Title: The treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of Constantine
Author: Valla, Lorenzo
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of Constantine" ***
ON THE DONATION OF CONSTANTINE ***



THE TREATISE OF LORENZO VALLA ON THE DONATION OF CONSTANTINE



[Illustration: _The First Page of Valla’s Treatise, Codex Vaticanus
Latinus 5314._]



                             THE TREATISE OF
                           LORENZO VALLA ON THE

                         DONATION OF CONSTANTINE

                           TEXT AND TRANSLATION
                               INTO ENGLISH

                              [Illustration]

                      CHRISTOPHER B. COLEMAN, PH.D.
                PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN ALLEGHENY COLLEGE

                              [Illustration]

                                NEW HAVEN
                          YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS
           LONDON · HUMPHREY MILFORD · OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
                              M.D.CCCC.XXII

                           COPYRIGHT, 1922, BY
                          YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS



INTRODUCTORY


The Donation of Constantine—the most famous forgery in European history;
papal authority—since the triumph of Christianity the most perennial
question of European society; historical criticism—one of the most
comprehensive, most alluring, and most baffling enterprises of the modern
mind; Lorenzo Valla—the greatest of the professional Italian humanists;
these lines of study have converged, accidentally perhaps, to call forth
the following pages. Much of the subject matter which might properly
form their introduction I have already treated more fully in an earlier
work,[1] and a brief statement will suffice here.

The Donation of Constantine (Constitutum Constantini), written probably
not long after the middle of the eighth century, became widely known
through its incorporation in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (about
847-853). Parts of it were included in most of the medieval collections
of canon law; Anselm’s, Deusdedit’s, and Gratian’s great work (the
Decretum, or Concordia discordantium canonum). It purports to reproduce a
legal document in which the Emperor Constantine the Great, reciting his
baptism and the cure of his leprosy at the hands of Sylvester, Bishop of
Rome 314-336, confirmed the privilege of that pontiff as head of all the
clergy and supreme over the other four patriarchates; conferred upon him
extensive imperial property in various parts of the world, especially the
imperial Lateran palace, and the imperial diadem and tiara, and other
imperial insignia; granted the Roman clergy the rank of the highest Roman
orders and their privileges; gave Sylvester and his successors freedom
in consecrating men for certain orders of the clergy; it tells how he,
Constantine, recognized the superior dignity of the Pope by holding
the bridle of his horse; grants Sylvester Rome, all of Italy, and the
western provinces, to remain forever under the control of the Roman See;
and states his own determination to retire to Byzantium in order that
the presence of an earthly emperor may not embarrass ecclesiastical
authority. This remarkable document was almost universally accepted as
genuine from the ninth to the fifteenth century.

The question of the position of the bishop of Rome in the Christian
Church lacks but a few generations of being as old as Christianity
itself. His relation to secular governments became an acute problem as
soon as the imperial government broke down in Italy, and has remained
so to the present moment. For centuries the Papacy was the strongest
institution in western Europe. While its control at any one time rested
principally on the power it actually possessed and on the ability of
its representatives, legal theories and historical documents played a
not inconsiderable part in its rise and decline. Of these documents
the Donation of Constantine was perhaps the most spectacular, even
though it was not the most important. It was cited by no less than ten
Popes of whom we know, to mention no lesser writers, in contentions
for the recognition of papal control, and contributed not a little to
the prestige of the Papacy. On the other hand, when its spuriousness
became known, the reaction against it, as in Luther’s case, contributed
powerfully to the revolt from Rome. Its century-long influence entitles
it to a respect difficult for any one who now reads it to feel. And
Valla’s discussion of it contains many interesting reflections on the
secular power of the Papacy, perhaps the most interesting expression in
this connection of fifteenth century Italian humanism.

Among the achievements of modern historical criticism Valla’s work was
a conspicuous pioneer. Its quality and its importance have often been
exaggerated, and as often underestimated. It is some satisfaction to
make it more generally available in the original text and translation,
so that the reader may judge for himself. A critical appraisal would
have to take into account that Nicholas Cusanus some seven years earlier
in his De concordantia catholica covered part of the same ground even
better than Valla did, and anticipated some of his arguments. But Valla’s
treatise is more exhaustive, is in more finished and effective literary
form, and in effect established for the world generally the proof of
the falsity of the Donation. Moreover, for the first time, he used
effectively the method of studying the usage of words in the variations
of their meaning and application, and other devices of internal criticism
which are the tools of historical criticism to-day. So, while Valla’s
little book may seem slight beside later masterpieces of investigation
and beside systematic treatises in larger fields, it is none the less a
landmark in the rise of a new science. I speak from personal experience
in adding that it is still useful in college classes in promoting respect
for, and development in, critical scholarship.

As to Valla himself the words of Erasmus will bear repetition; “Valla,
a man who with so much energy, zeal and labor, refuted the stupidities
of the barbarians, saved half-buried letters from extinction, restored
Italy to her ancient splendor of eloquence, and forced even the learned
to express themselves henceforth with more circumspection.”[2] The
Italian Renaissance is much extolled among us,—and so little known. A
short time ago diligent search revealed no copy of Valla’s works in the
United States, and many of the larger libraries had none of his separate
writings. The same is doubtless true in the case of other great names in
the Renaissance. Meanwhile, there are those whose profession it is to
teach European history and who are utterly unacquainted with medieval and
later Latin.

The best life of Valla is that by Girolamo Mancini.[3] There is no
satisfactory account of him in English.

Valla wrote his Discourse on the Forgery of the alleged Donation
of Constantine (Declamatio de falso credita et ementita donatione
Constantini, also referred to as Libellus, and Oratio) in 1440, when he
was secretary to Alfonso, king of Aragon, Sicily, and Naples. It may well
be considered as part of the campaign which that king was conducting
against Pope Eugenius IV in furtherance of his claims to Italian
territories.

There has hitherto been no satisfactory text of this treatise. The first
printed edition, that of Ulrich von Hutten, in 1517, is excessively rare,
and it, as well as its numerous reprints, is defective in places. The
same is true of the text in the collected works of Valla, the Opera,
printed at Basle, 1540, 1543 (?). The only English edition, by Thomas
Godfray (London, 1525?), is rare and of no great merit. A modern French
edition by Alcide Bonneau (La Donation de Constantin, Paris, 1879) gives
the text with a French translation and a long introduction. It is based
on the 1520 reprint of Hutten’s edition, is polemical, uncritical, and
admittedly imperfect. A modern edition with translation into Italian (La
dissertazione di Lorenzo Valla su la falsa e manzognera donazione di
Costantino tradotta in Italiano da G. Vincenti, Naples, 1895) is out of
print.

My text is based on the manuscript Codex Vaticanus 5314, dated December
7, 1451, the only complete manuscript of the treatise I have been able
to find. I have collated this with Hutten’s text as found in one of the
earliest, if not the earliest, reprint (contained in the little volume
De Donatione Constantini quid veri habeat, etc., dated 1520 in the Union
Theological Seminary library copy, but corresponding closely to the one
dated 1518 in E. Böcking’s edition of the works of Ulrich von Hutten,
vol. I, p. 18), and have occasionally used readings from Hutten’s text
or later ones, such as that of Simon Schard,[4] but in every instance I
have indicated the MS. reading. I have used uniform, current spelling and
punctuation, and have used my own judgment in paragraphing.

Preceding Valla’s treatise I reprint, with a translation, the text of
the Donation as given, with the omission of long sections, in Gratian’s
Decretum, or Concordia discordantium canonum, which was the form Valla
used and on which he based his criticism. I take it from A. Friedberg’s
edition of the Corpus Iuris Canonici, vol. I, columns 342-345. The full
text of the Donation is best given by Karl Zeumer, in the Festgabe für
Rudolf von Gneist (Julius Springer, Berlin, 1888), pp. 47-59, reprinted
among other places in my Constantine the Great and Christianity, pp.
228-237. The document may be studied to advantage also in the Decretales
Pseudo-Isidorianae et Capitula Angilramni, ed. Hinschius (Leipsic, 1863).
An English translation, from Zeumer’s text, is in E. F. Henderson’s
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, pp. 319-329.

In the translation of passages of the Donation I have, so far as
possible, used the words of Henderson’s translation. In quotations from
the Bible I have used the King James version. In translating Valla’s
quotations from the Donation I have usually, though not always, followed
him in giving words their classical and not their medieval meaning.

The Donation of Constantine grew out of the legends about Sylvester I,
Bishop of Rome, as well as out of legends about Constantine. These are
described at length in Constantine the Great and Christianity. The most
familiar form of the Sylvester-Constantine legend is that of Mombritius’
Sanctuarium, sive Vitae collectae ex codibus, Milan, _c._ 1470, vol. II,
folio 279: Paris, 1910, vol. II, pp. 508-531.

Present-day scholarship is not in entire agreement on all points
connected with the Donation of Constantine. The following summary,
however, may be hazarded. The problem of modern criticism, of course, is,
not to establish the spuriousness of the Donation,—that has long been
obvious,—but to locate the origin of the document as closely as possible.

The development of the Sylvester-Constantine legend was worked out
best by Döllinger (Papstfabeln des Mittelalters, Munich, 1863: ed.,
J. Friedrich, Stuttgart, 1890) and by Duchesne (in his edition of the
Liber Pontificalis, vol. I, 1886, pp. cvii-cxx). These have shown the
existence at Rome, as early as the last of the sixth century, of the
story which forms most of the narrative part of the Donation, and gave
the forger the whole of his background.

The earliest known manuscript of the document is in the Codex Parisiensis
Lat. 2778, in the Collectio Sancti Dionysii, found in the monastery of
St. Denis, in France. The collection contains documents dating from the
last years of the eighth century, though it may have been put together
later. The collected Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, in which the Donation
was virtually published to the world, in the middle of the ninth century,
also came out in France. French writers of the ninth century, also, were
the first, so far as we know, to refer to the Donation. Such facts help
to fix the date of the forgery, but under the circumstances they do not
fix the place as France. Rather they are merely another illustration of
the well-known leadership of France in learning and politics during the
ninth century.

Linguistic peculiarities of the document have been most exhaustively
treated by one of the greatest of critical historians, Paul
Scheffer-Boichorst,[5] not to speak of briefer studies by Döllinger,
Brunner, and others. In the full text of the Donation, as for instance
the one published by Zeumer, are found many features distinctive of
Italian documents of the eighth century, and a number that apparently are
peculiar to the chancellery of Stephen II (III), Bishop of Rome 752-757,
and of Paul I (757-767), more particularly the latter. (Some of these
do not occur in the passages and the text which Valla used; that is,
in his copy of Gratian’s Decretum.) This is true in varying degrees of
particularity of the form or usage of the following words; synclitus (for
senatus) in § 15, banda (for vexillum) in § 14, censura (diploma) in §
17, constitutum (decretum) in §§ 17 and 18, retro (applied to the future)
in §§ 1 and 19, largitas (possessio) in § 13, consul and patricius (as
mere designations of rank) in § 15, vel (et) in §§ 11, 12, 13, 16, 19,
seu (et) in §§ 14 and 17, satraps (as a Roman official) in §§ 8, 11, and
19, and inluminator in § 7 in some manuscripts. The following phrases,
also, are more or less distinctive; Deo amabilis in § 1, Deo vivo qui nos
regnare precipit in § 19, uno ex eadem sancta Trinitate in § 1, principem
apostolorum vel eius vicarios firmos apud Deum adesse patronos in § 11,
pro concinnatione luminariorum in § 13, et subscriptio imperialis in §
20, propriis manibus roborantes in § 20, religiosus clericus in § 15.
The first part of § 4, Tres itaque formae ... hominem, is very similar
to part of a letter of Paul I’s in 757. In short, the language of the
Donation seems to point to the papal chancellery as the place of its
origin, and the pontificate of Paul I (757-767) as the most probable time.

That also seems to offer the situation and environment which would most
naturally call forth the document as we have it. This is well brought out
by Ludo Moritz Hartmann in his Geschichte Italiens im Mittelalter,[6]
and by Erich Caspar in his Pippin und die römische Kirche.[7] The
Papacy was then cutting loose from the Emperor at Constantinople and
ignoring his representatives in Italy, as well as developing its own
independent policy toward Italian territory, toward the Lombards,
and toward the Franks. The aim of the forger seems to have been the
characteristically medieval one of supplying documentary warrant for the
existence of the situation which had developed through a long-drawn-out
revolution, namely, the passage of imperial prerogatives and political
control in Italy from the Emperor to the Papacy. Hence, along with
general statements of papal primacy, and of gifts of property, detailed
and explicit stress is laid upon the granting of imperial honors, the
imperial palace, and imperial power to the Pope, and upon the right of
the Roman clergy to the privileges of the highest ranks of Roman society.
Legal confirmation was thus given for riding roughshod over the vestiges
and memories of the imperial régime in Italy and for looking to the
Papacy as the source of all honors and dignities. Furthermore we know
that Paul I was extremely devoted to the memory of Sylvester, and so
it may well have been under his influence that this document came into
existence with its tribute to Sylvester’s personal character and historic
significance.

       *       *       *       *       *

I wish to give public expression of my thanks to Professor Deane P.
Lockwood, of Columbia University, for his kindness in reading my
translation of Valla’s treatise and the many suggestions and improvements
he indicated; to Professor J. T. Shotwell, of Columbia University, who
was largely responsible for the beginning of the whole undertaking; and
to Mr. Alexander D. Fraser, of Allegheny College, for generous assistance
in reading proof.


FOOTNOTES

[1] C. B. Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, three phases:
the historical, the legendary, and the spurious. Columbia University
Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, vol. LX, no. 1. Columbia
University Press, and Longmans, Green & Co., New York, 1914.

[2] F. M. Nichols, ed., Epistles of Erasmus. Longmans, Green & Co., New
York, 1901.

[3] Vita di Lorenzo Valla (Florence, 1891).

[4] Syntagma tractatuum de imperiali iurisdictione, etc., Strassburg,
1609; first published under a similar title at Basle, 1566.

[5] Neue Forschungen über die Konstantinische Schenkung, in Mittheilungen
d. Instituts für österr. Geschichtsforschung, vol. X (1889), pp. 325 et
seq., XI (1890), pp. 128 et seq. Reprinted in his Gesammelte Schriften in
the Historische Studien of E. Eberling, vol. XLII.

[6] II, ii (Leipsic, 1903), pp. 218-231.

[7] Berlin, 1914, pp. 185-189.



Transcriber’s Note


The original book was printed with a page of Latin and a page of the
English translation next to each other in a double-page spread. This is
impractical for an e-book and so the Latin is presented in full first,
followed by the English in full.

The HTML version of this e-book features links between the relevant
pages, to allow readers to cross-reference as originally intended.



THE DONATION OF CONSTANTINE

AS GIVEN IN THE DECRETUM GRATIANI (CONCORDIA DISCORDANTIUM CANONUM)[8]

PRIMA PARS DISTINCTIO XCVI


[PALEA.

CAPITULUM XIII. DE EODEM.[9]

Constantinus imperator coronam, et omnem regiam dignitatem in urbe
Romana, et in Italia, et in partibus occidentalibus Apostolico concessit.
Nam in gestis B. Silvestri (que B. Papa Gelasius in concilio LXX.
episcoporum a catholicis legi commemorat, et pro antiquo usu multas hoc
imitari dicit ecclesias) ita legitur:]


[PALEA.

C. XIV. DE EODEM.

Constantinus imperator quarta die sui baptismi privilegium Romanae
ecclesiae Pontifici contulit, ut in toto orbe Romano sacerdotes ita
hunc caput habeant, sicut iudices regem. In eo privilegio ita inter
cetera legitur: “Utile iudicavimus una cum omnibus satrapis nostris,
et universo senatu optimatibusque meis, etiam et cuncto populo Romanae
gloriae imperio subiacenti, ut sicut B. Petrus in terris vicarius Filii
Dei esse videtur constitutus, ita et Pontifices, qui ipsius principis
apostolorum gerunt vices, principatus potestatem amplius quam terrena
imperialis nostrae serenitatis mansuetudo habere videtur, concessam
a nobis nostroque imperio obtineant, eligentes nobis ipsum principem
apostolorum vel eius vicarios firmos apud Deum esse patronos. Et sicut
nostram terrenam imperialem potentiam, sic eius sacrosanctam Romanam
ecclesiam decrevimus veneranter honorari, et amplius quam nostrum
imperium et terrenum thronum sedem sacratissimam B. Petri gloriose
exaltari, tribuentes ei potestatem, et gloriae dignitatem atque
vigorem, et honorificentiam imperialem. Atque decernentes sancimus, ut
principatum teneat tam super quatuor precipuas sedes, Alexandrinam,
Antiocenam, Ierosolimitanam, Constantinopolitanam, quam etiam super omnes
in universo orbe terrarum ecclesias Dei, et Pontifex, qui pro tempore
ipsius sacrosanctae Romanae ecclesiae extiterit, celsior et princeps
cunctis sacerdotibus totius mundi existat, et eius iudicio queque ad
cultum Dei vel fidei Christianorum stabilitatem procuranda fuerint
disponantur. _Et infra_: §. 1. Ecclesiis beatorum apostolorum Petri et
Pauli pro continuatione luminariorum possessionum predia contulimus,
et rebus diversis eas ditavimus, et per nostram imperialem iussionem
sacram tam in oriente, quam in occidente, vel etiam septentrionali et
meridiana plaga, videlicet in Iudea, Grecia, Asia, Thracia, Affrica
et Italia, vel diversis insulis, nostra largitate ei concessimus, ea
prorsus ratione, ut per manus beatissimi patris nostri Silvestri summi
Pontificis successorumque eius omnia disponantur. _Et infra_: §. 2.
Beatro Silvestro Patri nostro, summo Pontifici et universalis urbis
Romae Papae, et omnibus, eius successoribus Pontificibus, qui usque in
finem mundi in sede B. Petri erunt sessuri, de presenti contradimus
palatium imperii nostri Lateranense, deinde diadema, videlicet coronam
capitis nostri, simulque frigium, nec non et superhumerale, videlicet
lorum, quod imperiale circumdare assolet collum; verum etiam et clamidem
purpuream, atque tunicam coccineam, et omnia imperialia indumenta;
sed et dignitatem imperialium presidentium equitum, conferentes etiam
et imperialia sceptra, simulque cuncta signa, atque banda, et diversa
ornamenta imperialia, et omnem processionem imperialis culminis et
gloriam potestatis nostrae. §. 3. Viris autem reverentissimis clericis
in diversis ordinibus eidem sacrosanctae Romanae ecclesiae servientibus
illud culmen singularitate, potentia et precellentia habere sancimus,
cuius amplissimus noster senatus videtur gloria adornari, id est
patricios atque consules effici, nec non et ceteris dignitatibus
imperialibus eos promulgamus decorari. Et sicut imperialis milicia
ornatur, ita et clerum sanctae Romanae ecclesiae ornari decernimus. Et
quemadmodum imperalis [sic] potentia offitiis diversis, cubiculariorum
nempe, et ostiariorum, atque omnium excubitorum ornatur, ita et sanctam
Romanam ecclesiam decorari volumus. Et ut amplissime pontificale decus
prefulgeat, decernimus et hoc, clericorum eiusdem sanctae Romanae
ecclesiae manipulis et linteaminibus, id est candidissimo colore,
decorari equos, ita et equitare. Et sicut noster senatus calciamentis
utitur cum udonibus, id est candido linteamini illustratis, sic utantur
et clerici, ut sicut celestia, ita et terrena ad laudem Dei decorentur.
§. 4. Pre omnibus autem licentiam tribuimus ipsi sanctissimo Patri nostro
Silvestro et successoribus eius ex nostro indicto, ut quem placatus
proprio consilio clericare voluerit, et in religiosorum numero clericorum
connumerare, nullus ex omnibus presumat superbe agere. §. 5. Decrevimus
itaque et hoc, ut ipse et successores eius diademate, videlicet corona,
quam ex capite nostro illi concessimus, ex auro purissimo et gemmis
pretiosis uti debeant, et in capite ad laudem Dei pro honore B. Petri
gestare. Ipse vero beatissimus Papa, quia super coronam clericatus,
quam gerit ad gloriam B. Petri, omnino ipsa ex auro non est passus uti
corona, nos frigium candido nitore splendidum, resurrectionem dominicam
designans, eius sacratissimo vertici manibus nostris imposuimus, et
tenentes frenum equi ipsius pro reverentia B. Petri stratoris offitium
illi exhibuimus, statuentes eodem frigio omnes eius successores
singulariter uti in processionibus ad imitationem imperii nostri. §. 6.
Unde ut pontificalis apex non vilescat, sed magis quam terreni imperii
dignitas gloria et potentia decoretur, ecce tam palatium nostrum, ut
predictum est, quam Romanam urbem, et omnes Italiae seu occidentalium
regionum provincias, loca et civitates prefato beatissimo Pontifici
nostro Silvestro universali Papae contradimus atque relinquimus, et
ab eo et a successoribus eius per hanc divalem nostram et pragmaticum
constitutum decernimus disponenda, atque iuri sanctae Romanae ecclesiae
concedimus permansura. §. 7. Unde congruum perspeximus nostrum imperium
et regni potestatem in orientalibus transferri regionibus, et in
Bizantiae provinciae optimo loco nomini nostro civitatem edificari, et
nostrum illic constitui imperium, quoniam ubi principatus sacerdotum
et Christianae religionis caput ab imperatore celesti constitutum est,
iustum non est, ut illic imperator terrenus habeat potestatem. §. 8. Hec
vero omnia que per hanc nostram imperialem sacram, et per alia divalia
decreta statuimus atque confirmavimus, usque in finem mundi illibata et
inconcussa permanere decernimus. Unde coram Deo vivo, qui nos regnare
precepit, et coram terribili eius iudicio obtestamur per hoc nostrum
imperiale constitutum omnes nostros successores imperatores, vel cunctos
optimates, satrapas etiam, amplissimum senatum, et universum populum in
toto orbe terrarum nunc et in posterum cunctis retro temporibus imperio
nostro subiacentem, nulli eorum quoquo modo licere hec aut infringere,
aut in quoquam convellere. Si quis autem, quod non credimus, in hoc
temerator aut contemptor extiterit, eternis condempnationibus subiaceat
innodatus, et sanctos Dei, principes apostolorum Petrum et Paulum sibi in
presenti et in futura vita sentiat contrarios, atque in inferno inferiori
concrematus cum diabolo et omnibus deficiat impiis. Huius vero imperialis
decreti nostri paginam propriis manibus roborantes, super venerandum
corpus B. Petri principis apostolorum posuimus. Datum Romae 3. Calend.
Aprilis, Domino nostro Flavio Constantino Augusto quater, et Gallicano V.
C. Coss.”]



LAURENTII VALLENSIS

DE FALSO CREDITA ET EMENTITA CONSTANTINI DONATIONE DECLAMATIO.[10]


Plures a me libri compluresque emissi sunt in omni fere doctrinarum
genere. In quibus quod a nonnullis magnisque et longo iam aevo probatis
auctoribus dissentio cum sint, qui indigne ferant meque ut temerarium
sacrilegumque criminentur, quid tandem nunc facturi quidam putandi sunt?
Quantopere in me debacchaturi, et si facultas detur, quam avide me ad
supplicium festinanterque rapturi, qui non tantum adversus mortuos
scribo, sed adversus etiam vivos; nec in unum alterumve, sed in plurimos;
nec contra privatos modo, verum etiam contra magistratus! At quos
magistratus! Nempe summum pontificem, qui non temporali solum armatus est
gladio, regum ac principum more, sed ecclesiastico quoque, ut ab eo neque
subter ipsum, ut sic loquar, clipeum alicuius principis[11] protegere te
possis, quominus excommunicatione, anathemate, exsecratione[12] feriare.
Quod si prudenter, ut dixit, sic fecisse existimatus est, qui inquit,
“Nolo scribere in eos qui possunt proscribere,” quanto mihi magis idem
faciendum esse videatur in eum qui ne proscriptioni quidem relinquat[13]
locum, quique invisibilibus me potestatis suae iaculis persequatur, ut
iure possim dicere, “Quo ibo a spiritu tuo et quo a tua fugiam facie!”
Nisi forte putamus patientius haec esse laturum summum pontificem[14]
quam ceteri[15] facerent. Nihil minus, si quidem Paulo, quod bona se
conscientia conversatum esse dicerat, Ananias, princeps sacerdotum,
coram tribuno qui iudex sedebat, iussit os verberari;[16] et Phasur,
eadem praeditus dignitate, Ieremiam ob loquendi libertatem coniecit in
carcerem. Sed illum tribunus ac praeses, hunc rex adversus iniuriam
pontificis tutari et potuit et voluit. Me vero quis tribunus, quis
praeses, quis rex e manibus summi sacerdotis, si me rapuerit ille, etiam
ut velit eripere poterit?

Verum non est causa cur me duplex hic periculi terror conturbet arceatque
a proposito. Nam neque contra ius fasque summo pontifici licet aut ligare
quempiam[17] aut solvere, et in defendenda veritate atque iustitia
profundere animam summae virtutis, summae laudis, summi praemii est. An
vero multi ob terrestrem patriam defendendam mortis adiere discrimen?
Ego ob caelestem[18] patriam assequendam (assequuntur autem eam qui Deo
placent, non qui hominibus) mortis discrimine deterrebor? Facessat igitur
trepidatio; procul abeant metus; timores excidant! Forti animo, magna
fiducia, bona spe, defendenda est causa veritatis, causa iustitiae, causa
Dei!

