Editing Ambrose (section)

=== Imperial relations ===
Ambrose had good relations and varying levels of influence with the [[Roman emperor]]s [[Gratian]], [[Valentinian II]] and [[Theodosius I]], but exactly how much influence, what kind of influence, and in what ways, when, has been debated in the scholarship of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=79}}{{sfn|Nicholson|2018|p=xv}}{{sfn|Salzman|Sághy|Testa|2016|p=2}}

====Gratian====
It has long been convention to see Gratian and Ambrose as having a personal friendship, putting Ambrose in the dominant role of spiritual guide, but modern scholars now find this view hard to support from the sources.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=79–80}} The ancient Christian historian [[Sozomen]] ({{circa|400|450}}) is the only ancient source that shows Ambrose and Gratian together in any personal interaction. In that interaction, Sozomen relates that, in the last year of Gratian's reign, Ambrose intruded on Gratian's private hunting party in order to appeal on behalf of a pagan senator sentenced to die. After years of acquaintance, according to professor Neil B. McLynn, this indicates that Ambrose could not take for granted that Gratian would see him, so instead, Ambrose had to resort to such manoeuvrings to make his appeal.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=80}}

Gratian was personally devout long before meeting Ambrose.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=79–80, 87}} Modern scholarship indicates Gratian's religious policies do not evidence capitulation to Ambrose more than they evidence Gratian's own views.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=80}} Gratian's devotion did lead Ambrose to write a large number of books and letters of theology and spiritual commentary dedicated to the emperor. The sheer volume of these writings and the effusive praise they contain has led many historians to conclude that Gratian was dominated by Ambrose, and it was that dominance that produced Gratian's anti-pagan actions.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=80}} McLynn asserts that effusive praises were common in everyone's correspondence with the crown. He adds that Gratian's actions were determined by the constraints of the system as much as "by his own initiatives or Ambrose's influence".{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=80}}

McLynn asserts that the largest influence on Gratian's policy was the profound change in political circumstances produced by the [[Battle of Adrianople]] in 378.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=80,90;105}} Gratian had become involved in fighting the Goths the previous year and had been on his way to the Balkans when his uncle and the "cream of the eastern army" were destroyed at Adrianople. Gratian withdrew to [[Sirmium]] and set up his court there.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=90}} Several rival groups, including the Arians, sought to secure benefits from the government at Sirmium.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=90}} In an Arian attempt to undermine Ambrose, whom Gratian had not yet met, Gratian was "warned" that Ambrose's faith was suspect. Gratian took steps to investigate by writing to Ambrose and asking him to explain his faith.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=98}}

Ambrose and Gratian first met, after this, in 379 during a visit to Milan. The bishop made a good impression on Gratian and his court, which was pervasively Christian and aristocratic – much like Ambrose himself.{{Efn|Two laws were recorded from this time. One of these cancelled the "law of toleration" Gratian had previously issued at Sirmium. This toleration allowed freedom of worship to all with the exception of the heretical [[Manichaeism|Manichaeans]], [[Photinians]] and [[Eunomians]].{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=91}} The law cancelling this has been presented in previous scholarship as proof of Ambrose's influence over Gratian, but the law's target was [[Donatism]] which had failed to be listed in the exceptions. There is no evidence to support Ambrose as having had anything to do with this restatement since sanctions against Donatism had existed since Constantine.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=100-102}} }} The emperor returned to Milan in 380 to find that Ambrose had complied with his request for a statement of his faith – in two volumes – known as ''De Fide'': a statement of orthodoxy and of Ambrose' political theology, as well as a polemic against the Arian heresy – intended for public discussion.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=103-105}} The emperor had not asked to be instructed by Ambrose, and in ''De Fide'' Ambrose states this clearly. Nor was he asked to refute the Arians. He was asked to justify his own position, but in the end, he did all three.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=98-99}}

It seems that by 382 Ambrose had replaced [[Ausonius]] to become a major influence in Gratian's court. Ambrose had not yet become the "conscience" of kings he would in the later 380s, but he did speak out against reinstating the [[Altar of Victory]].{{sfn|Trout|1999|p=50}} In 382, Gratian was the first to divert public financial subsidies that had previously supported Rome's cults. Before that year, contributions in support of the ancient customs had continued unchallenged by the state.{{sfn|Lietzmann|1951|p=68}}

====Valentinian II====
The childless Gratian had treated his younger brother Valentinian II like a son.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=104}} Ambrose, on the other hand, had incurred the lasting enmity of Valentinian II's mother, the Empress [[Justina (empress)|Justina]], in the winter of 379 by helping to appoint a Nicene bishop in Sirmium. Not long after this, Valentinian II, his mother, and the court left Sirmium; Sirmium had come under Theodosius' control, so they went to Milan which was ruled by Gratian.{{sfn|Liebeschuetz|Hill|Mediolanensis|2005|p=129}}

In 383 Gratian was assassinated at [[Lyon]], in Gaul (France) by [[Magnus Maximus]]. Valentinian was twelve years old, and the assassination left his mother, Justina, in a position of something akin to a regent.{{sfn|Liebeschuetz|Hill|Mediolanensis|2005|pp=129-130}} In 385 (or 386) the emperor Valentinian II and his mother Justina, along with a considerable number of [[clergy]], the [[laity]], and the military, professed Arianism.{{Sfn | Butler | 1991 | p = 408}} Conflict between Ambrose and Justina soon followed.

