AMBROSE, Saint. - Bishop of Milan and Doctor of the Church.
SUMMARY:
I. Chronology
II. Life and works: historical and theological significance
III. The writer
IV. The theologian and moralist
V. The hymnographer
VI. The epigraphist
VII. Iconography.
A. is one of the most important and solemn figures among the bishops of the late 4th century. Of small stature and frail body, he was animated by a clairvoyant and practical spirit, an irresistible force of will and persuasion, and a heart of noble and profound sentiments. It was a singular providence that this great spirit, without seeking it, found the most suitable place and time to unfold the full richness of his gifts, namely the time of the legislative Christianization of the Roman Empire and the episcopal see of Milan, residence of three emperors, Gratian, Valentinian II, and Theodosius.
I. Chronology
The date of his death is given by the ancient biographer Paulinus (Vita, 32 and 48), and it was the vigil of Easter of the third year after the death of Theodosius, therefore 4 April 397. The episcopal consecration, according to the explicit testimony of the contemporary St. Jerome (Chronicle, ed. Helm, pp. 247, 16-18), took place in the tenth year of Valentinian I, counting from the first consulship of the new emperor (1 January 365), therefore 374, not 373, as has been said very recently. The traditional day, 7 December, is also confirmed by this year, which in 374 was a Sunday. The year of birth has not yet been established with certainty. If A.’s father was truly "prefect of the Gauls," it would be the year 339-40; if not, the autumn of 334, calculating the 53 years he had reached, which A. indicates in Epistle 59, from the arrival of the usurper Maximus in Italy, i.e., from the autumn of 387, in which alone the entire situation described in that letter seems to have occurred.II. Life and works. Historical and theological significance.
1. Family. Youth, civil career (334-74). - A. was probably born in Trier, where his father seems to have been a high official in the administration of the Gauls (Vita, 3). The senatorial and Christian family of the "gens Aurelia" (De Rossi, Inscriptiones christianae Urbis Romae, II, par. I, Rome 1888, p. 177; id., in Bullettino di archeologia cristiana, 1st series, 2 [1864], p. 76 and 3 [1865], p. 15; id., Roma sotterranea, III, Rome 1877, p. 24; H. Delehaye, in Analecta Bollandiana, 1st series, 48 [1930] p. 193) was of Greek origin, as can be conjectured from the names Ambrosius, Uranius Satyrus (his brother), Sotheris (a relative, martyr of the Diocletian persecution). However, he had long resided in Rome, where he appeared among the richest and most noble families, probably related to the Symmachi (De excessu fratris, I, 32-34 ff.; Symmachus, Epistolae, I, 63; III, 30-37; Basil, Ep., 197. 1). It seems that the father died a few years after A.’s birth. The mother therefore returned to Rome with her three children, Marcellina, Satyrus, and A., who was the youngest (De excessu fratris, I: PL 54; Vita, 4), and who received the education of a Roman nobleman in grammar, Roman and Greek literature, rhetoric, and law. There was also the circus and the theater (Expl. Ps., 40, 24). But behind that profane exterior of the paternal home (perhaps St. Ambrose of the Massima, near the Theater of Marcellus), there lay a deep religious education as a catechumen. Although, according to the custom of the time, he was not yet baptized, he seems to have written, as a layman, a commentary on the four books of Kings and a free translation of Flavius Josephus’ De bello Judaico, the so-called Hegesippus (ed. by V. Ussani, in CSEL, 66, Vienna 1932). The only date that can be established with some probability of A.’s Roman life is Epiphany 353 or 354, when his sister Marcellina received the veil of the sacred virgins in St. Peter’s from the hands of Pope Liberius (cf. De virginibus, III, 1; Vita, 4), with whom A. always felt united by bonds of deep veneration.
After completing his studies, he left—it is not known when—Rome for Sirmium, where he began his civil career as an advocate at the tribunal of the praetorian prefecture. Sextus Petronius Probus, praetorian prefect (12 March 368 - 3 December 374), appointed him to his council, and after a few years, perhaps in 370, as consularis, i.e., governor of the provinces of Liguria and Emilia, with seat in Milan (Vita, 5). His legal practice thus brought him into contact with the most diverse classes of the people, amid the most varied affairs of public life. His stay in Illyricum and that of the Arian bishop Auxentius in Milan (355-74) made him thoroughly acquainted with the dissolving effect of Arianism in the Roman Empire. Then the designs of Providence for the "consularis" began to take shape, whose popularity, combined with extraordinary integrity, prepared the way for the future bishop.
