PRIVATE SPACE AS THE SOCIAL CONTEXT

OF ARIANISM IN AMBROSE'S MILAN*

ONE of the more intriguing aspects of the social world of late
fourth-century Christianity is the private setting of heterodox or
non-imperially-sanctioned movements. Manichaeans, Donatists,

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

Pelagians, Luciferians, the followers of Priscillian, of Jovinian,
and a host of others all seem from time to time to have adopted,
either willingly or by necessity, the household or other private
space as the venue for their gatherings.1 Amongst these groups
which gathered in private were the Arians. Excluded by explicit
legislation or popular sentiment from the basilicas which were by
the end of the fourth century forming a militantly pro-Nicene
front, it was to the household or other private places that Arians
retreated, and from there that they engaged in a kind of ecclesi-
astical 'guerilla warfare' with pro-Nicene bishops and their sup-
porters. Ambrose's Milan provides a few snapshots of the skir-
mishes which were occurring in a variety of communities at
roughly the same time. References to household meetings in
Milan, either before or contemporary with Ambrose, provide a
means to reconnoitre the battle line drawn against opponents when
one or other party was in control of the city's basilicas. The front
gains fuller relief when placed in the context of contemporary
imperial legislation which proscribed the existence of private
meetings. This private social context also helps to explain more
fully than previous accounts of the dispute the Arian attempt to
expropriate basilicas during Holy Week, 386, and Ambrose's role
as patron and builder of basilicas.
Ambrose's letters describing the proceedings of the Council of
'Research for this paper was made possible through a grant from the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
1
For private Manichaean conventicles see, e.g., Augustine, De mor. Man. xx.
74; Em. De Stoop, Essai tur la diffusion du Manichiisme dans I'Empire Romain
(Gand 1909), 34 ff. For Donatists see, e.g. C. Th. xvi. 6, 4 (Ravenna) 405,. For
Pelagians see Peter Brown, 'The Patrons of Pelagius: The Roman Aristocracy
Between East and West', and 'Pelagius and His Supporters', in Religion and Society
in the Age of Saint Augustine (London 1972), 208—26 and 183—207. For Luciferians
meeting in Rome at the house of Macarius see, e.g., Libelius precum, (CCSL lxxix.
379). For Priscillianist* see the ecclesiastical canons of the Synod of Saragossa
(380 CE) condemning Priscillian for private meetings (esp. canons 1, 2, 4, and
8-Mansi, Sacr. Cone. iii. 365 ff.); Sulpitius Severus, Sac. His. 46, 48; Jerome, Ep.
exxxiii. 3; and the account of Priscillian's life in Henry Chadwick, Priscillian of
Avila. The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church (Oxford 1977), 9 ff. For
Jovinian leading a community in the homes of the well-to-do see Jerome, C. Jov.
n
> 37. '• 39; "I*0 Mansi, iii. 663 ff. Other groups are listed below.
O Oxford University Press 1994
(Journal of Theological Studies, NS, VoL 45, PL I, April 1994]
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ARIANISM 73
Aquileia in 381 provide some illuminating information concerning
the social context of Arianism in Milan from the mid to late 370s
onward, under the leadership of an otherwise unknown Arian
bishop named Julian Valens. Ambrose describes Julian in Ep. 10
as the bishop of Poetovio in Noricum who, shortly after succeeding
the pro-Nicene bishop, Mark, was compelled tofleehis homeland,
presumably as a result of the invasions of the Quadi and

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

Sarmations into Illyricum in 375. He has ended up in Milan
where, having gathered an Arian community around him, prob-
ably constituted of Illyrian refugees and Arian militia, he has
established a social network through what Ambrose alleges to be
illegal ordinations.2 In Ep. 11 Arian meetings are described in
more detail. Julian has allied himself with the anti-pope Ursinus
who is now in Milan after leaving Gaul where he had been in
exile. Together they try to throw the Milanese church into confu-
sion by holding 'secret assemblies, sometimes before the doors of
the synagogue, sometimes in the homes of Arians...'. Ursinus,
however, is unable to enter Arian assemblies openly, so he works
through their 'patrons and allies' in order to disrupt the church.3
Ambrose's reference to secret meetings in Arian homes is signi-
ficant because it calls into question the oft-repeated assertion that
the Arians had one or two of their own basilicas in which to meet
while Ambrose was bishop.4 The description of secret household
plotting against Ambrose's church presents the intriguing pos-
sibility that it was not opposing communities in their own basilicas
which were arrayed against one another in Milan, but rather that
2
Ep. x. 9—11, Migne, PL xvi. 983-4.
3
Ep. xi. 19—22, op. cit., 986: Qui [Ursinus] pltrumque...cum Arianis copulatut
atque conjunctus erat to tempore, quo turbare Mediolanensem Ecclesiam coetu detestab-
ili moliebatur cum Valente: nunc ante Synagogae fores, mine in Arianorum domibus
mitcens occulta concilia, et suos eis jungent; et quomam ipse aperte in eorum congreg-
ationes prodire non poterat, instruens et informant quemadmodum pax Ecclesiae turbar-
etur: quorum furore respirabat, quod eorum posset fautores et socios emereri. The
reference to the synagogue is intriguing but must be passed over for lack of
illuminating evidence; L. C. Ruggini in 'Ambrogio e le opposizioni anticattoliche
fra il 383 e il 390' Augustiniam xiv (1975), 409—49 offers a creative argument that
Ambrose's opponents formed a 'rainbow coalition' of Arians, Jews, and pagans,
but the evidence she cites is often too general to support her case. For the history
of Ursinus see especially Collectio Avellana (CSEL xxxv, xiii. 1 ff.); Ammianus
Marcellinusxxvii. 2.12 ff.; Rufinus, HEW. 10; Socrates HEW. 29 and the discussion
by Adolf Lippold in 'Ursinus und Damasus', Historia xiv (1965), 105—28 and by
Dale Kinny, S. Maria in Trastevere from its Founding to 1215 (Ann Arbor 1975),
37-54. Ursinus' efforts are consistent, as we shall see below, with his activities in
other cities.
* Thus, for example, Gino Traversi, Architettura paleocristiana milanese (Milan
1964), 10 ff.; Aristide Calderini, et. al., Storia di Milano I. Le origins e Veto Romana
(Milan 1953). 593-
74 HARRY O. MAIER
the opposition was between an Arian community, devising its
strategy and meeting for worship in private, and a bishop jealously
guarding the city's basilicas. This latter reconstruction better
accords with what we know about the relations between Milanese
Arians and Ambrose during the latter's episcopate and is consist-
ent with what can be reconstructed from the episcopate of
Ambrose's Arian predecessor, Auxentius.

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

The attempt of Milanese Arians to seize a basilica in which to
meet sometime during late 378 is best interpreted as an effort to
move Arianism from private into public space.5 Local Arians were
probably encouraged to make this bold move by the appearance
in Milan of the Arian court of the Empress Dowager Justina,
which had fled Sirmium after the rout of Valens in Hadrianople
in the summer of 378. Again, the publication by Gratian that
same autumn of a no-longer extant decree of toleration of hitherto
non-sanctioned movements would have convinced Milan's Arians
that the time was right to move from the household to the basilica.6
It was not unusual for Arians to gather in households or on private
estates when they encountered opposition from pro-Nicene
opponents, as they surely must have from bishop Ambrose in the
latter half of the 370s. Ambrose's depiction of the meetings of
Julian and his allies is similar to descriptions of Arian conventicles
found in the contemporary anti-Arian Eastern legislation of
Theodosius, which threatened with confiscation of property, the
removal of the ability to bequeath or receive by will, or fines those
who, wittingly or unwittingly, donated or hired their private prop-
erty—estates, villas, houses—to serve as the meeting places of
heretical groups.7 They are also not unlike contemporary Western
legislation which came from Gratian's court, though in these
instances the decrees were most probably anti-Donatist.8 Thus it
5
For the Arian seizure of the basilica and Gratian's response see De spir. tone.
i. 1. 19-21.
6
For a description of the contents of the toleration edict see Socrates HE v. 2
and Sozomen HE vii. 2.
7
C. Th. xvi. 1, 3 (Heraclea, 381); xvi. 5, 6-8 (Constantinople, 381); xvi. 5, 9
(Constantinople, 382); xvi. 5, 11-12 (Constantinople, 383); xvi. 5, 13
(Constantinople, 384); xvi. 5, 15 (Stobi, 388); xvi. 5, 17, 19 (Milan, 389); xvi. 5,
20 (Rome, 391); xvi. 5, 21 (Constantinople, 392); xvi. 5, 26 (Constantinople, 395);
xvi. 5, 30 (Constantinople, 396); xvi. 5, 36 (Constantinople, 399); xvi. 6, 2
(Constantinople, 377). These laws echo the legislation initiated by Constantine
which forbade meetings of heretics 'not in public merely, but in any private house
or place whatsoever' and ordered the confiscation of all heretical 'houses of prayer'
(Eusebius, V. Const., iii. 65).
1
C. Th. xvi. s, 4 (Trier, 376 or 378); xvi. 5, 5 (Milan, 379); for their anti-
Donatist character see Gunther Gottlieb, Ambrosius von Mailand und Kaiser
Gratian (Gfittingen 1973), 52 ff. These laws have traditionally been regarded as
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ARIANISM 75
is most likely that in 378 when the emperor attempted to rescue
his policy of even-handed dealings with Arians and Nicenes by
sequestering the basilica and excluding both parties from meeting
there, the result would have been a continuation of more private
social arrangements on the part of Arians which we can expect
were in place before the attempted occupation. Lacking a basilica
in which to meet, it would have been to the private conventicles