The Arians demanded that Valentinian allocate to them two churches in [[Milan]]: one in the city (the [[Basilica]] of the Apostles), the other in the suburbs (St Victor's).{{Sfn | Butler | 1991 | p = 408}} Ambrose refused to surrender the churches. He answered by saying that "What belongs to God, is outside the emperor's power." In this, Ambrose called on an ancient Roman principle: a temple set apart to a god became the property of that god. Ambrose now applied this ancient legal principle to the Christian churches, seeing the bishop, as a divine representative, as guardian of his god's property.{{sfn|Lietzmann|1951|pp=79-80}}

Subsequently, while Ambrose was performing the [[Liturgy of the Hours]] in the basilica, the prefect of the city came to persuade him to give it up to the Arians. Ambrose again refused. Certain deans (officers of the court) were sent to take possession of the basilica by hanging upon it imperial escutcheons.{{sfn|Butler|1991|p= 408}}{{sfn|Grieve|1911|p=799}} Instead, soldiers from the ranks the emperor had placed around the basilica began pouring into the church, assuring Ambrose of their fidelity. The escutcheons outside the church were removed, and legend says the children tore them to shreds.{{sfn|Lietzmann|1951|pp=79-80}}

Ambrose refused to surrender the basilica, and sent sharp answers back to his emperor: "If you demand my person, I am ready to submit: carry me to prison or to death, I will not resist; but I will never betray the church of Christ. I will not call upon the people to succour me; I will die at the foot of the altar rather than desert it. The tumult of the people I will not encourage: but God alone can appease it."{{sfn|Grieve|1911|p=799}} By Thursday, the emperor gave in, bitterly responding: "Soon, if Ambrose gives the orders, you will be sending me to him in chains."{{sfn|Lietzmann|1951|p= 80}}

In 386, Justina and Valentinian II received the Arian bishop [[Auxentius of Durostorum|Auxentius the younger]], and Ambrose was again ordered to hand over a church in Milan for Arian usage. Ambrose and his congregation barricaded themselves inside the church, and again the imperial order was rescinded.{{sfn|CAH|1998|page = 106}} There was an attempted kidnapping, and another attempt to arrest him and to force him to leave the city.{{sfn|Liebeschuetz|Hill|Mediolanensis|2005|p=130}} Several accusations were made, but unlike in the case of [[John Chrysostom]], no formal charges were brought. The emperor certainly had the power to do so, and probably did not solely because of Ambrose's popularity with the people and what they might do.{{sfn|Liebeschuetz|Hill|Mediolanensis|2005|p=131}}

When [[Magnus Maximus]] usurped power in [[Gaul]] (383) and was considering a descent upon Italy, Valentinian sent Ambrose to dissuade him, and the embassy was successful (384).{{sfn|Grieve|1911|p=799}} A second, later embassy was unsuccessful. Magnus Maximus entered [[Italy]] (386–387) and [[Milan]] was taken. Justina and her son fled, but Ambrose remained and had the plate of the church melted for the relief of the poor.{{sfn|Grieve|1911|p=799}}{{blockquote|After defeating the usurper Maximus at Aquileia in 388 Theodosius handed the western realm back to the young Valentinian II, the seventeen-year-old son of the forceful and hardy Pannonian general Valentinian I and his wife, the Arian Justina. Furthermore, the Eastern emperor remained in Italy for a considerable period to supervise affairs, returning to Constantinople in 391 and leaving behind the Frankish general Arbogast to keep an eye on the young emperor. By May of the following year, Arbogast's ward was dead amidst rumours of both treachery and suicide...{{sfn|Verlag|1976|pp=235-244}} }}

====Theodosius====
{{See also|Massacre of Thessalonica}}
While Ambrose was writing ''De Fide'', Theodosius published his own statement of faith in 381 in an edict establishing Nicene Christianity as the only legitimate version of the Christian faith. There is unanimity amongst scholars that this represents the emperor's own beliefs.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=106-110}} The aftermath of the death (378) of [[Valens]] (Emperor in the East from 364 to 378) had left many questions for the church unresolved, and Theodosius' edict can be seen as an effort to begin addressing those questions.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=108}} Theodosius' natural generosity was tempered by his pressing need to establish himself and to publicly assert his personal piety.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=109}}