2. Early years of the bishop. The ascetic (374-78). - At the death of Auxentius, A. was forty years old. In the election of his successor, the conflicts between Arians and Catholics threatened to compromise public safety. The governor had to intervene to calm the tumultuous people, and he did so with such effectiveness that the opposing factions united in electing the very peacemaker, representative of the imperial policy of religious neutrality, a personality loved by all. That a boy had taken the initiative with the cry: "A. bishop!" is considered a legend even by Paulinus (Vita, 6; cf. Rufinus, Hist. eccl., II, 11; Socrates, IV, 30; Sozomen, VI, 34; Theodoret, IV, 6). The various attempts to escape the unexpected charge are quite credible in a catechumen and a Roman official (Vita, 7-9; Ep., 21, 7; Ep., 63, 65); even the emperor’s assent was required. He not only consented but also guaranteed the tranquility of the city (Vita, 9; Ep., 21, 7). Then A. accepted, recognizing in the wonderful universal consensus the will of God. He prepared for Baptism, received it, as had been agreed (Vita, 9), from a Catholic bishop (30 November 374), and having received the other Orders in the following week, he was consecrated bishop on 7 December 374. The assent of all the bishops, despite Canon 2 of the Council of Nicaea against neophytes, was well justified by the extraordinary circumstances (Ep., 63, 65).
The new bishop, although he immediately manifested his distinctly Catholic character by transferring from Cappadocia some relics of the last Catholic predecessor, St. Dionysius (Basil, Ep., 197), for the moment prudently avoided dogmatic controversies, studying thoroughly the most intricate questions under the guidance of the priest Simplician, and above all attending to the internal reform of the clergy (cf. De Off., I, 1-22) and to the promotion of the ascetic life. His preaching on the ideal of virginity provoked a religious movement throughout Italy and as far as Mauretania (De virginibus, I, 57, 59), and the books De virginibus and De viduis, with which he inaugurated his activity as an ecclesiastical writer (377), increased its effect. He himself, by renouncing his goods in favor of the Church of Milan and by the ascetic life of his family, set an
A splendid example (Vita, 38). Fasting, assiduous prayer, study and meditation characterize his private life, while his room is accessible to all who need spiritual and bodily assistance, and his sermons, delivered with inner fire and perfect form, draw all to him (Augustine, Confessions, V, 13; VI, 4). His ascetic thought is Greek, deriving from Athanasius, Origen, Philo, and later Basil; but his life, his manner, and his moderation are Roman, and everything is pervaded by a very personal interiority, hitherto too little studied. To this contemplative period of his early years belong, it seems, his works De paradiso, De Cain et Abel, and De Noe.
The year 378 marked its end with the death of his brother, to whom he erected a lasting monument in the form of funeral orations De excessu fratris, a moving document of fraternal love and Christian hope. In the summer, Pope Damasus summoned him, almost certainly, to the Roman Council, held against the accusations of the antipope Ursinus and the Jew Isaac. The synodical letter to Emperor Gratian, Et hoc gloriae (P. Constant, Epist. Rom. Pont., I, Paris 1721, pp. 523-29), betrays in its thought and language the inspiration of the bishop of Milan. And this was perhaps A.’s first contact with Gratian, who at that very moment asked him for a brief summary of the Trinitarian faith. In the last months of 378, A. responded with the first two books De fide, inaugurating a new phase of his life: the open refutation of Arianism and his relations with the emperors.
3. First phase of the anti-Arian and anti-pagan struggle (379-84): A. and Gratian; the theologian. As in his asceticism, so too in his theology A. derives his ideas from the great Eastern theologians already mentioned, and for Trinitarian theology especially from Didymus the Alexandrian. But comparison with Hilary shows easily the Roman and personal note of a clarity more persuasive and definitive than his models: an achievement of great importance for those times of turbulent dogmatic disputes, even though it came at the cost of almost completely sacrificing the profound speculation of the Greeks. For the emperor, this theology without problems meant the convergence of a new religious policy: he recalled the Catholic bishops banished by Valens (d. 9 Aug. 378), still tolerated the mitigated Arians, but from that point on proscribed the extremist Arians, namely the Eunomians (Socrates, V, 2; Sozomen, VII, 1; Theodoret, V, 2), and a personal meeting with A. in the summer of 379 led to the law Omnes vetitae, which prohibited public worship to all heresies (Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 5, 5). Theodosius, taken on as colleague by Gratian on 19 Jan. 379, followed his example and established the Catholic faith of the Roman Church as the sole public religion of the empire (Cunctos populos, of 27 Feb. 380). Under A.’s influence followed a series of laws not only against heresies but also against public pagan worship.
Thus, almost suddenly, A. became the foremost champion against Arianism and against ancient paganism. But opposition did not tarry: the Arian bishop Palladius of Ratiaria wrote against the first two books De fide; Julian Valens of Poetovio, in league with the antipope Ursinus, stirred up the Milanese against him. A. defended himself in a long series of sermons, published in 380 (De fide, III-V) at Gratian’s request. Around Easter of 381 the emperor transferred his residence from Trier to Milan, where by now an ever closer collaboration developed with A. The treatise De Spiritu Sancto, a thorough proof of the divinity of the third divine person, seems to have been presented to the emperor at this very moment.
