Глава XIII. «Императору принадлежат дворцы, священнику – церкви»

(Ambrose. Letter 24, 12) The failure of Ambrose's mission to Maximus and the strengthening of the political position of Valentinian II pushed Justina to a long-conceived plan: to seize one of the basilicas for Arian worship from the Milan Church. In addition, the powerful empress wanted to put the obstinate bishop in his place and protect her son from his influence. In view of the fact that the court yielded to Ambrose in the dispute over the Altar of Victory, Justina considered herself entitled to insist on mutual “service” on the part of the church and ask to give up the basilica for the Arians. The conflict over the basilica in Milan, which began in 385, was the largest and most serious of all the clashes that had occurred so far between the Christian church and the imperial power, which was outwardly clothed in the form of a struggle between orthodox Christianity and the Arian heresy, and had far-reaching consequences not so much for the fate of Niceneism and Arianism, but for the future relations of church and state. The sunset was burning down. It was a warm, windless April evening in 385. Ambrose, with the heavy steps of a mortally tired man, walked to the corner of his small room, which served as his office, and took out a style, ink and a scroll of clean papyrus from a beautiful old casket. Today there was an important letter to be written, and on such occasions the bishop usually used expensive papyrus rather than waxed tablets. Returning to the table at which he used to write and to which he treated with a kind of almost reverent love, evidence of which was his habit of constantly stroking its smooth surface while reflecting on this or that phrase of his works, Ambrose added oil to the lamp and caught himself thinking that he had not written anything for a long time. All the last days passed in extreme tension, and he, who was already not in good health, suddenly felt terrible fatigue. However, it was still too early to go to bed, all the episcopal affairs for the day were completed, and Ambrose decided to devote the rest of the evening to describing the events that had just occurred. The bishop did not keep a diary and did not complain about his memory, but what happened these days in Mediolan should have become the property of posterity. Ambrose's gaze accidentally fell on the letters lying on the elegant miniature bronze table where he kept his current correspondence. Among them, he immediately recognized the message from his sister Marcellina, delivered yesterday from Rome. Ambrose remembered how tenderly she worried about her brother’s health and worried about what was happening in Mediolan. Marcellina insistently asked her brother to quickly write an answer and tell him everything. The bishop decided that a letter to his sister would be the best opportunity to present everything with due detail and thoroughness, allowing him to reflect on what had happened and at the same time preserving evidence of these events for posterity, because Marcellina, as Ambrose knew, often copied the most interesting and successful passages from his epistles and gave them to her Christian friends to read. Ambrose also knew that several copies of his letters about the Altar of Victory were already circulating in the churches of Italy. The bishop dipped the style into the inkwell, wrote out the traditional address to his sister, thought for a moment, but there were so many thoughts and impressions that his hand seemed to be trying to put as many letters, words, phrases as possible on the papyrus. Ambrose was even surprised that his fatigue disappeared somewhere as soon as he began to write, although his hand clearly could not keep up with his thoughts. “Since in almost all your letters you are asking excitedly about the church, listen to what happened. The day after I received your letter, in which you note that you were alarmed by your dream, the danger of painful anxiety began to be felt. But they no longer demanded the Basilica of Porcia, that is, outside the walls of the city, but a new basilica, that is, inside the walls, which is more important. At first, men of the first dignity, the highest dignitaries - members of the consistory, turned to me so that I would hand over the basilica and take care that the people would not become agitated. I replied that there is an order that the church of God cannot be given away by a priest. The next day it was approved by the church. The prefect also came there and began to persuade us to at least give up the Basilica of Porcia. The people shouted their protest. Then he left and said that he would inform the emperor. The next day, which was Sunday, after readings and prayer, I taught the creed to certain catechumens in the baptistery of the basilica, dismissing the catechumens. There they told me that foremen from the palace had been sent to the Basilica of Portia and that they were hanging curtains, and some of the people went there. However, I remained to perform the service and began to say mass. During the offering, I learned that the people had captured a certain Castulus, who, they say, was an Arian presbyter. Passers-by accidentally met him on the street. I began to cry bitterly and in the very offering to pray to God to come to the rescue, so that no one’s blood would be shed in the cause of the church, so that at least my blood would be shed for the salvation of not only the people, but even for the wicked themselves. What's more? By sending elders and deacons, I freed man from violence. At the same time, the most severe convictions were handed down, initially against the entire class of merchants. So, during the holy days of the last week before Easter, when they are in the habit of freeing debtors from their bonds, the chains placed on the necks of the innocent were scraped, and a fine of 200 pounds of gold was exacted within three days. They replied that they would give twice as much if asked, as long as they kept the faith. The prisons were full of traffickers. All the personnel of the palace, that is, auditors, apparitors of various dignitaries, scribes, were ordered to abstain from what was happening under the guise that they were forbidden to participate in the rebellion; those holding honorary positions were threatened with many and severe punishments if they did not contribute to the transfer of the basilica. The persecution raged, and if they had opened the gates, it seemed that atrocities would have poured out upon everyone. The comites and tribunes turned to me for a quick transfer of the basilica, saying that the emperor was exercising his right, that everything was in his power. I replied that if they ask me for what is mine, that is, my estate, my silver, whatever is mine, I will not resist; although all that is mine belongs to the poor; however, that which is divine is not subject to imperial power. If