On 28 February 380, Theodosius issued the [[Edict of Thessalonica]], a decree addressed to the city of [[Constantinople]], determining that only Christians who did not support Arian views were [[Catholicity|catholic]] and could have their places of worship officially recognized as "churches".{{sfn|Errington|2006|p=217}}{{sfn|Lietzmann|1951|p=37}}{{efn|Recent scholarship has tended to reject former views that the edict was a key step in establishing Christianity as the official religion of the empire since it was aimed exclusively at Constantinople and seems to have gone largely unnoticed by contemporaries outside the capital.{{sfn|Errington|1997|pp=410–415}}{{sfn|Hebblewhite|p=82}} Nonetheless, the edict is the first known secular Roman law to positively assert a religious orthodoxy.{{sfn|Errington|2006|p=217}}}} The Edict opposed [[Arianism]], and attempted to establish unity in Christianity and to suppress heresy.{{sfn|Sáry|2019|p=73}} German ancient historian {{ill|Karl Leo Noethlichs|de}} writes that the Edict of Thessalonica was neither anti-pagan nor [[Antisemitism|antisemitic]]; it did not declare Christianity to be the official religion of the empire; and it gave no advantage to Christians over other faiths.{{sfn|Sáry|2019|pp=72–74; fn. 32, 33, 34; 77}}

Liebeschuetz and Hill indicate that it was not until after 388, during Theodosius' stay in Milan following the defeat of Maximus in 388, that Theodosius and Ambrose first met.{{sfn|Liebeschuetz|Hill|Mediolanensis|2005|p=17}} 
[[File:Anthonis van Dyck 005.jpg|thumb|''[[Saint Ambrose barring Theodosius from Milan Cathedral]]'' a "pious fiction"{{sfn|Chesnut|1981|p=245-252}} painted in 1619 by [[Anthony van Dyck]]. [[National Gallery, London]]]]
After the [[Massacre of Thessalonica]] in 390, Theodosius made an act of public penance at Ambrose's behest.{{sfn|Herrin|1987|p=64}} Ambrose was away from court during the events at Thessalonica, but after being informed of them, he wrote Theodosius a letter.{{sfn|Liebeschuetz|Hill|Mediolanensis|2005|pp=262}} In that still-existing letter, Ambrose presses for a semi-public demonstration of penitence from the emperor, telling him that, as his bishop, he will not give Theodosius communion until it is done. [[Wolf Liebeschuetz]] says "Theodosius duly complied and came to church without his imperial robes, until Christmas, when Ambrose openly admitted him to communion".{{sfn|Liebeschuetz|Hill|Mediolanensis|2005|pp=262-263}}

Formerly, some scholars credited Ambrose with having an undue influence over Emperor Theodosius I, from this period forward, prompting him toward major anti-pagan legislation beginning in February of 391.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=331}}{{sfn|Errington|1997|p=425}}{{sfn|Curran|1998|pp=78-110}} However, this interpretation has been heavily disputed since the late-twentieth century. McLynn argues that Theodosius's anti-pagan legislation was too limited in scope for it to be of interest to the bishop.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|pp=330–333}}{{sfn|Hebblewhite|2020a|p=intro}} The fabled encounter at the door of the cathedral in Milan, with Ambrose as the mitred prelate braced, blocking Theodosius from entering, which has sometimes been seen as evidence of Ambrose' dominance over Theodosius, has been debunked by modern historians as "a pious fiction".{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=291}}{{sfn|Cameron|2011|pp=63, 64}} There was no encounter at the church door.{{sfn|Brown|1992|p=111}}{{sfn|Moorhead|2014|p=3, 13}}{{sfn|Cameron|2011|pp=60, 63, 131}}{{sfn|MacMullen|1984|p=100}} The story is a product of the imagination of [[Theodoret]], a historian of the fifth century who wrote of the events of 390 "using his own ideology to fill the gaps in the historical record".{{sfn|Washburn|2006|p=215}}

The twenty-first-century view is that Ambrose was "not a power behind the throne".{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=291}} The two men did not meet each other frequently, and documents that reveal the relationship between the two are less about personal friendship than they are about negotiations between two formidable leaders of the powerful institutions they represent: the Roman State and the Italian Church.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|pp=291–292;330–333}} Cameron says there is no evidence that Ambrose was a significant influence on the emperor.{{sfn|Cameron|2011|pp=63–64}}

For centuries after his death, Theodosius was regarded as a champion of Christian orthodoxy who decisively stamped out paganism. This view was recorded by Theodoret, who is recognized as an unreliable historian, in the century following their deaths.{{sfn|Errington|1997|p=409}} Theodosius's predecessors [[Constantine I|Constantine]] ({{reign | 306 | 337}}), [[Constantius II|Constantius]] ({{reign | 337 | 361|show=none}}), and [[Valens]] had all been [[semi-Arian]]s. Therefore, it fell to the orthodox Theodosius to receive from Christian literary tradition most of the credit for the final triumph of Christianity.{{sfn|Cameron|2011|p=74 (and note 177)}} Modern scholars see this as an interpretation of history by orthodox Christian writers more than as a representation of actual history.{{sfn|Nicholson|2018|pp=1482, 1484}}{{sfn|Errington|2006|pp=248–249}}{{sfn|Cameron|2011|p=74}}{{sfn|Hebblewhite|loc=chapter 8}} The view of a pious Theodosius submitting meekly to the authority of the church, represented by Ambrose, is part of the myth that evolved within a generation of their deaths.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=292}}