On 3 Sept. 381 (a date to be maintained according to the ancient manuscripts) a council of bishops of northern Italy gathered in Aquileia. Gratian had promised it to two Arian bishops of Illyricum as a general council, but A., in full agreement with Pope Damasus (cf. Dissertatio Maximi, ed. F. Kauffmann, Aus der Schule des Wulfila, Strasbourg 1899, pp. 86-87), had persuaded the emperor that it would make no sense to hold an ecumenical council to judge the orthodoxy of two bishops of very little repute (cf. Gesta concilii Aquileiensis, 4: PL 16, 917). Indeed, the aforementioned Palladius of Ratiaria (Dacia) and Secundianus of Singidunum (Moesia), after brief consultation by the synod, were declared heretics. The synodical letter Benedictus (Epist., 10) asked Gratian for state assistance for their deposition; two others, Provisum and Quamlibet (Epist., 11 and 12), recommended to him an intervention against the antipope Ursinus, now a common enemy of A. and Damasus, and for the harmony of the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch, whose factions had implored the synod’s aid. Gratian acceded to the case of the antipope, leaving the other matter to A. himself. Thus, trusting too much in the false information of the intrusive bishop of Constantinople, Maximus, he wrote that unfortunate letter Sanctum (Ep., 13) to Theodosius, directly attacking the decisions of the Constantinopolitan Council approved by Theodosius on 30 July and learned of in Milan around mid-September. This was the first contact between the two great figures. Theodosius took offense, and instead of granting A.’s request for a general Roman council (Ep., 13, 6), he again convoked the Eastern bishops in Constantinople, while at the same time or shortly thereafter Damasus with A. and the most important bishops of the West sat in Rome (summer 382). Better informed than before, they recognized the election of Nectarius made at the First Council of Constantinople, but not that of Flavian of Antioch, and they composed the so-called Tomus Damasi, probably under A.’s special influence (cf. P. Galtier, in Rech. de scienc. relig., 26 [1936], pp. 385-418; 563-79). To the same year belongs De incarnationis dominicae sacramento, a response to Palladius, to the Dissertatio Maximi in edition, and to the Apollinarians, who had now appeared in northern Italy, but also a new attack on the First Council of Constantinople for its primatus honoris in canon 2: this is the meaning of De Incarn., 32 ff.
The same close contact with Damasus was evident in the anti-pagan polemic of 382-83. Gratian, under A.’s inspiration—who from this point onward sought to realize with logical consistency the ideal of the Christian empire—suppressed the imperial title Pontifex Maximus (Zosimus, IV, 35 ff.), removed the altar of Victory from the curia of the Roman senate, abolished the priestly colleges and the exemptions of the Vestal Virgins, whose revenues were confiscated. Two embassies came to Milan: one led by Symmachus, prefect of the city, to the emperor to protest and request the repeal of the decrees; the other from Pope Damasus to A., on behalf of the Christian senators. The first was not even received by Gratian, since A. had already presented the ecclesiastical opinion (Epist., 17, 10; Relatio Symmachi, 20).
The violent death of the emperor soon after (25 Aug. 383) seemed to destroy everything. The court of the twelve-year-old Valentinian II was under the influence of his Arian mother Justina. But soon the need was felt for the moral authority of the bishop of Milan. The usurper Maximus, under the guise of protector, had invited Valentinian to come to his court at Trier. With tact, Justina asked A. to go on a diplomatic mission to Trier, to gain time and to set a trap for the bishop. Instead, he immediately recognized the opportunity to oblige the young emperor for the advantage of the Church and accepted. Without doubting the sovereignty of the
Protector over Britannia, Gaul and Spain, whose sovereignty was acknowledged even by Theodosius himself, succeeded in inducing Maximus for the time being to abandon his plan (Epist., 24, 4-7). In the summer of the following year (384) the mission bore its first fruits. Valentinian, against the unanimous opinion of his consistory, decided in favour of A.’s sentence when Symmachus advanced his new and celebrated plea against the anti-pagan legislation of the deceased Gratian (Epist. 17 and 18 of A.; Relatio Symmachi; cf. De obitu Valentiniani, 19).