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

of the kind alluded to in the Theodosian legislation that Julian
Valens ordained priests and in such private churches that he and
his allies would have been compelled to meet. This reconstruction
of an Arian movement confined to private space gains a further
measure of support from evidence surrounding the attempted
appropriation of a basilica seven years later by the Emperor
Valentinian: at the climax of the battle for the basilicas during
Easter, 386, the young emperor appealed to Ambrose that he
ought to be able to have a church, a grievance difficult to under-
stand if the Arians had one or two of their own churches in which
to meet.9
More circumstantial evidence of a private setting for Milanese
Arianism may perhaps be found in Ambrose's commentary on
Luke's Gospel. It seems from Ambrose's descriptions that Arian
conventicles presented no little competition for the bishop. In a
sermon probably preached near the end of 378, after the debacle
of Hadrianople (which Ambrose interprets as a portent of the end
of the world) and the arrival of Arian refugees from Illyricum, he
warns his hearers of the dangers of contact and conversation with
Arian heretics.10 They are false prophets who seek to lead catechu-
mens and the baptized from the church. Ambrose exhorts his
listeners to cement their allegiance to the life of the true church
and to avoid conversation with heretics.11 In another sermon he
accuses the Arians of being like foxes, who, lacking a dwelling of
their own, prey on those who inhabit the household of faith and

directed against both Donatists and Arians (for the literature see op. cit.); the most
that can be claimed is that the descriptions in these decrees of Donatist activities
on private estates are analogous to what Ambrose describes.
9
Ep. xx. 19.
10
I am following the dating of Jean-Remy Palanque in Saint Ambroise et
I'Empire Romain (Paris 1933), 529 ff.
11
Exp. Luc. x. 10—14 (barbarian invasions), 17-18 (the last days), 28 (avoidance
of contact with heretics); see also vii. 50-54. Similarly, in his treatise De paradise
(58), usually dated between 375 and 378, Ambrose warns catechumens to avoid
contact with Arian teachers; see also De fide i. 6.47; De sacr. 13. Later, in 386, in
his sermon against Auxentius, Ambrose complains that the Arian bishop not only
steals sheep, he rebaptizes them (JSermo contra Auxentium 37).
76 HARRY O. MAIER
lay in wait for the faithful in their holes.12 Worse, they are wolves
who, not daring to enter into the dwelling of the sheep, await an
opportunity to lead the sheep from their shelter. 13 Their assem-
blies are not of God, but of a wicked spirit. 14 Only where Christ
inhabits the dwelling can the faithful find a place to enjoy hospital-
ity, but the presence of a heretical teacher disfigures the habitation
he occupies and the faithful are to flee from it.15 These references,

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

while not directly referring to Arian meetings in private spaces,
are best understood when read in the social context Ambrose
describes when complaining of meetings led by Julian Valens: the
Arians, excluded from the basilicas, gather together in private
conventicles around their own leaders, where they represent a
threat to the stability and strength of Ambrose's pro-Nicene
community.
The domestic Arian community under Julian Valens was not
unlike a household pattern of protest present, or at least promoted,
earlier in Milan's colourful ecclesiastical history. The Christian
community at Milan, according to tradition, had first met in
households and it was to households that some of its members
were encouraged to return after the Arian Auxentius became
bishop in 355. 16 Hilary of Poitiers, who with Eusebius of Vercelli
had attempted unsuccessfully to reinforce an anti-Arian front in
Milan in the 360s, complained in 364 in his treatise against
Auxentius that those who should know better are tricked into
believing that Arian christological titles are orthodox. As a result
they flock too readily to Arian churches.
Unum moneo: cavete antichristum: male enim vos parietum amor cepit,
male Ecclesiam Dei in tectis aedificiisque veneramini, male sub his pacis
nomen ingeritis. Anne ambiguum est, in his antichristum esse sessurum?
Montes mihi, et sylvae, et lacus, et carcares, et voragines sunt tutiores:
in his enim prophetae, aut manentes, aut demersi, Dei spiritu prophet-
abant. Absistite itaque ab Auxentio satanae angelo, hoste Christi,
vastatore perdito, fidei negatore. . .."
12
Exp. Liu., vii. 31. Palanque, Ambroise, 535 dates vii. 1—86 at the end of 386
as a passage describing the community around Auxentius, but it can also be read
as a description of the social setting of Arianism a decade earlier.
13
Exp. Luc., vii. 44—54, esp. 48—49.
14
Ibid., vii. 95 (impossible to date).
15
Ibid., vi. 68, around 380?.
16
For a discussion of the tradition which describes the early community meeting
in house churches see Fedele Savio, Gli antichi vescovi d'ltalia dalle origim al 1300
descritti per regiom La Lombardia. Parte I. Milano (Florence 1913), 60 ff. The
Datiana historia, a chronicle of Milan's ecclesiastical history composed between
800 and 1100, portrays the Milanese community meeting in a house church until
the second century {DH, ed. Biragus, (1848) ch. 5, pp. 20-21; ch. 11, pp. 33-39).
17
Contra Aux. 12, PL x. 616C.
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ARIANISM 77
Alongside outdoor gatherings Hilary holds before his readers
the more practical option of household meetings. He argues that
if the apostle Paul and early Christians did not rely on the favour
of hostile emperors to gather together the faithful, neither should
Milanese Christians take advantage of a false peace offered by
Auxentius and his imperial patron, Valentinian I. As an alternat-
ive, he holds up the example of early Christians meeting secretly