Neque enim is verus est habendus orator qui bene scit[19] dicere nisi et
dicere audeat. Audeamus itaque accusare eum[20] quicumque digna committit
accusatione. Et qui in omnes peccat, unius pro omnium voce carpatur. At
non debeo palam obiurgare fratrem, sed inter me et ipsum. Immo, “publice
peccans,” et qui privatum consilium non admitteret, “publice arguendus
est, ut ceteri timorem habeant.” An non Paulus, cuius verbis modo sum
usus, in os Petrum coram ecclesia reprehendit, quia reprehensibilis
erat? Et hoc ad nostram doctrinam scriptum reliquit.—At non sum Paulus,
qui Petrum possim reprehendere. Immo Paulus sum, qui Paulum imitor.
Quemadmodum, quod multo plus est, unus cum Deo spiritus efficior, cum
studiose mandatis illius obtempero. Neque aliquem sua dignitas ab
increpationibus tutum reddit quae Petrum non reddidit, multosque alios
eodem praeditos gradu; ut Marcellum quod diis libasset, ut Celestinum
quod cum Nestorio haeretico[21] sentiret, ut quosdam etiam nostra memoria
quos ab inferioribus (quis enim non est inferior papa?) reprehensos
scimus, ut taceam condemnatos.

Neque vero id ago ut quemquam[22] cupiam insectari et in eum quasi
Philippicas scribere, hoc enim a me facinus procul absit, sed ut errorem
a mentibus hominum convellam, ut eos a vitiis sceleribusque vel admonendo
vel increpando summoveam. Non ausim dicere ut alii per me edocti
luxuriantem nimiis sarmentis papalem sedem, quae Christi vinea est,
ferro coerceant, et plenas uvas non graciles labruscas ferre compellant.
Quod cum facio, numquis[23] erit qui aut mihi os aut sibi aures velit
occludere, ne dicam supplicium mortemque proponere? Hunc ego, si hoc
faciat, etiam si papa sit, quid dicam esse, bonumne pastorem, an aspidem
surdam quae nolit exaudire vocem incantantis, velit eiusdem membra morsu
venenoque praestringere?

Scio iamdudum exspectare[24] aures hominum quidnam pontificibus Romanis
criminis[25] impingam. Profecto ingens, sive supinae ignorantiae, sive
immanis avaritiae quae est idolorum servitus, sive imperandi vanitatis
cuius crudelitas semper est comes. Nam aliquot iam saeculis aut non[26]
intellexerunt donationem Constantini commenticiam[27] fictamque esse,
aut ipsi finxerunt, sive posteriores in maiorum suorum dolis vestigia
imprimentes pro vera quam falsam cognoscerent defenderunt, dedecorantes
pontificatus maiestatem, dedecorantes veterum pontificum memoriam,
dedecorantes religionem Christianam, et omnia caedibus, ruinis,[28]
flagitiisque miscentes. Suam esse aiunt urbem Romam; suum regnum Siciliae
Neapolitanumque; suam universam Italiam, Gallias, Hispanias,[29]
Germanos, Britannos; suum denique occidentem; haec enim cuncta in ipsa
donationis pagina contineri. Ergo haec omnia tua sunt, summe pontifex?
Omnia tibi in animo est recuperare? Omnes reges ac principes occidentis
spoliare urbibus, aut cogere ut annua tibi tributa pensitent, sententia
est?

At ego contra existimo iustius licere principibus spoliare te imperio
omni quod obtines. Nam, ut ostendam, donatio illa unde natum esse suum
ius summi pontifices volunt Silvestro pariter et Constantino fuit
incognita.

Verum antequam ad confutandam donationis paginam venio, quod unum
istorum patrocinium est, non modo falsum verum etiam stolidum, ordo
postulat ut altius repetam. Et primum dicam non tales fuisse Constantinum
Silvestrumque, illum quidem qui donare vellet, qui iure donare posset,
qui ut in manum alteri ea traderet in sua haberet potestate, hunc autem
qui vellet accipere, quique iure accepturus[30] foret. Secundo loco,
si haec non essent, quae verissima atque clarissima sunt, neque hunc
acceptasse neque illum tradidisse possessionem rerum quae dicuntur
donatae, sed eas semper in arbitrio et imperio Caesarum permansisse.
Tertio, nihil datum Silvestro a Constantino, sed priori pontifici ante
quem etiam baptismum[31] acceperat, donaque illa mediocria fuisse,
quibus papa degere vitam posset. Quarto, falso dici donationis exemplum
aut apud Decreta reperiri aut ex historia Silvestri esse sumptum,
quod neque in illa neque in[32] ulla historia invenitur. In eoque
quaedam contraria, impossibilia, stulta, barbara, ridicula contineri.
Praeterea loquar de quorundam[33] aliorum Caesarum vel simulata vel
frivola donatione. Ubi ex abundanti adiciam, si Silvester possedisset,
tamen, sive illo sive quovis alio pontifice a possessione deiecto, post
tantam temporis intercapedinem nec divino nec humano iure posse repeti.
Postremo, ea quae a summo pontifice tenentur nullius temporis longitudine
potuisse[34] praescribi.

Atque quod ad primam partem attinet, loquamur autem de Constantino prius,
deinde de Silvestro.

Non est committendum ut publicam et quasi Caesaream causam non maiore
quam privatae solent ore agamus. Itaque quasi in[35] contione[36] regum
ac principum orans, ut certe facio, nam mea haec oratio in manus eorum
ventura est, libet tamquam praesentes et in conspectu positos alloqui.
Vos appello reges ac principes, difficile est enim privatum hominem
animi regii concipere imaginem, vestram mentem inquiro, conscientiam
scrutor, testimonium postulo. Numquid[37] vestrum quispiam, si fuisset
Constantini loco, faciendum sibi putasset ut urbem Romam, patriam suam,
caput orbis terrarum, reginam civitatum, potentissimam, nobilissimam,
ditissimam populorum, triumphatricem nationum, et ipso aspectu sacram,
liberalitatis gratia donaret alteri, et se ad humile oppidum conferret
deinde Byzantium? donaret praeterea una cum Roma Italiam, non provinciam
sed provinciarum victricem: donaret tres Gallias: donaret duas Hispanias:
donaret Germanos: donaret Britannos: totum donaret occidentem: et se
altero ex duobus[38] Imperii oculis orbaret? Hoc ego, ut quis faciat
compos mentis, adduci non possum ut credam.

Quid enim vobis exspectatius, quid iucundius,[39] quid gratius
contingere solet, quam accessionem imperiis vestris vos regnisque
adiungere, et longe lateque quam maxime proferre dicionem? In hoc, ut
videre videor, omnis vestra cura, omnis cogitatio, omnis labor dies[40]
noctesque consumitur. Ex hoc praecipua spes gloriae, propter hoc
voluptates relinquitis, propter hoc mille pericula aditis, propter hoc
carissima[41] pignora, propter hoc partem corporis aequo animo amittitis.
Siquidem neminem vestrum aut audivi aut legi a conatu ampliandi imperii
fuisse deterritum, quod aut luminis, aut manus, aut cruris, aut alterius
membri iacturam fecisset. Quin ipse hic ardor atque haec late dominandi
cupiditas, ut quisque maxime potens est, ita eum maxime angit atque
agitat. Alexander non contentus deserta Libyae pedibus peragrasse,
orientem ad extremum usque Oceanum vicisse, domuisse septentrionem,
inter tot vulnera, tot casus, recusantibus iam, detestantibus[42] tam
longinquas, tam asperas expeditiones militibus, ipse sibi nihil effecisse
videbatur, nisi et occidentem, et omnes nationes aut vi, aut nominis
sui auctoritate sibi tributarias reddidisset. Parum dico: iam Oceanum
transire et si quis alius orbis esset explorare, ac suo subicere arbitrio
destinaverat. In caelum[43] tandem, ut opinor, tentasset ascendere. Talis
fere est omnium regum voluntas, etsi non omnium talis audacia. Taceo
quanta scelera, quot abominanda propter imperium assequendum ampliandumve
admissa sunt, ut nec fratres a fratrum, nec filii a parentum, nec
parentes a filiorum sanguine nefarias abstineant manus. Adeo nusquam
magis, nusquam atrocius grassari solet humana temeritas. Et quod mirari
possis, non segniores ad hoc videas animos senum quam iuvenum, orborum
quam parentum, regum quam tyrannorum.

Quod si tanto conatu peti dominatus solet, quanto maiore necesse est
conservetur! Neque enim tantopere miserum est non ampliare imperium
quam imminuere; neque tam deforme tibi alterius regnum non accedere tuo
quam tuum accedere alieno. Nam quod ab rege aliquo aut populo legimus
nonnullos praepositos regno aut urbibus, id factum est non de prima nec
de maxima, sed de postrema quodammodo ac minima imperii parte, atque ea
ratione ut donantem qui donatus est quasi dominum et se ministrum illius
semper agnosceret.

Nunc quaeso, nonne abiecto animo et minime generoso videntur esse, qui
opinantur Constantinum meliorem a se imperii alienasse partem? Non dico
Romam, Italiamque et cetera, sed Gallias, ubi ipse proelia gesserat, ubi
solum diu dominatus fuerat, ubi suae gloria suique imperii rudimenta
posuerat. Hominem, qui cupiditate dominandi nationibus bella intulisset,
socios affinesque bello civili persecutus imperio privasset; cui nondum
perdomitae ac profligatae reliquiae essent alterius factionis, qui cum
multis nationibus bella gerere non modo soleret spe gloriae imperiique
sed etiam necesse haberet, utpote quotidie[44] a barbaris lacessitus;
qui filiis, qui coniunctis sanguine, qui amicitiis[45] abundaret; qui
senatum populumque Romanum huic facto repugnaturum nosset; qui expertus
esset instabilitatem victarum nationum, et ad omnem fere Romani principis
mutationem rebellantium; qui se meminisset more aliorum Caesarum, non
electione patrum consensuque plebis, sed exercitu, armis, bello dominatum
occupasse; quae tam vehemens causa et urgens aderat, ut ista negligeret
et tanta liberalitate uti vellet?

Aiunt, quia effectus erat Christianus. Ergone Imperii optima parte se
abdicaret? Credo scelus erat, flagitium, nefas iam regnare, nec cum
Christiana religione coniungi poterat regnum! Qui in adulterio sunt, qui
usuris rem auxerunt, qui aliena possident, ii[46] post baptismum alienam
uxorem, alienam pecuniam, aliena bona reddere solent. Hanc cogitationem
si habes, Constantine, restituere urbibus libertatem, non mutare
dominum debes. Sed non id in causa fuit; tantum in honorem religionis
ut faceres adductus es. Quasi religiosum sit magis regnum deponere
quam pro tutela religionis illud administrare! Nam quod ad accipientes
attinet, neque honesta erit illis neque utilis ista donatio. Tu vero
si Christianum te ostendere, si pietatem indicare tuam, si consultum
non dico Romanae ecclesiae vis sed ecclesiae Dei, nunc praecipue, nunc
principem agas, ut pugnes pro iis[47] qui pugnare non possunt nec
debent, ut eos tua auctoritate tutos reddas qui insidiis iniuriisque
obnoxii sunt. Nabuchodonosor, Cyro, Assuero, multisque aliis principibus
sacramentum veritatis Deus aperiri voluit; a nullo tamen eorum exegit
ut imperio cederet, ut partem regni donaret, sed tantum libertatem
Hebraeis[48] redderet eosque ab infestantibus finitimis protegeret. Hoc
satis fuit Iudaeis; hoc sat erit et Christianis. Factus es, Constantine,
Christianus? At indignissima res est Christianum te nunc imperatorem
minori[49] esse principatu quam fueras infidelis. Est enim principatus
praecipuum quoddam Dei munus, ad quem gentiles etiam principes a Deo
eligi existimantur.

At erat levatus a lepra. Ideo verisimile est referre gratiam voluisse,
et maiore mensura reddere quod acceperat. Itane? Naaman[50] ille Syrus
ab Heliseo curatus munera tantum offerre voluit, non dimidium bonorum.
Constantinus dimidium Imperii obtulisset? Piget me impudenti fabellae
tamquam indubitatae historiae respondere, sic enim haec fabula ex
historia Naaman et Helisei, ut altera[51] draconis ex fabuloso dracone
Beli adumbrata est. Sed, ut ista concedam, numquid in hac historia de
donatione fit mentio? Minime. Verum de hoc commodius postea.[52]

Levatus est a lepra? Cepit[53] ob id mentem Christianam Dei timore Dei
amore imbutus; illi honorem habere voluit. Non tamen persuaderi possum
eum tanta donare voluisse, quippe cum videam neminem, aut gentilem in
honorem deorum, aut fidelem in honorem Dei viventis, imperium deposuisse
sacerdotibusque donasse. Siquidem ex regibus Israel nemo adduci potuit
ut pristino more ad templum Ierusalem populos sacrificaturos ire
permitteret, eo videlicet timore ne forte ad regem Iudae a quo defecerant
redirent, sacro illo cultu religionis admoniti ac templi maiestate. Et
quanto maius est hoc quod fecisse dicitur Constantinus! Ac ne quid tibi
propter curationem leprae blandiaris, Ieroboam primus a Deo in regem
Israel electus est, et quidem ex infima condicione, quod mea sententia
plus est quam esse lepra levatum;[54] et tamen is non est ausus regnum
suum Deo credere. Et tu vis Constantinum regnum Deo donasse quod ab
illo non accepisset, qui praesertim (id quod in Ieroboam non cadebat)
offenderet filios, deprimeret amicos, negligeret suos, laederet patriam,
maerore omnes afficeret, suique oblivisceretur!

Qui si etiam talis fuisset, et quasi in alium hominem versus, certe non
defuissent qui eum admonerent, et imprimis filii, propinqui amici; quos
quis est qui non putet protinus Imperatorem fuisse adituros? Ponite
igitur illos ante oculos, mente Constantini audita, trepidos, festinantes
cum gemitu lacrimisque[55] ad genua principis procumbentes, et hoc voce
utentes:

    “Itane, pater antehac filiorum amantissime, filios privas,
    exheredas,[56] abdicas! Nam quod te optima maximaque Imperii
    parte exuere vis, non tam querimur quam miramur. Querimur
    autem quod eam ad alios defers, cum nostra et iactura et
    turpitudine. Quid enim causae est quod liberos tuos exspectata
    successione Imperii fraudas, qui ipse una cum patre regnasti?
    Quid in te commisimus? Qua in te, qua in patriam, qua in nomen
    Romanum ac maiestatem Imperii impietate digni videmur quos
    praecipua optimaque prives principatus portione, qui a patriis
    laribus, a conspectu natalis soli, ab assueta aura, a vetusta
    consuetudine relegemur![57] Penates, fana,[58] sepulchra exules
    relinquemus, nescio ubi aut qua terrarum regione victuri!

    “Quid nos propinqui, quid nos amici, qui tecum totiens in
    acie stetimus, qui fratres, parentes, filios hostili mucrone
    confossos palpitantesque conspeximus, nec aliena morte territi
    sumus, et ipsi pro te parati mortem oppetere, nunc abs te
    universi deserimur![59] Qui Romae gerimus magistratus, qui
    urbibus Italiae, qui Galliis, qui Hispaniis, qui ceteris
    provinciis[60] praesumus, aut praefuturi sumus,[61] omnesne
    revocamur! Omnes privati iubemur esse! An iacturam hanc aliunde
    pensabis? Et quomodo pro merito ac pro dignitate poteris,
    tanta orbis terrarum parte alteri tradita? Num qui praeerat
    centum populis, eum tu, Caesar, uni praeficies? Quomodo tibi
    istud in mentem venire potuit? Quomodo subita tuorum te cepit
    oblivio, ut nihil te misereat amicorum, nihil proximorum,
    nihil filiorum? Utinam nos, Caesar, salva tua dignitate atque
    victoria, in bello contigisset occumbere potius quam ista
    cernamus!

    “Et tu quidem de imperio tuo ad tuum arbitratum agere potes,
    atque etiam de nobis, uno dumtaxat excepto, in quo[62] ad
    mortem usque erimus contumaces; ne a cultu deorum immotalium
    desistamus—magno etiam aliis exemplo, ut scias tua ista
    largitas quid mereatur de religione Christiana. Nam si non
    largiris Silvestro Imperium, tecum Christiani esse volumus,
    multis factum nostrum imitaturis: sin largiris, non modo
    Christiani fieri non sustinebimus, sed invisum, detestabile,
    exsecrandum nobis hoc nomen efficies, talesque reddes ut tandem
    tu et vitae et mortis nostrae miserearis, nec nos sed te ipsum
    duritiae accuses.”

Nonne hac oratione Constantinus, nisi exstirpatam[63] ab eo volumus
humanitatem, si sua sponte non movebatur, motus fuisset? Quid si hos
audire noluisset, nonne erant qui huic facto et oratione adversarentur
et manu? An senatus populusque Romanus sibi tanta in re nihil agendum
putasset? Nonne oratorem, ut ait Virgilius, gravem pietate ac meritis
advocasset, qui apud Constantinum hanc haberet orationem?

    “Caesar, si tu tuorum immemor es atque etiam tui, ut nec filiis
    hereditatem, nec propinquis opes, nec amicis honores, nec tibi
    Imperium esse integrum velis, non tamen senatus populusque
    Romanus immemor potest esse sui iuris suaeque dignitatis.
    Etenim quomodo tibi tantum permittis de Imperio Romano quod
    non tuo sed nostro sanguine paratum[64] est! Tune unum corpus
    in duas secabis partes, et ex uno duo efficies regna, duo
    capita, duas voluntates; et quasi duobus fratribus gladios
    quibus[65] de hereditate decernant porriges! Nos civitatibus
    quae de hac urbe bene meritae sunt iura civitatis damus, ut
    cives Romani sint: tu a nobis dimidium Imperii aufers, ne
    hanc urbem parentem suam agnoscant! Et in alveis quidem apium
    si duo reges nati sunt, alterum qui deterior est occidimus:
    tu in alveo Imperii Romani, ubi unus et optimus princeps
    est,[66] alterum et hunc deterrimum, et non apem sed fucum,
    collocandum putas! Prudentiam tuam vehementer desideramus,
    Imperator. Nam quid futurum est, si vel te vivo, vel post
    tuam mortem, aut huic parti quam alienas, aut alteri quam
    tibi relinquis, bellum a barbaris nationibus inferatur? Quo
    robore militum, quibus copiis occurremus? Vix nunc totius
    Imperii viribus possumus; tunc poterimus? An perpetuo membrum
    hoc cum illo in concordia erit? Ut reor, nec esse poterit,
    cum Roma dominari velit, nolit pars illa servire. Quin et te
    vivo breve intra tempus, revocatis veteribus praesidibus[67],
    suffectis novis, te in tuum regnum profecto et longe agente,
    hic altero dominante, nonne omnia nova, id est diversa atque
    adversa, erunt? Regno fere inter duos fratres diviso, protinus
    et populorum animi dividuntur, et prius a se ipsis quam ab
    externis hostibus bellum auspicantur. Idem eventurum in hoc
    Imperio quis non videt? An ignoras hanc olim imprimis fuisse
    causam optimatibus, cur dicerent citius se in conspectu populi
    Romani esse morituros quam rogationem illam ferri sinerent ut
    pars senatus ac pars plebis ad incolendum Veios mitteretur,
    duasque urbes communes[68] populi Romani esse; si enim in una
    urbe tantum dissensionum esset, quid in duabus urbibus futurum!
    Ita hoc tempore, si tantum discordiarum in uno Imperio, testor
    conscientiam tuam ac labores, quid in duobus imperiis fiet!

    “Age vero, putasne hinc fore qui tibi bellis occupato esse
    auxilio aut velint aut sciant? Ita ab armis atque ab omni re
    bellica abhorrentes erunt qui praeficientur militibus atque
    urbibus, ut ille qui praeficit. Quid, nonne hunc tam imperitum
    regnandi et iniuriae facilem aut Romanae legiones aut ipsae
    provinciae[69] spoliare tentabunt, ut quem sperabunt vel non
    repugnaturum, vel poenas non repetiturum? Credo, me hercule,
    ne unum quidem mensem illos in officio mansuros, sed statim
    et ad primum profectionis tuae nuntium[70] rebellaturos. Quid
    facies? Quid consilii capies, cum duplici atque adeo multiplici
    bello urgebere? Nationes quas subegimus continere vix possumus;
    quomodo illis accedente ex liberis gentibus bello resistetur?

    “Tu, Caesar, quid ad te spectet ipse videris. Nobis autem
    haec res non minus quam tibi curae esse debet. Tu mortalis
    es: Imperium populi Romani decet esse immortale, et quantum
    in nobis est erit, neque Imperium modo, verum etiam pudor.
    Scilicet quorum religionem contemnimus eorum accipiemus
    imperium, et, principes orbis terrarum, huic contemptissimo
    homini serviemus! Urbe a Gallis capta, Romani senes demulceri
    sibi barbam a victoribus passi non sunt: nunc sibi tot
    senatorii ordinis, tot praetorii, tot tribunicii,[71] tot
    consulares, triumphalesque viri eos dominari patientur, quos
    ipsi tamquam[72] servos malos omni contumeliarum genere
    suppliciorumque affecerunt! Istine homines magistratus
    creabunt, provincias regent, bella gerent, de nobis sententias
    capitis ferent? Sub his nobilitas Romana stipendia faciet,
    honores sperabit, munera assequetur? Et quod maius quodque
    altius penetret vulnus accipere possumus? Non ita putes,
    Caesar, Romanum degenerasse sanguinem ut istud passurus sit
    aequo animo et non quavis ratione devitandum existimet: quod
    medius fidius neque mulieres nostrae[73] sustinerent, sed magis
    se una cum dulcibus liberis sacrisque penatibus concremarent,
    ut non Carthaginienses[74] feminae[75] fortiores fuerint quam
    Romanae.

    “Etenim, Caesar, si regem te delegissemus, haberes tu
    quidem magnum de Imperio Romano agendi arbitrium, sed
    non ita ut vel minimum de ipsius imminueres maiestate,
    alioquin qui te fecissemus regem, eadem facultate abdicare
    te regno iuberemus—nedum posses regnum dividere, nedum tot
    provincias[76] alienare, nedum ipsum regni caput peregrino
    atque humillimo homini addicere. Canem ovili praeficimus;[77]
    quem si lupi mavult officio fungi, aut eicimus aut occidimus.
    Nunc tu, cum diu canis officio in ovili Romano defendendo sis
    functus, ad extremum in lupum nullo exemplo converteris?

    “Atque, ut intelligas, quandoquidem nos pro iure nostro
    cogis[78] asperius loqui, nullum tibi in populi Romani Imperio
    ius esse. Caesar vi dominatum occupavit,[79] Augustus et in
    vitium successit et adversariorum partium profligatione se
    dominum fecit, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho,
    Vitellius, Vespasianus, ceterique aut eadem aut simili via
    libertatem nostram praedati sunt, tu quoque, aliis expulsis
    aut interemptis, dominus effectus es. Sileo quod ex matrimonio
    natus non sis.

    “Quare, ut tibi nostram mentem testificemur, Caesar, si
    non libet te[80] Romae principatum tenere, habes filios,
    quorum aliquem in locum tuum, nobis quoque permittentibus ac
    rogantibus, naturae lege substituas. Sin minus, nobis in animo
    est publicam amplitudinem cum privata dignitate defendere.
    Neque enim minor haec iniuria Quiritum quam olim fuit violata
    Lucretia, neque nobis deerit Brutus qui contra Tarquinium[81]
    se ad libertatem recuperandam huic populo praebeat ducem. Et
    in istos primum quos nobis praeponis, deinde et in te ferrum
    stringemus, quod in multos Imperatores et quidem leviores ob
    causas fecimus.”

Haec profecto Constantinum, nisi lapidem eum aut truncum existimamus,
permovissent. Quae si populus non dixisset, tamen dicere apud se
et his passim verbis fremere credibile erat. Eamus nunc et dicamus
Constantinum gratificari voluisse Silvestro, quem tot hominum odiis, tot
gladiis subiceret ut vix, quantum sentio, unum Silvester diem in vita
futurus fuisset. Nam eo paucisque aliis absumptis, videbatur[82] omnis
sublatum iri de pectoribus Romanorum tam dirae iniuriae contumeliaeque
suspicio.[83]

Age porro, si fieri potest, concedamus neque preces, neque minas, neque
ullam rationem aliquid profecisse, perstareque adhuc Constantinum, nec
velle a suscepta semel persuasione recedere.[84] Quis non ad Silvestri
orationem, si res vera fuisset umquam,[85] commotum[86] assentiatur? Quae
talis haud dubie fuisset:

    “Princeps optime ac fili, Caesar, pietatem quidem tuam tam
    pronam tamque effusam non possum non amare atque amplecti,
    verumtamen quod in offerendis Deo muneribus immolandisque
    victimis nonnihil erres, minime demiror; quippe qui adhuc es
    in Christiana militia tiro. Ut non decebat olim a sacerdote
    omnem pecudem feramque et avem[87] sacrificari, ita non omne ab
    eodem accipiendum est munus. Ego sacerdos sum ac pontifex, qui
    dispicere debeo quid ad altare patiar offerri, ne forte, non
    dico immundum animal offeratur, sed vipera aut serpens. Itaque
    sic habeas. Si foret tui iuris, partem Imperii cum regina
    orbis, Roma, alteri tradere quam filiis (quod minime sentio);
    si populus hic, si Italia, si ceterae nationes sustinerent,
    ut quos oderunt et quorum religionem adhuc respuunt, capti
    illecebris saeculi, eorum imperio obnoxii esse vellent (quod
    impossibile est): tamen, si quid mihi credendum putas, fili
    amantissime, ut tibi assentirer[88] ulla adduci ratione non
    possem,[89] nisi vellem mihi ipsi esse dissimilis et condiconem
    meam oblivisci ac propemodum dominum Iesum[90] abnegare. Tua
    enim munera, sive, ut tu vis, tuae remunerationes et gloriam
    et innocentiam et sanctimoniam meam atque omnium qui mihi
    successuri sunt polluerent ac prorsus everterent, viamque iis
    qui ad cognitionem veritatis venturi sunt intercluderent.