they demand my condition, seize it; if my body, I will present myself. Do you want to put me in chains? Do you want to put me to death? This is a pleasure for me. I will not defend myself by being surrounded by people and will not resort to the altar, begging for life, but with great pleasure I will accept death at the altar. Of course, I was frightened in my soul when I learned that armed men had been sent to the basilica belonging to the church with the aim of seizing it, so that while the people defended the basilica, there would not be any bloodshed that could plunge the entire city into destruction. I prayed that I would not have the chance to survive the destruction of such a city or all of Italy. I averted the evil of shedding blood, I offered my throat. Gothic tribunes were present. I approached them, saying: “Did the Roman possession accept you because you would stir up accomplices in the unrest of the people? Where will you go if it is destroyed? They demanded that I pacify the people. I replied that it was in my power not to excite him, but in the hands of God to calm him down. In general, if I had been considered an instigator, I should have been punished or sent to any deserted places on earth. When I said this they left. I spent the whole day in the old basilica. Then I returned home to sleep so that if anyone wanted to kidnap me, they would find me ready. Before dawn, when I left the house, the basilica was surrounded by soldiers. And, they say, it was conveyed to the emperor that if he wished to march, he had an army, but it would be in a state of readiness if they saw that he was in agreement with the Catholics; otherwise, they will go to the meeting that Ambrose will call. None of the Arians dared to come forward, since none were citizens, a few were from the imperial family, and also some Goths. For those for whom carts were once a home, now the church has become a cart. Wherever this woman (Justina - M.K.) goes, she drags her entire retinue with her. I learned that the basilica was surrounded by groaning people, but while I was reading the texts, I was informed that the new basilica was also filled with people, that there seemed to be more people present than when they were all free, who were strenuously asking the reader to continue reading the sacred texts. What else? The soldiers themselves, who seemed to be occupying the basilica, having learned that I had ordered that people should refrain from communicating with them, began to come to this meeting of ours. When they saw them, the women became agitated, and one rushed away. However, the soldiers themselves said that they came to pray, not to fight. Some people screamed. With what moderation, with what firmness, with what faith the people asked that we could go to that basilica! It was also said that in that basilica people urgently demanded my presence. Then I began the following speech: “You have heard, children, how I read the book of Job in accordance with the order of service and at the appropriate time. The devil knew from experience that this book must be explained, the dignity of which reveals and shows all his temptations; and so today he rose to action with greater passion. But thanks to our God, who so strengthened you in faith and patience. I ascended the pulpit admiring Job alone, but I have found in all of you a Job worthy of admiration. Lives in each of you again. Job, his holy patience and virtue shines in everyone. What can be more obvious about Christians than that the Holy Spirit speaks in you today. We ask, August, we do not fight; we are not afraid, but we ask. It is fitting for Christians to desire both tranquility and peace; and the danger of death will not turn them away from true faith and constancy. For our leader is the Lord, who brings salvation to those who hope in him... You see how many things are suddenly set in motion: Goths, armies, pagans, fines on merchants, punishments on saints. Did you notice that it was ordered when the command was given: “Tell the basil,” that is, “say a word against God and die.” And not only speak against God, but also do it against God. After all, the order was: “Pass over the altar of God.” So, we are prepared for the imperial orders, but we are strengthened by the words of Scripture, which answers: “You speak like one of the fools” (Job, I, 10). Consequently, this temptation is extraordinary, for we know that the temptation that comes from a woman is more indomitable. For even Adam was overthrown by Eve... What more can I say? That Jezebel cruelly persecuted Elijah? That Herodias was the reason why John the Baptist was killed? For some it’s one thing, but for me, whose merits are much lower, I got more difficult trials. My powers are weaker, but I am in greater danger. The vices of women alternate, their hatred alternates, their deception varies, the elders agree, harm to the king is given as an excuse. What is the point of subjecting a worm like me to such a severe temptation, if not that they are not persecuting me, but the church.” Finally, they pass the order: “Give it to the basil!” I answer: “It’s neither possible to give it to me, nor to your benefit to accept it, Emperor.” You cannot trample on the house of a private person by any right, but you think that the house of God can be taken away?” They refer to the fact that the emperor is allowed everything, that everything is his. I answer: “You, Emperor, should not overload yourself with the thought that you have any imperial right to what belongs to the divine. Do not exalt yourself, but if you want to reign longer, submit to God. It is written: “What is God’s is God’s, what is Caesar’s is Caesar’s.” The emperor owns the palaces, the priest owns the churches. You have the right over public buildings, not over sacred ones. Again they say that the emperor declared: “I too must have one basilica.” I replied, “You shouldn’t have it. What would you do with an adulteress? For she is an adulteress who unites herself unlawfully in marriage with Christ.” While I was discussing all this, news was brought to me that the royal curtains had been removed, that the basilica was filled with people, and that my presence was required; I immediately turned my speech to this, saying: “How lofty and how deep are the predictions of the Holy Spirit! In the morning hours it was read, as you remember, brothers, that the highest we will respond to the sorrow of the soul: “O God, the pagans have entered into your inheritance” (Psalm 48:1). And indeed the pagans entered, and even more than the pagans entered: the Goths and people of different nations also entered, entered with weapons and, surrounding, occupied the basilica. We, not knowing Your greatness, grieved about this, but our ignorance suggested otherwise. The pagans entered, but truly they entered into Your inheritance, for those who entered as pagans became Christians. Those who came in to invade Your