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

together in households under threat of persecution and in opposi-
tion to royal edicts.18 With good reason Auxentius had charged
Hilary and Eusebius of attempting to create schism in Milan.19
Clearly Hilary was struggling to reinforce the boundaries of a
protest community rooted in the household.20
If the majority of the Milanese Christians flocked to Auxentius'
churches, a loyal pro-Nicene faction nonetheless survived in
Milan. After the exile of their bishop, Dionysius, in 355 the pro-
Nicene community seems not to have consecrated a bishop to
replace him. Gaudentius, Bishop of Brescia, in a commemorative
sermon describes his predecessor Philaster (d. c.397) as guardian
(custos) of Milanese Nicenes during much of Auxentius' episcop-
ate. Gaudentius does not mention directly the setting of Philaster's
custodianship in Milan, but his description of the context of his
pro-Nicene leadership in the environs of Rome and north Italy
makes a household or some similar private setting reasonable to
assume. At Rome he won many over to the faith 'by public and
private disputation'; a 'faithful disciple of Christ he did not at any
time neglect to preach the word of God, passing through the
villages and strongholds (vicos et castella) of various regions'.21
The reference to work amongst castella is intriguing. In the earlier
empire the term denoted a military stronghold that was often
located alongside an unfortified village. By the end of the fourth
century, however, castellum is used more broadly to describe any-
thing from a fortified tower connected with a few farmhouses to
a heavily fortified villa. Interpreting Gaudentius' description in
11
Ibid., 3 (ibid., 611 A): Illi (i.e., the apostles) mami atque opere se alentex, intra
coenacula secrctaque coeuntet, vicos et castella gentesque fere omnes terra ac mart
contra senatusconsulta et regum edicta peragrantes, cloves, credo, regm coelorum
non habebant?
" Ibid. 15, (ibid. 617B, 618C); the charges, composed by Auxentius and
addressed to Valentinian, are included as an appendix to Hilary's treatise.
20
Hilary's exhortations make highly unlikely the suggestion of Paul Lejay,
'Ambrosien (Rit)', in Fernand Cabrol and Henri Leclerq (eds.) Dictioimaire d'arch-
iologie chrttiinne et de liturgie ("cited as DCAL) (Paris 1924), i, 1. 1385 that during
this period the pro-Nicenes met in an older Milanese basilica (the so-called 'basilica
vetus' or 'minor' of Ep. xx. 24) while the Aliens met in the newer one (the 'basilica
nova' or 'maior' of Ep. xx. 1).
21
'Sermo' xxi PL xx. 372B, cols 099—1000.
78 HARRY O. MAIER
the light of this later usage we can expect that Philaster was active
in a more private and rural setting not unlike that described in
later anti-Arian legislation.22
Possibly consistent with this pattern of protest, though much
less certain, is evidence descriptive of the same period concerning
the aborted attempt of Martin of Tours to establish an anti-Arian
beachhead in Milan. Sulpitius Severus describes how Martin,

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

having established a monastary there, was expelled by Auxentius
from the city.23 It is at least possible that this was a domestic
monastary of the type one discovers amongst aristocratic circles
of Rome from the second quarter of the fourth century onward
and to which Augustine alludes when describing his life at Milan.24
22
F o r the earlier use of the term see W . M . Ramsay, 'Studies in t h e R o m a n
Province Galatia', Journal of Roman Studies vii (1917), 2 6 1 . F o r later use and
archaeological examples see Ramsay M a c M u l l e n , Soldier and Civilian in the Later
Roman Empire ( C a m b r i d g e 1963), 140—51; also T . W . Potter, Roman Italy
(Berkeley 1990), 210 ff. T h e same phrase appears in Hilary's treatise against
A u x e n t i u s in a context which describes secret meetings of apostles (see n . 18
above). M u c h anti-heretical Theodosian legislation targets meetings of heretics
outside cities on landed estates (C. Th. xvi. 5, 8 (Constantinople, 381); xvi. 5, 12
(Constantinople, 383); xvi. 5, 14 (Thessalonica, 388); xvi. 5, 19 (Milan, 389);
xvi. 5, 20 ( R o m e , 391); xvi. 5, 34 (Constantinople, 304); xvi. 5, 36 (Constantinople,
399); xvi. 6, 2 (Constantinople, 377); see xvi. 2, 33 ( M n i z u m , 398) which describes
o r t h o d o x conventicles on landed estates). F o r a good discussion of estate churches
which also includes references to further primary a n d secondary literature for late
fourth-century Gaul, see Charles T h o m a s , Christianity in Roman Britain to AD
500, ( L o n d o n 1981), 156—66. T w o examples of orthodox figures w h o founded
estate churches in Italy are Sulpitius Severus and Paulinus of Nola. Severus built
a c h u r c h at his ancestral estate at Primuliacum (Paulinus of Nola, Ep. i. 1; xxxii.
3; cf. E. Male, La fin du paganisme en Gaule (Paris 1959), 61); Paulinus of Nola
built a church on his monastic estate at Nola (Ep. r x i x . 12—13; xxxJi. 17).
23
V. Mart. 6, PL xx, 164.
24
In De mor. eccl. cath. i. 70-71 he describes a lodging house of monastics
presided over by a priest. Conj. viii. 6.15 describes a domestic monastary at Trier
and another at Milan under the patronage of Ambrose. For the earlier period see
Rudolf Lorenz, 'Die Anfgnge des abendllndischen M6nchtums im 4. Jahrhundert',
Zeitschrift fUr Kirchengeschichte xv (1966), 3-4, who sees evidence of domestic
monasticism in Italy prior to the more traditional dating which assigns its origins
to the advent of Athanasius in Rome in 339. The household as the context for
early Italian monasticism is also investigated by G. D. Gordini, 'Origine e svillupo
del monachesimo a Roma', Gregorianum xxxvii (1956), 220 ff. Jerome, tracing the
origins of Italian monasticism to Athanasius, posits a domestic setting from the
start (Ep. cxxvii. 5 f.). Elizabeth A. Clark, 'Ascetic Renunciation and Feminine
Advancement: A Paradox of Late Ancient Christianity', Anglican Theological
Review lxiii (1981), 240 ff. outlines Roman domestic monasticism. For a full
discussion of literature and evidence of female domestic monasticism in Italy see
Anne Ewing Hickey in Women of the Roman Aristocracy as Christian Monastics
(Ann Arbor 1977), 13 ff. Evidence of contending domestic monastics who were
promoting conflicting doctrinal and theological points of view in Rome and beyond
is discussed most acutely by Peter Brown, 'Patrons', 208 ff.
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ARIANISM 79
In any case one can expect that Martin would have been as active
in Milanese households as he was at Tours when he became its
bishop a short time after his expulsion from Milan.25 This
evidence from the time of Auxentius shows that, when the shoe
was on the other foot and the Arians controlled the basilicas, it
was the pro-Nicenes who met or at least were encouraged to meet
in private households.

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

The passages cited from Ambrose's correspondence and ser-
mons, the attempts to move Arianism into a public basilica, and
the history of Milanese household meetings in the pre-Ambrosian
period introduce us to a social world of religious protest in which
private or household space was, and increasingly became, the
context of opposition over and against more public or imperially
sanctioned worship space. At least from 381 onward in the East,
the social setting of this protest was determined to a large degree
by an aggressively pro-Nicene imperial administration which was
coming to define orthodoxy spatially by making the network of
basilicas, martyrs' chapels, and other sacred sites the exclusive
domain of orthodoxy;26 in the West, where imperial sponsorship
of the Nicene cause was perhaps more tepid,27 it was the actions
of bishops like Ambrose that resulted in the exclusion of Arians
from more public meeting places. One of the unintended results
of these anti-heretical measures was the creation of a more private
network of meeting places—a heterodox topography, which would
have been difficult, at times impossible, to identify. Such house-
hold meetings came to represent a potentially serious threat to
imperially supported episcopal authority.28 Just how threatening

25
Martin performing miracles on the estate of Lupicinus (V. Mart. 8); Martin
en route to conduct healing at the household of Ruricus (ibid., 9); conducting
exorcisms in households (ibid., 17).
26
The policy was introduced by Constantine (see above, n. 7).
27
I am assuming that the argument of Gottlieb, Ambrosius, is basically correct,
namely that Gratian was nowhere near the vigorous supporter of the pro-Nicene
cause argued for in more traditional accounts. R. Gryson, 'Scolies Ariennes sur le
Concile d'Aquilee', SC 267 (Paris 1980), 114 ff. repeats the traditional estimation
of Gratian as a loyal patron of the Nicene cause. This account is called into
question by Yves-Marie Duval, 'La presentation arienne du concile d'Aquilee de
381' Revue d'hiitoire ecclisiattique lxxvi (1981), 317—331 and most recently by Neil
McLynn, 'The "Apology" of Palladius: Nature and Purpose', JTS 42 (1991),
52-76, who argues compellingly (72 ff.) that as late as 382 the Arian bishop
Palladius, exiled by the Council of Aquileia in 381, could still hope for a sympath-
etic hearing of his case from Gratian.
a
Robert Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity (Cambridge 1990), 138 ff.
in an otherwise excellent discussion of the creation of an orthodox Christian
topography in the later empire neglects to identify the heterodox topography which
existed alongside it and arose as its result.
80 HARRY O. MAIER
they could be can be seen from the role the household played as
the controversy between Arians and Nicenes developed in the
course of the fourth century. It was in households that either
party survived in times of disfavour and from the household that
each moved to seize power.29 Evidently, it was one thing to con-
demn an opponent, another altogether to remove him from the
community. At the time of Julian Valens, Arian or dissenting