    “An vero Heliseus,[91] Naaman Syro a lepra curato, mercedem
    accipere noluit: ego te curato accipiam? Ille munera respuit;
    ego regna mihi dari sinam? Ille personam prophetae maculare
    noluit; ego personam Christi quam in me gero maculare potero?
    Cur autem ille accipiendis muneribus personam prophetae
    maculari putavit? Nempe quod videri poterat vendere sacra,
    faenerare donum Dei, indigere praesidiis hominum, elevare atque
    imminuere beneficii dignitatem. Maluit ergo sibi principes ac
    reges[92] beneficiarios facere, quam ipse beneficiarius illorum
    esse; immo ne mutua quidem beneficentia uti. ‘Beatius est enim
    multo,’ ut inquit Dominus, ‘dare quam accipere.’ Eadem mihi
    atque adeo maior est causa, cui etiam a Domino praecipitur
    dicente, ‘Infirmos curate, mortuos suscitate, leprosos mundate,
    daemones eicite; gratis accepistis, gratis date.’ Egone tantum
    flagitium admittam, Caesar, ut Dei praecepta[93] non exsequar;
    ut gloriam meam polluam? ‘Melius est,’ ut inquit Paulus, ‘mihi
    mori quam ut gloriam meam quis evacuet.’ Gloria nostra est
    apud Deum honorificare ministerium nostrum, ut idem inquit,
    ‘Vobis dico gentibus; quamdiu ego quidem sum gentium apostolus,
    glorificabo ministerium meum.’

    “Ego, Caesar, aliis quoque sim et exemplum et causa
    delinquendi; Christianus homo, sacerdos Dei, pontifex
    Romanus, vicarius Christi? Iam vero innocentia sacerdotum
    quomodo incolumis erit inter opes, inter magistratus, inter
    administrationem saecularium negotiorum?[94] Ideone terrenis
    renuntiamus, ut eadem uberiora assequamur; et privata
    abiecimus, ut aliena possideamus et publica? Nostrae erunt
    urbes? nostra tributa? nostra vectigalia? Et cur clericos, si
    hoc[95] fecerimus, nos vocari licebit? Pars nostra sive sors,
    quae Graece dicitur κλῆρος,[96] est non terrena sed caelestis.
    Levitae, qui iidem[97] clerici sunt, partem cum fratribus non
    fuere sortiti: et tu nos iubes etiam fratrum sortiri portionem!

    “Quo mihi divitas atque opes, qui Domini voce iubeor nec de
    crastino esse sollicitus, et cui dictum est ab illo: ‘Nolite
    thesaurizare super terram; nolite possidere aurum, neque
    argentum, neque pecuniam in zonis vestris’; et, ‘Difficilius
    est divitem introire in regnum caelorum, quam camelum per
    foramen acus transire?’ Ideoque pauperes sibi ministros
    elegit et qui omnia relinquerent[98] et eum sequerentur;
    et paupertatis ipse fuit exemplum. Usque adeo divitiarum
    pecuniarumque tractatio innocentiae inimica est, non modo
    possessio illarum atque dominatus. Unus Iudas, qui loculos
    habebat et portabat quae mittebantur, praevaricatus est; et
    amore pecuniae, cui assueverat, Magistrum, Dominum, Deum et
    reprehendit et prodidit. Itaque vereor, Caesar, ne me ex Petro
    facias Iudam.

    “Audi etiam quid Paulus dicat: ‘Nihil intulimus in hunc mundum:
    haud dubium, quod nec auferre quid possumus. Habentes autem
    alimenta, et quibus tegamur, his contenti simus. Nam qui
    volunt divites fieri, incidunt in tentationem et in laqueum
    diaboli et desideria multa et inutilia et nociva, quae mergunt
    homines in interitum et perditionem. Radix enim omnium malorum
    est cupiditas, quam quidam appetentes erraverunt a fide, et
    inseruerunt se doloribus multis. Tu autem, homo Dei, haec
    fuge.’ Et tu me accipere iubes, Caesar, quae velut venenum
    effugere debeo!

    “Et quis praeterea, pro tua prudentia, Caesar, consideres, quis
    inter haec divinis rebus faciendis locus? Apostoli, quibusdam
    indignantibus quod viduae ipsorum in ministerio quotidiano
    despicerentur, responderunt non esse aequum relinquere se
    verbum Dei et ministrare mensis. Et tamen viduarum mensis
    ministrare, quanto aliud est quam exigere vectigalia, curare
    aerarium, stipendium numerare militibus, et mille aliis
    huiusmodi curis implicari? ‘Nemo militans Deo implicat se
    negotiis saecularibus,’ inquit Paulus. Numquid Aaron, cum
    ceteris Levitici generis, aliud quam Domini tabernaculum
    procurabat? Cuius[99] filii, quia ignem alienum in thuribula
    sumpserant, igni caelesti conflagraverunt. Et tu iubes nos
    ignem saecularium divitiarum, vetitum ac profanum,[100] in
    sacrata thuribula, id est in sacerdotalia opera sumere! Num
    Eleazar, num Phinees, num ceteri pontifices ministrique aut
    tabernaculi aut templi quicquam nisi quod ad rem divinam
    pertineret administrabant? Administrabant dico? Immo
    administrare poterant, si officio suo satisfacere volebant?
    Quod si nolint, audiant exsecrationem Domini dicentis:
    ‘Maledicti, qui opus Domini faciunt negligenter.’ Quae
    exsecratio, cum in omnes, tum in pontifices maxime cadit.

    “O quantum est pontificale munus! Quantum est caput esse
    ecclesiae! Quantum est praeponi pastorem tanto ovili, e cuius
    manu uniuscuiusque agni ovisque amissae sanguis exigitur; cui
    dictum est: ‘Si amas me plusquam alii, ut fateris, pasce agnos
    meos.’ Iterum, ‘si amas me, ut fateris, pasce oves meas.’
    Tertio, ‘si amas me, ut fateris, pasce oves meas!’ Et tu me
    iubes, Caesar, capras etiam pascere et porcos, qui nequeunt ab
    eodem pastore custodiri!

    “Quid, quod me regem facere vis, aut potius Caesarem, id est
    regum principem? Dominus Iesus Christus, Deus et homo, rex et
    sacerdos, cum se regem affirmaret, audi de quo regno locutus
    est: ‘Regnum meum,’ inquit, ‘non est de hoc mundo: si enim de
    hoc mundo esset regnum meum, ministri mei utique decertarent.’
    Et quae fuit prima vox, ac frequentior[101] clamor
    praedicationis eius, nonne hic:[102] ‘Paenitentiam agite;
    appropinquavit enim regnum caelorum. Appropinquavit regnum Dei,
    cui comparabitur regnum caeli?’ Nonne, cum haec dixit, regnum
    saeculare nihil ad se pertinere declaravit? Eoque non modo
    regnum huiusmodi non quaesivit, sed oblatum quoque accipere
    noluit. Nam cum intelligeret aliquando populos destinasse ut
    eum raperent regemque facerent, in montium solitudines fugit.
    Quod nobis qui locum eius[103] tenemus non solum exemplo dedit
    imitandum, sed etiam praecepto, inquiens: ‘Principes gentium
    dominantur eorum, et qui maiores sunt potestatem exercent in
    eos. Non ita erit inter vos; sed quicumque voluerit inter vos
    maior fieri sit vester minister, et qui voluerit primus inter
    vos esse erit vester servus: sicut filius hominis non venit ut
    ministretur ei, sed ut ministret et det animam suam in[104]
    redemptionem pro multis.’

    “Iudices olim Deus, ut scias, Caesar, constituit super Israel,
    non reges, populumque sibi nomen regium postulantem detestatus
    est. Nec aliter ob duritiam[105] cordis illorum regem dedit,
    quam quod repudium permiserat, quod in nova lege revocavit.
    Et ego regnum accipiam, qui vix iudex esse permittor? ‘An
    nescitis,’ inquit Paulus, ‘quod sancti de hoc mundo iudicabunt?
    Et si in vobis iudicabitur mundus, indigni estis qui de
    minimis iudicetis. Nescitis quod angelos iudicabimus? Quanto
    magis saecularia? Saecularia igitur iudicia si habueritis,
    contemptibiles qui sunt in ecclesia, eos constituite ad
    iudicandum.’ Atqui iudices de rebus et controversiis[106]
    tantummodo iudicabant, non etiam tributa exigebant. Ego exigam,
    qui scio a Domino interrogatum Petrum: ‘A quibusnam reges
    terrae acciperent tributum censumve, a filiis an ab alienis?’
    et cum hic respondisset ‘Ab alienis,’ ad eodem dictum: ‘Ergo
    liberi sunt filii?’ Quod si omnes filii mei sunt, Caesar, ut
    certe sunt, omnes liberi erunt; nihil quisquam solvet. Igitur
    non est opus mihi tua donatione, qua nihil assecuturus sum
    praeter laborem quem, ut minime debeo, ita minime possum ferre.

    “Quid quod necesse haberem potestatem exercere sanguinis,
    punire sontes, bella gerere, urbes diripere, regiones ferro
    ignique vastare! Aliter non est quod sperem posse me tueri quae
    tradidisses. Et si haec fecero, sacerdos, pontifex, Christi
    vicarius, sum? Ut illum in me tonantem audiam atque dicentem:
    ‘Domus mea domus orationis vocabitur omnibus gentibus, et tu
    fecisti eam speluncam latronum.’ ‘Non veni in mundum,’ inquit
    Dominus, ‘ut iudicem mundum, sed ut liberem eum.’ Et ego qui
    illi successi causa mortium ero, cui in persona Petri dictum
    est: ‘Converte gladium tuum in locum suum: omnes enim qui
    acceperint gladium gladio peribunt?’ Ne defendere quidem nobis
    ferro nos licet, siquidem defendere Dominum Petrus volebat cum
    auriculam abscidit servo. Et tu divitiarum aut comparandarum
    aut tuendarum causa uti ferro nos iubes?

    “Nostra potestas est potestas clavium, dicente Domino, ‘Tibi
    dabo claves regni caelorum. Quodcumque[107] ligaveris super
    terram erit ligatum et in caelis, et quodcumque solveris
    super terram erit solutum et in caelis. Et portae inferi non
    praevalebunt adversus eas.’ Nihil ad hanc potestatem, nihil ad
    hanc dignitatem,[108] nihil ad hoc regnum adici potest. Quo qui
    contentus non est, aliud sibi quoddam a diabolo postulat, qui
    etiam Domino dicere ausus est: ‘Tibi dabo omnia regna mundi, si
    cadens in terram adoraveris me.’ Quare, Caesar, cum pace tua
    dictum sit, noli mihi diabolus effici qui Christum, id est me,
    regna mundi a te data accipere iubeas. Malo enim illa spernere
    quam possidere.

    “Et ut aliquid de infidelibus, sed, ut spero, futuris
    fidelibus, loquar; noli me de angelo lucis reddere illis
    angelum tenebrarum, quorum corda ad pietatem inducere volo,
    non ipsorum cervici iugum imponere, et gladio quod est verbum
    Dei, non gladio ferreo,[109] mihi subicere; ne deteriores
    efficiantur, ne recalcitrent, ne cornu feriant, ne nomen
    Dei meo irritati errore blasphement.[110] Filios mihi
    carissimos[111] volo reddere, non servos; adoptare, non emere;
    generare, non manu capere; animas eorum offerre sacrificium
    Deo, non diabolo corpora. ‘Discite a me,’ inquit Dominus, ‘quia
    mitis sum et humilis corde. Capite iugum meum, et invenietis
    requiem animabus vestris. Iugum enim meum suave[112] et pondus
    meum leve.’

    “Cuius ad extremum, ut iam[113] finem faciam, illam de[114] hac
    re sententiam accipe quam quasi inter me et te tulit. ‘Reddite
    quae sunt Caesaris Caesari; et quae sunt Dei Deo.’ Quo fit ut
    nec tu, Caesar, tua relinquere, neque ego quae Caesaris sunt
    accipere debeam; quae vel si millies offeras numquam accipiam.”

Ad hanc Silvestri orationem apostolico viro dignam, quid esset quod
amplius Constantinus posset opponere? Quod cum ita sit, qui aiunt
donationem esse factam nonne iniuriosi sunt in Constantinum, quem
suos privare imperiumque Romanum voluisse convellere; iniuriosi in
senatum populumque Romanum, Italiam, totumque occidentem, quem contra
ius fasque mutari imperium permississe; iniuriosi in Silvestrum, quem
indignam sancto viro donationem acceptam habuisse; iniuriosi in summum
pontificatum cui licere terrenis potiri regnis et Romanum moderari
Imperium arbitrantur? Haec tamen omnia eo pertinent, ut appareat
Constantinum inter tot impedimenta numquam fuisse facturum, ut rem
Romanam Silvestro ex maxima parte donaret ut isti aiunt.

       *       *       *       *       *

Age porro, ut credamus istam donationem de qua facit pagina vestra
mentionem, debet constare etiam de acceptatione Silvestri. Nunc de
illa non constat. At credibile est, dicitis, ratam hunc habuisse
donationem. Ita credo, nec ratam habuisse modo, verum etiam petiisse,
rogasse, precibus extorsisse, credibile est. Quid vos credibile, quod
praeter opinionem est hominum, dicitis? Nec quia in pagina privilegii
de donatione fit mentio, putandum est fuisse acceptatum:[115] sed e
contrario, quia non fit mentio de acceptatione, dicendum est non fuisse
donatum.[116] Ita plus contra vos facit, hunc donum respuisse, quam
illum dare voluisse; et beneficium in invitum non confertur. Neque vero
tantum donata respuisse Silvestrum suspicari debemus, sed tacite etiam
indicasse nec illum dare iure[117] nec se iure accipere posse.

Sed o caecam semper inconsultamque avaritiam![118] Demus ut tabulas
quoque de assensu Silvestri proferre possitis veras, incorruptas,
sinceras: num protinus donata sunt quae in talibus[119] continentur? Ubi
possessio? Ubi in manus traditio? Nam si chartam modo Constantinus dat,
non gratificari Silvestro voluit, sed illudere. Verisimile est, dicitis,
qui donat quippiam eum et possessionem tradere. Videte quid loquamini!
cum possessionem non esse datam constet, et an datum sit ius ambigatur.
Verisimile est qui possessionem non dedit, eum ne ius quidem dare
voluisse.

An non constat possessionem numquam fuisse traditam? Quod negare
impudentissimum est. Numquid Silvestrum Constantinus in Capitolium quasi
triumphantem inter frequentium Quiritum, sed infidelium, plausum duxit?
In sella aurea adsistente universo senatu collocavit? Magistratus pro sua
quemque dignitate regem salutare et adorare iussit? Hoc[120] erga novos
principes fieri solet, non tantum aliquod palatium velut Lateranense
tradi. Num postea per universam Italiam circumduxit?[121] Adiit cum illo
Gallias; adiit Hispanos;[122] adiit Germanos, ceterumque occidentem? Aut
si gravabantur[123] ambo tantum obire terrarum, quibusnam tam ingens
officium delegarunt, qui et Caesaris vice traderent possessionem et
Silvestri acciperent? Magni ii[124] viri atque eximiae auctoritatis esse
debuerunt: et tamen qui fuerint ignoramus. Et quantum in his duobus
verbis, _tradere_ et _accipere_, subest pondus![125] Nostra memoria,
ut exempla vetusta omittam, numquam aliter facitatum vidimus, cum quis
aut urbis aut regionis aut provinciae dominus factus est; ita demum
traditam existimari possessionem, si magistratus pristini summoveantur
novique subrogentur. Hoc si tunc Silvester fieri non postulasset, tamen
magnificentiae Constantini intererat, ut declararet non verbo se, sed re
possessionem tradere, suos praesides amovere aliosque ab illo substitui
iubere. Non traditur possessio quae penes eosdem remanet qui possidebant,
et novus dominus illos summovere non audet.

Sed fac istud quoque non obstare, et nihilominus putari Silvestrum
possedisse, atque omnia praeter morem praeterque naturam tunc esse
dicamus administrata. Postquam ille abiit, quos provinciis urbibusque
rectores Silvester praeposuit; quae bella gessit; quas nationes ad arma
spectantes oppressit; per quos haec administravit? Nihil horum scimus,
respondetis. Ita puto, nocturno tempore haec omnia gesta sunt, et ideo
nemo vidit.

Age, fuit in possessione Silvester? Quis eum de possessione deiecit?
Nam perpetuo in possessione non fuit, neque successorum aliquis saltem
usque ad Gregorium Magnum, qui et ipse caruit possessione. Qui extra
possessionem est, nec se ab ea deiectum probare potest, is profecto
numquam possedit; et si se possedisse dicat, insanit. Vides ut te insanum
etiam probo! Alioquin, dic quis papam deiecit? Ipsene Constantinus,
an eius filii, an Iulianus, an quis[126] alius Caesar? Profer nomen
expulsoris, profer tempus, unde primum, unde secundo, ac deinceps
expulsus est. Num per seditionem[127] et caedes, an sine his? Coniurarunt
in eum pariter nationes, an quae prima? Quid! Nemo omnium auxilio fuit:
ne illorum quidem qui per Silvestrum aliumve papam praepositi urbibus ac
provinciis erant? Uno die universa amisit; an paulatim et per partes?
Restitit ipse suique magistratus; an ad primum se tumultum abdicarunt?
Quid! Ipsi victores non in eam faecem[128] hominum, quam indignam imperio
ducebant, ferro grassati sunt, in ultionem[129] contumeliae, in tutelam
occupatae dominationis, in contemptum religionis nostrae, in ipsum etiam
posteritatis exemplum? Omnino eorum qui victi sunt nemo fugam cepit?
nemo latuit? nemo timuit? O admirabilem casum! Imperium Romanum tantis
laboribus, tanto cruore partum, tam placide, tam quiete a Christianis
sacerdotibus vel partum est, vel amissum, ut nullus cruor, nullum bellum,
nulla querela intercesserit; et quod non minus admirari debeas, per quos
hoc gestum sit, quo tempore, quomodo, quamdiu, prorsus ignotum. Putes in
silvis inter arbores regnasse Silvestrum, non Romae, et inter homines; et
ab hibernis[130] imbribus frigoribusque, non ab hominibus eiectum.

Quis non habet cognitum, qui paulo plura lectitarit, quot reges Romae,
quot consules, quot dictatores, quot tribuni plebis, quot censores,
quot aediles[131] creati fuerint? Nemoque ex tanta hominum copia, ex
tanta vetustate nos fugit. Scimus item quot Atheniensium duces, quot
Thebanorum, quot Lacedaemoniorum exstiterint; pugnas eorum terrestres
navalesque universas tenemus. Non ignoramus qui reges Persarum,
Medorum,[132] Chaldaeorum, Hebraeorum fuerint, aliorumque plurimorum; et
quomodo horum quisque aut acceperit regnum, aut tenuerit, aut perdiderit,
aut recuperaverit. Romanum autem, sive Silvestrianum, Imperium, qua
ratione inceperit, aut qua desierit, quando, per quos, in ipsa quoque
urbe nescitur. Interrogo num[133] quos harum rerum testes auctoresque
proferre possitis. Nullos, respondetis. Et non pudet vos, non tam
homines, quam pecudes dicere verisimile esse possedisse Silvestrum!

Quod quia vos non potestis, ego e contrario docebo, ad ultimum usque diem
vitae Constantinum, et gradatim deinceps omnes Caesares possedisse, ut
ne quid habeatis quod hiscere possitis. At perdifficile est et magni,
ut opinor, operis hoc docere! Evolvantur omnes Latinae Graecaeque
historiae; citentur ceteri auctores qui de illis meminere temporibus:
ac[134] neminem reperies in hac re ab alio discrepare. Unum ex mille
testimoniis sufficiat.[135] Eutropius, qui Constantinum, qui tres
Constantini filios a patre relictos dominos orbis terrarum vidit, qui de
Iuliano filio fratris Constantini ita scribit: “Hic Iulianus, qui fuit
subdiaconus[136] in Romana ecclesia, Imperator[137] effectus apostatavit
in idolorum cultu,[138] rerum potitus est, ingentique apparatu Parthis
intulit bellum, cui expeditioni ego quoque interfui.” Nec de donatione
Imperii occidentis tacuisset; nec paulo post de Ioviano, qui successit
Iuliano, ita dixisset: “Pacem cum Sapore necessariam quidem sed ignobilem
fecit, mutatis finibus ac nonnulla Imperii Romani parte tradita. Quod
ante, ex quo Romanum Imperium conditum erat, numquam accidit. Quin etiam
legiones nostrae apud Caudium per Pontium Telesinum[139] et in Hispania
apud Numantiam et in Numidia sub iugo missae sunt, ut nihil tamen finium
traderetur.”

Hoc loco libet vos,[140] nuperrime licet[141] defuncti estis, convenire,
pontifices Romani, et te, Eugeni, qui vivis cum Felicis[142] tamen
venia. Cur donationem Constantini magno ore iactitatis, frequenterque
vos ultores erepti Imperii quibusdam regibus principibusque minamini,
et confessionem quandam servitutis a Caesare dum coronandus est et a
nonnullis aliis principibus extorquetis, veluti ab rege Neapolitano
atque Siciliae; id quod numquam aliquis veterum Romanorum pontificum
fecit, non Damasus apud Theodosium, non Syricius apud Arcadium,[143] non
Anastasius apud Honorium, non Ioannes apud Iustinianum, non alii apud
alios sanctissimi papae apud optimos Caesares, sed semper illorum Romam
Italiamque, cum provinciis quas nominavi, fuisse professi sunt? Eoque
numismata aurea, ut de aliis monumentis sileam templisque urbis Romanae,
circumferuntur, non Graecis sed Latinis litteris inscripta, Constantini
iam Christiani et deinceps cunctorum ferme Imperatorum, quorum multa
penes me sunt cum hac plerumque subscriptione subter imaginem crucis,
“Concordia orbis.” Qualia infinita reperirentur summorum pontificum, si
umquam Romae imperassetis! Quae nulla reperiuntur, neque aurea, neque
argentea, neque ab aliquo visa memorantur. Et tamen necesse erat illo
tempore proprium habere numisma quisquis imperium Romae teneret; saltem
sub imagine Salvatoris aut Petri.

Pro[144] imperitiam hominum! Non cernitis, si donatio Constantini vera
est, Caesari—de Latino loquor—nihil relinqui. En qualis Imperator, qualis
rex Romanus erit, cuius regnum si quis habeat, nec aliud habeat, omnino
nil habet! Quod si itaque palam est Silvestrum non possedisse; hoc est,
Constantinum non tradidisse possessionem, haud dubium erit ne ius quidem,
ut dixi, dedisse possidendi: nisi dicitis ius quidem datum, sed aliqua
causa possessionem non traditam; ita plane dabat quod minime futurum
intelligebat; dabat quod tradere non poterat; dabat quod non prius venire
in manus eius cui dabatur possibile erat quam esset extinctum; dabat
donum quod ante quingentos annos aut numquam valiturum foret. Verum hoc
loqui aut sentire insanum est.

       *       *       *       *       *

Sed iam tempus est, ne longior fiam, causae adversariorum iam concisae
atque laceratae letale[145] vulnus imprimere et uno eam iugulare ictu.
Omnis fere historia, quae nomen historiae meretur, Constantinum a
puero cum patre Constantio[146] Christianum refert multo etiam ante
pontificatum Silvestri; ut Eusebius ecclesiasticae scriptor historiae,
quem Rufinus,[147] non in postremis doctus, in Latinum interpretatus duo
volumina de aevo suo adiecit, quorum uterque paene[148] Constantini
temporibus fuit. Adde huc testimonium etiam Romani pontificis qui his
rebus gerendis non interfuit sed praefuit, non testis sed auctor, non
alieni negotii sed sui narrator. Is est Melchiades papa, qui proximus
fuit ante Silvestrum, qui ita ait: “Ecclesia ad hoc usque pervenit, ut
non solum gentes sed etiam Romani principes, qui totius orbis monarchiam
tenebant, ad fidem Christi et[149] fidei sacramenta concurrerent. E
quibus vir religiosissimus Constantinus, primus fidem veritatis patenter
adeptus, licentiam dedit per universum orbem[150] suo degentibus imperio
non solum fieri Christianos, sed etiam fabricandi ecclesias, et praedia
constituit tribuenda. Denique idem praefatus princeps donaria immensa
contulit, et fabricam templi primae sedis beati Petri instituit; adeo
ut sedem imperialem relinqueret et beato Petro suisque successoribus
profuturam concederet.” En nihil Melchiades a Constantino datum ait,
nisi palatium Lateranense, et praedia, de quibus Gregorius in registro
facit saepissime mentionem. Ubi sunt qui nos[151] in dubium vocare non
sinunt donatio Constantini valeat necne, cum illa donatio fuerit et ante
Silvestrum et rerum tantummodo privatarum?

Quae res quamquam plana et aperta sit, tamen de ipso quod isti stolidi
proferre solent privilegio disserendum est.

