Saint Ambrose of Milan (340–397) was a military governor turned Christian bishop. As such, he was concerned about the conduct of the priests under him. He wrote his tract On the Duties of the Clergy, in order to encourage his priests to live virtuous lives. In doing so, he copied the pattern, many of the arguments, and even some of the illustrations of Cicero’s work, On Duties (read about it here).
The structure of both books is the same. As Ambrose explains it: “The philosophers considered that duties were derived from what is virtuous and what is useful, and that from these two one should choose the better” (1.9.27). Both authors explain what is virtuous in the first book, then what is useful in the second, and then how to deal with a conflict between the two in the third.
In explaining the conflict between the two, Ambrose and Cicero are very similar. Ambrose says, “Let not, therefore, expediency get the better of virtue, but virtue of expediency” (3.6.37). Again, “True expediency does not therefore exist where virtue loses more than expediency gains” (3.6.44). Cicero says, “When men detach the useful from the honourable, they undermine the very foundations of nature” (On Obligations, 119).
Pursuing Justice
They are also very similar in their instance on the active life. Both men believed that virtue must have an outward face. The virtuous person does not hide in seclusion but seeks justice for the whole community. As Ambrose says, “We must think it a far more noble thing to labour for our country than to pass a quiet life at ease in the full enjoyment of leisure” (3.3.23). Cicero says, “you should embark on activities which are of course important and highly useful, but are in addition extremely taxing, full of toils and dangers which threaten both life and the many strands that compose it” (24). Activity not passivity is the characteristic of virtue. Continue reading “Ambrose & Cicero on the Virtue of Serving the Community”
“I hate politics!” If I’ve heard this once, I’ve heard it a thousand times. Politics is maddening for some, intoxicating for others. It’s hard to watch the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of political parties and the ensuing conflict it produces. At the same time, we can’t help watching it like we can’t help slowing to see a wreck on the side of the road.
Paradise Lost is an epic like no other. In terms of imagination, language, and insight, I am not sure what can compare to it. I am in the process of slowly reading through it. Book 1 begins with Satan’s “after action report” following his fall from heaven. 
Humans rate their own ideas too highly. They hold on to them stubbornly. They defend them valiantly. They stand by them faithfully, even when powerful evidence is brought to bear against them. They do this because these ideas are “theirs” and not because these ideas are correct or even plausible.