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

communities dispersed in local households were not atypical.
Ambrose complains in Ep. 10.2 of Photinians gathering together
illegally at Sirmium, though their meetings are forbidden by
imperial decree. Again, from the Roman synod of 378 and
Emperor Gratian's response to its requests to deal with schismatic
bishops come descriptions of the activities of the dissenting
Ursinus and his supporters which would indicate a more private
setting of revolt. Ursinus, though in exile, travelled about
ordaining supporters in secret and inciting them to unsettle
churches.30 One of these, Florentius of Puteoli, removed from his
episcopal position after being condemned in an Italian synod six
years earlier, had returned to the city where he brought dissension
by holding illegitimate meetings.31 Though Ursinus was more
politically pragmatic than heretical, the more private network of
supporters and allies he gathered around himself is analogous to
what was occurring in Arian circles in Milan and elsewhere. The
danger of non-recognized leaders remaining in communities and

29
Theodoret (HE i. 1) has Arius going from household to household spreading
his ideas and causing ferment. Again he presents an unnamed Arian as hatching
plots c.341 in private homes in Antioch against pro-Nicene bishops (JiE ii. 7).
Sozomen ifiE iii. 24) states that upon the establishment of the pro-Nicene Paul
on the episcopal throne of Constantinople in 360, the deposed Arian bishop
Macedonius held church in private. In Alexandria, the murder of the Arian bishop
George in 361 ended in Arians being expelled from the churches and meeting in
private households (Sozomen HE v. 7). For Eunomians meeting in house churches
in suburban Constantinople see Sozomen HE vii. 17; also, Philostorgius, HE iii.
20, for Aetius at Alexandria teaching in private and Aetius living with him. Private
worship of pro-Nicenes earlier in the fourth century also presented a problem for
Arian bishops: in Antioch, when the Arian Leontius was bishop, Athanasius
communed with the supporters of the exiled Eustathius in private homes
(Sozomen, HE iii. 20; see also vii. 5 for Gregory of Nazianzus in Constantinople
in relative private when the Arian Demophilus was bishop). Ambrose (Ep. xiii. 2)
defending the consecration of bishop Maximus of Alexandria in 380 describes it
as taking place in his home because the Arians had control of the basilicas.
30
PL xiii. 579, 4.
11
Ibid., 579, 5 for the complaint of the synod; Gratian's response in Coll. Aveli.
xiii. 7 (CSEL xxxv. 56) provides a more detailed account of the schism. For a
synod at Rome in 373 or 374 and the condemnation in the 360s see Charles Pietri,
Roma Christiana. Recherches sur I'Eglise de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son
idiologie de Miltiade d Sixte III (311-440) (Paris 1976), i. 736 ff.
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ARIANISM 81
gathering the faithful together in private space helps to explain
the strikingly large number of imperial decrees directed against
private meetings of heretical groups (various shades of Arians,
Manichaeans, and so on) as well as the decrees and decisions of
fourth-century synods prohibiting household meetings of groups
judged as heretical.32 They indicate that Ambrose was not alone
in dealing with the headache of household meetings or recognizing

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

their danger. As bishops and emperors grew more aggressively
orthodox, the problem must have become more acute. The
descriptions by ecclesiastical historians of the period of private or
secret meetings of disfavoured conventicles indicate that the legis-
lative, episcopal, and synodal decisions directed against heretical
activities simply drove groups further underground.
More detail for this portrait of an underground network of
communities is provided by the extant Arian literature of the
period. The late fourth-century author of the Fragmenta Arriana
describes the effect of Nicene dealings with Arians when he com-
plains that those who call themselves orthodox invade Arian
churches and seize them.33 Maximinus, who headed an Arian
community probably in Illyricum, complains in his Dissertatio
contra Ambrosium (0.395), that imperially supported Nicenes deny
Arians the use of their basilicas and violently expropriate them.34
They thus show themselves to be heretics; their meeting places
are not churches, but synagogues of Satan.35 The results of such

" For anti-heretical legislation contemporary with Ambrose see above n. 7 and
C. Th. xvi. 1, 2 (Constantinople, 380); xvi. 5, 9 (Constantinople, 382—against
Manichaeans); xvi. 5, 14 (Thessalonica, 388—against Apollinarians); xvi. 5, 18
(Rome, 389—against Manichaeans); xvi. 5, 33 (Constantinople, 397—against
Apollinarians); xvi. 5, 35 (Milan, 399—against Manichaeans). For a discussion of
the development of this legislation see William K. Boyd, The Ecclesiastical Edicts
of the Theodosian Code (New York 1905), 33-71; also N. Q. King, The Emperor
Theodosius and the Establishment of Christianity (London 1961), 50 ff. (though the
argument on pp. 56 ff. that Theodosius made exceptions and granted Arian military
the right of public assembly is unconvincing). The conciliar literature is too
complex to discuss here and awaits fuller treatment; an example of a non-sanctioned
movement meeting in private is the case of the ascetic Eustathians who were
condemned at the Synod of Gangra in Paphlagonia (c.350) for holding private
meetings (especially canons 5, 6, and 11—Mansi, ii. 1095); see also canon 58 of the
Council of Laodicea in Phrygia (c.340-81) which condemns bishops and priests
who celebrate the eucharist in homes (text in C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils
of the Church, (Edinburgh 1878), ii. 322).
33
Fragmenta theologica ariana, Frag. 7 CCSL lxxxvii. V JOJ, p. 239. Michel
Meslin, Les Ariens d'Occident 335-430 (Paris 1967), 117 ff. identifies the author
as Palladius of Ratiara, who was tried and exiled at the Council of Aquileia in 381.
** CCSL lxxxvii. 310" 49, p. 170. For discussion of Maximinus' career see
Meslin, 92-99.
" Loc. cit., 31 r 52, p. 171; 306' 33, p. 163.
82 HARRY O. MAIER
measures are described by the fifth-century Arian commentator
of Matthew's Gospel, himself an exile.36 With language reminis-
cent of early second-century literature, the author describes Arian
bishops and teachers as wandering from city to city, seeking
reception by Arian conventicles which struggle to survive the
assaults of an aggressively pro-Nicene regime.37 A picture emerges
of a network of communities whose numbers are dwindling,

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

huddled together in the secrecy of their domiciles, threatened with
imminent persecution.38 Expropriation of basilicas has resulted in
a very fluid definition of what constitutes a church: since the
basilicas of Nicene communities are not truly churches and
because the pro-Nicene authorities have denied Arians access to
basilicas of their own, the true church is wherever the Arian faith
was proclaimed and where Arian clergy may find reception, that
is at any point along the unofficial network of communities which
we can expect existed outside basilicas.39
One gains the sense from reading the Opus Imperfectum that
the issue had long since been decided against its author and his
church. By the end of the fourth century heretical communities
M
Horn. 32 (PG lvi. 799); Meslin, Ariens, 163 ff. unconvincingly identifies the
author as Maximinus. Joseph H. A. van Banning, 'The Edition of the Arian Opus
Imperfectum in Matthaeum. Review and Prospects' Studia Patristica xx (1989),
70—75 argues that the document was originally written in Latin between 400 and
450 in the Balkans, near Constantinople. Whatever its origin, the document points
to a relatively secret network of Arian communities which arose as a result of
expropriation of their basilicas and persecution.
37
Horn. 26 (PG lvi. 770-71), esp. 770: Qui recipit prophetum in nomine
prophetae, mercedem prophetae accipiet. Et qui recipit justum in nomime justi,
mercedem justi accipiet. [Matt. x. 41] Porphetaedoctores intelliguntur...; justiautem
omnes Christian!. Prophetae ergo nomine voluit ostendere omnespraedicatores Christi;
justi autem nomine, omnem honu'nem Christianum; quia non solum doctorum est,
persequutionum causa vagari de civitaU in civitatcm, sed omnium Christianorum
perfectorum in Christo credentium. In nomine prophetae, id est, quasi prophetam
Christi. In nomine justi, id est, justum Christi servunt. Ut ergo habeat bonum opus
mercedem, duo haec occurrere debent, ut et Christianum recipiant, et quasi
Christianum, sive sacerdotem, sive laicum. . ..Quid vero est, Qui accipit prophetam
in nomine prophetae, mercedem prophetae accipit? et qui recipit justum in nomine
justi, mercedem justi accipiet? Hoc est, qualem mercedem habet qui peregrinatur,
talem mercedem habet tile, qui suscipit propter Deum peregrinantem. Cf. Didache
xi—xiii.
u
For exile from church buildings see Horn. 46 (PG lvi. 800, 896) 49 (907-
anti-Christ 'obtinere loca Ecclesiarum sancta sub specie Christf); for persecution,
Horn. 5 (684-85); 14 (755); 31 (794); 46 (894); 48 (900).
19
Horn. 43 (op. cit., 876): the cathedra does not make the priest, but the priest
the cathedra; 7 (673): where there is true faith, there is the church and true
Christian priests; 47 (898—99): human temples are made with stones, God's temple
is made by the confession of the elect (also 10 (686); Horn. 26 (771): domestici fidei
(i.e. Arian wandering priests) seek refreshment as they wander from city to city.
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ARIANISM 83
of believers which met in households or rented places, rather than
in officially recognized meeting places, especially those hallowed
by the presence of martyrs' relics, were increasingly coming under
attack and stripped of legitimacy by the state. This may especially
be seen in the studied efforts of the authors of successive waves
of anti-heretical legislation from the 370s onward to avoid ascrib-
ing the title ecclesia to heretical gatherings.'40 In places like Milan,