inheritance became joint heirs with God. I have as defenders those whom I considered enemies. You saw armed people coming to Your church. Here are the people groaning and coming in crowds, so that it does not seem that they are giving up the basilica of God; there are soldiers with orders to restore order by force. Death is before my eyes. So that madness would not be allowed between them, You, Lord, intervened in the middle - one between both. You restrained the armed people, saying, indeed: “If they resort together to arms, if those locked in My church are disturbed, “what good is my blood?” So, we thank You, Christ. Neither an ambassador nor a messenger, but You, Lord, brought salvation to Your people: “You have taken off my sackcloth and girded me with gladness” (Psalm 29:12). I said this, wondering that the soul of the emperor might be softened by the zeal of the soldiers, the urgent requests of the comites, the entreaties of the people. Meanwhile, I was informed that a notary had been sent to me to give me the order. He conveys the order that I yield to the minor basilica. “How do you look at the fact,” he says, “that you acted against orders?” I answer: “I don’t know what was ordered; and I was told vaguely about what had been done thoughtlessly.” He said: “Why did you send elders to the basilica? If you are a tyrant, I want to know it so that I can know how to prepare against you.” I answered, saying that I had done nothing to the detriment of the church: at the time when I heard that the basilica was occupied by soldiers, I only gave freedom to sorrow, and when many urged me to go there, I said: “I cannot give up the basilica, but I must not fight.” After I learned that the royal curtains had been removed from there, when people urgently asked me to go there, I sent the elders; I myself, however, did not want to go, but said: “I believe in Christ that he will make sure that the emperor will be with us.” If it looks like tyranny, I have a weapon, but in the name of Christ I have the power to offer my body. Why is he hesitating to strike if he considers me a tyrant? It was not discussed that under the old law power was given by priests; and it was publicly said that the emperors desired the priesthood more than the priests of the imperial power. Christ ran away so as not to become king. We have our own tyranny. The tyranny of the priest is his weakness: “When I am weak,” says the Apostle, “then I am strong.” One must beware, however, that he who has not risen up against God does not make himself a tyrant. Maximus did not say that I was the tyrant of Valentinian; he complained that because of my embassy he was unable to invade Italy. I added that priests were never tyrants, but they often suffered from tyrants. We spent the whole day in sadness, but the imperial curtains were torn down by the playing boys. I could not return home because there were soldiers all around guarding the basilica. My brothers and I sang psalms in the minor basilica of the Church. The next day, in accordance with custom, the book of Jonah was read, after which I addressed the following sermon: “The book has been read, brothers, in which it is predicted that sinners will be converted again through repentance. They are accepted into fellowship because they hope for the future in the present.” I added that a conscientious person would even be willing to take the blame upon himself, so as not to either see or foreshadow the destruction of the city. “And since it was also overshadowed by the fact that the pumpkin had dried up, it was said gloomily. God said to the patriarch: “Are you really so upset about the plant?” And Jonah answered: “I was very upset.” And God said that if he grieves so much that the pumpkin has dried up, how much should He himself care about the salvation of so many people. And therefore He refused the destruction that was prepared for the people of the whole city.” And without delay the news was delivered that the emperor ordered that the troops retreat from the basilica, and also that the fines collected from them be returned to the merchants. And how then all the people rejoiced! How all the people applauded! How grateful they were! And this was the day that the Lord himself gave us - He lifted the punishment from the Church. The soldiers reported this vyingly, rushing to the altars, giving a sign of peace with kisses. Then I realized that God crushed the early worm so that the whole city could be saved. That's how it was. Oh, if only this were the end! But the emperor's words, filled with excitement, foreshadowed more serious upheavals to come. I was called a tyrant, and even more than a tyrant. For when the Comites persistently asked the emperor to come to the Church and said that they were doing this at the request of the soldiers, he replied: “If Ambrose had ordered you, you would have brought me to him in chains.” Can you imagine what could follow these words? Everyone shuddered at these words, but he had reason to be irritated. Finally, Calligonius, the sleeper, also dared to address me with particular expressiveness: “With me alive, you treat Valentinian with disdain!” I'll rip your head off! “God alone can allow you to carry out what you threaten.” I will suffer like the bishops, and you will act like the eunuchs. Oh if God could turn them away from the Church! Let them turn all their weapons on me, let them quench their thirst with my blood.” It was already late at night when Ambrose finished this long letter. He did not re-read what he had written, knowing that the freshness of impressions gives thoughts a special flavor and that correcting unsuccessful phrases could deprive his message of the excited and specific mood in which the bishop was that evening. As Ambrose foresaw, the Arian party at the court of Valentinian II, led by Justina, really did not accept defeat and began to prepare for a new struggle. But for some time, the imperial court was forced to move to Aquileia in order to get rid of the “tyranny” of Ambrose and recover from the humiliation suffered. At the new stage of the struggle, it was decided to change the methods of influence on Bishop Mediolan. To this end, on January 23, 386, a law was issued according to which the Arians were granted the right of assembly, and those guilty of opposing this and violating church peace were considered as insulters to the imperial majesty and were subject to the death penalty. The drafting of this law was entrusted to one of the courtiers, Benevol, but he refused to carry out the emperor’s instructions, which contradicted his faith, and was deprived of his post for disobedience (Sozomen, VII, 13). Then Auxentius, an old rival of Ambrose, who arrived in Milan after he was expelled by Theodosius from Illyricum, took up the task of drafting the law. Perhaps the law mentioned was part of Auxentius’ strategy to take the episcopal throne in Mediolanus instead of