Глава XV. «...в самых военных делах, думается, нужно обращать внимание на то, справедливы ли эти войны или нет»

(Ambrose. On the duties of clergy I, XXXV, 176) The political balance established in the Roman Empire after the Pact of Verona in 384 between Maximus, Theodosius and Valentinian II seemed shaky from the very beginning. Theodosius felt himself a complete master of the East and gradually sought to draw the western part of the Empire into the orbit of his policy. True, at first he did this very carefully and not too obviously. In 385, not without the participation of Theodosius, his close associate Neotherius, who had recently held the post of Prefect of the East, was appointed prefect of Italy. It was like a kind of protectorate over the young co-ruler. Realizing that Valentinian II would not compete with him in his claim to power over the entire Roman Empire, Theodosius secretly hatched plans for war against Maximus. Valentinian II, or rather his entourage and his mother, Empress Justina, had Italy and Africa under their control. They were forced to put up with the patronage imposed on them by Theodosius, because only in alliance with the eastern emperor could they resist the usurper. After 384, the Milanese court tried to increase its prestige by appointing some influential members of the Italian ruling class to important positions. Thus, Ionius Atticus Maximus took the post of praetorian prefect of Italy in 384, Praetextatus received the post of consul in 385, although he died before taking office; Castorius in 385 took the post of vicar of Africa, etc. However, in Mediolan they understood that the threat from Maximus was by no means over, and the Arian entourage of the young emperor did not come up with anything better than to launch an offensive against the orthodox Niceneans, believing that the victory of Arianism would weaken the position of Maximus. However, the bet on the Arianism of the Milanese court put the orthodox Theodosius in a difficult position. And Ambrose made it quite clear that by creating an Arian opposition to Maximus, the Milanese court acquired serious opposition from the Orthodox, and its seriousness was clearly demonstrated by the conflict over the basilica. In addition, Maximus saw in the clash between the Milanese court and the Orthodox a convenient pretext for an invasion of Italy under the guise of a zealot of piety. It must be assumed that from the very beginning Maxim did not think of limiting himself to Gaul, Britain and Spain, hiding behind the Alps. The recognition of his regime by Theodosius and Valentinian II did not at all mean that he resigned himself to the diminished role of the third of August. His plans obviously included subordinating all the western provinces to his influence and governing the empire on an equal footing with Theodosius. However, contrary to Maxim's expectations, the usurpation of power and the establishment of a harsh military regime did not find the proper response from his former colleague, and now co-ruler. In this situation, Maxim considered it necessary to eliminate the boy emperor and talk to Theodosius from a position of strength, the language of which this warrior on the throne understood much better than the language of diplomacy. Moreover, the faith of Maximus and Theodosius coincided, and the Milanese court, after the conflict over the basilica, lost support from the Orthodox. However, this conflict was never used by Maximus as a pretext for an invasion of Italy, most likely for the reason that the usurper did not know how strong Theodosius’ position was and how prepared he was for war. Meanwhile, in the early spring of 387, events occurred in the east that showed that Theodosius’s treasury was depleted and the population was dissatisfied with their emperor. In Antioch, one of the largest cities in the East, burdened beyond all measure by extraordinary military exactions, a spontaneous revolt broke out. “Stones flew from the hands of the crowd into the portraits of the emperors, a terrible noise was heard, copper statues were dragged along the ground, and words more bitter than any stone were addressed to the rulers of the universe,” 63 wrote an eyewitness to the events, the Antiochian rhetorician Libanius in his autobiography “Life or about one’s own lot.” John Chrysostom, who was at that time a presbyter of the Antiochian Church, expressed his indignation at the unbridled actions of the crowd: “What kind of fury would not the madness of these people reach? Wouldn’t they have destroyed our entire city to the ground and, turning everything upside down, wouldn’t they have taken our lives too?” 64. When news of the uprising reached Constantinople, Theodosius was especially indignant because the mob had desecrated the statue of his beloved wife Plaquilla, who had died several years earlier. The emperor's anger was so inflamed that he threatened to burn and destroy this beautiful city and turn it into a village. By decree of Theodosius, Antioch was deprived of the title of city, lands and income, entertainment and distribution of grain, and its inhabitants were ordered to be severely punished. In order to please the offended emperor, the city leaders of Antioch hastened to execute several