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

where non-sanctioned conventicles probably coexisted outside
more grandly monumental, imperially erected basilicas, their
illegitimacy would have been experienced more profoundly.41 As
we shall see, Ambrose contributed to the creation of an illegitimate
private heretical topography in Milan by expending much energy
to assure that Milanese basilicas would remain the exclusive
domain of the pro-Nicene community.
It is in the context of the increasing illegitimacy of private Arian
gatherings that the famous battle during Easter 386 between the
imperial court and Ambrose over the basilicas is best understood.42
40
T h e o d o s i u s ' Cunctos populos ( C Th. xvi. i, 2) establishes a legal p r e c e d e n t
b y refusing to ascribe t h e title ecclesia to m e e t i n g places of heretics. G r a t i a n ' s
decree of 379 (xvi. 5, 5) forbids t h e a d o p t i o n of t h e titles of b i s h o p , priest, and
deacon b y heretical clergy. T h e a u t h o r of xvi. 5, 52.5 (Ravenna, 412) slips and
uses the title ecclesia to refer to heretical conventicles. In ecclesiastical usage, a
similar distinction appears in t h e catechetical instruction of Cyril of J e r u s a l e m ,
w h o , w r i t i n g in 3 4 7 - 8 , instructs c a t e c h u m e n s w h e n arriving in a city not to ask
w h e r e 'the h o u s e of t h e L o r d ' is, for heretics possess these; r a t h e r one is to inquire
after the location of ' t h e catholic C h u r c h ' (Cat. xviii. 26). F o r further discussion
of t h e u s e of t e r m ecclesia b y t h e F a t h e r s see F . G . D o l g e r , ' K i r c h e als N a m e fur
d e n christlichen K u l t b a u ' , Antike und Christentum vi (1041), 161—195.
41
F o r t h e p r o m o t i o n of imperially sanctioned Christianity by the erection of
m o n u m e n t a l basilicas see R i c h a r d K r a u t h e i m e r , ' T h e C o n s t a n t i n i a n Basilica',
Dumbarton Oaks Papers xxi (1967), 115—39.
*2 I am assuming the one-year chronology of the basilica dispute argued for by
O. Seeck, Geschichte det Untergangt der antiken Welt (Stuttgart 1921), v. 201 ff.
and Palanque, Ambroise, 511-14, though revised slightly by J. H. Haeringen, 'De
Valentiniani II et Ambrosio. Illustrantur et digerunfur res anno 386 gestae',
Mnemosyne Tertia Series, 5 (1937), pp. 28—33, 152—58, 220—48. The position is
summarized by Andrew Lenox-Conyngham, 'The Topography of the Basilica
Conflict of A.D. 385/6 in Milan', Historia xxxi (1982), 353-63, at 354-56. The
major difference from the chronology of Seeck and Palanque is that the long siege
of Ambrose's basilica described in Ep. xxi together with the Sermo contra
Auxentium are seen to follow rather than precede the attempted appropriation of
the so-called Portian basilica described in Ep. xx. This position is made compelling
by the fact that in Ep. xx. 10 Ambrose challenges Valentinian to send him into
exile, but in Sermo i. 15 he refuses to comply with an order of exile. The difference
is significant because the revised chronology shows that the real issue behind the
dispute over the basilica was not initially the breaking of Ambrose's power (which
is often assumed to be the chief motivation of the imperial court's demand—see
below). It was only after the failure to seize the Portian that the court directly
attempted to remove Ambrose.
84 HARRY O. MAIER
Various commentators of the struggle have focused on the dispute
as a clash between the powerful and sinister personality of Justina
and the resolutely orthodox character of Ambrose.43 Such an
analysis rests to a large degree on the appraisals of the primary
sources, which vilify Justina as motivated by deceit and the desire
to break the power of Ambrose.44 Personality must have indeed
had much to do with the dispute. But it is too superficial to

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

portray the events leading up to and including the siege of the
basilica solely as the outcome of a clash of personality. When
Justina and her entourage arrived in Milan in 378 they did not
have a church in which to meet and so probably met in the
imperial palace, thereby perpetuating the pattern of meetings
already initiated by Valens.45 The lack of a basilica became particu-
larly problematic after 384 when they won a bishop for themselves
43
Thus Angelo Paredi Saint Ambrose. His Life and Times, trans. M. Joseph
Costelloe (Notre Dame 1964), 145, who argues that the dispute was motivated by
the empress's attempt to break what appeared to her to be the tyrranical hold of
Ambrose on Milan. F. Homes Dudden, The Life and Times of St. Ambrose (Oxford
1935), p. 270, argues that the attempt to gain the Portian was motivated by Justina's
megalomania and her desire to lessen Ambrose's political power; Palanque, op. cit.,
140, labels Justina 'the Catherine de Medici of Arianism'l Hans von Campenhausen
in Ambroshis von Mailand ah Kirchenpolitiker (Berlin and Leipzig 1929), 191 ff.,
also arguing that the dispute was primarily motivated by Justina's personal ven-
detta against Ambrose, manages to move beyond personalities when he argues that
the dispute expressed a conflict between Western views of ecclesial authority and
Eastern caesaro-papism, but tends at that point to turn the dispute into a debate
one might overhear in a theological seminar.
44
Especially Rufinus HE ii. 15—16 (PL xxi. 523—4) who himself was expanding
on the interpretation of Justina's character provided by Ambrose (especially Ep.
xx. 18): Cum interim Justina..., Arianae haereseos alumna, impietatis suae venena,
quae, vivente viro, suppresserat,filio deceptofidenter aperuit. Igitur apudMediolanum
potita, [coepit] conturbare Ecclesiarum statum ....Sed quamvis ilia jfezabel spiritu
pugnaret armata, resistebat tamen Ambrosius Eliae virtute repletus et gratia; similarly
Paulinus V. Amb. xii—xiv; less vigorously, Theodoret HE v. 13; Sozomen HE vii.
13. Such protrayals are of course to be expected from pro-Nicene authors of
the period.
45
Similarly Paredi, 244—45: 'The Arians were able to get along without a basilica
since their meetings were not so large that they could not be held in one of the
rooms of the imperial palace...' By 386 there is no trace of Julian Valens and we
may conjecture that he had already left Milan when Auxentius arrived there two
years earlier. Given Ambrose's complaints in 381 concerning hi» activities (especi-
ally the reference to Valens' 'patrons \fautores] and allies'—see n. 3 above) it is
almost certain that Valens found allies in the imperial court, though the precise
nature of the relationship is unknown. With respect to the palace there is no longer
any trace of it, though there is a consensus that it was located within the city walls
in the south-western corner of the city not far from present-day San Lorenzo (see
Aristide Calderini, et al. Storia de Milano I. Origini e I'eta Romana (Milan 1953),
549 ff.). N. Dual, 'Les palais impiriaux de Milan et d'Aquilee. Realite et mythe',
Antichite Altoadriaticht iv (1973), I5i-8,esp. 151-55 presents a careful discussion
of the meagie literary evidence.
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ARIANISM 85
in the person of Mercurinus Auxentius, who had been removed
from his seat in Durostorum the previous year by Theodosius
and had found refuge at the Milanese court.46 His adoption of the
name Auxentius, probably after his arrival in Milan, a title that
must have connoted for the Milanese populace a hardy and ten-
acious Arianism, may reveal that the exiled bishop had great
aspirations and that it was finally he who was instrumental in