Ambrose. However, it should be noted that the imperial court was clearly aware of the insufficient strength of the Arians and, simultaneously with the publication of this law, Valentinian II gave an order to the Roman prefect for the construction of a magnificent church for the Orthodox in Rome. However, under the terms of this law, Ambrose was summoned to a debate with Auxentius about faith, which was to take place in the imperial palace, and the emperor himself was to act as a judge in the dispute. This challenge pursued a clearly provocative goal, and the bishop clearly foresaw the consequences of such a dispute, frankly stating his position on this matter in a special letter to the emperor (Er. XXI). “Dalmatians, tribune and notary, on behalf of your grace, as he claimed, turned to me with a request that I myself choose the judges, as Auxentius had already chosen. However, he did not provide the names of those who were asked, but added that in the consistory where the dispute was to take place, the judge's decision would be made by your piety. I answer this, I think, appropriately. No one should consider me disobedient when I say in my defense that, to the most august memory, your father not only answered with words, but even prescribed with laws: in matters relating to faith, he should judge someone from the church rank who would not be unequal in position, would not have a special right. These are the words of the rescript, that is, he wanted the priests to judge what concerns the priests. And even if the bishop were also accused of something else, and the case required an investigation into his lifestyle, he also wanted this to be referred to the court of bishops. Who then obstinately responds to your mercy? The one who wants you to be like your father, or the one who wants you to be unlike him? It is only, perhaps, that some consider the judgment of such an emperor to be of little value, who proved both constancy in the profession of faith and the wisdom that was indicated by the improving well-being of the state. When did you hear, most gracious Emperor, that in matters of faith the laity judged the bishop? It turns out that we are so moved by some flattery that we have forgotten about the rights of the clergy, and what God has given me, I myself should presumably entrust to others? If the bishop is taught by the laity, what should I follow? Therefore, let the laity argue and the bishop listen—let the bishop learn from the laity. But, of course, if we turn to the Divine Scripture or to ancient times, is there anyone there who denies that in matters of faith, in matters, I repeat, of faith, bishops are in the habit of judging Christian emperors, and not emperors about bishops. Thanks to God, you will still reach adulthood, and then you will think about what kind of bishop it was who granted the priesthood to the laity. Your father, thank God, a man of mature age, said: “It is not my business to conduct proceedings between bishops.” Your Grace says now: “I must judge.” And he, baptized in Christ, considered himself incapable of being a judge in such a matter; and your grace, who still only deserves the sacrament of baptism through his service, already asks to be a judge of faith, although he does not yet know the sacrament of faith itself. We can reserve judgment as to which judges he chose, since he was afraid to reveal their names. Let them come openly, if there is anyone to come, to church; let the people listen to them, so that no one sits as a judge, but so that everyone experiences his own feelings and chooses whom to follow. This worries the priest of that church. If people listen to him and consider that his reasoning is better and follow his faith, I will not be jealous. I am silent about what people themselves have already made a judgment about; I am not talking about the fact that they asked your father for mercy for the one they have; I’m not talking about the fact that the father of your piety swore an oath to promise a calm future if the choice was supported by the clergy. I followed the faith in these promises. As for the fact that he boasts of the approval of certain foreigners, let him be a bishop where those come from who think that he is worthy of conferring the title of bishop. However, I neither recognize him as a bishop, nor do I want to know where he is. How can we agree on something, Emperor, that has already been declared by your court; Moreover, laws have even been made, so that no one is free to judge differently? What you prescribed to others, you also prescribed to yourself: after all, the emperor makes laws, which he himself must be the first to observe. Do you therefore want me to experience what those who were elected judges did: either to go against your decision, or at least to apologize for the fact that they would not have been able to resist such a harsh and so strict command of the emperor? But this is for an obstinate and disloyal priest. Look, emperor, you are already partially breaking your law; but if not partially, but entirely! I would not want your law to be higher than the law of God. God's law teaches us what to follow; human laws cannot teach this. They tend to bring about change in small ways, but fail to inspire faith. Who will it be then, who, when he reads that through so many provinces was handed over at one moment, that whoever opposed the emperor will be beheaded by the sword, anyone who did not betray the church of God will immediately be put to death; Who, I repeat, can either alone or with a few say to the emperor: “I do not approve of your law? Priests are not allowed to say this, so are the laity allowed? And he who either hopes for favor or fears disfavor will judge faith? Finally, must I allow myself to choose judges from among the laity, who, when they defend the truth in faith, will either be outlawed or put to death, as provided for by the strict law of faith? I, therefore, condemn people either to hypocrisy or to punishment. Ambrose is not the type to personally reject the priesthood. Human life is not so valuable as the dignity of all the priests, on whose advice I say this, who reported that perhaps even pagans or Jews may be among those whom Auxentius chose, to whom we should give the opportunity to triumph over Christ, if we allowed the trial of Christ. What else, if not the loss of Christ, delights their ears? What else could please them, if not (which in fact does not exist) that the divinity of Christ is denied? It is clear that the Arians agree well with them, who say that Christ was created, which the pagans and Jews also admit with obvious readiness. This was written down at the Council of Arimin, and with good reason I fear this decision, following the interpretation of the Council of Nicea, from which neither death nor sword can turn me away. This faith is also recognized by your lordship’s relative, the most blessed Emperor Theodosius, and follows