Et ante omnia non modo ille qui Gratianus videri voluit, qui nonnulla ad
opus Gratiani adiecit, improbitatis arguendus est, verum etiam inscitiae
qui opinantur paginam privilegii apud Gratianum contineri; quod neque
docti umquam putarunt, et in vetustissimis quibusque editionibus[152]
decretorum non invenitur. Et si quo in loco huius rei Gratianus
meminisset, non in hoc ubi isti collocant seriem ipsam orationis
abrumpentes, sed in eo ubi agit de Ludovici[153] pactione meminisset.
Praeterea duo millia locorum in decretis sunt quae ab huius loci fide
dissentiant; quorum unus est ubi, quae superius retuli, Melchiadis
verba ponuntur. Nonnulli eum qui hoc capitulum adiecit aiunt vocatum
_Paleam_ vel vero nomine, vel ideo quod quae de suo adiunxit ad Gratianum
comparata instar palearum iuxta frumenta existimentur. Utcumque sit,
indignissimum est credere, quae ab[154] hoc adiecta sunt, ea decretorum
collectorem aut ignorasse, aut magnifecisse habuisseque pro veris. Bene
habet, sufficit; vicimus. Primum quod hoc Gratianus non ait ut isti
mentiebantur, immo adeo, prout[155] ex infinitis locis datur intelligi,
negat atque confutat. Deinde quod unum et ignotum et nullius auctoritatis
ac minimi[156] hominem afferunt, ita etiam stolidum, ut ea Gratiano
affinxerit, quae cum ceteris illius dictis congruere non possent. Hunc
ergo vos auctorem profertis? Huius unius testimonio nitimini?[157] Huius
chartulam ad tantae rei confirmationem contra sexcenta probationum genera
recitatis? At ego exspectaveram ut aurea sigilla, marmoratos titulos,
mille auctores ostenderetis.

Sed ipse, dicitis, Palea auctorem profert, fontem historiae ostendit,
et Gelasium[158] papam cum multis episcopis in testimonium citat. “Ex
Gestis,” inquit, “Silvestri, quae beatus Gelasius in concilio septuaginta
episcoporum a catholicis legi commemorat, et pro antiquo usu multas hoc
dicit ecclesias imitari; in quibus legitur, Constantinus et cetera.”
Multo superius, ubi de libris legendis et non legendis agitur, etiam
dixerat, “Actus beati Silvestri praesulis, licet eius qui scripsit nomen
ignoremus, a multis tamen ab urbe Roma catholicis legi cognovimus,
et pro antiquo usu hoc imitantur ecclesiae.” Mira haec auctoritas,
mirum testimonium, inexpugnabilis probatio! Dono vobis hoc, Gelasium
dum de concilio septuaginta episcoporum loquitur id dixisse. Num id
dixit, paginam privilegii in beatissimi Silvestri Gestis legi? Is vero
tantum ait Gesta Silvestri legi[159] et hoc Romae, cuius ecclesiae
auctoritatem multae aliae sequuntur,[160] quod ego non nego; concedo,
fateor; me quoque una cum Gelasio testem exhibeo. Verum quid vobis ista
res prodest, nisi ut in adducendis testibus mentiri voluisse videamini?
Ignoratur nomen eius qui hoc in Decretis ascripsit, et solus hoc dicit.
Ignoratur nomen eius qui scripsit historiam, et solus is et falso testis
affertur. Et vos, boni viri atque prudentes, hoc satis superque esse
ad tantae rei testimonium existimatis? At videte, quantum inter meum
intersit vestrumque iudicium. Ego ne si hoc quidem apud Gesta Silvestri
privilegium contineretur, pro vero habendum putarem, cum historia illa
non historia sit, sed poetica et impudentissima fabula, ut posterius
ostendam; nec quisquam alius alicuius dumtaxat[161] auctoritatis de
hoc privilegio habeat mentionem. Et Iacobus Voraginensis, propensus
in amorem clericorum ut archiepiscopus, tamen in Gestis sanctorum de
donatione Constantini, ut fabulosa nec digna quae inter Gesta Silvestri
poneretur, silentium egit; lata quodammodo sententia contra eos, si qui
haec litteris mandavissent.

Sed ipsum falsarium ac vere “paleam,” non triticum, obtorto collo
in iudicium trahere volo. Quid ais, falsarie? Unde fit quod istud
privilegium inter Silvestri Gesta non legimus? Credo hic liber rarus
est, difficilis inventu, nec vulgo habetur, sed tamquam fasti olim a
pontificibus, aut libri Sibyllini[162] a decemviris custoditur! Lingua
Graeca aut Syriaca aut Chaldaica scriptus est! Testatur Gelasius a
multis catholicis legi; Voraginensis de eo meminit; nos quoque mille et
antique scripta exemplaria vidimus; et in omni fere cathedrali ecclesia,
cum adest Silvestri natalis dies, lectitantur: et tamen nemo se illic
legisse istud ait quod tu affingis, nemo audisse, nemo somniasse. An alia
quaedam fortassis historia est? Et quaenam ista erit? Ego aliam nescio,
nec abs te aliam dici interpretor, quippe de ea tu loqueris quam Gelasius
apud multas ecclesias lectitari refert. In hac autem tuum privilegium
non invenimus. Quod si istud in Vita Silvestri non legitur, quid tu ita
legi tradidisti? Quid in tanta re iocari ausus es, et levium hominum
cupiditatem eludere?

Sed stultus sum qui illius potius insector audacium, quam istorum
dementiam qui crediderunt. Si quis apud Graecos, apud Hebraeos, apud
barbaros diceret hoc esse memoriae proditum, nonne iuberetis nominari
auctorem, proferri codicem, et locum ab interprete fideli exponi antequam
crederetis? Nunc de lingua vestra, de notissimo codice fit mentio, et
vos tam incredibile factum aut non inquiritis, aut, cum scriptum non
reperiatis, tam prona estis credulitate ut pro scripto habeatis atque pro
vero. Et hoc titulo contenti, terras miscetis et maria, et, quasi nullum
subsit dubium, eos qui vobis non credunt, terrore bellorum aliisque minis
prosequimini. Bone Iesu, quanta vis, quanta divinitas est veritatis,
quae per sese sine magno conatu ab omnibus dolis ac fallaciis se ipsa
defendit, ut non immerito, cum esset apud Darium regem exorta contentio
quid foret maxime validum et alius aliud diceret, tributa sit palma
veritati!

Quia cum sacerdotibus, non cum saecularibus, mihi res est, ecclesiastica
magis quam saecularia sunt exempla repetenda. Iudas Machabaeus, cum
dimissis Romam legatis foedus amicitiamque a senatu impetrasset,
curavit verba foederis in aes incidenda Ierosolimamque portanda. Taceo
de lapideis decalogi tabulis, quas Deus Moysi dedit. Ista vero tam
magnifica Constantini et tam inaudita donatio nullis neque in auro,
neque in argento, neque in aere, neque in marmore, neque postremo in
libris, probari documentis potest; sed tantum, si isti credimus, in
charta, sive membrana. Iobal primus musices auctor, ut est apud Iosephum,
cum esset a maioribus per manus tradita opinio res humanas semel aqua
iterum igni delendas, doctrinam suam duabus columnis[163] inscripsit,
lateritia contra ignem, lapidea contra aquas; quae ad Iosephi aevum, ut
idem scribit, permansit; ut suum in homines beneficium semper exstaret.
Et apud Romanos rusticanos[164] adhuc et agrestes, cum parvae et rarae
litterae essent, tamen leges duodecim tabularum in aes fuere incisae,
quae vi[165] capta atque incensa a Gallis urbe incolumes postea sunt
repertae. Adeo duo maxima in rebus humanis, diuturnitatem temporis et
fortunae violentiam, vincit circumspecta providentia. Constantinus vero
orbis terrarum donationem papyro[166] tantum et atramento signavit, cum
praesertim machinator fabulae, quisquis ille fuit, faciat Constantinum
dicentem se credere non defore qui donationem hanc impia aviditate
rescinderent! Hoc times, Constantine, et non caves ne ii qui Romam
Silvestro eriperent chartulam quoque surriperent?

Quid ipse Silvester pro se nihil agit? Ita omnia Constantino remittit?
Ita securus ac segnis est in tanto negotio? Nihil sibi, nihil
ecclesiae suae, nihil posteritati prospicit? En, cui Imperium Romanum
administrandum committas,[167] qui tam magnae rei tantoque aut lucro aut
periculo indormit! Si quidem sublata chartula, privilegii donationem
utique aetate procedente probare non poterit.

       *       *       *       *       *

“Paginam privilegii” appellat homo vesanus. Privilegiumne tu (libet velut
praesentem insectari) vocas donationem orbis terrarum; et hoc in pagina
vis esse scriptum; et isto genere orationis usum esse Constantinum? Si
titulus absurdus est, qualia cetera existimemus?

“Constantinus Imperator quarto die sui baptismatis privilegium Romanae
ecclesiae pontifici contulit, ut in toto orbe Romano[168] sacerdotes ita
hunc caput habeant, sicut iudices regem.” Hoc in ipsa Silvestri historia
continetur; ex quo dubitari non potest ubinam scriptum significetur
“privilegium.” Sed, more eorum qui mendacia machinantur, a vero
incoepit[169] ut sequentibus, quae falsa sunt, conciliet fidem, ut Sinon
apud Virgilium:

    “Cuncta equidem tibi, rex, fuerint quaecumque fatebor.
    Vera, inquit, nec me Argolica de gente negabo.”

Hoc primum, deinde falsa subiecit. Ita hoc loco noster Sinon facit, qui
cum a vero incoepisset, adiecit:

    “In eo privilegio, inter cetera, legitur: ‘Utile iudicavimus
    una cum omnibus satrapis nostris et universo senatu,
    optimatibus etiam, et cum cuncto populo imperio Romanae
    ecclesiae subiacenti ut sicut beatus Petrus in terris vicarius
    Dei videtur esse constitutus, etiam et pontifices ipsius
    principis apostolorum vicem principatus potestatem amplius
    quam terrenae imperialis nostrae serenitatis mansuetudo habere
    videretur, concessam a nobis nostroque imperio obtineant.’”

O scelerate atque malefice! Eadem quam affers in testimonium refert
historia, longo tempore neminem senatorii ordinis voluisse accipere
religionem Christianam, et Constantinum pauperes sollicitasse pretio
ad baptismum. Et tu ais intra primos statim dies senatum, optimates,
satrapes,[170] quasi iam Christianos, de honestanda ecclesia Romana
cum Caesare decrevisse! Quid! Quod vis interfuisse satrapes? O cautes,
O stipes! Sic loquuntur Caesares? Sic concipi solent decreta Romana?
Quis umquam satrapes in consiliis Romanorum nominari audivit? Non teneo
memoria umquam legisse me ullum, non modo Romanum, sed ne in Romanorum
quidem provinciis satrapem nominatum. At hic Imperatoris satrapes
vocat, eosque senatui praeponit, cum omnes honores, etiam qui principi
deferuntur, tantum a senatu decernantur, aut iuncto[171] “populoque
Romano.” Hinc est quod in lapidibus vetustis aut tabulis aereis aut
numismatis duas litteras videmus scriptas: S. C.; id est, “Senatus
consulto,” vel quattuor:[172] S. P. Q. R., hoc est, “Senatus populusque
Romanus.” Et, ut Tertullianus meminit, cum Pontius Pilatus de admirandis
Christi actionibus ad Tiberium Caesarem, non ad senatum, scripsisset,
siquidem ad senatum scribere de magnis rebus magistratus consueverant,
senatus hanc rem indigne tulit, Tiberioque praerogativam ferenti ut
Iesus pro deo coleretur repugnavit, ob tacitam tantummodo indignationem
offensae senatoriae dignitatis. Et ut scias quantum senatus valeat
auctoritas, ne pro deo coleretur obtinuit.

Quid! Quod ais optimates? Quos aut primarios in republica viros
intelligimus, qui cur nominentur[173] cum de ceteris magistratibus
silentium sit? aut eos qui populares non sunt, benevolentiam populi
aucupantes, sed optimi cuiusque et bonarum partium studiosi ac
defensores, ut Cicero quadam oratione demonstrat? Ideoque Caesarem ante
oppressam rempublicam popularem fuisse dicimus, Catonem ex optimatibus,
quorum differentiam Sallustius explicavit. Neque hi optimates magisquam
populares aut ceteri boni viri dicuntur in consilio adhiberi.

Sed quid mirum si adhibentur optimates, ubi cunctus populus, si homini
credimus, cum senatu et Caesare iudicavit, et is quidem Romanae ecclesiae
subiacens! Et quis iste est populus? Romanusne? At cur non dicitur
populus Romanus potiusquam populus subiacens? Quae nova ista contumelia
est in Quirites, de quibus optimi poetae elogium est:

    “Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento?”

Qui regit alios populos,[174] ipse vocatur populus subiacens, quod
inauditum est. Nam in hoc, ut in multis epistolis Gregorius testatur,
differt Romanus princeps[175] a ceteris, quod solus est princeps liberi
populi. Ceterum ita sit ut vis. Nonne et alii populi subiacent? An alios
quoque significas? Quomodo fieri istud triduo poterat, ut omnes populi
subiacentes imperio Romanae ecclesiae illi decreto adessent? Tametsi
num[176] omnis faex populi iudicabat? Quid! Antequam subiecisset Romano
pontifici populum Constantinus subiectum vocaret? Quid! Quod ii[177] qui
subiacentes vocantur faciendo dicuntur praefuisse decreto? Quid! Quod hoc
ipsum dicuntur decrevisse, ut sint subiacentes et ut ille cui subiacent
hos habeat subiacentes? Quid agis aliud, infelix,[178] nisi ut iudices te
voluntatem fallendi habere, facultatem non habere?

    “Eligentes nobis ipsum principem apostolorum, vel eius
    vicarios, firmos apud Deum esse patronos. Et sicut nostra est
    terrena imperialis potentia, ita eius sacrosanctam Romanam
    ecclesiam decrevimus veneranter honorare, et amplius quam
    nostrum imperium terrenumque thronum, sedem sacratissimam
    beati Petri gloriose exaltari,[179] tribuentes ei potestatem
    et gloriam et dignitatem, atque vigorem et honorificentiam
    imperialem.”

Revivisce paulisper, Firmiane[180] Lactanti, resisteque huic asino tam
vaste immaniterque rudenti. Ita verborum turgentium strepitu delectatur,
ut eadem repetat et inculcet quae modo dixerat. Huncne in modum aevo
tuo loquebantur Caesarum scribae, ne dicam agasones? Elegit sibi illos
Constantinus non patronos, sed “esse patronos.” Interposuit illud
“esse” ut numerum redderet concinniorem. Honesta ratio! Barbare loqui
ut venustius currat oratio, si modo quid in tanta scabritia venustum
esse potest! “Eligentes principem apostolorum, vel eius vicarios.” Non
eligis[181] Petrum et eius deinceps vicarios, sed aut hunc exclusis
illis, aut illos hoc excluso. Et pontifices Romanos appellat vicarios
Petri, quasi vel vivat Petrus, vel minori dignitate sint ceteri
quam Petrus fuit. Nonne et illud barbarum est; “a nobis nostroque
imperio?” Quasi imperium habeat animum concedendi et potestatem! Nec
fuit contentus dicere “obtineant,” nisi etiam diceret “concessam,”
cum satis alterum esset. Et illud “firmos patronos,” perquam elegans
est! Scilicet firmos vult ne pecunia corrumpantur aut metu labantur.
Et illud “terrena imperialis potentia”; duo adiectiva sine copula! Et
illud “veneranter honorare,” et illud “nostrae imperialis serenitatis
mansuetudo!” Lactantianam eloquentiam redolet, cum de potentia agatur
imperii, serenitatem nominare et mansuetudinem, non amplitudinem et
maiestatem. Quod etiam tumida superbia inflatum est, ut in illo quoque,
“gloriose exaltari”[182] per “gloriam et potestatem et dignitatem, et
vigorem et honorificentiam imperialem”! quod ex Apocalypsi sumptum
videtur, ubi dicitur: “Dignus est agnus qui occisus est, accipere
virtutem et divinitatem[183] et sapientiam et fortitudinem et honorem
et benedictionem.” Frequenter, ut posterius liquebit, titulos Dei
sibi arrogare fingitur Constantinus, et imitari velle sermonem sacrae
Scripturae, quem numquam legerat.

    “Atque decernentes sancimus, ut principatum teneat, tam super
    quatuor sedes Alexandrinam, Antiochenam, Ierosolimitanam,
    Constantinopolitanam, quam etiam super omnes in universo orbe
    terrarum Dei ecclesias; etiam pontifex, qui per tempora ipsius
    sacrosanctae Romanae ecclesiae extiterit, celsior et princeps
    cunctis sacerdotibus et totius mundi existat, et eius iudicio,
    quae ad cultum Dei et fidem Christianorum vel stabilitatem
    procurandam fuerint, disponantur.”[184]

Omitto hic barbariem sermonis, quod “princeps sacerdotibus” pro
“sacerdotum” dixit, et quod in eodem loco posuit “extiterit” et
“existat,” et, cum dixerit “in universo orbe terrarum,” iterum addit
“totius mundi,” quasi quiddam diversum, aut caelum, quae mundi pars est,
complecti velit, cum bona pars orbis terrarum sub Roma non esset, et
quod “fidem Christianorum,” “vel stabilitatem procurandam,” tamquam non
possent simul esse, distinxit, et quod “decernere” et “sancire” miscuit,
et veluti prius cum ceteris Constantinus non iudicasset, decernere eum
et, tamquam poenam proponat, sancire, et quidem una cum populo sancire
facit. Quis hoc Christianus pati queat, et non papam, qui hoc patitur ac
libens audit et recitat, censorie severeque castiget, quod, cum a Christo
primatum acceperit Romana sedes et id, Gratiano testante multisque
Graecorum, octava synodus declararit, accepisse dicatur a Constantino
vix dum Christiano tamquam a Christo? Hoc ille modestissimus princeps
dicere, hoc piissimus pontifex audire voluisset? Absit tam grave ab
utroque illorum nefas!

Quid, quod multo est absurdius, capitne rerum natura, ut quis de
Constantinopoli loqueretur tamquam una patriarchalium sedium, quae
nondum esset nec patriarchalis, nec sedes, nec urbs Christiana, nec sic
nominata, nec condita, nec ad condendum destinata? Quippe privilegium
concessum est triduo quod Constantinus esset effectus Christianus, cum
Byzantium[185] adhuc erat, non Constantinopolis. Mentior nisi hoc quoque
confiteatur[186] hic stolidus. Scribit enim prope calcem privilegii:

    “Unde congruum prospeximus, nostrum imperium et regiam
    potestatem orientalibus transferri regionibus, et in Byzantiae
    provinciae optimo loco nomini nostro civitatem aedificari, et
    illic nostrum constitui imperium.”

Si ille transferre volebat alio imperium, nondum transtulerat. Si illic
volebat constituere imperium, nondum constituerat. Si sic volebat
aedificare urbem, nondum aedificaverat. Non ergo fecisset mentionem de
patriarchali, de una quattuor sedium, de Christiana, de sic nominata, de
condita; de qua condenda, ut historiae placet quam Palea in testimonium
affert, ne cogitarat quidem. A qua[187] non videt haec belua, sive
is Palea sit, sive alius quem Palea sequitur, se dissentire, ubi
Constantinus, non sua sponte, sed inter quietem admonitu Dei, non Romae,
sed Byzantii, non intra paucos dies, sed post aliquot annos, dicitur
decrevisse de urbe condenda, nomenque quod in somnis edoctus fuerat
indidisse. Quis ergo non videt, qui privilegium composuit, eum diu
post tempora Constantini fuisse, et, cum vellet adornare mendacium,
excidisse sibi quod ante dixisset haec gesta esse Romae tertio die quam
ille fuisset baptizatus: ut in eum decentissime cadat tritum vetustate
proverbium, “Mendaces memores esse oportere”?

Quid, quod Byzantiam provinciam vocat quod erat oppidum nomine[188]
Byzantium? Locus haudquaquam capax tantae urbis condendae: namque muris
complexa est Constantinopolis vetus Byzantium! Et hic in eius optimo
loco ait urbem esse condendam! Quid, quod Thraciam,[189] ubi positum
erat Byzantium, vult esse in oriente, quae vergit ad Aquilonem! Opinor
ignorabat Constantinus locum quem condendae urbi delegerat, sub quo caelo
esset, urbsque an provincia, quanta eius mensura foret!

    “Ecclesiis beatorum apostolorum Petri et Pauli pro
    continuatione luminariorum possessionum praedia contulimus,
    et rebus diversis eas ditavimus, et per nostram imperialem
    iussionem sacram tam in oriente quam in occidente quam etiam
    a septentrione et meridionali plaga, videlicet in Iudaea,
    Graecia, Asia, Thracia, Africa, et Italia, vel diversis
    insulis, nostra largitate eis concessimus, ea prorsus ratione,
    ut per manus beatissimi patris nostri Silvestri summi
    pontificis successorumque eius omnia disponantur.”

O furcifer! Ecclesiaene, id est templa, Romae erant Petro et Paulo
dicatae? Quis eas exstruxerat?[190] Quis aedificare ausus fuisset cum
nusquam foret, ut historia ait, Christianis locus nisi secreta et
latebrae? Aut si qua templa Romae fuissent illis dicata apostolis, non
erant digna in quibus tanta luminaria accenderentur; aediculae sacrae,
non aedes; sacella, non templa; oratoria inter privatos parietes,
non publica delubra. Non ergo ante cura gerenda erat de luminaribus
templorum, quam de ipsis templis.

Quid ais tu, qui facis Constantinum dicentem Petrum et Paulum beatos,
Silvestrum vero cum adhuc vivit beatissimum, et suam qui paulo ante
fuisset ethnicus iussionem sacram? Tantane conferenda sunt pro
luminaribus continuandis, ut totus orbis terrarum fatigetur? At quae
ista praedia sunt, praesertim “possessionum”? Praediorum possessiones
dicere solemus, non “possessionum praedia.” Das praedia, nec quae praedia
explicas. Ditasti diversis rebus, nec quando, nec quibus rebus ostendis.
Vis plagas orbis a Silvestro disponi, nec pandis quo genere disponendi.
Concessisti haec antea? Cur te hodie incoepisse significas honorare
ecclesiam Romanam et ei privilegium concedere? Hodie concedis; hodie
ditas? Cur dicis “concessimus” et “ditavimus”? Quid loqueris, aut quid
sentis, bestia? Cum fabulae machinatore mihi sermo est, non cum optimo
principe Constantino.

Sed quid in te ullam prudentiam, ullam doctrinam requiro, qui nullo
ingenio, nulla litteratura es praeditus; qui ais “luminariorum” pro
luminarium, et “orientalibus transferri regionibus” pro eo quod est
ad orientales transferri regiones? Quid porro? Istaene sunt quattuor
plagae? Quam orientalem numeras? Thraciamne? At, ut dixi, vergit ad
septentrionem. An Iudaeam? At magis ad meridiem spectat, utpote vicina
Aegypto. Quam item occidentalem? Italiamne? At haec in Italia gerebantur,
quam nemo illic agens occidentalem vocat; cum Hispanias dicamus esse
in occidente; et Italia hinc ad meridiem illinc ad arcton magisquam
ad occidentem vergit. Quam septentrionalem? An Thraciam? At ipse ad
orientem esse vis. An Asiam? At haec sola totum possidet orientem,
septentrionem vero communem[191] cum Europa. Quam meridionalem? Certe
Africam. At cur non aliquam nominatim provinciam proferebas? Nisi forte
Aethiopes Romano imperio suberant. Et nihilominus non habent locum Asia
et Africa cum orbem terrarum in quattuor dividimus partes et nominatim
regiones singularum referimus, sed cum in tres, Asiam, Africam, Europam;
nisi Asiam pro Asiatica provincia, Africam pro ea provincia quae prope
Gaetulos[192] est, appellas, quae non video cur praecipue nominentur.[193]

Sicine[194] locutus esset Constantinus, cum quattuor orbis plagas
exsequitur,[195] ut has regiones nominaret, ceteras non nominaret; et a
Iudaea inciperet, quae pars Syriae numeratur et quae amplius Iudaea non
erat, eversa Hierosolima, fugatis et prope exstinctis[196] Iudaeis, ita
ut credam vix aliquem in sua tunc patria remansisse, sed alias habitasse
nationes? Ubi tandem erat Iudaea, quae nec Iudaea amplius vocabatur,
ut hodie videmus illud terrae nomen exstinctum? Et sicut exterminatis
Chananeis Chananea regio desiit appellari, commutato nomine in Iudaeam
a novis incolis, ita exterminatis Iudaeis et convenis gentibus eam
incolentibus desierat Iudaea nominari.

Nuncupas Iudaeam, Thraciam, insulas; Hispanias vero, Gallias, Germanos
non putas nuncupandos, et cum de aliis linguis loquaris, Hebraea, Graeca,
barbara, de ulla provinciarum Latino sermone utentium non loqueris.
Video: has tu ideo[197] omisisti, ut postea in donatione complectereris.
Et quid non tanti erant tot provinciae occidentis, ut continuandis
luminaribus suppeditarent sumptus, nisi reliquus orbis adiuvaret?

Transeo quod haec concedi ais per largitatem; non ergo, ut isti aiunt, ob
leprae curationem. Alioquin insolens sit, quisquis renumerationem loco
munerum ponit.

    “Beato Silvestro eius vicario de praesenti tradimus palatium
    imperii nostri Lateranense, deinde diadema, videlicet coronam
    capitis nostri, simulque phrygium, nec non et superhumerale,
    videlicet lorum quod imperiale circumdare[198] solet collum,
    verum etiam chlamydem[199] purpuream, atque tunicam coccineam,
    et omnia imperialia indumenta, seu etiam dignitatem imperialium
    praesidentium equitum; conferentes etiam ei imperialia sceptra,
    simulque cuncta signa atque banna et diversa ornamenta
    imperialia, et omnem processionem imperialis culminis, et
    gloriam potestatis nostrae.