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

catapulting the court to appropriate a church to house the Arian
community. But even before Auxentius' arrival, the court was
probably piqued by events unfolding around it. Theodosius' legis-
lation against Arians and their private meetings perhaps caused
some embarrassment. More certainly vexatious will have been
Gratian's rescript of 378, which promised a redoubled effort to
exile schismatic clergy and gave judicial authority over ecclesiast-
ical affairs to Damasus and his pro-Nicene allies47 (a policy
Ambrose was quick to remind the Arian court of).48 Felt still
more acutely will have been the discomfort arising from
Ambrose's appeal to Gratian on behalf of pro-Nicene bishops
gathered at Aquileia in 381 to bring a stop once and for all to the
private meetings of dissenting and Arian Christians around schis-
matic and Arian clergy in Milan and elsewhere:49 if Gratian was
not, on the argument of Gunther Gottlieb and others, zealously
pro-Nicene, he was even less inclined to act on behalf of the Arian
cause. In any case, Gratian's lack of enthusiasm for taking up the
Western Nicene cause against Arianism was more than made up
for by Ambrose who was, as we shall see, from 375 onward
engaged in an aggressive campaign of erecting and consecrating
exclusively pro-Nicene basilicas.
While Ambrose was most certainly a gadfly to Milanese Arians,
a more crucial issue for the Arian community was a means of
achieving a measure of legitimacy for itself in a religio-political
arena which from the court's perspective was at best uncertain
and at worst (with the pro-Nicene imperial usurper Maximus to
the north and the militantly orthodox Theodosius to the east)
weighted dangerously in favour of the anti-Arians. From the
perspective of the Arian court the struggle over the Portian was
an attempt to move Arianism out of a private setting into the
44
In Ep. rxi. 8 Ambrose indicates that Auxentius was bishop when he arrived
at Milan (see also Sermo c. Aux. 15); Campenhausen, 203 ff. provides other
biographical details.
47
Coll. Avell. xiii. 10-14 (57-58).
** Cf., e.g., Ep. xviii. 1 where he reminds Valentinian of the policy established
by Gratian.
** See especially Ep. xi.
86 HARRY O. MAIER
more public space of the basilica in order to heighten its social
profile and strengthen its local position. It is instructive that when
Ambrose counters the right of the court to possess its own basilica,
the argument is couched in terms of the tribute one owes the
emperor:50 the assertion (and denial) of the imperial right shows
that behind the play of personalities was the deeper issue of the
legitimacy of an Arian imperial court to worship openly in an

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

official church.
From Ambrose's perspective the migration from palace to basil-
ica was especially dangerous. It was, after all, from the same
imperial palace three decades earlier that the Arian priests Valens
and Ursaciu8, supported by Constantius, had concluded their
campaign against Athanasius and pro-Nicene bishops.51 This had
resulted in the exile of Dionysius, Bishop of Milan, the occupation
of Milanese basilicas by Arians, and the establishment of an
impregnable Arian beachhead in Milan under the episcopate of
Auxentius.52 For Ambrose, who (unlike his pro-Nicene predeces-
sor) could look east to legislation which was increasingly defining
orthodoxy spatially and who had hoped when Gratian was alive
to achieve the same result in the West,53 the isolation of the Arians
in private space was a means, if not of completely removing the
threat of Arianism, of at least limiting it and assuring that there
would remain amongst the Milanese faithful a high degree of
suspicion concerning the community's legitimacy.
On 23 January 386 legislation was introduced at Milan which
was designed to reverse any limitation of Arianism by conferring
the right of assembly on those who adhered to the statement of
faith of Ariminium of 359 and by threatening with punishment
anyone who tried to keep Arians from meeting.54 This decree has
often been interpreted as an attempt to trap Ambrose and provide
a pretext for exiling him55 or as an overture to the siege of
Ambrose's basilica presumed to have occurred before Easter (both
explanations put forward as further evidence of Arian megalo-
50
Sermo 3 1 - 3 3 ; also Ep. x x . 19 and t h e discussion of this passage below.
51
Hilary, Liber I ad Constantium 8 ( P L x. 564A) provides a first-hand account
of the events; see also Sulpitius Severus, Hist. Sacr. ii. 39; Constantius also had
Felix ordained in the palace as pope to replace Liberius (Athanasius, Hist. AT.
75); Mansi, iii. 248-49.
" For a good description of the events associated with the episcopate and exile
of Dionysius see Savio, n a ff.
55
As may be seen for example in his synodal letter of 381 to Gratian in which
he encourages the emperor to enforce his laws against the assemblies of Photinians
and to uphold the decrees of the synod against Arians (Ep. x. 11—13).
14
C. Th. xvi. 1, 4.
15
Campenhausen, Ambrosius, 204-6; Palanque, Ambroise, 146.
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ARIANISM 87
mania).56 With respect to the former position, behind the scenes
manoeuvring on the part of Ambrose against the Arian community
should not be ruled out, though there is no explicit evidence of
this. The latter position is weakened somewhat if the siege was
after instead of before Easter.57 The authors of the decree must
certainly have formulated the law with some anticipation of
Ambrose's opposition. However, the removal of the bishop was

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

not its primary intent: it was rather published to ease the transition
of Milanese Arianism from the palace or other private space into
a basilica. Further, the threat of punishment is to be explained
less as means for eliminating Ambrose than as a preventative
measure designed to avoid a recurrence of the popular uprising
which was inspired by the Arian court's request for a basilica in
the winter of 38s,58 a revolt the court did not want to see repeated
with the usurper Maximus to the north, awaiting a pretext to
invade Italy.59
This legislation in place, the Arian court made its move during
Holy Week 386 and attempted to expropriate the basilica nova
(probably the cathedral, San Tecla) and the Portian basilica.60 In
the latter case it could not have made a better choice to win
imperial and religious legitimacy for the Arians. The scholarly
consensus concerning the identity of the Portian is that the basilica
was San Lorenzo, a church whose design and grand monu-
mentality attest to its originally intended use for the imperial
court.61 Especially with the decree of January 386 behind him,
54
Thus Paredi, Ambrose, p. 245.
57
As is argued compellingly by Haeringen, 'Valentiniani', 230—40.
M
The events are described in Ambrose's Sermo contra Auxentium, 29.
59
For Maximus' disapproval of Valentinian's pro-Arianism and for orthodoxy
as a pretext for invasion see Theodoret HE v. 14; Nisi clementiat, Coti.Avell. xxxix.
60
Ep. xx. 1; there is not room to rehearse the sequence of events during Holy
Week, 386; they are narrated in Paredi, 248 ff.
61
For the identification of the Portian with San Lorenzo see A. Calderini,
G. Chierci, and C. Cecchelli, La basilica di S. Lorenzo Maggiore in Milano (Milan
1951), 181 ff, 246 ff. Dale Kinny in "The Evidence for the Dating of S. Lorenzo',
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians (cited as JSAH) xxxi (1972),
92-107 provides further arguments for making the same identification and goes
on to argue that it was built sometime shortly after 355 and that, being near the
palace, it was originally intended for use by the Arian court. Suzanne Lewis, 'San
Lorenzo Revisited: A Theodosian Palace Church at Milan', JSAH xxxii (1973),
197-222 also argues that San Lorenzo was a palace church, but incorrectly dates
the complex after 386; similarly, Richard Krautheimer, Three Christian Capitals
(Berkeley 1983), 90 ff. who suggests an alternative date of 375. For official churches
of palaces in other capitals at this time see: Theodor K. Kempf,
'Grundrissenentwicklung und Baugeschichte des trierer Domes', Das MUnster xxi
(1968), 1-32; Wayne Dynes, 'The First Christian Palace-Church Type', Marsyras
xi (1962), 1—9 (for Antioch, Constantinople, and Ravenna); G. Brusin, Gli scavi
di Aquileia (Udine 1934), 177—79 (for Aquileia); Krautheimer, Capitals, 13 ff.
88 HARRY O. MAIER
Valentinian was acting completely within his right as emperor to
seize the basilica as imperial property.62 As is well known,
Ambrose's response to Valentinian's assertion of his imperial right
was to argue that the basilicas did not belong to the emperor, but
to God.63 Ambrose was thus arguing for the existence of a sacred
space which was outside imperial control, a distinction he had
been aggressively promoting as a builder and consecrator of