rebels. However, at this moment the church fathers came to the defense of Antioch. The emperor was told the words of Bishop Macedonius that “it is easy to make many copper images instead of one, but it is completely impossible for the king to create even one hair of people killed” (Theodoret V, 20). Bishop Flavian was sent to Constantinople as an ambassador of his fellow citizens to the emperor, who touched Theodosius with a heartfelt speech and pacified his anger. As a result of the energetic actions of the priests and a sober assessment of the situation in his part of the empire, which was by no means stable, Theodosius, changing his anger to mercy, sent an acquittal to the Antiochians, and the conflict was settled. When Maxim learned about these events, he realized that his time had come. It seemed to him that neither Theodosius nor Valentinian II had firm support, and the longed-for goal of domination over the entire Roman Empire was no longer as illusory as before. The conquest of Italy did not seem to him a difficult task, but Maxim decided to act with certainty and with his usual cunning. At the beginning of 387, Maxim offered Valentinian II his help in the fight against the barbarians in Pannonia. The Milanese court, fearing provocation, responded with a polite refusal, and the barbarians, it seems, were not as terrible as the usurper. However, in the summer, a new ambassador was nevertheless sent from Mediolan to Trier - the Syrian Domnin, a man either simple or two-faced. As is clear from the sources, Domnin was either bribed or simply shamelessly deceived. However, the purpose of his mission is not entirely clear. He may have traveled to Trier to discuss the joint actions of Maximus and Valentinian II against the barbarians. Apparently, some kind of agreement was reached on this score, for Domnin received from Maxim an auxiliary military detachment, with which he began to move towards the Alps with his characteristic carelessness. Maxim secretly followed him with an entire army, and as soon as the usurper learned that the most dangerous Alpine pass was occupied by his soldiers accompanying Domnin, an order followed for the legions to attack Italy. In the fall of 387, Maxim was already at the walls of Mediolan. Valentinian II, together with his mother and courtiers, including the elderly Petronius Probus, barely had time to flee to Thessalonica, not hoping for the mercy of the insidious usurper and counting on the help of Theodosius, who favored the young emperor. Although the fact that the fugitives did not go directly to Constantinople may indicate that they did not want to completely surrender to the power of the eastern emperor and intended to maintain at least the appearance of independence and greatness. Maxim captured the territories subject to Valentinian II without complications, without encountering serious resistance. The subjects abandoned by the fleeing emperor easily passed under the rule of the new ruler, and only the fortress of Emona on the border of Istria and Pannonia dared to resist the usurper, who, however, did not make further efforts to move east after the fleeing Valentinian, fearing that Theodosius might see in this demarche a danger to his possessions, but for now, presumably, Maximus’s plans included normalizing relations with eastern emperor. Having established his residence in Mediolanus, Maximus made new appointments to administrative and government posts and soon received Symmachus himself, who, acting on behalf of the Senate, congratulated the usurper on his consulate for 388 and delivered a panegyric to the new ruler. How did Bishop Mediolan greet Maxim? Our sources remain completely silent on this matter, and the majority of researchers believe that Ambrose refrained from any relations with the usurper and even incited his flock against him. Some, citing Peacock's message. (Life of Ambrose, 22), close to this time, they express the opinion that Ambrose, not wanting, in the words of I. Adamov, “to silently recognize him as his master by his stay in Mediolan,” left for Aquileia. However, the biographer's testimony is too vague to say that the reason for Ambrose's stay in Aquileia was to escape from Maximus. And only E. Gibbon expresses the opposite opinion with reference to Baronius: “... although the prudent archbishop refused a dangerous and criminal friendship with the usurper, he indirectly contributed to the success of his weapons, instilling from the church pulpit the duty of obedience, and not resistance” 65. The silence about this time by Ambrose himself, who loved to describe in such detail his relations with the powers that be, especially if in these relations he appeared in a favorable light, may seem strange. The only reference to Maximus in a letter from the bishop to Theodosius close in time, dated 388, contains the maxim that Maximus was defeated by the will of God, who abandoned him because he ordered the restoration of the burned synagogue in Rome (Ambrose. Letter 40, 23). At the same time, as has already been shown, Maxim always took every chance to prove his commitment to orthodoxy, and this, despite all the personal hostility of Ambrose towards him, could not but satisfy him as a bishop. One can only assume that