4. Final victory in the anti-Arian struggle (385-87): baptism of St Augustine
Justina’s reaction against A.’s growing influence was not long delayed. Certain Mercurinus, an Arian bishop of Durostorum in Moesia (7), deposed by Theodosian legislation, came to Milan (probably towards the end of 384), perhaps summoned by Justina herself. The change of his name to “Auxentius” (Sermo contra Auxentium, 22) was a programme in itself. Justina requested for him a basilica from A. (spring 385). But when the crowd learned that A. had been summoned to the court on this matter, it flocked in great numbers before the palace, so that the bishop himself had to be begged to calm II. He did so and for the moment obtained the withdrawal of the request (Sermo c. Aux., 29). Yet a law of 23 January 386 (Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 1, 4) threatened with death anyone who dared hinder the freedom of worship of the partisans of the semi-Arian symbol of Rimini, and shortly afterwards the previous year’s request was repeated. A. resolved to oppose it without any concession. Forming a synod with the neighbouring bishops, he shut himself up with them and the faithful in the Porziana basilica in the adjoining buildings and sent a clear refusal to the court. The bishop was invited to compromise; A. refused (Epist., 21). A long siege of the Basilica followed. To keep up the people’s enthusiasm A. had them sing his hymns and psalms in two choirs (cf. St Augustine, Confess., IX, 6-7; Vita, 13; Sermo c. Aux., 34) and addressed them tirelessly: the Sermo contra Auxentium, and probably also the De Iacob, date from those days. During Holy Week the demands and pressures of the court redoubled. Yet passive resistance won the day: on Good Friday (3 April) the troops withdrew and with them the demands (Epist., 20). The unexpected turn had yet another reason: Maximus had begun to pose as the liberator of the Catholic Church against the court of Milan (cf. Collectio Avellana, in CSEL, 35, nos. 39-40) and had complained of being deceived by Valentinian, giving notice of his intention to come into Italy with his troops. What would A. think of this? Justina, to keep him away from Milan for a long while, hoping also to take the wind out of Maximus’s sails, offered A. a second diplomatic mission. A. saw through the game, but the religious cause had to be freed from that political friendship of the usurper: only thus can one explain why he accepted this time too. Indeed, he took advantage of his meeting with Maximus (summer 386) at Trier to reproach him with all his sins and to break off all relations with him openly. Expelled from Trier, he urgently reported to Valentinian, foreseeing the imminent war (Epist., 24). Did the embassy therefore fail? Perhaps so, in Justina’s sense, not in the bishop’s, who detached his cause from both political factions. Openly he now threatens divine vengeance upon the murderers of Gratian (Exp. Ps., 61) and upon usurpers (Apologia Davidis, I, 6, 26 sqq.); he holds up to Valentinian the example of penitent David (IV, 1-20) and dedicated that Apologia to Theodosius (summer 387).Yet amid all these cares that year 387 brought him a satisfaction of the greatest import for the whole Church: the baptism of the famous rhetorician of Tagaste, St Augustine, at Easter 387. A.’s eloquence and his allegorical method in expounding the Old Testament had been the incentive (St Augustine, Confess., V, 13; VI, 4).
5. A. and Theodosius. The Christian emperor (388-95). — In the spring of 388 Theodosius decided to march against Maximus, defeated him near Siscia and Poetovio (28 Aug.) and established himself at Milan. The bishop asked and obtained from him a wide amnesty for the followers of the usurper (Epist., 40, 25). But Theodosius avoided too close relations, perhaps conscious, as early as 381, of the contrasts between ecclesiastical and political opinions. Abstracting, that is, from his private and convinced membership of the Catholic Church, he considered himself entirely independent of it in his government; whereas A., while acknowledging the emperor’s independence in the non-religious sphere, also saw him as a member of the Church, which expected from him the guarantee of full liberty for bishops in their own sphere: positive aid, though never violent, against the enemies of the truth, observance of moral law and ecclesiastical discipline even in his imperial activity (Sermo c. Aux., 36; Epist., 10-14, 17, 18, 21 etc.).
Theodosius had issued a decree obliging the bishop of Callinicus on the Euphrates to rebuild a synagogue destroyed by Christians. A. opposed this first in a letter (Epist., 40), then publicly in a sermon, since he had not been granted an audience, and did not begin Mass until the emperor had formally declared that he withdrew the decree (Epist., 41: to Marcellina). Theodosius well understood that A. had overstepped the limits of the respect due to the emperor, and from the end of 388 until 390 he manifested his principle of full independence by a series of laws certainly unwelcome to the bishop (Codex Theodos., XII, 1, 121; XVI, 2, 27; 3, 1), while A., perhaps conscious of having drawn the bow too tight, retired to employ his leisure in bequeathing to the Church a series of his most important works: De officiis ministrorum (389-90), exhortations to the clergy, arranged according to the plan of Cicero’s work of the same name; Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam (c. 390), Sunday sermons of many years; Expositio Psalmi CXVIII, sermons of 389; De Paenitentia, two books against the Novatians (c. 388-89); De Ioseph, sermons of 388; De Helia, De Tobia, De Nabuthe, three sermons against the false use of wealth (389).
