Letter 50019: Reply of St. Ambrose to the Memorial of Symmachus, in which after complimenting Valentinian he deals with three points of the Memorial. He replies to his opponent's personification of Rome in a singularly telling manner, and proves that the famine spoken of by Symmachus had nothing to do with the cessation of heathen rites.

Ambrose of MilanEmperor Valentinian|c. 380 AD|Ambrose of Milan
barbarian invasioneducation booksfamine plaguegrief deathhumorimperial politicsproperty economicsslavery captivitywomen
Barbarian peoples/invasions; Theological controversy; Imperial politics
From: Ambrose, Bishop of Milan
To: Emperor Valentinian II
Date: ~384 AD
Context: The famous point-by-point rebuttal of Symmachus's Memorial — Ambrose dismantles the pagan senator's case for restoring the Altar of Victory with devastating rhetorical skill, including his celebrated counter-personification of Rome herself.

Ambrose, Bishop, to the most blessed prince and most gracious Emperor Valentinian.

Since the illustrious Symmachus, Prefect of the City, has petitioned your Grace to restore the altar removed from the Roman Senate house, and since you, Emperor — young in years but a veteran in faith — rejected the prayer of the pagans, I submitted my own response immediately. Having now received a copy of the Memorial, I reply to its assertions in full. I ask only that you expect not elegance of language but the force of argument.

The tongue of wise and studious men is golden, as Scripture teaches [Sirach 6:5]. Golden words, glittering and brilliant, dazzle the mind's eye with their beauty. But examine this gold closely, and you will find it gilt on the outside and base metal within. Turn the pagan case over in your hands: impressive phrases, weighty sounds, magnificent rhetoric — but defending what has no truth in it. They speak of God and worship statues.

Symmachus built his case on three pillars. First, that Rome herself demands the return of her ancient rites. Second, that the Vestal Virgins and pagan priests deserve their pay. Third, that the famine which followed the removal of the subsidies was divine punishment for abandoning the old gods.

On the first point: Symmachus puts words in the mouth of Rome herself. "Respect my gray hairs," she supposedly says. "Give me back the rites that have protected me for so long." It is an effective piece of rhetoric. But let me offer a different Roma — one who has learned from experience rather than clung to habit.

This Rome says: "I am not ashamed of my old age — but I am ashamed of my former superstitions. I blushed to worship stones. I reddened my temples with the blood of slaughtered beasts. I believed that gods of wood and metal could protect me. Experience has taught me otherwise. Hannibal came to my gates despite all the rites I performed. The Gauls seized the Capitol while the geese screamed and the priests chanted. My gods did not save me then. It was Roman courage that saved me — not Roman religion."

If the length of a custom proved its truth, the world should still worship the sun and moon. Every advance in human understanding has begun by overturning a custom. "Old age itself has nothing to be ashamed of," I grant Symmachus. But old age that refuses to learn has everything to be ashamed of.

On the Vestals: Symmachus praises them as paragons of chastity, maintained by public subsidy, bound by vows from childhood. I answer: the Church produces thousands of virgins who serve without pay, who chose their vocation freely as adults rather than being conscripted as children, and who are sustained by fasting rather than by estates and allowances. The Vestals number perhaps seven women. Our virgins are beyond counting. Which is the nobler institution? The one that buys compliance with privileges — or the one that inspires it with love?

On the famine: this is the weakest argument of all, and Symmachus himself must know it. The year the subsidies were removed, Africa produced an extraordinary harvest. The famine that followed the next year was caused by drought — a natural event affecting pagan and Christian territories alike. If the gods punished Rome for removing the altar, why did they punish their own provinces equally? The silkworm plague in Syria struck pagans as hard as Christians. The corn ships from Egypt arrived late because of weather, not because of theology.

Let me add one more point. Symmachus speaks as though paganism built Rome. But Rome's greatness was built by her soldiers, not her priests. Regulus did not consult the augurs before marching to Carthage. Scipio did not sacrifice to Victory before destroying it. The battles that made Rome were won by Roman arms, not Roman altars. And the rites that Symmachus defends — the very rites he claims protected the city — were in operation at every Roman defeat as fully as at every Roman victory.

The case fails on its own terms. The altar must not return. The faith of Christ does not share its house with demons, and the treasury of a Christian empire does not fund the worship of false gods.

Modern English rendering for readability. See the 19th-century translation or original Latin/Greek for scholarly use.

Related Letters