    “Viris etiam diversi ordinis reverendissimis[200] clericis
    sanctae Romanae ecclesiae servientibus, illud culmen singularis
    potentiae et praecellentiae habere sancimus, cuius amplissimus
    noster senatus videtur gloria adornari, id est patricios,[201]
    consules effici. Nec non in ceteris dignitatibus imperialibus
    eos promulgavimus decorari. Et sicut imperialis extat decorata
    militia, ita clerum sanctae Romanae ecclesiae adornari
    decrevimus. Et quemadmodum imperialis potentia diversis
    officiis, cubiculariorum nempe et ostiariorum[202] atque
    omnium concubitorum ordinatur,[203] ita et sanctam Romanam
    ecclesiam decorari volumus. Et ut amplissime pontificale decus
    praefulgeat, decernimus[204] et ut clerici sancti eiusdem
    sanctae Romanae ecclesiae mappulis et linteaminibus, id est
    candidissimo colore decoratos equos equitent, et sicut noster
    senatus calciamentis utitur cum udonibus, id est candido
    linteamine illustrentur, et ita caelestia sicut terrena ad
    laudem Dei decorentur.”

O sancte Iesu! Ad hunc sententias volventem sermonibus imperitis non
respondebis de turbine? Non tonabis? Non in tantam blasphemiam[205]
ultricia fulmina iaculabere? Tantumne probrum in tua familia sustines?
Hoc audire, hoc videre, hoc tamdiu conniventibus oculis praeterire potes?
Sed patiens[206] es, et multae misericordiae. Vereor tamen ne patientia
haec tua sit potius ira et condemnatio, qualis in illos fuit, de quibus
dixisti: “Et dimisi eos secundum desiderium cordis eorum, ibunt in
adinventionibus suis,” et alibi: “Tradidi eos in reprobum sensum, ut
faciant quae non conveniunt, quia non probaverunt se habere notitiam
mei.” Iube me, quaeso, Domine, ut exclamem adversus eos, et forte
convertantur.[207]

O Romani pontifices, exemplum facinorum omnium ceteris pontificibus!
O improbissimi scribae et Pharisaei,[208] qui sedetis super cathedram
Moysi, et opera Dathan et Abiron facitis! Itane vestimenta, apparatus,
pompa, equitatus, omnis denique vita Caesaris vicarium Christi decebit?
Quae communicatio sacerdotis ad Caesarem? Istane Silvester vestimenta
sibi induit? Eo apparatu incessit? Ea celebritate ministrantium domi
vixit atque regnavit? Sceleratissimi homines non intelligunt Silvestro
magis vestes Aaron, qui summus Dei sacerdos fuerat, quam gentilis
principis fuisse sumendas.

Sed haec alias erunt exagitanda vehementius. Impraesentiarum autem de
barbarismo cum[209] hoc sycophanta loquamur, cuius ex stultiloquio
impudentissimum eius patescit[210] sua sponte mendacium.

“Tradimus,” inquit, “palatium imperii nostri Lateranense”; quasi male
hoc loco inter ornamenta donum palatii posuisset, iterum postea ubi de
donis agitur replicavit. “Deinde diadema”; et quasi illi non videant qui
adsunt, interpretatur; “videlicet coronam.” Verum hic non addidit “ex
auro,” sed posterius easdem res inculcans inquit; “ex auro purissimo et
gemmis preciosis.” Ignoravit homo imperitus diadema e panno esse aut
fortassis ex serico; unde sapiens illud regis dictum celebrari solet,
quem ferunt traditum sibi diadema priusquam capiti imponeret retentum
diu considerasse ac dixisse: “O nobilem magisquam felicem pannum! Quem
si quis penitus agnosceret,[211] quam multis sollicitudinibus[212]
periculisque et miseriis sis refertus, ne humi quidem iacentem vellet
tollere.” Iste non putat illud nisi ex auro esse, cui circulus aureus
nunc cum gemmis apponi a regibus solet. Verum non erat rex Constantinus,
nec regem appellare, nec regio se ritu ornare fuisset ausus. Imperator
Romanorum erat, non rex. Ubi rex est, ibi respublica non est. At in
republica multi fuerunt etiam uno tempore imperatores; nam Cicero
frequenter ita scribit: M. Cicero imperator illi vel illi imperatori
salutem: licet postea peculiari nomine Romanus princeps, ut summus
omnium, imperator appelletur.

“Simulque phrygium, nec non superhumerale, videlicet lorum quod
imperiale circumdare solet collum.” Quis umquam phrygium Latine dici
audivit? Tu mihi dum barbare loqueris videri vis Constantini aut
Lactantii esse sermonem. Plautus in Menaechmis[213] phrygionem[214] pro
concinnatore vestium posuit. Plinius phrygionas[215] appellat vestes
acu pictas, quod earum Phryges fuerint[216] inventores. Phrygium vero
quid significat?[217] Hoc non exponis, quod obscurum; exponis quod est
clarius. Superhumerale ais esse lorum, nec quid sit lorum tenes; non
enim cingulum ex corio factum, quod dicitur lorum, sentis circumdari pro
ornamento Caesaris collo: hinc est quod habenas et verbera vocamus lora;
quod si quando dicantur lora aurea, non nisi de habenis quae auratae
collo equi aut alterius pecudis circumdari assolent intelligi potest.
Quae te res, ut mea fert opinio, fefellit, et cum lorum circumdare
collo[218] Caesaris atque Silvestri vis, de homine, de imperatore, de
summo pontifice, equum aut asinum[219] facis.

“Verum et chlamydem[220] purpuream, atque tunicam coccineam.” Quia
Matthaeus ait chlamydem coccineam, et Ioannes vestem purpuream, utrumque
voluit hic eodem loco coniungere. Quod si idem color est, ut Evangelistae
significant, quid tu non fuisti contentus alterum nominasse, ut illi
contenti fuerunt: nisi accipis purpuram, ut nunc imperiti loquuntur,
genus panni serici colore albo? Est autem purpura piscis, cuius sanguine
lana tingitur, ideoque a tinctura datum est nomen panno, cuius color
pro rubro accipi potest, licet sit magis nigricans et proximus colori
sanguinis concreti, et quasi violaceus. Inde ab Homero atque Virgilio
purpureus dicitur sanguis et marmor porphyritum,[221] cuius color est
simillimus amethysto;[222] Graeci enim purpuram porphyram vocant.
Coccineum pro rubro accipi forte non ignoras; sed cur faciat coccineum
cum nos dicamus coccum, et chlamys quod genus sit vestimenti, iurarem te
plane nescire.

Atque ut ne se[223] longius persequendo singulas vestes mendacem
proderet, uno semel verbo complexus est, dicens; “omnia imperialia
indumenta.” Quid! Etiamne illa quibus in bello, quibus in venatione,
quibus in conviviis, quibus in ludis amiciri solet? Quid stultius quam
omnia Caesaris indumenta dicere convenire pontifici?

Sed quam lepide addit; “Seu etiam dignitatem imperialium praesidentium
equitum”! “Seu” inquit. Distinguere duo haec invicem voluit, quasi multum
inter se habeant similitudinis, et de imperatorio habitu ad equestrem
dignitatem delabitur,[224] nescio quid loquens. Mira quaedam effari vult,
sed deprehendi in mendacio[225] timet, eoque inflatis buccis et turgido
gutture dat sine mente sonum.

“Conferentes ei etiam imperialia sceptra.” Quae structura orationis! Qui
nitor! Qui ordo! Quaenam sunt sceptra ista imperialia? Unum est sceptrum,
non plura; si modo sceptrum gerebat imperator. Num et pontifex sceptrum
manu gestabit? Cur non ei dabimus et ensem et galeam et iaculum?

“Simulque cuncta signa atque banna.” Quid tu “signa” accipis? Signa sunt
aut statuae, unde frequenter legimus signa et tabulas pro sculpturis ac
picturis,—prisci enim non in parietibus pingebant, sed in tabulis,—aut
vexilla, unde illud; “Signa, pares aquilas.” A priore significato sigilla
dicuntur parvae statuae atque sculpturae. Num ergo statuas aut aquilas
suas Silvestro dabat Constantinus? Quid hoc absurdius? At “banna” quid
sibi velit, non invenio. Deus te perdat, improbissime mortalium, qui
sermonem barbarum attribuis saeculo erudito!

“Et diversa ornamenta imperialia.” Quia dixit “banna,” satis putavit
significatum esse, et ideo cetera sub verbum universale conclusit.
Et quam frequenter inculcat “imperalia”; quasi propria quaedam sint
ornamenta imperatoris magis quam consulis, quam dictatoris, quam Caesaris!

    “Et omnem processionem imperialis culminis, et gloriam
    potestatis nostrae.”

    “Proicit ampullas et sesquipedalia verba,”

    “Rex regum Darius, consanguineusque deorum,”

numquam nisi numero plurali loquens.[226] Quae est ista processio
imperialis; cucumeris per herbam torti, et crescentis[227] in ventrem?
Triumphasse existimas Caesarem quotiens domo prodibat, ut nunc solet
papa, praecedentibus albis equis, quos stratos ornatosque famuli
dextrant; quo, ut taceam alias ineptias, nihil est vanius, nihilque a
pontifice Romano alienius? Quae etiam ista gloria est? Gloriamne, ut
Hebraeae linguae mos est, pompam et apparatus illum splendorem homo
Latinus appellasset? Ut illud quoque militiam pro milites, quod ab
Hebraeis sumus mutuati, quorum libros Constantinus aut ipsius scribae
numquam aspexerant?

Verum quanta est munificentia tua, Imperator, qui non satis habes
ornasse[228] pontificem, nisi ornes et omnem clerum! “Culmen singularis
potentiae et praecellentiae,” ais, “effici patricios, consules.” Quis
audivit senatores aliosve homines effici patricios? Consules efficiuntur,
non patricii;[229] ex domo vel patricia, quae eadem senatoria dicitur,
siquidem senatores patres conscripti sunt, vel ex equestri, vel ex
plebeia; plusque est senatorem esse quam patricium, nam senator est
unus e delectis consiliariis reipublicae, patricius[230] vero qui e
domo senatoria ortum ducit. Ita qui senator aut ex patribus conscriptis
non protinus et patricius[230] est. Ridiculeque Romani mei hoc tempore
faciunt, qui praetorem suum senatorem vocant, cum neque senatus ex uno
homine constare possit, necesseque sit senatorem habere collegas; et
is[231] qui nunc senator dicitur fungatur officio praetoris. At dignitas
patriciatus in multis libris invenitur, inquies. Audio: sed in his
qui de temporibus post Constantinum loquuntur. Ergo post Constantinum
privilegium confectum est.

Sed numquid clerici fieri consules possunt? Coniugio sibi interdixere
Latini clerici: et consules fient, habitoque delectu militum cum
legionibus et auxiliis in provincias, quas fuerint sortiti, se conferent?
Ministrine et servi consules fient?[232] Nec bini, ut solebat, sed
centeni ac milleni ministri qui Romanae ecclesiae servient, dignitate
afficientur imperatoria? Et ego stolidus mirabar quod papa effici
diceretur! Ministri imperatores erunt; clerici vero milites. Militesne
clerici fient, aut militaria ornamenta gestabunt, nisi imperialia
ornamenta universis clericis impertis? Nam nescio quid dicas. Et quis
non videt hanc fabulam ab iis excogitatam esse, qui sibi omnem vestiendi
licentiam esse voluerunt? Ut existimem, si qua inter daemones qui aerem
incolunt ludorum genera exercentur, eos exprimendo clericorum cultu,
fastu, luxu, exerceri, et hoc scaenici[233] lusus genere maxime delectari.

Utrum magis insequar, sententiarum an verborum stoliditatem? Sententiarum
audistis. Verborum haec est; ut dicat senatum videri adornari, quasi
non utique adornetur, et quidem adornari gloria; et quod fit, factum
esse velit, ut “promulgavimus” pro promulgamus, illo enim modo sonat
iucundius oratio; et eandem rem per praesens et per praeteritum
enuntiet, velut “decernimus” et “decrevimus”; et omnia sint referta
his vocibus, “decernimus,” “decoramus,” “imperialis,” “imperatoria,”
“potentia,” “gloria”; et “exstat” pro est posuerit, cum “extare” sit
supereminere, vel superesse; et “nempe” pro scilicet; et “concubitores”
pro contubernales. “Concubitores” sunt qui concumbunt, et coeunt; nimirum
scorta intelligenda sunt. Addit, cum quibus dormiat, ne timeat, opinor,
nocturna phantasmata: addit cubicularios: addit hostiarios.

Non otiosum[234] est, quare haec ab eo minuta referuntur. Pupillum
instituit aut adolescentem filium, non senem; cui omnia quibus necesse
habet tenera aetas ipse velut amantissimus pater praeparat, ut David
Salomoni[235] fecit. Atque ut per omnes numeros fabula impleatur, dantur
clericis equi, ne asinario illo Christi more super asellos sedeant; et
dantur non operti sive instrati operimentis coloris albi, sed decorati
colore albo. At quibus operimentis! Non stragulis, non Babylonicis, aut
quo alio genere, sed “mappulis et linteaminibus”! Mappae ad mensam
pertinent, linteamina ad lectulos. Et quasi dubium sit cuius sint haec
coloris, interpretatur; “id est candidissimo colore.” Dignus Constantino
sermo, digna Lactantio facundia, cum in ceteris, tum vero in illo “equos
equitent”!

Et cum de vestitu senatorum nihil dixerit, non de laticlavo, non de
purpura, non de ceteris, de calceamentis sibi loquendum putavit; nec
lunulas appellavit, sed udones, sive “cum udonibus,” quos ut solet homo
ineptus exponit, “id est candido linteamine,” quasi udones linteamen
sint! Non occurrit impraesentiarum,[236] ubi repererim “udones,” nisi
apud Martialem Valerium, cuius disticon quod inscribitur “Udones
Cilicii”[237] hoc est:

    “Non hos lana dedit, sed olentis barba mariti;
        Cinyphio[238] poterit planta latere sinu.”

Ergo non linei utique, nec candidi sunt udones, quibus hic bipes asellus
non calceari pedes senatorum ait, sed senatores illustrari.

Atque per hoc, “sicut caelestia ita terrena[239] ad laudem Dei
decorentur,” quae tu “caelestia” vocas; quae “terrena”? Quomodo caelestia
decorantur? Quae autem Deo laus sit ista tu videris. Ego vero, si qua
mihi fides est, nihil puto nec Deo nec ceteris hominibus magis esse
invisum quam tantam clericorum in rebus saecularibus licentiam. Verum
quid ego in singula impetum facio? Dies me deficiat,[240] si universa,
non dico amplificare, sed attingere velim.

    “Pre[241] omnibus autem licentiam tribuimus beato Silvestro
    et successoribus eius ex nostro indictu, ut quem placatus
    proprio consilio clericare voluerit et in religioso numero
    religiosorum clericorum connumerare, nullus ex omnibus
    praesumat superbe agere.”

Quis est hic Melchisedec, qui patriarcham Abraam benedicit?
Constantinusne, vix Christianus, facultatem ei, a quo baptizatus est
et quem beatum appellat, tribuit clericandi? Quasi prius nec fecisset
hoc Silvester nec facere potuisset! Et qua comminatione vetuit, ne quis
impedimento esset? “Nullus ex omnibus praesumat superbe agere.” Qua etiam
elegantia! “Connumerare in numero religioso religiosorum,” “clericare ...
clericorum,” et “indictu,” et “placatus.”

Atque iterum ad diadema revertitur:

    “Decrevimus itaque et hoc, ut ipse et successores eius
    diademate, videlicet corona, quam ex capite nostro illi
    concesserimus,[242] ex auro purissimo et gemmis pretiosis[243]
    uti debeant pro honore beati Petri.”

Iterum interpretatur diadema; cum barbaris enim et obliviosis loquebatur;
et adicit “de auro purissimo,” ne forte aliquid aeris aut scoriae
crederes admixtum.[244] Et gemmas cum dixit, addit “pretiosas” eodem
timore ne viles forsitan suspicareris. Cur tamen non “pretiosissimas,”
quemadmodum “aurum purissimum”? Plus namque[245] interest inter gemmam
et gemmam, quam inter aurum et aurum. Et cum dicere debuisset distinctum
gemmis, dixit “ex gemmis.” Quis non vidit ex eo loco sumptum, quem
princeps gentilis non legerat; “Posuisti in capite eius coronam de lapide
pretioso”? Sic locutus[246] est Caesar vanitate quadam coronae suae
iactandae, si modo Caesares coronabantur, in se ipsum contumeliousus,
qui vereretur ne homines opinarentur eum non gestare coronam ex auro
purissimo cum gemmis pretiosis, nisi indicasset?

Accipe causam cur sic loquatur; “pro honore beati Petri.” Quasi Christus
non sit summus angularis lapis, in quo templum ecclesiae constructum est,
sed Petrus; quod iterum postea facit. Quem si tantopere venerari volebat,
cur non templum episcopale illi potius quam Ioanni Baptistae Romae
dicavit?

Quid? Illa loquendi barbaries nonne testatur non saeculo Constantini,
sed posteriori, cantilenam hanc esse confictam? “Decernimus quod ...
uti debeant,”[247] pro eo quod est decernimus[248] ut utantur: sic nunc
barbari homines vulgo loquuntur et scribunt, “Iussi quod deberes venire,”
pro eo quod est, “Iussi ut venires”: et “decrevimus” et “concessimus,”
quasi non tunc fiant illa, sed alio quodam tempore facta sint.

    “Ipse vero beatus papa super coronam clericatus, quam gerit
    ad gloriam beatissimi Petri, ipsa ex auro non est passus uti
    corona.”

O tuam singularem stultitiam, Constantine! Modo dicebas coronam super
caput papae ad honorem facere beati Petri; nunc ais non facere, quia
Silvester illam recusat; et cum factum recusantis probes, tamen iubes eum
aurea uti corona; et quod hic non debere se agere existimat, id tu ipsius
successores dicis agere debere. Transeo quod rasuram coronam vocas, et
papam pontificem Romanum, qui nondum peculiariter sic appellari erat
coeptus.

    “Phrygium vero candidissimo nitore splendidum, resurrectionem
    Dominicam designans, eius sacratissimo vertici manibus nostris
    imposuimus, et tenentes frenum equi pro reverentia beati Petri
    dextratoris officium illi exhibuimus, statuentes eodem phrygio
    omnes eius successores singulariter uti in processionibus ad
    imperii nostri imitationem.”

Nonne videtur hic auctor fabulae non per imprudentiam, sed consulto
et dedita opera praevaricari et undique ansas ad se reprehendendum
praebere? In eodem[249] loco ait, phrygio et Dominicam resurrectionem
repraesentari,[250] et imperii Caesarei esse imitationem; quae duo
inter se maxime discrepant. Deum testor, non invenio quibus verbis, qua
verborum atrocitate, confodiam hunc perditissimum nebulonem. Ita omnia
verba plena insaniae evomit. Constantinum non tantum officio similem
Moysi, qui summum sacerdotem iussu Dei ornavit, sed secreta mysteria[251]
facit exponentem, quod difficillimum est iis qui diu in sacris
litteris[252] sunt versati. Cur non fecisti etiam Constantinum pontificem
maximum, ut multi Imperatores fuerunt, ut commodius ipsius ornamenta in
alterum summum pontificem transferrentur? Sed nescisti historias. Ago
itaque Deo etiam hoc nomine gratias, quod[253] istam nefandissimam mentem
non nisi in stultissimum hominem cadere permisit: quod etiam posteriora
declarant. Namque Aaron sedenti in equo Moysen[254] inducit dextratoris
exhibuisse officium, et hoc non per medium Israel, sed per Chananeos
atque Aegyptios, id est per infidelem civitatem, ubi non tam imperium
erat orbis terrarum quam daemonum, et daemones colentium populorum.

    “Unde ut pontificalis apex non vilescat, sed ut[255] magis
    quam imperii terreni dignitas, gloria et potentia decoretur,
    ecce tam palatium nostrum, quamque Romanam urbem et omnes
    Italiae sive occidentalium regionum provincias,[256] loca,
    civitates beatissimo pontifici et universali papae Silvestro
    tradimus atque relinquimus, et ab eo et a successoribus eius
    per pragmaticum constitutum decrevimus disponendas atque iuri
    sanctae Romanae ecclesiae permanendas.”

De hoc in oratione Romanorum atque Silvestri multa disseruimus. Huius
loci est ut dicamus neminem fuisse facturum ut nationes uno cunctas
verbo donationis involveret, et qui minutissima quaeque superius est
exsecutus, lorum, calceos,[257] linteamina equorum,[258] non referret
nominatim provincias,[259] quarum singulae non[260] singulos reges nunc
aut principes regibus pares habent. Sed ignoravit videlicet hic falsator
quae provinciae sub Constantino erant, quae non erant. Nam certe cunctae
sub eo non erant.[261] Alexandro exstincto videmus singulas regiones in
ducum partitione numeratas; a Xenophonte terras principesque nominatos,
qui vel ultro vel armis sub imperio Cyri fuerunt; ab Homero Graecorum
barbarorumque regum nomen, genus, patriam, mores, vires, pulchritudinem,
numerum navium et prope numerum[262] militum, catalogo[263] comprehensum,
cuius exemplum cum multi Graeci, tum vero nostri Latini, Ennius,
Virgilius, Lucanus, Statius, aliique nonnulli imitati sunt; a Iosue et
Moyse in divisione terrae promissionis viculos quoque universos fuisse
descriptos;[264] et tu gravaris etiam provincias recensere? Occidentales
tantum provincias nominas. Qui sunt fines occidentis; ubi incipiunt,
ubi desinunt? Num ita certi constitutique sunt termini occidentis et
orientis, meridieique et septentrionis, ut sunt Asiae, Africae, Europae?
Necessaria verba subtrahis, ingeris supervacua. Dicis, “provincias, loca,
civitates.” Nonne et provinciae et urbes loca sunt? Et cum dixeris
provincias, subiungis civitates, quasi hae sub illis non intelligantur.
Sed non est mirum qui tantam orbis terrarum partem a se alienat, eundem
urbium provinciarumque nomina praeterire, et quasi lethargo oppressum,
quid loquatur ignorare. “Italiae sive occidentalium regionum,” tamquam
aut hoc aut illud, cum tamen utrumque intelligat: appellans “provincias
regionum,” cum sint potius regiones provinciarum; et “permanendam”[265]
dicens pro permansuram.

    “Unde congruum prospeximus, nostrum imperium et regiam
    potestatem orientalibus transferri regionibus, et in Byzantiae
    provinciae optimo loco nomini nostro civitatem aedificari, et
    illic nostrum constitui imperium.”[266]

Taceo quod dixit civitates aedificari, cum urbes aedificentur non
civitates; et “Byzantiam[267] provinciam.” Si tu es Constantinus,
redde causam cur illum potissimum locum condendae urbi[268] delegeris.
Quod enim alio te transferas post Romam traditam non tam congruum quam
necessarium est. Nec te appelles imperatorem, qui Romam amisisti, et
de nomine Romano, quod discerpis, pessime meritus es; nec regem, quod
nemo ante te fecit; nisi ideo te regem appelles quia Romanus esse
desiisti.[269] Sed affers causam sane honestam:

    “Quoniam ubi princeps sacerdotum et Christianae religionis
    caput constitutum est ab imperatore caelesti iustum non est ut
    illic imperator terrenus habeat potestatem.”

O stultum David, stultum Salomonem, stultum Ezechiam, Iosiamque, et
ceteros reges, stultos ac parum religiosos, qui in urbe Hierusalem cum
summis sacerdotibus habitare sustinuerunt, nec tota illis urbe cesserunt!
Plus sapit Constantinus triduo quam illi tota vita sapere potuerunt!
Et “imperatorem caelestem” appellas, quia terrenum accepit imperium;
nisi Deum intelligis,—nam ambigue loqueris,—a quo terrenum principatum
sacerdotum super urbe Romana ceterisque locis constitutum esse mentiris.

    “Haec vero omnia, quae per hanc imperialem sacram[270] et per
    alia divalia decreta statuimus et firmamus,[271] usque in finem
    mundi illibata et inconcussa permanere decrevimus.”

Modo terrenum te vocaveras, Constantine: nunc divum sacrumque vocas.
Ad gentilitatem recidis, et plusquam gentilitatem. Deum te facis, et
verba tua sacra, et decreta immortalia; nam mundo imperas ut tua iussa
conservet “illibata et inconcussa.” Non cogitas quis tu es, modo e[272]
sordidissimo impietatis caeno[273] lotus et vix perlotus? Cur non
addebas; “Iota unum aut unus apex de privilegio hoc non praeteribit,[274]
ut non magis pereat caelum et terra?” Regnum Saul a Deo electi ad
filios non pervenit; regnum David in nepote discerptum est, et postea
exstinctum. Et tu ad finem usque mundi regnum, quod tu sine Deo[275]
tradis, permansurum tua auctoritate decernis? Quis etiam tam cito te
docuit mundum esse periturum? Nam poetis, qui hoc etiam testantur, non
puto te hoc tempore fidem habere. Ergo hoc tu non dixisses, sed alius
tibi affinxit.

Ceterum, qui tam magnifice superbeque locutus est, timere incipit,
sibique diffidere, eoque obtestationibus agit:

    “Unde coram Deo vivo, qui nos regnare praecepit,[276] et
    coram terribili eius iudicio obtestamur[277] omnes nostros
    successores Imperatores vel cunctos optimates, satrapas etiam
    amplissimumque senatum et universum populum in universo orbe
    terrarum, nec non[278] et in posterum,[279] nulli eorum quoquo
    modo licere hoc aut confringere vel in quoquam convelli.”

Quam aequa, quam religiosa adiuratio! Non secus ac si lupus per
innocentiam et fidem obtestetur ceteros lupos atque pastores, ne oves,
quas sustulit interque filios et amicos partitus est, aut illi adimere,
aut hi repetere tentent. Quid tantopere extimescis, Constantine? Si opus
tuum ex Deo non est, dissolvetur: sin ex Deo, dissolvi non poterit.
Sed video! Voluisti imitari Apocalypsim ubi dicitur: “Contestor autem
audienti omnia verba prophetiae libri huius; si quis apposuerit ad haec,
apponet Deus super illum plagas scriptas in libro isto. Et si quis
diminuerit de verbis libri prophetiae huius, auferet Deus partem eius de
libro vitae et de civitate sancta.” At tu numquam legeras Apocalypsim,
ergo non sunt haec verba tua.