The end of 390 brought a complete change. Theodosius, against A.’s opposition, had in August decreed a three-hour massacre among the population of Thessalonica, for the murder in a riot of the imperial commander. Seven thousand persons were slaughtered without discrimination. A., in his admirable Epistle 51, with the most delicate tact made it clear to the emperor that he would not dare to celebrate the divine sacrifice in his presence unless he had first done public penance for the grave sin. Only after some hesitation did the emperor acknowledge A.’s reasons, accepted the penance and was reconciled by A. at Christmas 390. This is the true story. The rhetorical account of Paulinus (Vita, 24) gave rise to the legend of Theodoret (V, 17 sqq.) of the bishop stopping the emperor under the portal of the cathedral, a legend “less great than the history”, which marked the most memorable victory of moral and religious thought over all human greatness. From this moment the friendship between Theodosius and A. is sealed. The year 391 brings as its fruits laws against all gatherings for pagan worship and against sacrifices (Codex Theodos., XVI, 10, 10; 11; 5, 20). A. quietly occupies himself with the publication of contemplative works: in De patriarchis he sees the blessings of the patriarchs verified in the Church which opens to all nations and all wayfarers the safe haven of salvation; in De Isaac et anima he traces the soul’s path to union with the divine Word; in De bono mortis he describes its longing for the heavenly fatherland; in De mysteriis (elaborated on the basis of the stenographic De Sacramentis which has been preserved) he publishes the catecheses to the neophytes.
But the following year he was involved in other extremely delicate affairs: the Antiochene schism and the consequences of the death of Valentinian II. A council at Capua (winter 391–92), probably summoned at A.’s suggestion, tried in vain to settle the dispute between Evagrius and Flavian of Antioch (Epist. 56). Valentinian summoned A. to Vienne in Gaul to be baptized, but above all to be freed by him from the tutelage of the general Arbogastes, imposed on him by Theodosius after the victory over Maximus. Arbogastes forestalled A.’s arrival by having the emperor killed (15 May 392). The bishop’s delicate task was to deliver the funeral oration, held in August after negotiations with Theodosius (Epist. 53) and published in September under the title *De obitu Valentiniani*. Meanwhile Arbogastes proclaimed the Catholic Eugenius emperor (22 August 392), who vainly sought the support of the bishop of Milan (Epist. 57; Vita, 27, 31). For almost a year (autumn 393–94) A. imposed on himself a voluntary exile in Bologna and Florence (Epist. 61, 62) in order to avoid any contact with the new usurper. After Eugenius’ defeat at the Frigidus (6 September 394), Theodosius approved A.’s stance toward Eugenius and granted amnesty to the partisans of the usurper; but shortly afterward he fell ill and died at Milan on 17 January 395. In the funeral oration *De obitu Theodosii* A. portrayed in the deceased the ideal of unity between priesthood and empire, foreshadowing a fundamental medieval idea.
6. The last years (395–97). The metropolitan. — Surrounded by the veneration of all, even of distant pagans (Vita, 25, 36), A. continued his apostolate of the pen until his death: *De institutione virginis* (392), the *Exhortatio virginitatis* and *De fuga saeculi* (394), the *Explanatio in XII psalmos*, on which he died (Vita, 42), are his last works. Perhaps also a large number of his letters were published by him in those years (cf. Epist. 48, 7). Another broad field of action, besides the care of his own flock, was his relations with many bishops of northern Italy, where he exercised the functions of metropolitan, founding new dioceses and ordaining bishops (cf., e.g., Epist. 63). His zeal for that one and undefiled communion of the faithful (Epist. 12, 3) extended also beyond his metropolitan province, especially to Thessalonica and Illyricum (Epist. 15, 16) and even to the schisms of the East (Epist. 12–14, 56). His participation, however, in a certain synod of Sirmium, mentioned by Theodoret (Hist. ecc., IV, 7, 6–9, 9), whose date remains uncertain, is excluded already by the Trinitarian terminology of the synodal acts, certainly not Ambrosian. The ordination of Anemius of Sirmium by A. (between 375 and 380) is the only act that might be called quasi-metropolitan outside Upper Italy; but it is not known to us and it is even improbable that A. performed it in person (Vita, 11). The Councils of Aquileia and Capua were not Ambrosian synods but Western ones, summoned respectively by Gratian and Theodosius.
From the election of the new bishop of Pavia A. returned ill (February 397), and after a few weeks the physical strength of that frail body, sacrificed to the internal unity of the Church and the Empire, gave out. A. died at dawn on Holy Saturday, 4 April 397, immediately after receiving Holy Communion (Vita, 47). The Church, however, celebrates the day of his episcopal consecration (7 December). For the Ambrosian basilica, V. Milano.
