Event · AD 384 · Rome and Milan — the Senate house and the court
The Altar of Victory petition, AD 384
Symmachus petitions for the Altar of Victory — Ambrose answers, and the Senate’s last pagan appeal fails
**Two documents, argued against each other, both surviving — and the archive holds the reply as a text and the plea as its occasion.**
The Altar of Victory had stood in the Senate house since Augustus. Constantius II removed it in 357; Julian restored it; **Gratian removed it again in 382**, along with the state subsidies, the revenues of the Vestals and the priestly colleges — and refused even to receive the senators' deputation. **He also renounced the title *pontifex maximus*.** In 384 the Senate tried again, and **Quintus Aurelius Symmachus**, prefect of the city, put the case in his third *Relatio*.
## The plea
**Twenty short paragraphs, addressed to three emperors** — Valentinian, Theodosius and Arcadius — and argued not from theology but from custom, prosperity and the record of the Roman past. Its most quoted sentence is the one the fourth century is remembered by: ***uno itinere non potest perveniri ad tam grande secretum*** — “by one road alone men cannot come to so great a mystery.”
**The argument is conservative, not confessional.** Symmachus asks that the ancestral rites be left as they were found, and warns that the state's fortune was bound up with them. **He does not attack Christianity**, and the archive notes that: the Senate's last public case for the old religion is a plea for continuity, not a counter-creed.
## The answer
**Ambrose replied twice** — Letter 17 before he had seen the petition, demanding to see it and warning the emperor that granting it would be sacrilege; **Letter 18 after, answering Symmachus paragraph by paragraph.** He turns the appeal to the past against itself: Rome changed her rites before now, and prosperity did not follow the altars. **He also raises the stakes to the emperor personally**, telling a Christian prince what his communion depends on.
**And there was a counter-petition.** Ambrose could point to Christian senators who denied that the Senate had spoken for them — a claim about the composition of the House itself, and the point on which the plea failed.
## ⚠ Three cautions the record states
**The petition failed, but the altar's fate is not certain.** Symmachus's plea was rejected in 384; **whether the altar was ever returned to the Senate house afterwards is not established**, and the archive does not assert an ending it cannot document.
**The archive holds one side as a text and the other by report.** Ambrose's letters are in this library; **Symmachus's *Relatio* is not** — it is quoted here from the standard Latin, with the translation the archive's own.
**And the debate outlived the decision by twenty years.** Prudentius answered Symmachus in verse in about 402, and Libanius had made the pagan case in the East in the same year as the *Relatio*. **The archive records the exchange as the opening of a long argument, not as its conclusion.**
The sources for this event
Every source the record rests on, with what it says and what it cannot carry.
Ambrose of Milan, Letters 17 and 18
c. AD 384[**Letter 17** is written before Ambrose has seen the petition: he demands a copy, and tells the young emperor that to restore the altar would be to make him a party to sacrifice — with his standing in the church at issue. **Letter 18** answers the *Relatio* section by section: that Rome had changed her rites before and prospered; that the Vestals' privileges are not a measure of piety; that the appeal to antiquity proves nothing, since **antiquity itself changed.** ⚠ **The bishop is answering a document he obtained by demanding it**, and the archive notes the asymmetry: one party had the emperor's ear as a matter of course.]
*The Letters of Ambrose* — held in this library. English: H. de Romestin, NPNF 2nd ser. 10 (1896), public domain. ⚠ Letter 18 quotes Symmachus in order to refute him, so **the archive's access to the plea runs partly through its opponent.**
Read the source text →Symmachus, Relatio 3 — the petition for the Altar of Victory
c. AD 384“**Uno itinere non potest perveniri ad tam grande secretum.**” [“By one road alone men cannot come to so great a mystery.” Twenty paragraphs, addressed to three emperors, arguing from custom and the fortune of the state rather than from doctrine: that the rites under which Rome grew should be left as they were found, that the Vestals and the priesthoods should keep their revenues, and that **the ancestral practice of a city is not a thing a generation may cancel.** ⚠ Symmachus does not argue against Christianity; the archive records the plea as conservative rather than polemical, which is what makes its failure significant.]
**Not held in this library.** Latin: O. Seeck, *MGH Auctores antiquissimi* VI.1 (1883); the modern English of R. H. Barrow (1973) is in copyright. The rendering below is the archive's own.
Paulinus of Milan, The Life of Ambrose
c. AD 397[The biography that frames Ambrose's career as a series of confrontations with power — the Altar of Victory, the basilica crisis of 386, Thessalonica in 390. **The archive uses it for sequence rather than for judgement**, and notes that its author served the man he is describing.]
*The Life of Ambrose* — held in this library, written c. AD 422 by Ambrose's own notary. ⚠ A memoir by a subordinate: hagiography in form, and used here only for the shape of the bishop's public interventions.
Read the source text →Figures in this event (6)
- Quintus Aurelius Symmachus
- Ambrose of Milan
- Emperor Valentinian II
- Emperor Gratian
- Emperor Theodosius I
- Damasus I of Rome
Scholarship
- Prefect and Emperor: The Relationes of Symmachus, A.D. 384R. H. Barrow, 1973The Relationes with English translation and commentary — in copyright, named here rather than quoted.
- Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian CapitalNeil B. McLynn, 1994On the exchange as a political manoeuvre and on the counter-petition of Christian senators.
- The Last Pagans of RomeAlan Cameron, 2011Argues against reading the episode as a pagan revival, and reassesses Symmachus's circle.