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

churches, and one which had great implications for the status of
the Arian community in Milan. But however much Ambrose
was theologically and liturgically astute, the young emperor was
probably less convinced of the impropriety of his actions by the
bishop's arguments concerning the relationship of church and
state than by the unanticipated resistance of the crowd which
occupied the city's basilicas.64 Fearing the eagerly orthodox and
bellicose Maximus, the Arian court could not afford a violent
appropriation of the Portian. One discerns a plea on the part of
Valentinian when, at the climax of the dispute, the young emperor
tries to convince Ambrose to hand over the Portian by arguing
that even he ought to have a basilica.65 The exchange betrays an
impending crisis of legitimacy not only for the court but for
Milanese Arianism. Fully entitled to the grandeur of San Lorenzo
by imperial right, Valentinian and Justina were forced to lead the
Arian community in a humiliating retreat back to the palace.
Shortly after these events, the court acted again, this time directly
against Ambrose, first by summoning him to the Consistory,
presumably to exile him, and secondly by besieging the newly
constructed Ambrosian basilica.6* It is at this point that the
struggle for Arian legitimacy is turned into a direct assault against
Ambrose, whose removal is now recognized as the means of clear-
ing the way towards the possession of a basilica. Failing once
again to achieve their ends, it is at the palace that we last encounter
Milanese Arians, smiling wryly at the convenient discovery of the
bones of Gervasius and Protasius just outside the basilica

62
For a discussion of the emperor's rights in the dispute see Kenneth M.
Setton, Christian Attitudes Towards the Emperor in the Fourth Century Especially
as Shown in Addresses to the Emperor (New York 1967), 149 ff; Dudden, 271-2;
for rights of imperial confiscation of property to the res privata generally see
A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284-602 (Oxford 1986), i. 411 ff.
63
Ep. xx. 7-8.
64
See Ep. xx. 13 for a description of the occupation of the basilicas.
" Ep. xx. 19 (PL xvi. 1041-2): Mandatur derdque: Trade basilicam. Respondeo:
Nee mihi fas est tradere, nee tibi accipere, imperator, expedit.. .Iterum dicitur
mandasse imperatorem: Debeo et ego unam basilicam habere.
" For this order of events see Haeringen, 'VaJentiniani', 229—48; for the
summons cf. Ep. xxi; for the description of the siege cf. Sermo c. Aux. 10 f.
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ARIANISM 89
Ambrosiana shortly after its consecration, and accusing the bishop
of concocting miracles with hastily invented relics, or inviting him
to debate.67 But the failure to secure the Portian and, later, to
dislodge Ambrose from his basilica, had dealt a profound blow to
Milanese Arianism. At best the community could linger on as a
movement confined to private space.
The discovery of the bones of Gervasius and Protasius near the

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

basilica Ambrosiana was Ambrose's coup de grace. A short while
after the debacle of the court, Ambrose 'with great presentiment
of some sort of divine sign', unearthed the remains of these mar-
tyrs and deposited them in his own basilica Ambrosiana, which,
coincidentally, had just been consecrated.68 Ambrose was thus
able to draw on an increasingly popular devotion to the saints and
'rewire', as Peter Brown puts it, this enthusiasm so as to empower
more ardent support of him and Nicene orthodoxy. His innovative
removal of the relics from their original resting place and their
deposition under the altar where he presided won powerful invis-
ible patrons for himself and his interpretations of the faith.69 The
'circuitry' was completed when he ensured that he too would be
deposited upon his death under the altar where he himself had
celebrated the eucharist.70
Ernst Dassmann and Peter Brown have correctly identified
Ambrose's anti-Arian strategy in his promotion of the cult of the
saints. Not mentioned, however, is the fact that this was the climax
of a campaign waged for over ten years to assure that Ambrose's
basilicas would remain the exclusive domain of his brand of ortho-
doxy and that Milanese Arianism, if it was to survive at all, would
be forced to retain its more private character.71 We gain a fuller
understanding of this broader strategy by looking at Ambrose's
role as a patron of the church. Like other bishops of his time,
especially those of aristocratic origin, Ambrose was not only a
67
Ep. xxii. 16—17; Paulinus, V. Ambr. v. 15: after describing the ridicule of
Arians, he goes on in v. 18 to summarize the efforts of well-placed Arians to
engage Ambrose in debate.
a
Ep. xxii. 1 (PL xvi. 1062: Statimque subiit vcluti cujusdam ardor praesagii);
less vaguely, Augustine (Conf. 9.7; De civ. Dei 22.8) and Paulinus V. Amb. v. 14
ascribe the discovery to divine revelation.
69
The Cult of the Saints (Chicago 1981), 36 ff. Brown builds his case on the
results of the ground-breaking study of E. Dassmann, 'Ambrosius und die
MBrtyrer', Jahrbuch fUr Antike und Chrittentum xviii (1975), 49—68.
70
Ep. xxii. 13; Paulinus, V. Amb. x. 48.
71
This in turn was part of a larger strategy to place pro-Nicene clergy in cities
throughout Liguria, Aemelia, and the Padanian Valley: for references and discus-
sion see Pietri, 748—50. That Ambrose's appointees were not without local Arian
opponents may be inferred from exhortations to win people over to a Nicene point
of view (e.g. Ep. iv. 3; Ep. ii. 27).
90 HARRY O. MAIER
spiritual leader, but also a civic patron.72 When he died in 397,
he had constructed at least two basilicas (San Nazaro or the
Basilica Apostolorum and Sant' Ambrogio or the Basilica
Martyrum), and another one was planned (San Simpliciano or the
Basilica Virginum).73 Most interesting is the fact that the first two
of these were constructed within seven years of each other at
precisely the time when the Arian court was at Milan. San Nazaro

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

was laid out in 382 and Sant' Ambrogio was consecrated, as
already noted, in late spring, 386.74 Notable also is the apparent
haste with which these were erected, as may be seen from the