L. O. SCRITTORE. — In his first work A. himself reveals the purpose of his literary activity: “necessitas maxime loquia Dei credita populi ferrere mentibus” (*De virginitibus*, I, 1, 1), that is, the sense of responsibility for the divine talent entrusted to him. Hence almost all his works are published sermons. And A. seems to emphasize this particular character of his writings, leaving in the text of his books some traces of the living word, such as “hodie, fratres, audistis,” etc. On the other hand, if these traces are lacking, one cannot simply conclude that the book in question is not a sermon delivered in speech. In two of his letters, probably published by him still in his lifetime (Epist. 47, 1–3; 48, 1–3), he describes the procedure for the edition of his works; and the *De mysteriis*, compared with the *De Sacramentis*, completes this information. Based on a draft or shorthand of his sermons, A. retains what seems suitable for publication but greatly modifies the manner of expression, dictating to his notary or, especially at night, writing himself; then he has it transcribed in fair copy, sometimes sends it to a friend for a kind of censorship, and then publishes II. But whether dictating or writing, he always
Ambrogio, santo — Meeting of St A. with the Emperor Theodosius. Panel by A. Bergamone (15th cent.).
Here now is the list of works according to the traditional division:
a) exegetical (mostly concerning the Old Testament): *Exameron libri sex*; *De Paradiso*; *De Cain et Abel*; *De Noe*; *De Abraham libri duo*; *De Isaac et anima*; *De Iacob et vita beata libri duo*; *De Ioseph patriarcha*; *De patriarchis*; *De interpellatione Iob et David*; *Apologia prophetae David, ad Theodosium Augustum*; *Enarrationes in XII psalmos Davidicos*; *Expositio in ps. 118*; *De Tobia*; *De Helia et jejunio*; *De Nabuthe*; *Expositionis evangelii secundum Lucam libri decem*. Lost: *Commentarii Esaiae*.
b) moral and ascetical: *De officiis ministrorum libri tres*; *De virginitus, ad Marcellinam sororem libri tres*; *De viduis*; *De virginitate*; *De institutione virginis et de s. Mariae virginitate perpetua*; *Exhortatio virginitatis*.
c) dogmatic: *De fide ad Gratianum Augustum libri quinque*; *De Spiritu Sancto*; *De Incarnationis dominicae sacramento*; *De paenitentia libri duo*; *De Sacramentis libri sex*; *Explanatio symboli ad initiandos*; and the fragment of the *Explanatio fidei*, reported by Theodoret (PG 83, 181–88).
d) rhetorical: *De excessu fratris sui Satyri l. duo*; *Sermo contra Auxentium, de basilicis tradendis*; *De obitu Valentiniani consolatio*; *De obitu Theodosii*.
e) Letters (of which only 91 remain).
f) Hymns (treated separately below).
IV. THE THEOLOGIAN AND THE MORALIST
A. never wished to be a theologian, for the simple reason that a Latin theology did not yet exist, and A. had neither the time nor the talent to create II. Yet in Trinitarian theology, which had only just begun to elaborate the relationship between the Father and the Son, the Ambrosian contribution is considerable: with the clarity and consistency of his terminology, he far surpasses all previous Latin authors, especially Hilary, and prepares the definitive formulas of Augustine. In the theology of the Holy Spirit, A. makes genuine progress, repeatedly alluding to the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son («Filioque»: cf. De Spiritu Sancto, I, 119–20; II, 12, 133–34, etc.). Through his Ambrosian hymns, Trinitarian formulas were deeply impressed upon the souls of the people. Through the Roman religious legislation, which he strongly influenced, the Nicene Creed became the faith of the Empire.In Christology, A. is the first Western writer to oppose Apollinaris of Laodicea, whose works he studied, as the critical edition of De Incarnatione in the CSEL demonstrates conclusively. His expressions on the two perfect natures united in the divine person of Christ were so felicitous that they were echoed by the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, by Leo the Great, and by many writers, including those of the East (cf. G. Galbiati, Della fortuna letteraria ecc., in Ambrosiana, Scritti di storia ecc., pp. 43–73). Expressions such as *ex persona hominis*, applied to Christ in accordance with a common linguistic usage also found in Hilary, mean nothing more than «as man.»
In the doctrine of redemption and grace, A. is frequently cited by the Doctor of Grace, Augustine (cf. Opera, ed. P. A. Ballerini, I, pp. xxix–xli). He does not yet distinguish between original sin itself and its consequence, concupiscence—a deficiency particularly evident in De mysteriis, 6, 32 («lotto pedum»!). Yet this distinction was not made by theology before Augustine. His theory, however, on the origin of moral evil in the free will of man already anticipates the speculations of his great disciple. As for sacramental theology, still so little developed in his time, his testimonies to the sacrificial character of the Eucharist are extremely frequent (cf. S. Lisiecki, Quid s. Ambrosius de S.ma Eucharistia docuerit, Breslau 1910, p. 85 ff.).