Ambrose, during Maximus’s stay in Mediolan, treated him with restraint, avoided contact with him and refrained from both publicly approving the new regime and condemning it. This neutrality could be partly facilitated by the cautious policy of Theodosius at first, who, preparing for war and in order to gain time, attempted to make peace with Maximus if the usurper agreed to restore previous relations (Zosimus IV, 44). From all of the above, we can conclude that Ambrose never managed to put himself above Maxim and subordinate him to the church, just as Maxim was unable to subjugate Ambrose. Although the usurper tried to use the church to his advantage, apparently he was unable to achieve strong enough support from her, because he was unable to retain the throne. In general, the sources do not allow us to form a clear idea regarding the role of the church in the fall of Maximus. In any case, Theodosius’s war against the usurper could not be given the character of a religious war. And although after Maxim was defeated and killed, Ambrose proceeds to openly condemn him as a usurper and says that he is worse than Pilate (Ambrose. Commentary on Psalm 61:26), and less than 7 years after his death he does not find Maximus any other place than in hell (Ambrose. On the death of Theodosius, 39), there is no reason to claim that the Bishop of Milan could allow himself the same judgments during the usurper's stay in Italy. It seems most likely that Ambrose at this time prudently chose to move away from politics and became closely involved in church affairs and creative work. Around this time, one of the most famous works of the Bishop of Milan, “On the Duties of the Clergy,” was written. This book contains rules and instructions for clergy, as well as for Christians in general, and sets out the general teaching of Ambrose on morality. The bishop’s model was Cicero’s well-known treatise “On Duties,” written more than 4 centuries before him, and Ambrose was often accused of borrowing, of mechanically replacing the examples given by Cicero from Roman history with examples from Sacred history, and even that Ambrose’s work was not so much Christian as Stoic in nature. And although these accusations contain a certain amount of truth, it should still be stated that the bishop worked on this clearly outstanding book for at least 10 years, that it, like many other works of Ambrose, was compiled primarily from sermons, as well as on the basis of reflections and personal pastoral experience, and, finally, that Ambrose’s book served as the basis for the formation of the moral philosophy of the Middle Ages. To get acquainted with this undoubtedly interesting work of Ambrose, it is appropriate to give here several quotes of an aphoristic nature, which, I think, have not lost their relevance today: I, IX, 29: “...we do not consider useful that which tends towards the pleasure of all life, and not towards joy in the future; in the same way, we do not recognize material resources and wealth as a blessing; on the contrary, we even consider their possession a misfortune, and in general, in our opinion, they are more of a burden for those who acquire them than a loss for those who are deprived of them.” I, XI, 38: “...one must be merciful, first of all, to the poor, so that they too can benefit from the gifts of nature, which produces fruits for everyone’s use...” I, XII, 40: “...sinners have an abundance of wealth, because they enjoy honor, health, and have joy in children, while the righteous, on the contrary, are poor, do not enjoy honor, are deprived of children, do not have health, and they often have to cry.” I, XXVIII, 135; “So, by the will of God or by virtue of a natural connection, we are obliged to help one another, vying with each other to serve each other and putting the common benefit as if at the center of all our aspirations.” Ill, III, 16: “Consider, man, where did you get your name from, wasn’t it from the earth, which steals nothing, but endows everyone with everything, producing various fruits for the benefit of all creatures?” The translator of Ambrose’s book into Russian, Professor G.V. Prokhorov of Kazan University, gave it what seems to be a fairly objective assessment: “The work deserves attention not only because it is the first, to some extent, book about shepherding, but also because it is the first experience of a coherent presentation of Christian moral teaching. This was the first attempt to systematically embrace the entire life of a Christian, to bring his entire life activity under certain principles. We are ready to admit that this first experience was unsuccessful, that he was unable to consistently implement the Christian principle of morality, but only weakly outlined it, that he was unable to accurately and clearly distinguish the Christian from the philosophical-pagan, which, however, was so natural at a time when people with particular zeal sought to connect the Christian teaching on morality with the pagan. But still, the work remains a wonderful book that has not lost its significance even to this day; at least until the later Middle Ages, until Thomas Aquinas, who gave a scientific treatment to Christian ethics in close connection with Aristotelian ethics, it was