the passage from the above letter from Ambrose. The bishop himself does not say anything specific about Maxim’s excommunication, and, based on the general context of the letter, he had no reason to keep silent about this fact if it really took place. It is possible that Maximus’s excommunication took place after the embassy, ​​upon the bishop’s arrival in Mediolan, but we have no reliable evidence for this. Despite this outcome of Ambrose's embassy, which was declared persona non grata, the failure of this mission should be attributed only to the personality of the ambassador himself: negotiations between Trier and Milan continued, and an agreement between Valentinian II and Maximus was concluded before the end of 384. 54 At the sanctuary of Zeus in Dodona there was a sacred oak tree, and here it is meant that the peasants ate acorns. CHAPTER XI We are talking about the burial of Gratian, whose body was still held by Maximus. The eagle is the sign of the Roman legion. Turma is a cavalry detachment of 30–40 horsemen. Marcellinus, brother of Maximus. He was sent to Trier along with Ambrose. In the literature there are references to the so-called. Pact of Verona between Maximus, Valentinian II and Theodosius. However, the existence of such a tripartite agreement is not reliably recorded, nor is the fact that Theodosius could have been in the west in 384.