Letter 71: I write to you about a matter that has long concerned me: the speed with which imperial sentences are carried out.

Ambrose of MilanEmperor Theodosius I|c. 385 AD|Ambrose of Milan|Human translated
imperial politics

Ambrose to the Emperor Theodosius.

I write to you about a matter that has long concerned me: the speed with which imperial sentences are carried out.

Your Clemency issues decrees in the heat of righteous anger — and the anger is often justified. But by the time the decree reaches the executioner, the anger has passed and the emperor would wish it undone. Yet it is too late: the sentence has been carried out, the man is dead, and no amount of imperial regret can restore him.

I therefore propose — not as a novel idea but as the recovery of an ancient wisdom — that a period of delay be imposed between the issuing of a capital sentence and its execution. Thirty days, at minimum [this suggestion was later enacted by Theodosius as law, becoming one of the most celebrated acts of his reign]. Let the emperor's anger cool. Let further investigation occur. Let the condemned appeal. And if, after thirty days, the sentence still seems just, then let it be carried out.

This is not weakness. Weakness is the inability to control one's own power. Strength is the ability to restrain oneself when restraint is costly. The emperor who delays a sentence shows greater mastery than the one who executes it immediately, because the first has mastered himself and the second has mastered only his enemy.

God himself is patient. "He is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love" (Psalm 145:8). If the Judge of all the earth delays his final judgment to give sinners time to repent, should not the judge of the Roman Empire do the same?

Consider this, most merciful Emperor, and act as your name suggests: with mercy.

Farewell.

Human translationNew Advent (NPNF / ANF series)

Related Letters