the only and thus the first attempt to present Christian morality in its separation from dogma. This book began to enjoy great respect soon after its publication. Augustine and other prominent men of the church speak of this work of Ambrose with high respect and strongly recommend its reading to Christians. Throughout the Middle Ages, it served the cause of educating young clerics” 66. Theodosius's reaction to Maximus's invasion of Italy was very restrained, although he did not have any sympathy for his former colleague and now co-ruler. However, Maxim’s calculation was justified: Theodoi was not ready for war. Another barbarian invasion had just been repelled, difficult negotiations were underway with the Persian embassy, ​​the imperial treasury was not abundant, and the population did not want to pay new taxes. It took time to prepare for war, and Theodosius was forced to accept the embassy from the usurper with emphasized courtesy. During diplomatic negotiations, the Eastern Emperor invited Maxim to moderate his ambitions and limit himself to that part of the empire that was at his disposal from the very beginning. However, the embassy was never able to get Theodosius to recognize Maximus as the ruler of the western part of the Roman Empire, but there was no complete severance of relations, and, consequently, no declaration of war on the part of the eastern emperor. Maxim felt at that moment strong enough to defend his rights, and did not pay much attention to preparing his troops for a possible war with Theodosius. Soon after the flight of Valentinian II and Justina, Theodosius, accompanied by courtiers and senators of Constantinople, paid them a visit to Thessalonica. Having expressed sympathy befitting their position and condition and assured of his friendship and good disposition, Theodosius nevertheless did not fail to reproach Justina and her son for deviating from piety: “It should not be surprising if the king was overcome by fear, and the tyrant gained strength, for the first rebelled in piety, and the last gave him help - and now the one who betrayed him runs naked, and the one who took up arms for him overcomes the naked" (Theodoret V, 15). It is unknown from the sources how long Theodosius healed the soul of Valentinian II, but the result was obvious: the young emperor was returned to paternal piety. Ambrose clearly testifies to this in his letter to Theodosius: “... brought up in the faith and instructed by you, he acquired such good will towards our God...” And below: “... how grateful I was to your mercy that you not only returned royal power to him, but also, more importantly, taught him your faith and piety” (Letter 53, 2-3). However, it is difficult to say what contributed to the arrival of Valentinian II to true piety to a greater extent - the admonitions of Theodosius and the orthodox priests around him; the humiliation he suffered at Mediolanus from Ambrose; loss of real power as a result of the seizure of Italy by the “zealot of piety” Maximus; the weakening of the influence of his mother Justina on him, whose policy turned out to be short-sighted and untenable, or, finally, his entry into the age of conscious choice of his future path in life, which was destined to not be so long? However, Justina at that moment had another weapon, which she preferred to use in order to draw the powerful Theodosius into the orbit of her influence. It was a proven weapon of seduction, which neither a stern warrior, nor a pious Christian, nor a great ruler, which in one person was Theodosius, could resist. But Justina herself, although she retained the beauty and charm that at one time captivated Emperor Valentinian I, who abandoned his first wife Severa for her, did not dare to use her charms, realizing that the effect of their influence was far from the same. It could not escape her sensitive maternal and sophisticated female gaze what looks Theodosius cast on her daughter Galla, spreading the fact that “criminal attachment to heresy is sometimes punished not only in the future, but also in this life, and that the public confession of the Nicene dogma would be the surest step towards the restoration of her son to the throne, since it would be approved both on earth and in heaven” 67 . Listening to the lengthy and pompous speech of Theodosius, Justina quickly realized that it was Galla, still inexperienced and naive, but already a seductive and sexy girl, who would be able to return her brother Valentinian II to the throne, and she would have the honorable position of mother-empress not only of the West, but also of the East. After the official audience, Justina arranged a magnificent dinner, during which Theodosius no longer took his eyes off the beautiful Galla, and the next day the Empress already agreed to the marriage, proposed with characteristic impulsiveness by Theodosius, who had been pining for female affection during the years of widowhood. This marriage was supposed to be the key to the upcoming war against Maxim. ...A year or a little more after the first meeting of Galla and Theodosius, they had a daughter, who was given the name Galla Placidia. And she was destined to become the last ruler of the Western Roman Empire, to live a life full of interesting