Penance is sacramental yet public in the works on penance imposed by the bishop following a secret confession (cf. De paenitentia, I, 16, 90; II, 10, 91–97). This unique sacramental penance is permitted only once in a lifetime (De paen., II, 10, 95). His baptismal theology is profound and beautiful (cf. De mysteriis, De Sacramentis), in which he emphasizes, among other things, the value of the Baptism of desire (De obitu Val., 51–53). Regarding his eschatology (J. Niederhuber, Die Eschatologie des hl. A., Paderborn 1907), it is worth noting that he tactfully avoided any trace of Origenism; the same seems to apply to his angelology, as well as to his theory on the veneration of saints and relics, all of which would merit further study (the work of F. H. Dudden, Life and Times etc., I, pp. 305–20, is insufficient). Finally, his ecclesiology is permeated, as we have already noted, by a vivid sense of the inner unity of the venerable communion of all Churches, which he sees as guaranteed by their union with the Roman Church (Epist. II, 4; De excessu fratris, I, 47; Epist. 42, 1, 12; Epist. 50, 7; De Sacr., III, 1, 5; Explan. in ps. XII, 40, 30, etc.; cf. B. Citterio in S. A. nel XVI centenario della nascita, Milan 1940, pp. 31–68).
As a moralist, A. is entirely in his element and at times displays a mastery comparable to that of St. John Chrysostom in castigating the moral maladies of his age, particularly avarice and lust. He insists on the administrative character of private property (De Nab., 12, 53; De off., I, 28, 132). He contrasts the weakness of the many with the attractive and comforting example of the voluntary virginity of the few; he links this ideal sacrifice with the thought of its satisfactory value for others: *«Virgo Dei donum est, munus parentis, sacerdotium castitatis», «Haec parentes redimat, haec fratres»* (De virg., I, 7, 32; II, 2, 16). This idea is grounded in the broader conception of the *«corpus Christi mysticum»* (e.g., De Cain, I, 9, 39; De paen., I, 15, 80–81; Exp. Luc., V, 92). A systematic moral theology is not found in his works. Not even in De officiis ministrorum (a title to be retained according to the best manuscripts) does he intend to provide one; rather, freely following Cicero’s *De officiis*, he arranges a series of exhortations to his spiritual sons and «ministers» of the altar (De off., I, 7, 24), and adopts from Stoic morality whatever is of universal human value, elevating it, though not always consistently, to the sphere of Christian humility and charity (cf. R. Thamin, S. Ambroise et la morale chrétienne au IVe siècle, Paris 1895; F. H. Dudden, Life etc., II, pp. 502–54).
V. THE HYMN WRITER
The hymns that St. Hilary had already attempted to introduce into the liturgy (cf. CSEL, 65, p. 207 ff.), perhaps in opposition to Arian propaganda, were so unpopular that only a few traces remain. Thus A. became the first and most effective hymnographer of the West. His meter—eight strophes of four lines in iambic dimeters, the *«metrum ambrosianum»*—served as a model for centuries to come (Isidore of Seville, De eccl. off., I, 6). However, this designation of his meter caused great confusion between hymns actually composed by him and others that merely followed his style.G. M. Dreves (*Aurelius Ambrosius «der Vater des Kirchengesanges»*, Freiburg in Br., 1893) and A. Steier (*Untersuchungen über die Echtheit der Hymnen des Ambrosius*, Leipzig 1903 [here the best edition of the 14 hymns, pp. 651–60]) have demonstrated that 14 are probably authentic; L. Biraghi (*Inni sinceri e carmi di s. A.*, Milan 1862) and A. S. Walpole (*Early Latin Hymns*, Oxford 1922) admit 18 instead. The certain ones are: 1) *Aeternae rerum conditor* (PL 16, 1409, no. 1; St. Augustine, Retract., I, 21); 2) *Deus creator omnium* (PL 16, 1409, no. 2; St. Augustine, Conf., IX, 12, 32); 3) *Iam surgit hora tertia* (PL 16, 1409, no. 3; St. Augustine, De Natura et Gratia contra Pelag., 63, 74); 4) *Intende qui regis Israel* (PL 16, 1410, no. 4; St. Augustine, Sermo 372, De nativ. Domini, 4, 3; Celestine at the Roman Council of 430: F. Labbé, *Concilia... III*, ed. Venez. 1725, col. 555); 5) *Illuminans Altissime* (PL 16, 1411, no. 5); 6) *Splendor paternae gloriae* (PL 16, 1411, no. 7; cf. St. Augustine, Conf., V, 13, 23); 7) *Aeterna Christi numeris* (PL 16, 1411, no. 8). Probably authentic: 8) *Hic est dies verus Dei* (PL 17, 1183, no. 20); 9) *Apostolorum passio* (PL 17, 1215, no. 71); 10) *Amore Christi nobilis* (PL 17, 1210, no. 64); 11) *Apostolorum subparem* (PL 17, 1216, no. 73).