    “Si quis autem, quod non[280] credimus, in hoc temerator
    exstiterit, aeternis condemnationibus subiaceat condemnatus,
    et sanctos Dei apostolos Petrum et Paulum sibi in praesenti et
    in futura vita sentiat contrarios, atque in inferno inferiori
    concrematus cum diabolo et omnibus deficiat impiis.”

Hic terror atque haec comminatio non[281] saecularis principis solet
esse, sed priscorum sacerdotum ac flaminum, et nunc ecclesiasticorum.
Itaque non est Constantini oratio haec, sed alicuius clericuli stolidi,
nec quid dicat aut quomodo dicat scientis, saginati et crasi, ac inter
crapulam interque fervorem vini has sententias et haec verba ructantis,
quae non in alium transeunt, sed in ipsum convertuntur auctorem. Primum
ait, “aeternis condemnationibus subiaceat,” deinde, quasi plus addi
queat, alia addere vult, et post aeternitatem poenarum adiungit poenas
vitae praesentis; et cum Dei condemnatione nos terreat, adhuc, quasi
maius quiddam sit, terret nos odio Petri,—cui Paulum cur adiungat,
aut cur solum, nescio. Iterumque solito lethargo ad poenas aeternas
redit, veluti non hoc ante dixisset. Quod si minae hae exsecrationesque
Constantini forent, invicem exsecrarer ut tyrannum et profligatorem
reipublicae meae, et illi me Romano ingenio minarer ultorem. Nunc quis
extimescat[282] exsecrationem avarissimi hominis et ritu histrionum
verba simulantis ac sub persona Constantini alios deterrentis? Hoc est
proprie hypocritam esse, si Graecam vocem exquirimus, sub aliena persona
abscondere tuam.

    “Huius vero imperialis decreti paginam propriis manibus
    roborantes super venerandum corpus beati Petri posuimus.”

Chartane an membrana fuit pagina in qua scripta haec sunt? Tametsi
paginam vocamus alteram faciem, ut dicunt, folii; veluti quinternio habet
folia dena, paginas vicenas.

O rem inauditam et incredibilem! Cum essem adolescentulus, interrogasse
me quendam[283] memini, quis librum Iob scripsisset; cumque ille
respondisset, “Ipse Iob,” tunc me subiunxisse, “Quo pacto igitur de sua
ipsius morte faceret mentionem?” Quod de multis aliis libris dici potest,
quorum ratio huic loco non convenit. Nam quomodo vere narrari potest id
quod nondum esset administratum, et in tabulis contineri id quod post
tabularum, ut sic dicam, sepulturam factum esse ipse fateatur? Hoc nihil
aliud est quam paginam privilegii ante fuisse mortuam sepultamque quam
natam, nec tamen umquam a morte atque sepultura reversam; praesertim
antequam conscripta esset roboratam, nec id una tantum sed utraque
Caesaris manu. Et quid istud est roborare illam? Chirographone Caesaris,
aut anulo signatorio? Magnum nimirum robur, maiusque multo quam si
tabulis aereis mandavisset! Sed non est opus scriptura aerea, cum
super corpus beati Petri charta reponatur. Cur hic Paulum retices, qui
simul iacet cum Petro, et magis custodire possent ambo quam si afforet
tantummodo corpus unius?

Videtis artes malitiamque[284] nequissimi Sinonis. Quia donatio
Constantini doceri non potest, ideo non in tabulis aereis sed charteis
privilegium esse, ideo latere illud cum corpore sanctissimi apostoli
dixit, ne aut auderemus e venerabili sepulcro[285] inquirere, aut, si
inquireremus, carie absumptum putaremus. Sed ubi tunc erat corpus beati
Petri? Certe nondum in templo ubi nunc est, non in loco sane munito ac
tuto. Ergo non illic Caesar paginam collocasset. An beatissimo Silvestro
paginam non credebat, ut parum sancto, parum cauto, parum diligenti?
O Petre, O Silvester, O sancti[286] Romanae ecclesiae pontifices,
quibus oves Domini commissae sunt, cur vobis commissam paginam non
custodistis?[287] Cur a tineis illam rodi, cur situ tabescere passi
estis? Opinor quia corpora quoque vestra contabuerunt. Stulte igitur
fecit Constantinus. En redacta in pulverem pagina, ius simul privilegii
in pulverem abiit!

Atqui, ut videmus, paginae exemplar ostenditur. Quis ergo illam de sinu
sanctissimi apostoli temerarius accepit? Nemo, ut reor, hoc fecit.
Unde porro exemplar?[288] Nimirum aliquis antiquorum scriptorum debet
afferri, nec posterior Constantini temporibus. At is nullus affertur,
sed fortasse aliquis recens. Unde hic habuit? Quisquis enim de superiore
aetate historiam texit, aut Spiritu Sancto dictante loquitur, aut veterum
scriptorum et eorum quidem qui de sua aetate scripserunt sequitur
auctoritatem. Quare quicumque veteres non sequitur, is de illorum
numero erit quibus ipsa vetustas praebet audaciam mentiendi. Quod si
quo in loco ista res legitur, non aliter cum antiquitate consentit quam
illa glossatoris[289] Accursii de legatis Romanis ad leges accipiendas
dimissis in Graeciam plusquam stulta narratio cum Tito Livio aliisque
praestantissimis scriptoribus convenit.

    “Datum Romae tertio Kalendas[290] Aprilis, Constantino Augusto
    quarto consule et Gallicano quarto consule.”

Diem posuit penultimum Martii ut sentiremus hoc factum esse sub tempus
sanctorum dierum, qui illo plerumque tempore solent esse. Et Constantino
quartum consule, et Gallicano quartum consule! Mirum si uterque ter
fuerat consul et in quarto consulatu forent collegae! Sed mirandum magis
Augustum leprosum elephantia, qui morbus inter ceteros ut elephas inter
beluas eminet, velle etiam accipere consulatum, cum rex Azarias simul
ac lepra tactus est in privato se continuerit, procuratione regni ad
Ionatam[291] filium relegata, ut fere omnes leprosi fecerunt! Quo uno
argumento totum prorsus privilegium confutatur, profligatur, evertitur.
Ac ne quis ambigat ante leprosum esse debuisse quam consulem, sciat et ex
medicina paulatim hunc morbum succrescere, et ex notitia antiquitatis
consulatum iniri Ianuario mense magistratumque esse annuum, et haec
Martio proximo gesta referuntur.

Ubi neque hoc[292] silebo; in epistolis scribi solere “datum,” non autem
in ceteris, nisi apud indoctos. Dicuntur enim epistolae dari vel illi,
vel ad illum; illi quidem qui perfert ut puta tabellario, ut reddat et
in manum porrigat homini cui mittuntur; ad illum vero ut ei a perferente
reddantur, hic est is cui mittuntur.[293] Privilegium autem, ut aiunt,
Constantini, quod reddi alicui non debebat, nec dari debuit dici: ut
appareat eum qui sic locutus est mentitum esse, nec[294] scisse fingere
quod Constantinum dixisse ac fecisse verisimile esset. Cuius stultitiae
atque vesaniae affines se ac socios faciunt quicumque hunc vera dixisse
existimant atque defendunt; licet nihil iam habeant quo opinionem suam,
non dico defendere, sed honeste excusare, possint.

An honesta erroris excusatio est, cum patefactam videas veritatem, nolle
illi acquiescere quia nonnulli magni homines aliter senserint?[295]
Magni, inquam, dignitate, non sapientia nec virtute. Unde tantum[296]
scis an illi quos tu sequeris, si eadem audissent quae tu, mansuri in
sententia fuerint, an a sententia recessuri? Et nihilominus indignissimum
est plus homini velle tribuere quam veritati, id est Deo. Ita enim quidam
omnibus defecti rationibus solent mihi[297] respondere: Cur tot summi
pontifices donationem hanc veram esse crediderunt? Testificor vos, me
vocatis quo nolo, et invitum me maledicere summis pontificibus cogitis,
quos magis in delictis suis operire vellem. Sed pergamus ingenue loqui,
quandoquidem aliter agi nequit haec causa.

Ut fatear eos ita credidisse, et non malitia[298] fecisse; quid
mirum si ista crediderunt, ubi tantum lucri blanditur, cum plurima,
ubi nullum lucrum ostenditur, per insignem imperitiam credant? Nonne
apud Aram Coeli, in tam eximio templo et in loco maxime augusto,[299]
cernimus pictam fabulam Sibyllae et Octaviani, ut ferunt ex auctoritate
Innocentii tertii haec scribentis, qui etiam de ruina templi Pacis sub
natale Salvatoris, hoc est in partu Virginis, scriptum reliquit? Quae
ad evertendam magis fidem quia falsa, quam ad stabiliendam quia miranda
sunt, pertinent. Mentirine ob speciem[300] pietatis audet vicarius
veritatis, et se scientem hoc piaculo obstringere? An non mentitur?
Immo vero a sanctissimis viris se, cum hoc facit, dissentire non videt?
Tacebo alios: Hieronymus Varronis testimonio utitur, decem Sibyllas
fuisse; quod opus Varro ante Augustum condidit. Idem de templo Pacis
ita scribit: “Vespasianus et Titus Romae templo Pacis aedificato, vasa
templi et universa donaria in delubro illius consecrarunt, quae Graeca et
Romana narrat historia.” Et hic unus indoctus plus vult libello suo etiam
barbare scripto credi quam fidelissimis veterum, prudentissimorum hominum
historiis!

Quia Hieronymum attigi, non patiar hanc contumeliam ipsius tacito[301]
praeteriri. Romae ex auctoritate papae ostenditur codex Bibliae,[302]
tamquam reliquiae sanctorum luminibus[303] semper accensis, quod
dicunt[304] scriptum chirographo Hieronymi. Quaeris argumentum? Quia
multum, ut inquit Virgilius, est pictai vestis et auri: res quae magis
Hieronymi manu indicat scriptum non esse. Illum ego diligentius
inspectum comperi scriptum esse iussu regis, ut opinor, Roberti
chirographo hominis imperiti.

Huic simile est, quamquam decem millia huiusmodi Romae sunt, quod
inter religiosa demonstratur in tabella effigies Petri et Pauli,
quam Silvester Constantino ab eisdem apostolis in somnis admonito in
confirmationem visionis exhibuit. Non hoc dico quia negem effigies illas
esse apostolorum (utinamque tam vera esset epistola nomine Lentuli missa
de effigie Christi, quae non minus improbe ementita est quam privilegium
quod confutavimus!) sed quia tabella illa a Sylvestro non fuerit exhibita
Constantino; in quo non sustineo animi mei admirationem continere.

Disputabo enim aliquid de fabula Silvestri, quia et omnis in hoc quaestio
versatur, et mihi cum sermo sit cum pontificibus Romanis, de pontifice
Romano potissimum loqui decebit, ut ex uno exemplo facile aliorum
coniectura capiatur. Et ex multis ineptiis quae ibi narrantur unam tantum
de dracone attingam, ut doceam Constantinum non fuisse leprosum. Etenim
Gesta Silvestri ab Eusebio quodam Graeco homine, ut interpres testatur,
composita sunt,[305] quae natio ad mendacia semper promptissima[306] est,
ut Iuvenalis satirica[307] censura ait:

    “... Quicquid Graecia mendax
    Audet in historia.”

Unde draco ille venerat? Romae dracones non gignuntur. Unde etiam illi
venenum? In Africa tantum pestiferi dracones ob ardorem regionis esse
dicuntur. Unde praeterea tantum veneni ut tam spatiosam civitatem peste
corrumperet, praesertim cum in tam alto specu demersus esset, ad quem
centum quinquaginta gradibus descenderetur? Serpentes, excepto forsitan
basilisco, non afflatu, sed morsu virus inspirant atque interimunt. Nec
Cato Caesarem fugiens cum tanta hominum manu per medias Africae harenas,
dum iter faceret ac dormiret, ullum suorum comitum[308] serpentis afflatu
vidit exstinctum; neque illi populi ob id aerem sentiunt pestilentem.
Et si quid fabulis credimus, et Chimaera et Hydra et Cerberus sine noxa
vulgo conspecti sunt ac tacti.

Adhuc quin eum Romani potius occidissent? Non poterant, inquis? At multo
grandiorem serpentem in Africa ad ripam Bagradae[309] Regulus occidit.
Hunc vero vel obstructo ore specus facile erat interimere. An nolebant?
Ita, opinor, pro deo colebant, ut Babylonii fecerunt. Cur ergo, ut[310]
Daniel illum dicitur occidisse, non et Silvester hunc potius occidisset,
quem[311] canabaceo filo alligasset, et domum illam in aeternum
perdidisset? Ideo commentator fabulae noluit draconem interimi, ne plane
Danielis narratio referri videretur. Quod si Hieronymus, vir doctissimus
ac fidelissimus interpres, Apollinarisque et Origenes atque Eusebius
et nonnulli alii narrationem Beli fictam esse affirmant, si eam Iudaei
in Veteris Instrumenti archetypo non agnoscunt; id est, si doctissimi
quique Latinorum, plerique Graecorum, singuli Hebraeorum illam ut fabulam
damnant, ego non hanc adumbratam ex illa damnabo, quae nullius scriptoris
auctoritate fulcitur, et quae magistram multo superat stultitia?

Nam quis beluae subterraneam domum aedificaverat? Quis illic eam
collocaverat, et ne prodiret atque avolaret (volant enim dracones,
ut quidam aiunt, etsi alii negant) imperaverat? Quis genus illud
cibi excogitaverat?[312] Quis feminas,[313] easque virgines ac
sanctimoniales, descendere praeceperat, nec nisi Kalendis? An tenebat
draco quis esset dies Kalendarum? Et tam parco raroque erat cibo
contentus? Nec virgines tam altum specum, tam immanem et esurientem
beluam exhorrebant? Credo, blandiebatur eis draco, ut feminis, ut
virginibus, ut cibaria afferentibus. Credo, etiam cum illis fabulabatur.
Quid ni, honore dicto, etiam coibat? Nam et Alexander et Scipio ex
draconis serpentisve cum matre concubitu geniti dicuntur. Quid, denegato
postea victu, non potius aut prodisset,[314] aut fuisset exstinctus?

O miram hominum dementiam, qui his anilibus deliramentis fidem habent!
Iam vero quamdiu hoc factitatum est? Quando fieri[315] coeptum? Ante
adventum Salvatoris, an postea? Nihil horum scitur. Pudeat nos, pudeat
harum neniarum et levitatis plusquam inimicae.[316] Erubescat Christianus
homo, qui veritatis se ac lucis filium nominat, proloqui quae non modo
vera non sunt, sed nec verisimilia.

At enim inquiunt, hanc daemones potestatem in gentibus obtinebant, ut eas
diis servientes illuderent. Silete, imperitissimi[317] homines, ne dicam
sceleratissimos, qui fabulis vestris tale semper velamentum obtenditis!
Non desiderat sinceritas Christiana patrocinium falsitatis; satis per se,
superque sua ipsius luce ac veritate defenditur, sine istis commenticiis
ac praestigiosis fabellis, in Deum, in Christum, in Spiritum Sanctum
contumeliosissimis. Siccine Deus arbitrio daemonum[318] tradiderat genus
humanum, ut tam manifestis, tam imperiosis miraculis seducerentur;[319]
ut propemodum posset iniustitiae[320] accusari, qui oves lupis
commisisset, et homines magnam errorum suorum haberent excusationem?
Quod si tantum olim licebat daemonibus, et nunc apud infideles vel
magis liceret; quod minime videmus, nec ullae ab eis huiusmodi fabulae
proferuntur.

Tacebo de aliis populis; dicam de Romanis, apud quos paucissima miracula
feruntur, eaque vetusta atque incerta. Valerius Maximus ait hiatum
illum terrae in medio foro, cum se in eum Curtius armatum adacto equo
immisisset, iterum coisse inque pristinam formam continuo revertisse.
Item Iunonem Monetam, cum a quodam milite Romano captis Veiis per iocum
interrogata esset, an Romam migrare vellet, respondisse velle.

Quorum neutrum Titus Livius sentit et prior auctor et gravior. Nam
et hiatum permansisse vult, nec tam fuisse subitum quam vetustum,
etiam ante conditam urbem, appellatumque Curtium lacum quod in eo
delituisset Curtius Mettius Sabinus Romanorum fugiens impressionem; et
Iunonem annuisse, non respondisse, adiectumque fabulae postea vocem
reddidisse. Atque de nutu quoque palam est illos esse mentitos, vel
quod motum simulacri, avellebant autem illud, interpretati sunt sua
sponte esse factum, vel qua lascivia hostilem et victam et lapideam deam
interrogabant, eadem lascivia annuisse finxerunt. Tametsi Livius[321]
inquit non annuisse, sed milites quod annuisset exclamasse. Quae tamen
boni scriptores non defendunt facta, sed dicta excusant. Nam prout idem
Livius ait; “Datur haec[322] venia antiquitati, ut miscendo humana
divinis primordia urbium augustiora faciat.” Et alibi: “Sed in rebus tam
antiquis si qua similia veri sunt pro veris accipiantur, satis habeam.
Haec[323] ad ostentationem scenae gaudentis miraculis aptiora quam ad
fidem; neque affirmare neque refellere est operae pretium.”[324]

Terentius Varro, his duobus et prior et doctior et, ut sentio, gravior
auctor, ait triplicem historiam de lacu Curtio a totidem auctoribus
proditam; unam a Proculo, quod is lacus ita sit appellatus a Curtio,
qui se in eum deiecit; alteram a Pisone, quod a Mettio Sabino; tertiam a
Cornelio, cuius rei socium addit Luctatium, quod a Curtio consule, cui
collega fuit M. Genutius.[325]

Neque vero dissimulaverim Valerium non plane posse reprehendi quod ita
loquatur, cum paulo post graviter et severe subiciat: “Nec me praeterit
de motu et voce deorum immortalium humanis oculis auribusque percepto,
quam in ancipiti opinione aestimatio versetur. Sed quia non nova
dicuntur, sed tradita repetuntur, fidem auctores vendicent.” De voce
deorum dixit propter Iunonem Monetam et propter simulacrum Fortunae, quod
bis locutum fingitur his verbis: “Rite me, matronae, vidistis,[326] rite
dedicastis.”

At vero nostri fabulatores passim inducunt idola loquentia, quod ipsi
gentiles et idolorum cultores non dicunt et sincerius negant quam
Christiani affirmant. Apud illos[327] paucissima miracula non fide
auctorum, sed veluti sacra quadam ac religiosa vetustatis commendatione
nituntur; apud istos recentiora quaedam narrantur, quae illorum homines
temporum nescierunt.[328]

Neque ego admirationi sanctorum derogo, nec ipsorum divina opera
abnuo,[329] cum sciam tantum fidei quantum est granum sinapis[330]
montes etiam posse transferre. Immo defendo illa ac tueor, sed misceri
cum fabulis non sino. Nec persuaderi possum hos[331] scriptores alios
fuisse quam aut infideles, qui hoc agerent in derisum Christianorum,
si haec figmenta per dolosos homines in manus imperitorum delata
acciperentur pro veris, aut fideles habentes quidem aemulationem Dei,
sed non secundum scientiam,[332] qui non modo de gestis sanctorum,
verum etiam Dei genetricis atque adeo Christi improba quaedam et[333]
pseudevangelia scribere non reformidarunt. Et summus pontifex hos
libros appellat apocryphos, quasi nihil vitii sit[334] quod eorum
ignoratur auctor, quasi credibilia sint quae narrantur, quasi sancta et
ad confirmationem religionis pertinentia; ut iam non minus culpae sit
penes hunc qui mala probat quam penes illum qui mala excogitavit. Nummos
reprobos discernimus, separamus, abicimus;[335] doctrinam reprobam non
discernemus, sed retinebimus, sed cum bona miscebimus, sed pro bona
defendemus?

Ego vero, ut ingenue[336] feram sententiam, Gesta Silvestri nego esse
apocrypha, quia, ut dixi, Eusebius quidam fertur auctor; sed falsa atque
indigna quae legantur existimo cum in aliis tum vero in alio[337] quod
narratur de dracone, de tauro, de lepra, propter quam refutandam tanta
repetii. Neque enim si Naaman leprosus fuit, continuo et Constantinum
leprosum fuisse dicemus? De illo multi auctores meminerunt, de hoc
principe orbis terrarum nemo ne suorum quidem civium scripsit, nisi
nescio quis alienigena, cui non aliter habenda est fides quam alteri
cuidam de vespis intra nares Vespasiani nidificantibus, et de rana partu
a Nerone emissa, unde Lateranum vocitatum locum dicunt, quod ibi rana
lateat in sepulcro: quod nec vespae ipsae nec ranae, si loqui possent,
dixissent;[338] nisi ad deos Capitolinos hoc referunt, quasi illi loqui
consuessent et hoc fieri iussissent.[339]

Sed quid mirer haec non intelligere pontifices, cum nomen ignorent suum!
Cephas enim dicunt vocari Petrum quia caput apostolorum esset, tamquam
hoc vocabulum sit Graecum ἀπὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς,[340] et non Hebraicum,
seu[341] potius Syriacum, quod Graeci κηφᾶς[342] scribunt, quod apud
eos interpretatur Petrus, non caput. Est enim “petrus,” et “petra,”
Graecum vocabulum, stulteque per etymologiam Latinam exponitur petra,
quasi pede trita. Et metropolitanum ab archiepiscopo distinguunt[343]
voluntque illum a mensura civitatis dictum, cum Graece dicatur non
μετρόπολις sed μητρόπολις,[344] id est mater-civitas sive urbs;[345] et
patriarcham quasi patrem patrum; et papam ab interiectione pape dictum;
et fidem orthodoxam quasi rectae gloriae; et Simonem media correpta,
cum legendum sit media longa, ut Platonem et Catonem;[346] et multa
similia quae transeo, ne culpa aliquorum omnes summos pontifices videar
insectari. Haec dicta sint, ut nemo miretur si donationem Constantini
commenticiam[347] fuisse papae multi non potuerunt deprehendere, tametsi
ab aliquo eorum ortam esse hanc fallaciam reor.

       *       *       *       *       *

At dicitis, cur Imperatores, quorum detrimento res ista cedebat,
donationem Constantini non negant, sed fatentur, affirmant, conservant?
Ingens argumentum; mirifica defensio! Nam de quo tu loqueris Imperatore?
Si de Graeco, qui verus fuit Imperator, negabo confessionem: si de
Latino, libenter etiam confitebor. Etenim quis nescit Imperatorem Latinum
gratis factum esse a summo pontifice, ut opinor Stephano, qui Graecum
Imperatorem, quod auxilium non ferret Italiae, privavit, Latinumque
fecit; ita ut plura Imperator a papa quam papa ab Imperatore acciperet?
Sane Troianas opes quibusdam pactionibus soli Achilles et Patroclus
inter se partiti sunt! Quod etiam mihi videntur indicare Ludovici[348]
verba, cum ait; “Ego Ludovicus, Imperator Romanus Augustus, statuo et
concedo per hoc pactum confirmationis nostrae tibi beato Petro, principi
apostolorum, et per te vicario tuo domino Paschali[349] summo pontifici
et successoribus eius in perpetuum,[350] sicut a praedecessoribus[351]
nostris usque nunc in vestra potestate et dicione[352] tenuistis,
Romanam civitatem cum ducatu suo et suburbanis atque viculis omnibus
et territoriis eius montanis atque maritimis litoribus et portubus,
seu cunctis civitatibus, castellis, oppidis ac villis in Tusciae
partibus.”[353]

Tune, Ludovice, cum Paschale pacisceris? Si tua, id est Imperii Romani,
sunt ista, cur alteri concedis? Si ipsius et ab eo[354] possidentur, quid
attinet te illa confirmare? Quantulum etiam ex Imperio Romano tuum erit,
si caput ipsum Imperii amisisti? A Roma dicitur Romanus Imperator. Quid,
cetera quae possides tuane an Paschalis sunt? Credo tua dices. Nihil
ergo valet donatio Constantini, si ab eo pontifici donata tu possides.
Si valet, quo iure Paschalis tibi cetera remittit, retentis tantum sibi
quae possidet? Quid sibi vult tanta, aut tua in illum, aut illius in te
de Imperio Romano largitio? Merito igitur pactum appellas, quasi quandam
collusionem.

    “Sed quid faciam?” inquies. “Repetam armis quae papa occupat?
    At ipse iam factus est me potentior. Repetam iure? At ius meum
    tantum est quantum ille esse voluit;[355] non enim hereditario
    nomine ad Imperium veni, sed pacto, ut, si Imperator esse
    volo, haec et haec invicem papae promittam. Dicam nihil
    donasse ex Imperio Constantinum? At isto modo causam agerem
    Graeci Imperatoris et me omni fraudarem Imperii dignitate.
    Hac enim ratione papa se dicit facere Imperatorem me, quasi
    quendam vicarium suum, et nisi promittam, non facturum; et nisi
    paream, me abdicaturum. Dummodo mihi det, omnia fatebor, omnia
    paciscar. Mihi tantum[356] crede, si Romam ego ac[357] Tusciam
    possiderem, tantum abest ut facerem quae facio; ut etiam
    frustra mihi Paschalis donationis, sicut reor falsae,[358]
    caneret cantilenam. Nunc concedo quae nec teneo nec habiturum
    esse me spero. De iure papae inquirere non ad me pertinet, sed
    ad Constantinopolitanum illum[359] Augustum.”