and tragic events that accompanied the decline of great Rome. When she, beautiful and noble, turned 21, her brother Honorius abandoned Rome to the mercy of fate, holed up in distant and inaccessible Ravenna. Having taken and plundered the eternal city, Alaric, leaving, took Galla Placidia with him. After some time, she became the wife of the new Visigothic king Ataulf. In 415, Ataulf was killed by the usurper Singeric, who ordered the death of all the king's children, and drove Galla Placidia out of the palace in Barcelona, ​​forcing her to walk along with other captives. After the murder of Singerich, Wallia became the leader of the Visigoths, who exchanged Galla Placidia for 600 thousand measures of wheat and returned her to his brother in Ravenna. Honorius forcibly married his sister to his commander Constantius, but he, having managed to produce two children, died in 421, and Honorius sent Galla Placidia to Constantinople to avoid accusations of incest with her. After the death of Honorius and the usurper John Gallus, who ruled after him for two years, Placidia returned to Italy and became regent for her seven-year-old son Valentinian III, crowned in Rome in 425. With this, the wanderings and suffering of the beautiful daughter of the great Theodosius and the seductive Galla ended: for 25 years she was the ruler of a city that was cracking at all the seams and falling apart Western Roman Empire until his death in 450, when only a quarter of a century remained before the deposition of the last Roman emperor... In the meantime, having married Justina’s daughter, Theodosius launched large-scale preparations for a campaign to the west against Maxim. Due to the fact that Theodosius and Maximus adhered to the same faith - Nicene Christianity, there were no religious motives for the clash, and the war was declared as a means to restore the power of the legitimate ruler, as revenge for the murder of Emperor Gratian, as punishment for a tyrant and usurper who had illegally seized power. Probably, Theodosius set as his goal not just the punishment of Maxim and his removal from the political arena, but also the simultaneous subordination of all the western provinces to his power, in which the young Valentinian II would rule only nominally, being obliged both by life and power to the eastern emperor. Theodosius prepared for the upcoming campaign very carefully and scrupulously. In addition to the military training of the land army and navy, which was given special attention in view of the military merits and leadership talents of Maximus, of which Theodosius was well aware, calm was achieved through negotiations on the Persian border, and within the country appointments were made to the most important posts of people on whom the emperor could rely in his absence. The religious factor was also taken into account: the pagan Tatian was appointed to replace the deceased praetorian prefect, who became famous for his cruel attitude towards pagans. True, there were Christians in other important positions, and their opinion of the Christian emperor was calmed by the fact that Theodosius secured a prediction of a future victory from the Christian hermit John of Lycopolis. Theodosius's chances of victory were, in general, slim. He began the campaign with an army smaller than Maxim's, which, moreover, had to enter the battle after a long and grueling march. Along the way, Theodosius intended to place additional military contingents from the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Alans and Huns under his banners, but all these barbarians were unreliable, especially in the event of military failures. Effective defense of the Alpine passes could generally reduce his chances of victory to a minimum. And Maxim had enough time to prepare for defense. The possibility of Theodosius' victory was so problematic that Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, sent his envoy Isidore to Rome with two messages so that he would wait for the end of the war and present the appropriate letter of greeting to the winner - either Maximus or Theodosius. Unfortunately, the unlucky Isidore was so excited that after the victory he handed Theodosius a letter containing congratulations to Maxim. In June 388, Theodosius, at the head of a large and well-trained army, went on a campaign, leaving the administration of the eastern part of the Roman Empire in the hands of experienced and reliable people who looked after his heir, eleven-year-old Arcadius. Theodosius decided to take his youngest son, four-year-old Honorius, with him in order to introduce him to the western provinces after the victory over Maximus, which he seemed to have no doubt about. Realizing that his absence could cause unrest among his subjects and that the reason for this could be, as usually happened in the 4th century. in the east, religious disputes; Theodosius, already on campaign, issued a law prohibiting meetings and public discussions about faith. The Arians perceived this law as an attack on their faith and, taking advantage of the lack of official information about the progress of Theodosius and the progress of the war with Maximus, they began to spread rumors that the general battle had been lost, that many had fallen