it. This faith is held by Gaul and Spain and observed with pious acknowledgment of the Holy Spirit. If we discuss, then I was taught to discuss in church, as many did before me. If there is to be a discussion about faith, then in this clash there must be priests, as was the case under Constantine, a sovereign of the most august memory, who did not issue any laws until he gave freedom to the priests to judge them. This was also the case under Constantius, an emperor of most august memory, heir to the virtues of his father. But what started well ended differently. After all, the bishops first wrote an exposition of the true faith, but this was until some in the palace wanted to judge the faith; they caused the judgment of those bishops to be changed by fraud. However, they immediately reversed this perverse decision. And of course, a large number of Ariminians accepted the faith of the Council of Nicaea and condemned the Arian decisions. If Auxentius turns to the Council to argue about faith (although there is no need to bother so many bishops because of one; even if he were an angel from heaven, he should not be preferred to the world in the church), when I hear that the Council has assembled, I myself will not be absent. Repeal the law if you want there to be a dispute. I would have come, Emperor, to your grace's consistory to give these advice personally, if either the bishops or the people had allowed me, but they said that faith should be discussed in the church before the people. And yet, oh, if only you, Emperor, had not given the order that I should go wherever I wanted! I went out every day, no one kept me in custody. You had to determine for me the place where you would like, which I would offer to everyone myself. Now the priests told me: “It doesn’t matter much whether you voluntarily left the altar of Christ or betrayed it, since if you leave, you betray.” And oh, if it definitely became obvious that the church would not be handed over to the Arians at all, then I would voluntarily offer myself to the will of your piety. But if I alone am to blame for the noise raised, why then is it ordered to invade all churches? Oh, if it were established by law that churches are subject to no one! I would like then to have any sentence passed on me. So, Emperor, graciously accept what made me unable to come to the consistory. I have not been taught to be in a consistory, unless at your request; and I can’t argue in the palace; I don’t know the secrets of the palace, and I don’t want to know.” Ambrose's letter, which is given here in full, does not provide sufficient grounds to judge the situation that had developed in Mediolan at the time of its writing. The mention of the lack of freedom of movement can be explained by the fact that the bishop was protected by the people, for his life was in real danger under the conditions of the law in favor of the Arians. And Ambrose himself says that he cannot come to the consistory in person, since neither the people nor the bishops allowed him to do so. Ambrose's refusal to go into exile is unclear, as well as what might have caused it. Perhaps the threat of exile was an alternative to a dispute about faith, since the letter does not say anything about the new demand for the basilica on the part of the Arians, and refusal in such a case should, according to the law, be punishable by death, and not exile. The emperor and his entourage undoubtedly had to take into account the popularity of Ambrose and understood that the death sentence of the bishop, so popular and so beloved by the inhabitants of Milan, could lead to even more serious unrest than a year ago. Under these conditions, the imperial court decided not to bring Ambrose under the law, but made attempts to get rid of him by other methods. Probably one of these methods was the debate about faith with the alternative of exile. In addition, as Pavlinus reports, Justina promised honorary positions to those “who, having taken him away from the church, would send him into exile” (Pavlinus. Life of Ambrose, 12). According to the biographer, such attempts were actually made, and a certain man named Eutimius even bought himself a house near the church and placed a cart in it, “to make it easier to grab him, put him in a cart and take him into exile” (ibid.). Peacock does not write anything about why Eutimius failed to carry out his plan, but only reports that exactly a year later he himself was sent into exile, and Ambrose, out of mercy, even provided him with money. When all the court's attempts to get rid of Ambrose ended in failure, the emperor, despite the sad experience, again ordered the troops to capture the basilica. As in the previous year, this happened on the eve of Easter, which was undoubtedly associated with the rite of consecration of the church on Easter night. At the same time, the emperor probably gave instructions to avoid bloodshed, fearing a popular uprising, which led to a long siege of the basilica, in which Ambrose and the flock devoted to their bishop were located. During this siege, Ambrose preached a sermon against Auxentius, which has come down to us and allows us to shed light on some of the details of these dramatic events. Ambrose says that the reason for the concern of the people who guarded the bishop “day and night” was the imperial order transmitted by the tribunes, according to which he was expelled from Milan without indicating the place of exile. Perhaps such an order was a response to Ambrose’s letter to Valentinian II and to the bishop’s refusal to dispute in the imperial consistory. Ambrose assures the people of his determination to remain in the church and bear the burden of the priest to the end, despite the imperial power, which he fears less than God. At the same time, Ambrose declares the impossibility of resisting the authorities and says that against the weapons of soldiers, his only weapon is tears, although even the fear of the most severe punishment will not force him to leave the church. With all due respect to the emperors, he will not yield to them and is not afraid of what is in store for him. The bishop justifies to the people his refusal to go to the dispute in the imperial palace and condemns the law against faith. He expresses concern for the lives of people in the church, surrounded by soldiers, and his readiness to face the enemies one on one and go to martyrdom. However, here Ambrose points out weaknesses in the defense of the basilica. He reports that one blind man, having passed all the posts, went unhindered to the church, and that two days before, the entrance on the left side of the building was discovered unlocked, which was open for several days and nights and only by chance, or rather, by the will of God, was not discovered by the soldiers. As Ambrose himself testifies, there were rumors in the city that assassins were sent to him and that he was sentenced to death, and