Iam apud me excusatus es, Ludovice, et quisquis alius princeps[360] es
Ludovici similis. Quid de aliorum Imperatorum cum summis pontificibus
pactione suspicandum est, cum sciamus quid Sigismundus fecerit, princeps
alioqui[361] optimus ac fortissimus, sed iam affecta aetate minus fortis,
quem per Italiam paucis stipatoribus saeptum in diem vivere vidimus
Romae etiam fame periturum, nisi eum, sed non gratis—extorsit enim
donationem—Eugenius pavisset! Is cum Romam venisset ut pro Imperatore
Romanorum coronaretur, non aliter a papa coronari potuit, quam[362]
Constantini donationem ratam haberet eademque omnia de integro donaret.
Quid magis contrarium quam pro Imperatore Romano[363] coronari qui Romae
ipsi renuntiasset, et coronari ab illo quem et confiteatur et, quantum in
se est, dominum Romani Imperii faciat, ac ratam habere donationem, quae
vera si sit, nihil Imperatori de Imperio reliqui fiat? Quod, ut arbitror,
nec pueri fecissent. Quominus mirum si papa sibi arrogat Caesaris
coronationem, quae populi Romani esse deberet.

Si tu, papa, et potes Graecum Imperatorem privare Italia
provinciisque[364] occidentis, et Latinum Imperatorem facis, cur
pactionibus uteris; cur bona Caesaris partiris; cur in te Imperium[365]
transfers?

Quare sciat, quisquis est qui dicitur[366] Imperator Romanorum, me iudice
se non esse nec Augustum, nec Caesarem, nec Imperatorem, nisi Romae
imperium teneat; et nisi operam det ut urbem Romam recuperet, plane esse
periurum. Nam Caesares illi priores, quorum fuit primus Constantinus,
non adigebantur iusiurandum interponere quo nunc Caesares obstringuntur,
sed quantum humana ope praestari potest, nihil imminuturos esse de
amplitudine Imperii Romani, eamque sedulo adaucturos.

Non ea re tamen vocati[367] Augusti, quod Imperium augere deberent, ut
aliqui sentiunt Latinae linguae imperiti, est enim Augustus quasi sacer
ab avium gustu dictus, quae in auspiciis adhiberi solebant, Graecorum
quoque testante lingua, apud quos Augustus σεβαστός[368] dicitur, unde
Sebastia vocata. Melius summus pontifex ab augendo Augustus diceretur,
nisi quod dum temporalia auget, spiritualia minuit. Itaque videas ut
quisque pessimus est summorum pontificum, ita maxime defendendae huic
donationi incumbere; qualis Bonifacius octavus, qui Caelestinum tubis
parieti insertis decepit. Hic et de donatione Constantini scribit
et regem Franciae[369] privavit, regnumque ipsum, quasi donationem
Constantini exsequi vellet, ecclesiae Romanae fuisse et esse subiectum
iudicavit; quod statim successores eius, Benedictus et Clemens, ut
improbum iniustumque revocarunt.

Verum quid sibi vult ista vestra, pontifices Romani, sollicitudo quod a
singulis Imperatoribus donationem Constantini exigitis confirmari, nisi
quod iuri diffiditis vestro? Sed laterem lavatis, ut dicitur; nam neque
illa umquam fuit, et quod non est confirmari non potest; et quicquid
donant Caesares, decepti exemplo Constantini faciunt, et donare Imperium
nequeunt.

       *       *       *       *       *

Age vero, demus Constantinum donasse Silvestrumque aliquando possedisse,
sed postea vel ipsum, vel aliquem ipsorum[370] a possessione deiectum.
(Loquor nunc de his quae papa non possidet; postea loquar de his quae
possidet.) Quid possum vobis magis dare quam ut ea quae nec fuerunt nec
esse potuerunt fuisse concedam? Tamen[371] dico vos nec iure divino nec
iure humano ad recuperationem agere posse. In lege veteri Hebraeus supra
sextum annum Hebraeo servire vetabatur, et quinquagesimo[372] quoque
anno omnia redibant ad pristinum dominum. Tempore gratiae Christianus
a vicario Christi, redemptoris nostrae servitutis, premetur servitio
aeterno? Quid dicam! Revocabitur ad servitutem postquam liber factus est
diuque potitus libertate?

Sileo quam saevus, quam vehemens, quam barbarus dominatus frequenter est
sacerdotum; quod si antea ignorabatur, nuper est cognitum ex monstro illo
atque portento, Ioanne Vitellesco, cardinale et patriarcha, qui gladium
Petri quo auriculam Malcho abscidit in Christianorum sanguine lassavit;
quo gladio et ipse periit. An vero populis Israel a domo David et
Salomonis, quos prophetae a Deo missi unxerant, tamen propter graviora
onera desciscere licuit, factumque eorum Deus probavit; nobis ob tantam
tyrannidem desciscere non licebit, ab his praesertim qui nec sunt reges,
nec esse possunt, et qui de pastoribus ovium, id est animarum, facti sunt
fures ac latrones?

Et, ut ad ius humanum veniam, quis ignorat nullum ius esse bellorum; aut
si quod est, tamdiu valere quamdiu possideas quae bello parasti? Nam cum
possessionem perdis, et ius perdidisti; ideoque captivos, si fugerint,
nemo ad iudicem repetere solet; etiam nec praedas,[373] si eas priores
domini receperint. Apes et quaedam alia volucrum genera, si e privato
meo longius evolaverint et in alieno desederint, repeti non queunt.
Tu homines, non modo liberum animal, sed dominum ceterorum, si se in
libertatem manu et armis asserant, non manu et armis repetes, sed iure,
quasi tu homo sis, illi pecudes.

Neque est quod dicas: Romani iuste bella nationibus intulerunt, iusteque
libertate illas exuerunt. Noli me ad istam vocare quaestionem,[374] ne
quid in Romanos meos cogar dicere; quamquam nullum crimen tam grave esse
potuit ut aeternam mererentur populi servitutem; cum eo quod saepe culpa
principis, magnive alicuius in republica civis, bella gesserunt, et victi
immerita servitutis poena affecti sunt; quorum exemplis plena sunt omnia.

Neque vero lege naturae comparatum est, ut populus sibi populum subigat.
Praecipere aliis eosque exhortari possumus; imperare illis ac vim
afferre non possumus, nisi relicta humanitate velimus ferociores beluas
imitari, quae sanguinarium in infirmiores imperium exercent, ut leo in
quadrupedes, aquila in volucres, delphinus in pisces. Verumtamen hae
beluae non in suum genus sibi ius vindicant,[375] sed in inferius. Quod
quanto magis faciendum nobis est, et homo homini religioni habendus, cum,
ut M. Fabius inquit, nulla supra terras adeo rabiosa belua, cui non imago
sua sancta sit.

Itaque quattuor fere causae sunt ob quas bella inferuntur: aut ob
ulciscendam iniuriam defendendosque amicos; aut timore accipiendae
postea calamitatis, si vires aliorum augeri sinantur; aut spe praedae;
aut gloriae cupiditate; quarum prima nonnihil honesta, secunda parum,
duae posteriores nequaquam honestae sunt. Et Romanis quidem illata fuere
bella frequenter, sed postquam se defenderant, et illis et aliis ipsi
intulerunt; nec ulla gens est quae dicioni eorum cesserit, nisi bello
victa et domita, quam recte aut qua causa, ipsi viderint. Eos ego nolim
nec damnare, tamquam iniuste pugnaverint, nec absolvere tamquam iuste;
tantum dicam eadem ratione Romanos ceteris bella intulisse qua reliqui
populi regesque, atque ipsis qui hello lacessiti victique sunt licuisse
deficere a Romanis, ut ab aliis dominis defecerunt; ne forte, quod nemo
diceret, imperia omnia ad vetustissimos illos, qui primi domini fuere, id
est, qui primi praeripuere aliena, referantur.

Et tamen melius in victis bello nationibus populo Romano quam Caesaribus
rempublicam opprimentibus ius est. Quocirca si fas erat gentibus a
Constantino, et quod multo plus est a populo Romano desciscere, profecto
et ab eo ius erit cuicumque cesserit ille ius suum. Atque, ut audacius
agam, si Romanis licebat Constantinum aut exigere ut Tarquinium, aut
occidere ut Iulium Caesarem, multo magis eum vel Romanis vel provinciis
licebit occidere qui in locum Constantini utcumque successit. Hoc etsi
verum, tamen ultra causam meam est, et idcirco[376] me reprimere volo nec
aliud ex his colligere quae dixi, nisi ineptum esse, ubi armorum vis
est, ibi ius quemque afferre verborum; quia quod armis acquiritur, idem
rursus armis amittitur.

Eo quidem magis, quod aliae novae gentes, ut de Gothis accepimus, quae
numquam sub imperio Romano fuerunt, fugatis veteribus incolis, Italiam et
multas provincias occuparunt, quas in servitutem revocari in qua numquam
fuerunt, quae tandem aequitas est, praesertim victrices, et fortasse
a victis? Quo tempore, si quae urbes ac nationes, ut factum fuisse
scimus, ab Imperatore desertae ad barbarorum adventum necesse habuerunt
deligere sibi regem, sub cuius auspiciis victoriam reportarunt, numquid
hunc postea a principatu deponerent; aut eius filios, tum commendatione
patris, tum propria virtute favorabiles iuberent esse privatos, ut iterum
sub Romano principe essent, maxime cum eorum opera assidue indigerent,
et nullum aliunde auxilium sperarent? Hos[377] si Caesar ipse, aut
Constantinus ad vitam reversus, aut etiam senatus populusque Romanus
ad commune iudicium, quale in Graecia Amphictyonum[378] fuit, vocaret,
prima statim actione repelleretur, quod a se olim custode desertos, quod
tamdiu[379] sub alio principe degentes, quod numquam alienigenae regi
subditos, quod denique homines libertati natos et in libertatem robore
animi corporisque assertos, ad famulatum servitiumque reposceret. Ut
appareat, si Caesar, si populus Romanus a repetendo exclusus est, multo
vehementius papam esse exclusum! Et si licet aliis nationibus quae sub
Roma fuerunt, aut regem sibi creare, aut rempublicam tenere, multo magis
id licere populo Romano, praecipue adversus novam papae tyrannidem.

       *       *       *       *       *

Exclusi a defendenda donatione adversarii, quod nec umquam fuit et si
qua fuisset iam temporum conditione intercidisset, confugiunt ad alterum
genus defensionis, et velut relicta urbe in arcem se recipiunt, quam
statim deficientibus cibariis dedere cogentur. Praescripsit, inquiunt,
Romana ecclesia in iis[380] quae possidet. Cur ergo, quae maior pars
est, ea reposcit, in quibus non praescripsit, et in quibus alii
praescripserunt? Nisi id non licet aliis in hanc, quod huic licet in
alios.

Praescripsit Romana ecclesia! Cur ergo ab Imperatoribus totiens curat
sibi ius confirmandum? Cur donationem confirmationemque Caesarum iactat?
Si hoc unum satis est, iniuriam ei facis si de altero quoque iure non
sileas. Cur igitur de altero non siles? Nempe quia hoc sibi non sufficit.

Praescripsit Romana ecclesia! Et quomodo potest praescripsisse ubi de
nullo titulo sed de malefidei[381] possessione constat; aut, si malefidei
possessionem neges, profecto stultae fidei negare non possis? An in tanta
re tamque aperta excusata debet esse et iuris et facti ignorantia? Facti
quidem, quod Romam provinciasque non dedit Constantinus, quod ignorare
idiotae hominis est, non summi pontificis; iuris autem, quod illa nec
donari potuere nec accipi, quod nescire vix Christiani est. Itane stulta
credulitas dabit tibi ius in his quae, si prudentior fores, tua numquam
fuissent? Quid! Nonne nunc saltem, postquam te per ignorantiam atque
stultitiam possedisse docui, ius istud, si quod erat, amittes, et quod
inscitia male contulerat tibi, nonne id rursum cognitio bene adimet,
mancipiumque ab iniusto ad iustum dominum revertetur, fortassis etiam cum
usufructu? Quod si adhuc possidere pergis, iam inscitia in malitiam[382]
fraudemque conversa est, planeque effectus es[383] malefidei possessor.

Praescripsit Romana ecclesia! O imperiti, O divini iuris ignari! Nullus
quantusvis[384] annorum numerus verum abolere titulum potest. An vero
captus ego a barbaris, creditusque perisse,[385] post centum annos
quibus captivus fui, postliminio reversus paternae hereditatis repetitor
excludar? Quid hac re inhumanius? Atque, ut aliquod afferam exemplum, num
Jephte, dux Israel, reposcentibus filiis Ammon terram “a finibus Arnon
usque in Iaboc atque in Iordanem” respondit, “Praescripsit Israel iam per
trecentos annos?” An quod numquam illorum, sed Amorreorum fuisset terra
quam reposcerent ostendit; et hoc argumentum esse, ad Ammonitas[386]
illam non pertinere, quod numquam intra tot annorum curriculum
repoposcissent?

Praescripsit Romana ecclesia! Tace, nefaria lingua! Praescriptionem, quae
fit de rebus mutis et irrationabilibus, ad hominem transfers, cuius quo
diuturnior in servitute possessio eo est detestabilior? Aves ac ferae in
se praescribi nolunt, sed quantolibet tempore possessae, cum libuerit
et oblata fuerit occasio, abeunt: homini ab homine possesso abire non
licebit?[387]

Accipe unde magis fraus dolusque quam ignorantia Romanorum pontificum
appareat utentium iudice bello non iure; cui simile quiddam primos
pontifices in occupanda urbe ceterisque oppidis credo fecisse. Parum
ante me natum, testor eorum memoriam qui interfuerunt, per inauditum
genus fraudis Roma papale accepit imperium seu tyrannidem potius, cum
diu libera fuisset. Is fuit Bonifacius nonus, octavo in fraude ut[388]
in nomine par, si modo Bonifacii[389] dicendi sunt qui pessime faciunt.
Et cum Romani deprehenso dolo apud se indignarentur, bonus[390] papa in
morem Tarquinii summa quaeque papavera virga decussit. Quod cum postea,
qui ei successit, Innocentius imitari vellet, urbe fugatus est. De
aliis pontificibus nolo dicere, qui Romam vi semper oppressam armisque
tenuerunt; licet, quotiens potuit, rebellavit; ut sexto abhinc anno,
cum pacem ab Eugenio obtinere non posset, nec par[391] esset hostibus
qui earn obsidebant, et ipsa papam intra aedes obsedit, non permissura
illum abire priusquam aut pacem cum hostibus faceret aut administrationem
civitatis relegaret ad cives. At ille maluit urbem deserere dissimulato
habitu uno fugae comite, quam civibus gratificari iusta et aequa
petentibus. Quibus si des electionem, quis ignorat libertatem magis quam
servitium electuros?

Idem suspicari libet de ceteris urbibus quae a summo pontifice in
servitute retinentur, per quem a servitute liberari debuissent. Longum
esset recensere quot urbes ex hostibus captas populus Romanus olim
liberas fecit, adeo ut Titus Flaminius omnem Graeciam, quae sub Antiocho
fuisset, liberam esse et suis uti legibus iuberet. At papa, ut videre
licet, insidiatur sedulo libertati populorum; ideoque vicissim illi
quotidie oblata facultate (ad Bononiam modo respice) rebellant. Qui si
quando sponte, quod evenire potest aliquo aliunde periculo urgente, in
papale imperium concenserunt, non ita accipiendum est concensisse, ut
servos se facerent; ut numquam subtrahere a iugo colla possent; ut postea
nati non et ipsi arbitrium sui habeant; nam hoc iniquissimum foret.

    “Sponte ad te, summe pontifex, ut nos gubernares venimus;
    sponte nunc rursus abs te ne gubernes diutius recedimus.
    Si qua tibi a nobis debentur, ponatur calculus datorum et
    acceptorum. At tu gubernare invitos vis, quasi pupilli simus,
    qui te ipsum forsitan sapientius gubernare possemus. Adde huc
    iniurias quae aut abs te aut a tuis magistratibus huic civitati
    frequentissime inferuntur. Deum testamur, iniuria cogit nos
    rebellare, ut olim Israel a Roboam fecit. Et quae tanta fuit
    illi[392] iniuria? Quanta portio nostrae calamitatis graviora
    solvere tributa? Quid enim si rempublicam nostram exhaurias?
    Exhausisti.[393] Si templa spolies? Spoliasti. Si virginibus
    matribusque familias stuprum inferas? Intulisti. Si urbem
    sanguine civili perfundas? Perfudisti. Haec nobis sustinenda
    sunt? An potius, cum tu pater nobis esse desieris, nos quoque
    filios esse[394] obliviscemur? Pro patre, summe pontifex, aut
    si te hoc magis iuvat, pro domino hic te populus advocavit, non
    pro hoste atque carnifice: patrem agere aut dominum non vis,
    sed hostem ac carnificem. Nos saevitiam tuam impietatemque,
    etsi iure offensae poteramus, tamen quia Christiani sumus,
    non imitabimur, nec in tuum caput ultorem stringemus gladium,
    sed te abdicato atque summoto, alterum patrem dominumve
    adoptabimus. Filiis a malis parentibus a quibus geniti sunt
    fugere licet; nobis a te, non vero patre sed adoptivo et
    pessime nos tractante, non licebit? Tu vero, quae sacerdotii
    operis sunt, cura, et noli tibi ponere sedem ad Aquilonem
    et illinc tonando[395] fulgurantia fulmina in hunc populum
    ceterosque vibrare.”

Sed quid plura opus est in re apertissima dicere? Ego non modo
Constantinum non donasse tanta, non modo non potuisse Romanum pontificem
in eisdem praescribere, sed etiam si utrumque esset, tamen utrumque ius
sceleribus possessorum exstinctum esse contendo, cum videamus totius
Italiae multarumque provinciarum cladem ac vastitatem[396] ex hoc uno
fonte fluxisse. Si fons amarus est, et rivus; si radix immunda, et
rami; si delibatio sancta non est, nec massa. Ita e diverso, si rivus
amarus, fons obstruendus est; si rami immundi, e radice vitium venit; si
massa sancta non est, delibatio quoque abominanda[397] est. An possumus
principium potentiae papalis pro iure proferre, quod tantorum scelerum
tantorumque omnis generis malorum cernimus esse causam?

Quamobrem dico, et exclamo, neque enim timebo homines, Deo fretus;
neminem mea aetate in summo pontificatu fuisse aut fidelem dispensatorem
aut prudentem; qui tantum abest ut dederit familiae Dei cibum, ut
devorarit illam velut cibum et escam panis.[398] Papa et ipse bella
pacatis populis infert, et inter civitates principesque discordias
ferit. Papa et alienas sitit opes, et suas exsorbet,[399] ut Achilles in
Agamemnonem, Δημοβόρος βασιλεύς,[400] id est populi vexator rex.[401]
Papa non modo rempublicam, quod non Verres, non Catilina, non quispiam
peculator auderet, sed etiam rem ecclesiasticam et Spiritum Sanctum
quaestui[402] habet, quod Simon ille Magus etiam detestaretur. Et cum
horum admonetur, et a quibusdam bonis viris reprehenditur, non negat,
sed palam fatetur, atque gloriatur licere enim[403] quavis ratione
patrimonium ecclesiae a Constantino donatum ab occupantibus extorquere;
quasi eo recuperato religio Christiana futura sit beata,—et non magis
omnibus flagitiis, luxuriis libidinibusque oppressa, si modo opprimi
magis potest, et ullus est sceleri ulterior locus!

Ut igitur recuperet cetera membra donationis, male ereptas a bonis viris
pecunias peius effundit, militumque equestres pedestresque copias,
quibus omnia infestantur, alit, cum Christus in tot millibus pauperum
fame ac nuditate moriatur. Nec intelligit, O indignum facinus! cum ipse
saecularibus auferre[404] quae ipsorum sunt laborat, illos vicissim
sive pessimo exemplo induci, sive necessitate cogi, licet non est vera
necessitas, ad auferenda quae sunt ecclesiasticorum. Nulla itaque usquam
religio, nulla sanctitas, nullus Dei timor; et quod referens quoque
horresco, omnium scelerum impii homines a papa sumunt excusationem. In
illo enim comitibusque eius est[405] omnis facinoris exemplum, ut cum
Esaia et Paulo, in papam et papae proximos dicere possumus: “Nomen Dei
per vos blasphematur inter gentes. Qui alios docetis, vos ipsos non
docetis; qui praedicatis non furandum, latrocinamini; qui abominamini
idola, sacrilegium facitis; qui in lege et in pontificatu gloriamini, per
praevaricationem legis Deum verum pontificem inhonoratis.”

Quod si populus Romanus ob nimias opes veram illam Romanitatem perdidit,
si Salomon ob eandem causam in idolatriam amore feminarum lapsus est,
nonne idem putamus fieri in summo pontifice ac reliquis clericis? Et
postea putamus Deum fuisse permissurum ut materiam peccandi Silvester
acciperet? Non patiar hanc iniuriam fieri sanctissimo viro; non feram
hanc contumeliam fieri[406] pontifici optimo, ut dicatur imperia,
regna, provincias accepisse, quibus renuntiare[407] etiam solent qui
clerici fieri volunt. Pauca possedit Silvester, pauca ceterique sancti
pontifices, quorum aspectus apud hostes quoque erat sacrosanctus; veluti
illius Leonis, qui trucem barbari regis animum terruit ac fregit, quem
Romanae vires nec[408] frangere nec terrere potuerant. Recentes vero
summi pontifices, id est divitiis ac deliciis[409] affluentes, id
videntur laborare, ut quantum prisci fuere sapientes et sancti, tantum
ipsi et impii sint et stulti, et illorum egregias laudes omnibus probris
vincant. Haec quis Christiani nominis queat aequo animo ferre?

Verum ego in hac prima nostra oratione nolo exhortari principes ac
populos, ut papam effrenato cursu volitantem inhibeant eumque intra
suos fines consistere compellant, sed tantum admoneant, qui forsitan
iam edoctus veritatem, sua sponte ab aliena domo in suam, et ab insanis
fluctibus saevisque tempestatibus in portum se recipiet. Sin recuset,
tunc ad alteram orationem multo truculentiorem accingemur. Utinam,
utinam aliquando videam, nec enim mihi quicquam est longius quam hoc
videre, et praesertim meo consilio effectum, ut papa tantum vicarius
Christi sit, et non etiam Caesaris; nec amplius horrenda vox audiatur:
“Partes ecclesiae,” “Partes contra ecclesiam,” “Ecclesia contra Perusinos
pugnat,” “contra Bononienses!” Non contra Christianos pugnat ecclesia,
sed papa; illa pugnat contra spiritualia nequitiae in caelestibus. Tunc
papa et dicetur et erit Pater Sanctus, pater omnium, pater ecclesiae;
nec bella inter Christianos excitabit, sed ab aliis excitata censura
apostolica et papali maiestate sedabit.[410]


FOOTNOTES

[8] Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Aemilius Friedberg, Leipsic, 1879, vol. I,
p. 342.

[9] The subject of cc. xi and xii is; Imperatores debent Pontificibus
subesse, non preesse. [Ed.]

[10] De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione is the title
Valla gave his work; cf. letter to Guarini from Naples in November, 1443;
Epistolae principum (Venice, 1574), p. 356; also Barozzi e Sabbadini,
Studii sul Panormita e sul Valla (Florence, 1891), p. 93. In L. Valla
Opera (Basle, 1543), p. 762, the title runs, Contra Donationis, quae
Constantini dicitur, privilegia, ut falso creditum declamatio.

No title appears with the text of Codex Vaticanus Lat. 5314. The title
in Ulrich von Hutten’s edition inserts patricii Romani after Vallensis.
The treatise is also frequently entitled libellus or oratio instead of
declamatio.

[11] principum; Cod. Vat. Urb. 337 (containing a few fragments of this
treatise). Hutten.

[12] execratione; Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314, so throughout.

[13] Cod. Vat. Urb. 337. relinquit; Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314. reliquerit;
Hutten.

[14] sacerdotem; Cod. Vat. Urb. 337, Hutten.

[15] caeteri; Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314 (hereafter referred to as MS.), so
throughout.

[16] obverberari (instead of os verberari); Hutten.

[17] quippiam; Hutten.

[18] coelestem; MS., so throughout.

[19] Hutten. sit; MS.

[20] Omit eum; Hutten.

[21] heretico; MS.

[22] quempiam; Hutten.

[23] nunquis; MS., so throughout.

[24] expectare; MS., Hutten, so throughout.

[25] quodnam ... crimen; Hutten.

[26] vero; Hutten.

[27] commentitiam; MS.

[28] minis; Hutten.

[29] Hyspanias; MS., so throughout.

[30] accaepturus; MS., so throughout.

[31] Pontifici a quo baptismum; Bonneau.

[32] Hutten. MS. omits in.

[33] quorumdam; MS., so throughout.

[34] posse; Hutten.

[35] in in; MS. error.

[36] Hutten. concione; MS., so throughout.

[37] nunquid; MS., so throughout.

[38] Omit duobus; Hutten.

[39] iocundius; MS., so throughout.

[40] diesque; Hutten.

[41] charissima; MS., so throughout.

[42] detestantibusque; Hutten.

[43] coelum; MS., so throughout.

[44] quottidie; MS.

[45] amicis; Hutten.

[46] hi; Hutten.

[47] his; Hutten.

[48] Hebreis; MS., so throughout.

[49] minorem; Hutten.

[50] Neeman; MS., so throughout.

[51] altero; MS. error.

[52] Insert loquar; Bonneau.

[53] coepit; MS.

[54] lavatum; Hutten.

[55] lachrimisque; MS., so throughout.

[56] exhaeredas; MS.

[57] relegamur; MS.

[58] phana; MS.

[59] destituimur; Hutten.

[60] provintiis; MS.

[61] praefuturi fuimus; Hutten. praefecturi sumus; Bonneau. praefecturi
fuimus; Schard.