on the battlefield, and Theodosius himself had been captured by the tyrant. “Mistaking their fictions for actual events, they became impudent and, running together, set fire to the house of Bishop Nektarios in annoyance that he owned the churches” (Sozomen VII, 14). However, at this time genuine reports about the progress of the war arrived, which immediately calmed passions, and the instigators of the riots began to fear punishment. However, Arkady, under the influence of the famous orator Themistius, who enjoyed authority at the court of Constantinople, not only did not punish the perpetrators, but also achieved leniency towards them from his father. Meanwhile, Theodosius crossed Illyricum unhindered and from the march entered into battle with the troops of Maximus at Siscia on the Sava River in Pannonia. Tired and covered in dust, Theodosius' soldiers immediately crossed the river as soon as they saw the enemy on the other side. Their onslaught was so unexpected, powerful and swift that Maximus' legions wavered and fled in shame. Pacatus, in his eulogy to Theodosius, notes that it takes more time to describe what actually happened. The next day the battle resumed. It turned out to be bloodier and crueler, but this time the troops of Theodosius prevailed. It should be noted that, while preparing for war with Theodosius, Maxim made a grave mistake in his strategic calculations. Just as during the 2nd Punic War, the Romans did not expect that Hannibal would dare cross the Alps and attack Italy with all his troops from land, so now Maximus believed that Theodosius would mobilize his entire fleet and attack the coast, without risking the action of ground forces exhausted by a long transition. Therefore, the best military leader of the usurper Andragathius led the fleet and patrolled in the Adriatic Sea, hoping to intercept the enemy, but, alas, he did not even manage to capture Valentinian II, who went to his lost possessions of the sea and hoped, it seems, to escape the tutelage of stronger rulers at least for a while. After the defeat at Siscia, Maximus retreated north to Petavia. His brother Marcellinus hastily arrived there with his selected cohorts. Here another very stubborn and bloody battle took place, lasting from morning to evening. The brothers were defeated, and Theodosius again found himself master of the situation, and a significant part of Maximus’s soldiers surrendered to the victorious emperor. Abandoned by Fortune, Maxim finally lost faith in the possibility of defeating his opponent. Moreover, he was seized by an inexpressible fear, which gave his flight almost fantastic speed: during the day he covered about 200 km, descended from the Julian Alps and by the evening reached Aquileia, where he intended to hide from Theodosius, who was successful in battles. The latter moved after the fleeing usurper without delay, which, as he rightly believed, could bring his treacherous enemy to his senses. On the way, Theodosius was solemnly greeted by the inhabitants of the Emona fortress, which Maxim was never able to take and which, with incomprehensible tenacity, remained devoted to the legitimate authority. Finally, Theodosius set up camp near Aquileia, but before he could give orders to prepare for the assault, the usurper himself was brought to him. His soldiers, having lost faith in the success of their leader and fearing punishment from the emperor, who won one victory after another, themselves decided the outcome of this war; They burst into Maxim's chambers, dragged him from the throne, deprived him of the signs of imperial dignity, tied him up and, accompanying him with cuffs, instead of an honorary escort, escorted him to Theodosius. The winner did not show any merciful condescension towards the humiliated and defeated enemy, nor harsh cruelty - he simply handed the unfortunate man over to the power of his own soldiers, who, wanting to curry favor with the new ruler, cut off Maxim’s head without delay and unnecessary ceremony. This happened on August 28, 388. Having learned of the defeat of his leader, Andragafy, who had aimlessly spent the entire military campaign in sea motion, jumped over the side of the ship into the sea that had become disgusting to him. Some time later, Maxim’s ten-year-old son Victor was executed. The head of Maximus himself, just like in his time the body of Gratian, who was killed on his orders, remained without burial for a long time. She was sent on a dark journey through the provinces of the Roman Empire as a warning to all possible usurpers and pretenders to power, until she finally found her final refuge in Carthage. Only Gaul remained faithful to Maxim longer than the others. One of the most important and best military leaders, Theodosius Arbogast, was sent there. He brought Gaul to submission without encountering any serious complications, and then, on behalf of Theodosius, set about establishing proper order there. Meanwhile, Theodosius arrived in Mediolan, which became his residence in the west. Libanius. Essays. Kazan, 1914. T. 1. P. 80. Greek patrolology, ed. Minya. T. 49. P. 82. Gibbon E. Uk. op. P. 248. Prokhorov G.V. Preface. (Ambrose of Milan, duties of clergy.) - Kazan, 1908. - pp. 18–20. Gibbon E. Uk. op. P. 249.