the nature of his statement does not allow us to say that such rumors were unfounded. Next, Ambrose bursts into an angry tirade against Auxentius, his main opponent and leader of the Arian group. The bishop accuses him of drawing up a law against faith and of the deaths of people affected by this law. He does not name the victims, but, judging by his words, cases of application of the law occurred both in relation to priests and in relation to laity. Ambrose reproaches Auxentius for claiming his basilica, mentions the atrocities of his enemy committed by him before his arrival in Milan, and adds that the people have already expressed their distrust of Auxentius. The sermon also states that Auxentius had influence on the Emperor Valentinian II and that it was he who encouraged him to judge the faith in the consistory. Here, Ambrose recalls the events that occurred a year before, and speaks of the support of the people in the fight against the imperial court, in which the latter was unable to resist popular indignation and was forced to ask Ambrose to calm the crowd. And although the bishop tried to do this by reassuring the people with the promise that the basilica would not be given away, he was accused of evil intentions and now they want to accuse him of the same. Ambrose adds another detail to the picture of the siege of the basilica, which often appears in his biographies. During night vigils during the siege, the bishop composed hymns that were sung in the church by the people and inspired them. This marked the beginning of the famous Ambrosian antiphonal chant, which is still accepted in the Catholic liturgy. But at that moment, hymns played an important role and really helped people endure the long siege. Like a bishop, Ambrose became a poet due to circumstances. In both the first and second cases, the hand of Fate revealed a magnificent gift in him. Ambrose is rightfully considered the first Christian poet in the West, and his hymns set the tone for Christian poetry for many years. Ambrose's hymns were highly praised in literature. Thus, G. Boissier, a subtle and competent expert on late antique literature, wrote: “They all consist of the same number of verses, arranged in the same way and in the same size. The author doomed himself to monotony and simplicity, of course, with the goal of making it easier to understand and remember. But this is the only concession he made to the people for whom he worked. It is remarkable that in hymns intended for the ignorant crowd, this learned and high-ranking man did not commit the slightest irregularity in language or meter, which was not then treated with particular strictness. The content is uniformly composed of moral reasoning, memories from sacred books, interpreted in accordance with the requirements of the time and dogmatic provisions. Particularly striking is the sobriety and restraint of inspiration in the hymns of Ambrose... They entered the liturgy and have been part of church rituals for 15 centuries. The significance that they had in the religious life of so many generations does not allow us to treat them as simple works of art. A petty and cold analysis of them could not give an idea of ​​the effect that they produced and are producing on those who consider them an expression of their faith" 58 . “The Lord, the creator of existence, the Creator of the stars, replacing the clear light of midday with midnight quiet slumber, So that tired bodies can be returned to work strengthened, To calm the torment of the mind, To calm the trembling sadness! For this day, now fading, For the night that is coming to our world, Burning with gratitude, We sing the statutory song, A warm prayer for you, sonorous melodies for you, And the mind strives to be awake, So that when the deep darkness Absorbs the radiance, vigorous faith does not go out, and the night shines with faith. Do not let your conscience be forgotten, Sin teaches us oblivion; For those who are pure in strict faith, Drowsiness dissolves. Having been distracted by lustful thoughts, let the depths of our hearts dream of You, And the evil enemy with his intrigues will not disturb the peace. We pray to the Father and the Son, to the Father's Spirit of Christ - the Almighty Unity: Have mercy on the faithful, Trinity! 59 Ambrose's own testimony about the end of this conflict has not survived. Turning to other sources suggests that this time the bishop was not able to win such an impressive victory as the year before. The emperor and the court, the troops and the Arians remained firm and continued to keep the basilica with Ambrose and his flock under siege until there was outside intervention in these events. By an interesting coincidence, Ambrose's savior this time turned out to be none other than Maxim. Church historians Rufinus and Theodoret testify that Maxim sent a letter to Valentinian II, in which he spoke in defense of the Catholic Church, urging the emperor to stop fighting Ambrose and not to betray his father’s faith. Moreover, the usurper did not limit himself only to words, but even moved his troops towards Italy (Rufin II, 15; Theodoret IV, 13). The data of church historians about Maximus’s intervention in the struggle of Valentinian II with Ambrose is confirmed by the surviving original letter, in which the usurper writes that, thanks to the law issued by Valentinian II, the Orthodox are persecuted, and convinces the young emperor to return to the path of his father (Avellan Collection, 39). As is clear from this letter, Maxim knew about the siege of the basilica in the spring of 386. In addition, the usurper sent a letter to the Roman Bishop Siricius in order to attract his favor as a defender of the Orthodox faith. It was probably the threat from Maximus that forced Valentinian II to capitulate a second time. A kind of epilogue that completed these events was the miracle performed by Ambrose, which endeared him to the people even more. In a letter to his sister Marcellina (Letter 22), Ambrose tells how, on instructions from above, he found the remains of two Christian martyrs Gervasius and Protasius, who allegedly died in the time of Nero. According to the Christian cult, this event is dated June 17, 386. According to Ambrose, the discovery of the remains of the martyrs was an important help from God at a time when the church especially needed his protection (Letter 22, 10). The same letter contains a polemic on the issue of the cult of martyrs with the Arians, who did not believe in miracles performed by the remains and relics and rejected the cult of martyrs, seeing in it a departure from monotheism. The episode with the discovery of the remains of the martyrs not only played a role in the fight against Arianism, but also led to the consolidation of Ambrose’s adherents, won over many who were wavering to his side, and contributed to an even greater increase in his authority, which gradually acquired an aura of