**AMBROSE, Saint** – Woodcut reproduced in the Institutes of Vigevano (c. 1608).
(Not. Enc. Catt.)
(Not. Enc. Catt.)
(Not. Enc. Catt.)
(Not. Enc.
(Not. Enc. Catt.)
(Not. Enc. Catt.)
(Not. Enc. Catt.)
(Not. Enc. Catt.)
(Not. Enc. Cat.)
(Not. Enc. Catt.)
(Not. Enc. Catt.)
teologia oppresses, and the hymn loses its intensity, but elsewhere the inspiration remains vivid and warm, the universal sentiment; simplicity then becomes synonymous with pure perfection.» (A. Paredi, S. A. e la sua età, Milano 1941, p. 413). The time of composition remains uncertain. But it seems certain that some are earlier than the siege of the Basilica in 386 (cf. G. Lazzati, in S. A. nel XVI centenario etc., pp. 307-20).
VI. THE EPIGRAPHER
No ancient remains of Ambrosian inscriptions on stone have been preserved. But there is no doubt that A. composed them. The Lorsch collection (Vatican Palatine Codex 833, 9th cent.) preserves a compilation of Christian inscriptions made at the end of the 8th cent., and among these are three Milanese epigrams by A. (cf. G. B. de Rossi, Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae, II, part I, Roma 1888, pp. 162, 5; 161, 3; 2; [p. XXXV sg. “Pauciora, sed meliora Damasiana, sunt carmina Ambrosii...”]): the epitaph for his brother Satyrus in the basilica of S. Nazario (Uranio Satyro supremum, frater, honorem etc., 2 distichs), the dedicatory inscription of the same basilica of S. Nazario (Condidi Ambrosius templum Domini sacravit etc., 5 distichs), and the inscription of the baptistery of the basilica of S. Tecla (Octachorum sanctos templum surrexit in usus etc., 8 distichs).The doubt raised by Lejay (DACL, I, col. 1386) regarding the third epigram is unfounded; the words non expers ullus aquarum sanctus (cf. mss. 13-14) express a thought very familiar to A. (De Abrah., II, 11, 81: “omnis aetas peccato obnoxia et ideo omnis aetas sacramento idonea”; De paen., I, 2, 13: “omnes homines sub peccato nascimur, quorum ipse ortus in vitio est”; Exp. in ps. 118, 8, 30: “nemo sine sorde peccati”; cf. 16, 32; Expl. ps. 43, 78, etc.; cf. also F. J. Dölger, Zur Symbolik des altchristl. Taufhauses, in Antike und Christentum, 4 [1934], pp. 153-87).
Moreover, there are 21 “Tituli,” first published by Fr. Juretus in the Bibliotheca Patrum of M. de la Bigne (VIII, Paris 1589, col. 1195 sg.), from an ancient codex now lost, under the title: Incipiunt disticha s. Ambrosii de diversis rebus quae in basilica Ambrosiana scripta sunt. (The best edition is by S. Merkle, Die ambrosianischen Tituli, in Römische Quartalschrift, 10 [1896], pp. 185-222). These are 21 double hexameters, which were meant to be inscribed beneath as many representations of scenes from the Old and New Testaments. L. Biraghi, S. Merkle (loc. cit.), and C. Weyman (op. cit., pp. 35-42) defend the authenticity of the “tituli”; L. Traube (in Hermes, 27 [1892], p. 159) has shown that they already existed in the 9th cent., although attributed to Prudentius. The “arguments from silence” advanced by some art historians against the Ambrosian origin of the images do not seem sufficient to outweigh the very strong internal arguments in favor of the epigrams: the thoughts, language, and style are entirely Ambrosian.
almost complete up to 1933, pp. 557-75); F. H. Dudden, The Life and Times of St. Ambrose, Oxford 1935 (2 vols. with bibliography, pp. 515-24); O. Faller, Ambrosius der Verfasser von De Sarraumeutis, in Zeitwahr. f. Kath. Theol., 64 (1940), pp. 1-14; 81-101; Various Authors, S. A. nel XVI centenario della nascita, Milano 1940; A. Paredi, S. A. e la sua età, Milano 1941; O. Faller, La data della consacrazione vescovile di S. A., in G. Galbiati, Ambrosiana: Scritti di Storia, Archeologia ed Arte, pubblicati nel XVI centenario della nascita di S. A., Milano 1942, pp. 97-112; B. Altaner, Patrologia, Torino 1943, pp. 258-56 (extremely rich bibliography up to 1939). Otto Faller