72
For a full discussion see Bryan Ward Perkins, From Classical Antiquity to the
Middle Ages. Urban Public Building in Northern and Central Italy A.D. 300-850
(Oxford 1984), 50 ff. John Matthews, Western Aristocracies and the Imperial Court
AS). 364—435 (Oxford 1975), 189 f., 361 ff. Ambrose nurtured ties of patronage
not only by building but also by supporting pro-Milanese economic policies which
won for him powerful land-holding allies. In the struggle over the basilica it is
these people who are targeted with astronomical fines and imprisonment {Ep. xxi.
7). For further discussion of the identity of this group and its allegiance to Ambrose
see L. C. Ruggini, 'Ambrogio di fronte alia compagine sociale del suo tempo' in
Giuseppe Lazzati (ed.) Ambrosius Episcopus. Atti del Congresso internazionale di
studi ambrosiam...ig74 (Milan 1976), ii. 230—65, esp. 258—61; also, idem, Economia
e societa neW 'Italia Annonaria.' Rapporti fra agricoltura e commercio dal IV al VI
secolo d. C. (Milan 1961), 85 ff., 106 ff.
71
He is attributed with another basilica, San Dionigi, by a late medieval refer-
ence. The basilica is alleged to have been constructed sometime after 374—5 when
Ambrose had received from Basil (££. cxcvii) the remains of Dionysius, the pro-
Nicene bishop and predescessor of Auxentius, who had died in Cappadocia after
being exiled in 355 for his refusal to subscribe to Arianism. If this tradition is
true, it is further evidence to support the case that Ambrose's patronage of churches
was motivated by an anti-heretical concern: the construction of a basilica in honour
of a martyr for the Nicene faith would have given a clear message to local Arians
under the leadership of Julian Valens, who would have arrived in Milan about the
time that the basilica was erected, that the public church was the domain of
Ambrose's brand of orthodoxy. He has also been credited with the construction
of the octagonal baptistry at San Tecla. Given the dispute with Arians over the
three-fold name, if Ambrose was the one who built the baptistry this could also
be evidence of anti-Arian propaganda; that Arian (re-)baptism was a point of
contention in Milan may be concluded from Ambrose's exhortations to catechu-
mens and his polemic against Auxentius (see above n. 11 for passages). For discus-
sion of San Dionigi see Calderini, Storia, p. 610 and Gino Traversi, Architettura
paleocristiana Milanese (Milan 1964), 83—9. Traversi also dates the baptistry
between 378—86 (p. 122); the other possible date is c.350, when the basilica was
constructed. For a full discussion of the baptistry and its relationship to the basilica
see A. de Capitani d'Arzago, La china maggiore di Milano (Milan 1952).
74
For the dating of San Nazaro see A. K. Porter, Lombard Architecture (New
Haven 1916), ii. 632 ff.; Traversi, op. cit., 100 ff.; Suzanne Lewis, 'The Latin
Iconography of the Single-naved Cruciform Basilica Apostolorum in Milan', Art
Bulletin Ii (1969), 205—19, esp. 207 ff.; also idem, 'Function and Symbolic Form
in the Basilica Apostolorum at Milan', JSAH xxviii (1969), 83-08, esp. 92 ff.
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ARIANISM 91
75
materials used and the poverty of construction. Several reasons
have been suggested for Ambrose's haste: the need to accommod-
ate a swelling Christian population and to goad the luke-warm in
faith to increased devotion76; the motivation to furnish an imperial
capital with monuments77; the desire to celebrate the Western
victory over Arianism, won at Aquileia in 381.78 But there was, I
suggest, another more crucial reason: the desire to promote his

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

orthodox cause by establishing once and for all Milanese basilicas
as the exclusive domain of the Nicene cult. If Theodosius in the
East published decrees to ensure the exclusion of Arians from
churches, Ambrose in Milan achieved the same end by other
means.
When he laid out the foundation for San Nazaro in 382, it was
as a cruciform church, the first basilica of its type to appear in the
West. The design betrays a polemical concern, for it was probably
modelled after Constantine's Apostoleion in Constantinople. Like
its prototype it housed relics of the evangelists which had probably
come as a gift from Theodosius.79 It was constructed on the
premier thoroughfare leading to Rome, a monumental porticoed
street, on the ceremonial route of the imperial adventus.80 The
construction and location of a basilica whose model was an imper-
ial monument in a city patronized by the militantly pro-Nicene
emperor, Theodosius, as well as the gift of relics from the Eastern
patron of orthodoxy, must have given a clear message to those
meeting outside Ambrose's basilicas; just as in Constantinople,
Arians were excluded from public churches and were being forced
to meet in private, so in Milan there would never be room for
Arians in the monumental space of the city's official churches.81
A similar message would have been communicated by
75
Thus Krautheimer, Capitals, 77 ff.
76
Traversi, ArMtettura, 83.
77
Ward Perkins, Antiquity, 52 ff.
7
* Lewis, 'Iconography', 206—9; Lewis builds her case on the more traditional
and increasingly unsustainable assumptions that in 381 Gratian was a devoted
patron of the Nicene cause and that vis-a-vis Arianism the Synod of Aquileia was
for the West what the Council of Constantinople was for the East.
79
Krautheimer, Capitals, 80 with notes which cite the primary evidence.
80
For discussion concerning the significance of its location see E. Villa, 'Come
risolse S. Ambrogio il problems delle chiese alia periferia di Milano', Ambroshts
XJO"i (1956), 37.
" For the retreat of the Arian bishop Demophilus and his community from his
cathedral in Constantinople to somewhere outside the city and the exclusion of
Arians from the city's basilicas see Socrates HE v. 7 and Sozomen HE vii. 5; given
the quick succession of imperial decrees emanating from Constantinople from 380
onward it seems likely that Demophilus was one of those who re-established his
community on a private estate.
92 HARRY O. MAIER
Ambrose's arrangements to have himself deposited after his death
beneath the altar of his own basilica Ambrosiana. The same con-
clusion would have been be drawn, if the medieval tradition is to
be trusted, from the deposition of the remains of Dionysius, exile
and effectively martyr for the Nicene faith, in the so-called Basilica
Salvatoris.
In addition to these more symbolic features, each of these

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

basilicas was consecrated in a ritual which was explicitly anti-
Arian.82
By 386, when Ambrose's conflict with Arianism reached its
climax, he had placed and consecrated explicitly pro-Nicene
monuments along the perimeter of Milan's walls at three strategic
points of the compass; with the posthumous completion of San
Simpliciano the circle was complete.83 When placed in the context
of this vigorous campaign to erect pro-Nicene monuments, the
imperial court's attempt to win for itself an official meeting place
is perhaps best interpreted as an attempt to beat Ambrose at his
own game. Its failure to do so must have been a dramatic vindica-
tion of Ambrose's cause. The bishop's building and liturgical
campaign effectively guaranteed architecturally and sealed ritually
the exclusion of Arians from the religious space of the city's
basilicas and condemned them to worship in private.
In the spring of 387 the imperial court retreated from Milan
before the invading forces of Maximus. By the autumn of 388
82
As far as I am aware, this is the earliest evidence of an explicitly anti-heretical
consecration prayer for a church. It is based on the eucharistic prayer of the same
rite, but with the addition of two allusions which are anti-Arian: omm caligine
haeretice obscuritatis abttena,...ut...constanter in sanctae Trimtatis unitate et fide
catholica perteverent. For the complete text see Giovanni Mercati, 'Antiche reliquie
liturgiche Ambrosiane e Romane', Studi e testi vii (Rome 1902), 21—27, at 23. For
the dating of the rite as contemporary with Ambrose see Paul Lejay, 'Ambrosien
(Rit)', 1438. That Ambrose had already consecrated basilicas in Milan (presumably
San Nazaro and probably also San Dionigi) may be seen in the request of the
Milanese populace to consecrate the Ambrosian 'sicut Tomanam basilicam dedices.'
(Ep. xxii. 16; PL xvi. 1066) Paulinus, V. Amb. x. 48 (PL xiv. 31), describes a
previous consecration more explicitly where he states that Ambrose had already
consecrated the 'basilicam apostolorum (i.e. San Nazaro), ubi pridem sanctorum
apostolorum reliquiae...depostiae fuerant. . ..'. For consecration of churches in this
period generally see P. de Puniet, 'Dedicace des Eglises', DACL 4, 1, 374 ff., esp.
380 ff. I am grateful to the Rev. Dr. Richard E. Leggett for suggesting this fruitful
avenue of investigation.
" For the position of San Dionigi see Calderini, Storia, p. 610; if this location
is correct it was on the major thoroughfare leading eastward; Sant' Ambrogio is
located on the western side of the city, at the site of one of the Christian com-
munity's most celebrated cemeteries; San Simpliciano was built along the major
road leading north to Comum; San Nazaro, of course, to the south (also on a
cemetery site).
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ARIANISM 93
Valentinian was a convert from Arianism. In the same year, Justina
died. In a sermon on Luke's Gospel, which was probably preached
around this time, Ambrose celebrated the serene calm which had
settled upon Italy now that the Arian storm had passed.84 In
Milan it had been a storm which raged mostly outside Ambrose's
basilicas in more private circles but whose clouds had hung omin-
ously over the bishop's pro-Nicene community for some thirteen

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Memorial University of Newfoundland on August 1, 2014

years. While leaders like Julian Valens and Mercurinus Auxentius
met with their communities in more private space from where
they orchestrated their opposition to Ambrose, the bishop did
what he could to create public sacred places that would remain
orthodox. That he devoted so much energy to establishing ortho-
doxy in a public domain is an indication of the danger of an Arian
community which stubbornly survived for over a decade in private
space, and the degree to which sacred space was coming to func-
tion as a source of legitimation and authority in the last decades
of the fourth century.
HARRY O. MAIER
** Exp. Luc. ix. 32.