holiness. One can agree with the assessment of M. Meslin, who calls this episode “a masterpiece of political psychology,” but perhaps more accurate is E. Gibbon, who wrote: “The influence of these miracles on the minds of the people was so rapid and so irresistible that the weak Italian monarch admitted his inability to fight the favorite of heaven” 60 . The study of a set of sources relating to the Milan events of 385/386 allows us to draw some conclusions about the political background of the conflict between Ambrose and the imperial court. It has already been said above that Justina and her immediate circle relied on Arianism in the late 370s - early 380s. was done for reasons of resisting Gratian in religious terms and using this branch from Christianity to achieve power over at least part of the Roman Empire - over Illyricum and the Danube provinces, where the main efforts of the empress were directed. After the death of Gratian, Maximus became the new rival of Justina and Valentinian II, who also relied on orthodoxy, and in religious terms, the fight against him in those conditions could only be waged with the help of Arianism. A certain role in this religious and political struggle was assigned to the barbarians, in particular the Goths. Gratian, who surrounded himself in the last years of the reign of the Goths, obviously took little account of their religious views and feelings, which was one of the reasons for his death. Maxim tried to find support in the Roman elements of the western provinces, which were orthodox in their majority. In turn, Justina again tried to rely on the Goths and use Arianism to strengthen her power and as a counterweight to Maxim. In this situation, Ambrose’s position turned out to be quite complex: on the one hand, Maximus had overthrown the legitimate emperor, but relied on orthodoxy; on the other hand, the legitimate power in the person of Valentinian II, but based on heretical Arianism. Perhaps the dispute over the Altar of Victory, initiated by Ambrose, simultaneously pursued the goal of persuading Valentinian II in favor of orthodoxy and subordinating the young emperor to the bishop. However, it is unlikely that this goal was fully realized. The mother's influence on Valentinian II was undoubtedly stronger than that of Ambrose. And in order to maintain this influence after the temporary stabilization of the political situation, Justina decided to conflict with Ambrose, hoping, probably, not so much to acquire a basilica for her fellow Arians, but rather that her victory in this struggle would undermine the authority of the powerful prelate of the church. Indeed, the popularity of Ambrose and his position in Mediolan, where he essentially ruled the minds and souls of the people, could not but arouse the desire on the part of the imperial authorities to subjugate the obstinate bishop. This precondition seemed to have been created as a result of Ambrose's embassy to Maximus. However, the success of the first embassy and Ambrose’s independent behavior in the second embassy not only did not contribute to the bishop’s subordination to the emperor, but, on the contrary, led to an even greater increase in his popularity and political authority. In this regard, the careful tactics of the court in the matter of the basilica become clear. Only after much persuasion did the court decide to resort to force, which, however, at the first stage was not directed against Ambrose personally, but to seize the basilica itself and to suppress the sections of Mediolan dissatisfied with the imperial power. Perhaps this was intended to isolate the bishop, to deprive him of support and support. At the same time, Ambrose’s position becomes ambivalent: he does not dare to openly oppose the legitimate government and calls on the people to limit themselves to passive resistance; on the other hand, he does not want to give up his power and his authority and does not make any concessions to the imperial court. Ambrose was confident in the support of the people, but not without reason he feared the scale of popular indignation and tried with all his might to prevent the slightest conflicts that could lead to serious consequences. When the conflict reached its climax, the government compromised with the church, and the latter stopped the unrest of the people, ready to overthrow the emperor himself. At the second stage of the struggle, the imperial power first tries to act by force of law and directs all its efforts to remove Ambrose. The removal of the bishop was, under those conditions, an almost indispensable condition for the imperial court to achieve all other goals, including the establishment of full power over the capital. However, when all attempts to get rid of Ambrose failed, the court again resorted to military force, which was obvious evidence of its political impotence. Sources show that in the conflict 385/386. The purely religious motives of the struggle between the Arians and the Orthodox receded far into the background, and the struggle had a clear political connotation. At the same time, for the first time, the church and the imperial power achieve such a sharp confrontation, and victory ultimately remains with the church! The end of the conflict is associated with a number of reasons. One of the most important of them was the threat of war from Maximus, who intended to give his invasion of Italy the color of a struggle for the true faith. In addition, the imperial power could not help but be aware of its own weakness and the lack of support for its actions from the Mediolans, whose opinion in those conditions had to be taken into account. One should not ignore among the reasons the methods of psychological influence on the part of Ambrose, which had an effect not only on the bishop’s immediate adherents, but also on religiously minded courtiers and even on the Arian circle of Justina herself, for Ambrose touched feelings equally close to all Christians. It should be added to this that the Arian environment in Mediolan consisted mainly of refugees from Illyricum and Goths, therefore, among the reasons for the defeat of Justina, one must also have the fact that Ambrose, among other things, played on the patriotic feelings of the Mediolan people. During the events under consideration, Ambrose for the first time decided to confront the authorities. Perhaps F. Dudden is right when he notes that it was during these events that Ambrose first fully realized the mission that he, as a bishop, was appointed to fulfill by command from above. And these events are also interesting because, commenting on them, the bishop clearly and clearly sets out his views on the relationship between church power and secular power: “The palaces belong to the emperor,” says Ambrose to Valentinian II, a priest of the church. You have been given the right over public buildings, and not over sacred ones” (Letter XX, 19). This idea of ​​Ambrose goes beyond the legislation of the Roman Empire and established practice, according to which all places of public worship belonged to the emperor, who could dispose of them at his own discretion. For example, Gratian took advantage of this right during the confiscation of the basilica, and this measure did not cause any protests then, and Ambrose himself was unable to prevent it. This right was freely used in the east by Theodosius, who confiscated churches from the Arians and transferred them to the Orthodox, and the latter warmly approved of this practice. Now Ambrose reserves for the emperor the right to dispose only of the property of the priest himself and even his person, but removes from subordination to imperial power that which is, in his opinion, divine. It should be noted that the concept of the divine was interpreted by Ambrose quite broadly. Thus, in the book “On the Duties of the Clergy (II, XXIX, 150–151) he cites an interesting episode of how the church defended the property of a widow entrusted to it for safekeeping, and this property, despite the order of the emperor, the bishop of the Chita church, on the advice of Ambrose, refused to hand over. Ambrose calls the emperor “the son of the Church,” but does not recognize the “rights of the Church” for him and claims that “the emperor is in the Church, and not above the Church” (Sermon against Auxentius, 36). A good emperor, Ambrose believes, must turn to the church for help and not reject such help if it is offered to him. The Church and its ministers are completely content with ecclesiastical law and do not lay claim to imperial law. It is the emperors who desire the priesthood more than the priests of the imperial power. If the emperor demands a tax, the bishops do not refuse him this, but if the emperor encroaches on the right of the Church, on church property, he faces resistance from the church, which, however, is limited to moral condemnation and does not allow violent measures in the fight against power. The bishop once again firmly emphasizes that the state should not interfere in church disputes, and that the emperor has no right to judge bishops, but, on the contrary, in matters of faith, bishops must judge Christian emperors. The law of God, Ambrose proclaims, is higher than the law of the emperor, for it teaches what to follow, but human laws cannot teach this. So the pagan view that the emperor is a “living law”, a view that had its origins in antiquity, and in the 4th century. propagated in the Greek east by Themistius, was completely refuted by Ambrose. On the other hand, traditional Christian humility has undergone a noticeable transformation since the time of Eusebius of Caesarea. And although Ambrose’s ideas had their origins in the thoughts of Hosea, Liberius and Donatus, Bishop Milan not only developed and supplemented them, but also translated them into a basis for action. Thus, in the mid-380s, the theory of relations between church and state was mainly formed by Ambrose and even partially tested in practice. At the same time, theory and practice were in inextricable unity: Ambrose’s thoughts were literally dictated to him by circumstances, and what he himself came to was immediately tested in practice. The weakness of imperial power and its defeat in the conflict of 385/386. gave Ambrose grounds to judge the correctness of his views on the relationship between church and state, and from then on the bishop no longer acts according to the laws of the Roman Empire, but according to the laws of God and realizes his powers as a power superior to the power of the emperors. But it should also be taken into account that Ambrose not only defended his power as a bishop and authority as the shepherd of the inhabitants of Milan, but also his sincere faith in the truth of the religion he preached. He strove not just for power as such, but for the highest justice in the biblical understanding, which can be achieved either by possessing power or relying on power. There is no doubt that sincere faith gave additional firmness to his position. In his opinion, it was fair that the Arians, under pressure from power, had to abandon their churches in favor of the Orthodox, while transferring even one basilica to the Arians would be a monstrous sacrilege. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of believers surrounding Ambrose shared the same view. Ambrose's victory in the conflict of 385/386. essentially meant the complete victory of Orthodoxy over Arianism throughout the West. The leaders of Western Arianism made a final attempt to obtain the opportunity for free worship in 387, when Dimophilus, Ulfilas, Palladius and Auxentius asked Theodosius to convene a new ecumenical council. Theodosius initially agreed, and the Arians had already begun to gather in Constantinople, but Nektarios and other Eastern Orthodox bishops managed to convince the emperor to abandon his earlier decision and cancel the council. And during the campaign against Maximus, Theodosius issued a special law prohibiting meetings of Arians, the practice of their cult and public discussions about faith (Code of Theodosius XVI, 5, 15). In 388, Ulfila died in Constantinople, and shortly after him, in the same year, Dimophilus. Since 388, the sources do not mention Justina, who probably died in exile and never returned to Italy. Auxentius and the other Arian leaders apparently withdrew to the Goths. In the works of Ambrose of the late 380s - early 390s. There are still references to Arianism, but they mostly belong to the past, lose their relevance and do not contain as sharp polemics as before. Thus, the struggle against Arianism in the west was basically over by the end of the 4th century. The last reminder of this heresy was the law of Valentinian II of 391, according to which heretics were expelled from cities and their liturgical meetings were prohibited under pain of punishment. In the legislation of Theodosius, this final chord was the law issued in April 392, according to which heretics were deprived of the right to appoint and confirm bishops (Code of Theodosius XVI, 5, 22). However, Arianism did not disappear without a trace in the 4th century. It continued to be practiced by barbarians and, despite repression, by part of the population of the Roman Empire, especially in its eastern part. Echoes of the Arian crisis made themselves felt throughout the history of the church. Christological discussions of the 5th century (Monophysite and Nestorian disputes) and the 7th century (Monothelitian heresy) were essentially a continuation of the heated discussions about the Trinity, which began with Arianism. And Arianism itself was still destined to be reborn in a transformed form in the Middle Ages. Boissier G. Uk. op. pp. 308–309. Translation by S. S. Averintsev. Monuments of medieval Latin literature of the IV-IX centuries. – M, 1970. – P. 23–24. Gibbon E. Uk. op. P. 247.