[62] insert vel; Hutten.

[63] extirpatam; MS., so throughout.

[64] partum; Hutten.

[65] qui; Hutten.

[66] es; Hutten.

[67] praesidiis; Hutten.

[68] comunes; MS., so throughout.

[69] provintiae; MS.

[70] initium; Hutten.

[71] tribunitii; MS.

[72] tanquam; MS., so throughout.

[73] Omit nostrae; Hutten.

[74] Carthaginenses; MS.

[75] foeminae; MS.

[76] provintias; MS.

[77] Bonneau. praefecimus; MS., Hutten.

[78] coges; Hutten.

[79] Insert occupavit; Hutten. Insert occupanti; Bonneau.

[80] tibi; Hutten.

[81] Tarquinum; MS.

[82] videtur; Hutten.

[83] suspitio; MS.

[84] discedere; Hutten.

[85] unquam; MS., so throughout.

[86] Apparently se was omitted, or it has dropped out of the text.

[87] ovem; Hutten, Bonneau.

[88] assentiar; Hutten.

[89] possum; Hutten.

[90] Ihesum; MS., so throughout.

[91] Insert a; Hutten.

[92] Omit reges; MS., an error.

[93] praecaepta; MS., so throughout.

[94] negociorum; MS., so throughout.

[95] haec; Hutten.

[96] Blank space for the Greek word, followed apparently by its
transcription, clerus; MS. Hutten reads dominatus for clerus, and
terrenus for terrena in the following line. Bonneau has divina after the
Greek word.

[97] idem; Hutten.

[98] reliquerunt; MS.

[99] Eius; Hutten.

[100] prophanum; MS., so throughout.

[101] frequenter; Hutten.

[102] haec; Hutten.

[103] ipsius; Hutten. suum; Bonneau.

[104] Omit in; Hutten.

[105] duriciam; MS.

[106] de rebus controversis; Hutten.

[107] quodcunque; MS., so throughout.

[108] dignationem; Hutten.

[109] ferri; Hutten.

[110] blasfement; MS., so throughout.

[111] charissimos; MS.

[112] Insert est; Bonneau (as in Vulgate).

[113] Omit ut iam; Hutten. in hoc, instead of ut iam; Bonneau.

[114] in; Hutten.

[115] acceptatam; Hutten.

[116] Bonneau omits acceptatum ... non fuisse.

[117] iuste; Hutten.

[118] avariciam; MS.

[119] tabulis; Hutten.

[120] haec ... solent; Hutten.

[121] circunduxit; MS.

[122] Hispanias; Hutten.

[123] Hutten. gratulabantur; MS.

[124] hi; Hutten.

[125] This sentence is omitted by Hutten.

[126] aliquis; Hutten.

[127] sedicionem; MS.

[128] fecem; MS.

[129] ulcionem; MS.

[130] hybernis; MS.

[131] ediles; MS.

[132] Moedorum; MS.

[133] enim; Hutten.

[134] at; Hutten.

[135] Hutten. sufficiet; MS.

[136] diaconus; Hutten.

[137] imperatorque; Hutten.

[138] The clauses, qui fuit ... idolorum cultu, are not in the original
text of Eutropius.

[139] Eutropius, Bonneau. Claudium propontum, thelesium; MS. Claudium
propontum Telestinum; Hutten. Caudium Propontum Telesinum; Schard. Valla
makes omissions in this and in the preceding sentence from Eutropius.

[140] Insert qui; Hutten.

[141] Omit licet; Hutten.

[142] Faelicis; MS.

[143] Archadium; MS.

[144] Proho; MS. Proh; Hutten.

[145] laetale; MS., Hutten.

[146] Hutten. Constantino; MS. error.

[147] Ruffinus; MS.

[148] pene; MS., Hutten.

[149] insert ad; Hutten.

[150] Insert sub; Hutten.

[151] Bonneau. non; MS. qui non in dubium vocari; Hutten. qui in dubium
vocari; Schard.

[152] codicibus; Hutten.

[153] Lodoici; MS.

[154] ad; Hutten.

[155] ut; Hutten.

[156] nauci; Hutten, Bonneau.

[157] utimini; Hutten.

[158] Gelatium; MS., so throughout.

[159] Omit Is ... legi; Hutten, evidently copyist’s error.

[160] secuntur; MS.

[161] duntaxat; MS.

[162] Sybillini; MS.

[163] collumnis; MS.

[164] Hutten. christianos; MS.

[165] in; Hutten, Bonneau.

[166] papiro; MS.

[167] committis; Hutten.

[168] in urbe Roma; Hutten. in tota urbe Romana; Bonneau.

[169] incipit; Bonneau.

[170] satrapas; Hutten, so throughout.

[171] adiuncto (instead of aut iuncto); Hutten, Bonneau.

[172] quatuor; MS., so throughout.

[173] nominantur; Hutten.

[174] Bonneau omits Romane ... populos.

[175] pontifex; Hutten, Bonneau.

[176] non; Hutten, Bonneau.

[177] hi; Hutten, Bonneau.

[178] infaelix; MS., so throughout.

[179] exaltare; Hutten.

[180] Formiane; MS.

[181] elegis; Hutten, Bonneau.

[182] exaltare; Hutten.

[183] dignitatem; Hutten.

[184] Hutten, Bonneau. disponatur; MS. error.

[185] Bizantium; MS., so in many places.

[186] Hutten, Bonneau. confitentur; MS. error.

[187] Atqui; Hutten. Atque; Bonneau.

[188] Hutten omits Byzantiam ... nomine.

[189] Trachia; MS., so throughout.

[190] extruxerat; MS.

[191] comunem; MS.

[192] Getulos; MS.

[193] Hutten. nominetur; MS.

[194] Siccine; MS.

[195] exequitur; MS., so throughout.

[196] extinctis; MS., so throughout.

[197] igitur, instead of tu ideo; Hutten. te omnino omisisse; Bonneau.

[198] circundare; MS.

[199] Hutten. clamydem; MS.

[200] revendissimis; MS., an error.

[201] patritios; MS.

[202] Hutten. hostiariorum; MS.

[203] adornatur; Hutten.

[204] decrevimus; Hutten.

[205] blasfemiam; MS.

[206] paciens; MS., so throughout.

[207] convertentur; Hutten, Bonneau.

[208] Pharisei; MS.

[209] Hutten, Bonneau. Omit cum; MS.

[210] patescet; MS.

[211] cognosceret; Hutten, Bonneau.

[212] solicitudinibus; MS.

[213] Menechinis; MS.

[214] Hutten. frygionem; MS.

[215] Correct form is phrygionias. Bonneau omits this whole sentence.

[216] fuerunt; Hutten.

[217] significet; Hutten.

[218] loro circumdari collum; Bonneau.

[219] Insert aut canem; Hutten, Bonneau.

[220] chlamidem; MS., so below.

[221] porphiritum; MS.

[222] amethisto; MS.

[223] si; Hutten.

[224] dilabitur; Hutten, Bonneau.

[225] mendatio; MS.

[226] loqueris; Hutten, Bonneau.

[227] cresentis; MS.

[228] Insert summum; Hutten.

[229] patritii; MS.

[230] patritius; MS.

[231] Hutten, Bonneau. iis; MS.

[232] fiant; Hutten. faciunt; Bonneau. Add aut militaria ornamenta;
Hutten, Bonneau.

[233] scenici; MS.

[234] ociosum; MS.

[235] Hutten, Bonneau. Salomon; MS.

[236] inpraesentiarum; MS.

[237] Bonneau. Cilicini; MS., Hutten.

[238] Bonneau. Cyniphio; MS., Hutten.

[239] terrestria; Hutten, Bonneau. The quotation, to correspond with
Valla’s earlier citation, should be “ita caelestia sicut terrena ad
laudem Dei decorentur.”

[240] deficiet; Hutten, Bonneau. Insert alias deficient; Bonneau.

[241] prae; Hutten, Bonneau.

[242] concessimus; Bonneau, Zeumer’s text of the Constitutum Constantini.

[243] preciosis; MS., so below.

[244] Hutten. admistum; MS.

[245] nanque; MS.

[246] loqutus; MS., so throughout.

[247] Decrevimus hoc ut ... uti debeant, is the correct quotation from
the Constitutum Constantini. Decrevimus quod uti debeant; Hutten.

[248] decrevimus; MS., Hutten.

[249] eodo; MS.

[250] representari; MS.

[251] Hutten. misteria; MS. ministeria; Bonneau.

[252] libris; Bonneau.

[253] qui; Bonneau.

[254] Moysem; MS.

[255] Omit ut; Hutten, Zeumer’s text of the Constitutum Constantini.

[256] provintias; MS.

[257] calceo; MS., an error.

[258] Insert ornamenta; Hutten.

[259] provintias; MS., so below.

[260] Omit non; Bonneau.

[261] Omit Nam ... erant; Bonneau.

[262] numero; MS., an error.

[263] cathalogo; MS.

[264] descirptos; MS.

[265] permanendas in the passage as quoted above by Valla. The form used
varies in different texts of the Donation; permansurum, permanenda,
permanendam, permanendas.

[266] Bonneau includes as part of this quotation the next quoted passage
below, quoniam ... potestatem. He repeats it in its proper place without
quotation marks.

[267] Schard. Italiam; MS., Hutten.

[268] urbis; Hutten, Bonneau.

[269] desisti; MS.

[270] Insert scripturam; Hutten, Bonneau.

[271] firmavimus; Hutten. confirmamus; Bonneau. confirmavimus; Zeumer’s
text of the Constitutum Constantini.

[272] et; MS.

[273] coeno; MS.

[274] peribit; Hutten.

[275] quod tu summo Deo; Hutten. quod tu Summo Pontifici; Bonneau.

[276] Hutten, Bonneau. praecipit; MS.

[277] Omit obtestamur; MS., an error.

[278] nunc instead of nec non; Bonneau, Zeumer’s text of the Constitutum
Constantini.

[279] imposterum; MS.

[280] Hutten, Bonneau, Zeumer’s text of the Constitutum Constantini. Omit
non; MS.

[281] insert Caesaris aut; Hutten, Bonneau.

[282] existimat; Hutten.

[283] quemdam; MS.

[284] maliciamque; MS.

[285] sepulchro; MS.

[286] sanctae; Hutten, Bonneau.

[287] custoditis; Hutten, Bonneau.

[288] Hutten’s text omits two sentences, “Nemo ... exemplar.”

[289] glosatoris; MS.

[290] Kalendarum; Bonneau. Kalendarum Apriliarum; Zeumer’s text of the
Constitutum Constantini.

[291] Joathan; Bonneau.

[292] Omit hoc; Hutten, Bonneau.

[293] Omit ad illum vero ... is cui mittuntur; Hutten, Bonneau.

[294] ne; MS.

[295] senserunt; Hutten.

[296] tamen; Hutten.

[297] Omit mihi; Hutten.

[298] malicia; MS.

[299] Hutten. angusto; MS.

[300] Insert veritatis; Hutten.

[301] tacite; Hutten.

[302] bybliae; MS.

[303] luminaribus; Hutten.

[304] Hutten, Bonneau. dicant; MS.

[305] Hutten, Bonneau. est; MS.

[306] prumptissima; MS.

[307] satyrica; MS.

[308] ullum sociorum ac comitum suorum; Hutten.

[309] Bonneau. Bragadae; MS., Hutten.

[310] Insert olim and omit illum; Hutten, Bonneau.

[311] quin; Hutten, Bonneau.

[312] Instead of the two preceding sentences, Bonneau has; Volant enim
dracones; imperite eum cuius genus illud sit excogitaverat.

[313] foeminas; MS., so throughout.

[314] prodiisset; MS.

[315] fuit; Hutten.

[316] mimicae; Bonneau.

[317] impudentissimi; Hutten.

[318] demonum; MS.

[319] seduceretur; Hutten, Bonneau.

[320] iniusticiae; MS.

[321] Hutten, Bonneau. illius; MS.

[322] Omit haec; Hutten.

[323] hec; MS.

[324] opereprecium; MS. operepretium; Hutten.

[325] Hutten. Genuitius; MS. Bonneau omits this sentence Terentius Varro
... M. Genutius.

[326] dedistis; Valerius Maximus, factorum et dictorum memorabilium, lib.
i, viii, 4.

[327] Bonneau. istos; MS., Hutten.

[328] nescirent; Bonneau.

[329] inficior; Bonneau.

[330] synapis; MS.

[331] horum; Bonneau.

[332] aemulationem si non scientiam; Bonneau.

[333] Omit improba quaedam et; Bonneau.

[334] Insert nisi; Bonneau.

[335] abiicimus; MS.

[336] Omit ut; Hutten. ingenuam; Hutten, Bonneau.

[337] illo; Hutten. eo; Bonneau.

[338] Bonneau inserts Transeo quod cruorem puerorum ad curationem leprae
facere dicunt, quod medicina non confitetur.

[339] iusissent; MS.

[340] Hutten, Bonneau. απὸ τοῦ κεφαλι; MS.

[341] sed; Hutten, Bonneau.

[342] κηφας; MS. κηφύς; Hutten. Κεφάς; Bonneau.

[343] Hutten, Bonneau. distingunt; MS.

[344] Bonneau. Metropolis sed Mitropolis; MS. metropolis, sed μητροπόλις;
Hutten.

[345] civitatis sive urbis; Hutten, Bonneau.

[346] Insert ita legendum Simonem; Hutten.

[347] commentitiam; MS.

[348] Lodoici; MS., so throughout.

[349] Pascali; MS., so throughout.

[350] imperpetuum; MS.

[351] predecessoribus; MS.

[352] ditione; MS.

[353] Insert et cetera; Hutten.

[354] ipso; Hutten.

[355] voluerit; Hutten, Bonneau.

[356] tamen; Hutten, Bonneau.

[357] aut; Hutten, Bonneau.

[358] false; MS.

[359] Omit illum; Hutten, Bonneau.

[360] Omit princeps; Hutten.

[361] alioquin; MS.

[362] Insert ut; Hutten, Bonneau.

[363] Omit Romano; Hutten.

[364] provintiisque; MS.

[365] Insert non; Bonneau.

[366] Omit qui dicitur; Hutten.

[367] vocantur; Bonneau.

[368] MS. leaves blank. σεβασός; Hutten.

[369] Insert regno; Bonneau.

[370] ipsius successorum; Bonneau.

[371] tantum; MS.

[372] quinquagessimo; MS.

[373] predas; MS., so throughout.

[374] questionem; MS.

[375] vendicant; MS.

[376] iccirco; MS.

[377] hoc; Hutten, Bonneau.

[378] Amphitrionum; MS., Hutten.

[379] tandiu; MS., Hutten.

[380] his; Hutten, Bonneau.

[381] malae fidei; Hutten, Bonneau, so below.

[382] maliciam; MS.

[383] est; MS.

[384] quantumvis; Hutten, Bonneau, so throughout.

[385] periisse; Hutten, Bonneau, so throughout.

[386] Amonitas; MS.

[387] licet; Hutten.

[388] et, instead of ut in; Hutten, Bonneau.

[389] bonifatii; MS.

[390] Bonifacius; Hutten, Bonneau.

[391] pax; Hutten, Bonneau.

[392] illa; Hutten, Bonneau.

[393] exhauristi; MS.

[394] non must have dropt out of the text.

[395] Hutten, Bonneau. tonantem; MS.

[396] vastitate; MS.

[397] abhominanda; MS., so throughout.

[398] ut dederit familiae cibum, et escam panis; Hutten. donaret, instead
of devorarit; Bonneau.

[399] exorbet; MS.

[400] MS. leaves blank space for the Greek words.

[401] Omit id est populi vexator rex; Hutten. populi vorator, omitting id
est and rex; Bonneau.

[402] questui; MS.

[403] ei; Bonneau.

[404] aufferre; MS.

[405] esse; MS.

[406] Bonneau omits sanctissimo ... fieri.

[407] renunciare; MS.

[408] Hutten, Bonneau. Omit nec; MS.

[409] delitiis; MS.

[410] MS. bears postscript; Finis septimo Idus Decembris, Mccccli. Laus
Deo.



THE DONATION OF CONSTANTINE

AS GIVEN IN PART ONE, DIVISION XCVI, CHAPTERS XIII AND XIV OF GRATIAN’S
DECRETUM, OR HARMONY OF THE CANONS.

PART ONE. DIVISION XCVI.


[PALEA[411]

CHAPTER XIII. CONCERNING THE SAME.[412]

The Emperor Constantine yielded his crown, and all his royal prerogatives
in the city of Rome, and in Italy, and in western parts to the Apostolic
[See]. For in the Acts of the Blessed Sylvester (which the Blessed Pope
Gelasius in the Council of the Seventy Bishops recounts as read by the
catholic, and in accordance with ancient usage many churches he says
follow this example) occurs the following:]


[PALEA.

C. XIV. CONCERNING THE SAME.

The Emperor Constantine the fourth day after his baptism conferred this
privilege on the Pontiff of the Roman church, that in the whole Roman
world priests should regard him as their head, as judges do the king.
In this privilege among other things is this: “We—together with all our
satraps, and the whole senate and my nobles, and also all the people
subject to the government of glorious Rome—considered it advisable, that
as the Blessed Peter is seen to have been constituted vicar of the Son
of God on the earth, so the Pontiffs who are the representatives of that
same chief of the apostles, should obtain from us and our empire the
power of a supremacy greater than the clemency of our earthly imperial
serenity is seen to have conceded to it, choosing that same chief of the
apostles and his vicars to be our constant intercessors with God. And
to the extent of our earthly imperial power, we have decreed that his
holy Roman church shall be honored with veneration, and that more than
our empire and earthly throne the most sacred seat of the Blessed Peter
shall be gloriously exalted, we giving to it power, and dignity of glory,
and vigor, and honor imperial. And we ordain and decree that he shall
have the supremacy as well over the four principal seats, Alexandria,
Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, as also over all the churches
of God in the whole earth. And the Pontiff, who at the time shall be at
the head of the holy Roman church itself, shall be more exalted than,
and chief over, all the priests of the whole world, and according to his
judgment everything which is provided for the service of God and for the
stability of the faith of Christians is to be administered. _And below_:
§. 1. On the churches of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, for the
providing of the lights, we have conferred landed estates of possessions,
and have enriched them with different objects, and through our sacred
imperial mandate we have granted him of our property in the east as
well as in the west, and even in the northern and the southern quarter;
namely, in Judea, Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa, and Italy and the various
islands; under this condition indeed, that all shall be administered
by the hand of our most blessed father the supreme Pontiff, Sylvester,
and his successors. _And below_: §. 2. And to our Father, the Blessed
Sylvester, supreme Pontiff and Pope universal, of the city of Rome, and
to all the Pontiffs, his successors, who shall sit in the seat of the
Blessed Peter even unto the end of the world, we by this present do give
our imperial Lateran palace, then the diadem, that is, the crown of our
head, and at the same time the tiara and also the shoulder-band,—that is,
the strap that usually surrounds our imperial neck; and also the purple
mantle and scarlet tunic, and all the imperial raiment; and also the
same rank as those presiding over the imperial cavalry, conferring also
even the imperial scepters, and at the same time all the standards, and
banners, and the different ornaments, and all the pomp of our imperial
eminence, and the glory of our power. §. 3. We decree moreover, as to
the most reverend men, the clergy of different orders who serve that
same holy Roman church, that they have that same eminence, distinction,
power and excellence, by the glory of which it seems proper for our most
illustrious senate to be adorned; that is, that they be made patricians
and consuls, and also we have proclaimed that they be decorated with the
other imperial dignities. And even as the imperial militia is adorned,
so also we decree that the clergy of the holy Roman church be adorned.
And even as the imperial power is adorned with different offices, of
chamberlains, indeed, and door-keepers, and all the guards, so we wish
the holy Roman church also to be decorated. And in order that the
pontifical glory may shine forth most fully, we decree this also; that
the horses of the clergy of this same holy Roman church be decorated with
saddle-cloths and linens, that is, of the whitest color, and that they
are to so ride. And even as our senate uses shoes with felt socks, that
is, distinguished by white linen, so the clergy also should use them,
so that, even as the celestial orders, so also the terrestrial may be
adorned to the glory of God. §. 4. Above all things, moreover, we give
permission to that same most holy one our Father Sylvester and to his
successors, from our edict, that he may make priest whomever he wishes,
according to his own pleasure and counsel, and enroll him in the number
of the religious clergy [i.e., regular, or monastic, clergy; or, perhaps,
the cardinals], let no one whomsoever presume to act in a domineering
way in this. §. 5. We also therefore decreed this, that he himself and
his successors might use and bear upon their heads—to the praise of God
for the honor of the Blessed Peter—the diadem, that is, the crown which
we have granted him from our own head, of purest gold and precious gems.
But since he himself, the most blessed Pope, did not at all allow that
crown of gold to be used over the clerical crown which he wears to the
glory of the Blessed Peter, we placed upon his most holy head, with our
own hands, a glittering tiara of dazzling white representing the Lord’s
resurrection, and holding the bridle of his horse, out of reverence for
the Blessed Peter, we performed for him the duty of groom, decreeing that
all his successors, and they alone, use this same tiara in processions
in imitation of our power. §. 6. Wherefore, in order that the supreme
pontificate may not deteriorate, but may rather be adorned with glory
and power even more than is the dignity of an earthly rule; behold, we
give over and relinquish to the aforesaid our most blessed Pontiff,
Sylvester, the universal Pope, as well our palace, as has been said, as
also the city of Rome, and all the provinces, places and cities of Italy
and the western regions, and we decree by this our godlike and pragmatic
sanction that they are to be controlled by him and by his successors, and
we grant that they shall remain under the law of the holy Roman church.
§. 7. Wherefore we have perceived it to be fitting that our empire and
the power of our kingdom should be transferred in the regions of the
East, and that in the province of Byzantia, in the most fitting place,
a city should be built in our name, and that our empire should there
be established, for where the supremacy of priests and the head of the
Christian religion has been established by the heavenly Emperor, it is
not right that there an earthly emperor should have jurisdiction. §. 8.
We decree, moreover, that all these things, which through this our sacred
imperial [charter] and through other godlike decrees we have established
and confirmed, remain inviolate and unshaken unto the end of the world.
Wherefore, before the living God who commanded us to reign, and in the
face of his terrible judgment, we entreat, through this our imperial
sanction, all the emperors our successors, and all the nobles, the
satraps also, the most glorious senate, and all the people in the whole
world, now and in all times still[413] to come subject to our rule, that
no one of them in any way be allowed either to break these [decrees],
or in any way overthrow them. If any one, moreover,—which we do not
believe—prove a scorner or despiser in this matter, he shall be subject
and bound over to eternal damnation, and shall feel the holy ones of God,
the chief of the apostles, Peter and Paul, opposed to him in the present
and in the future life, and he shall be burned in the lower hell and
shall perish with the devil and all the impious. The page, moreover, of
this our imperial decree, we, confirming it with our own hands, did place
above the venerable body of the Blessed Peter, chief of the apostles.
Given at Rome on the third day before the Kalends of April, our master
the august Flavius Constantine, for the fourth time, and Gallicanus, most
illustrious men, being consuls.”]



THE DISCOURSE OF LORENZO VALLA ON THE FORGERY OF THE ALLEGED DONATION OF
CONSTANTINE


I have published many books, a great many, in almost every branch of
learning. Inasmuch as there are those who are shocked that in these I
disagree with certain great writers already approved by long usage, and
charge me with rashness and sacrilege, what must we suppose some of
them will do now! How they will rage against me, and if opportunity is
afforded how eagerly and how quickly they will drag me to punishment!
For I am writing against not only the dead, but the living also, not
this man or that, but a host, not merely private individuals, but the
authorities. And what authorities! Even the supreme pontiff, armed not
only with the temporal sword as are kings and princes, but with the
spiritual also, so that even under the very shield, so to speak, of any
prince, you cannot protect yourself from him; from being struck down
by excommunication, anathema, curse. So if he was thought to have both
spoken and acted prudently who said, “I will not write against those
who can write ‘Proscribed,’” how much more would it seem that I ought
to follow the same course toward him who goes far beyond proscription,
who would pursue me with the invisible darts of his authority, so that
I could rightly say, “Whither shall I go from thy spirit, or whither
shall I flee from thy presence?”[414] Unless perhaps we think the supreme
pontiff would bear these attacks more patiently than would others. Far
from it; for Ananias, the high priest, in the presence of the tribune who
sat as judge, ordered Paul when he said he lived in good conscience to be
smitten on the mouth; and Pashur, holding the same rank, threw Jeremiah
into prison for the boldness of his speech. The tribune and the governor,
indeed, were able and willing to protect the former, and the king the
latter, from priestly violence. But what tribune, what governor, what
king, even if he wanted to, could snatch me from the hands of the chief
priest if he should seize me?

But there is no reason why this awful, twofold peril should trouble me
and turn me from my purpose; for the supreme pontiff may not bind nor
loose any one contrary to law and justice. And to give one’s life in
defense of truth and justice is the path of the highest virtue, the
highest honor, the highest reward. Have not many undergone the hazard of
death for the defense of their terrestrial fatherland? In the attainment
of the celestial fatherland (they attain it who please God, not men),
shall I be deterred by the hazard of death? Away then with trepidation,
let fears far remove, let doubts pass away. With a brave soul, with utter
fidelity, with good hope, the cause of truth must be defended, the cause
of justice, the cause of God.

Nor is he to be esteemed a true orator who knows how to speak well,
unless he also has the courage to speak. So let us have the courage to
accuse him, whoever he is, that commits crimes calling for accusation.
And let him who sins against all be called to account by the voice of
one speaking for all. Yet perhaps I ought not to reprove my brother in
public, but by himself. Rather, “Them that sin” and do not accept private
admonition “rebuke before all, that others also may fear.”[415] Or did
not Paul, whose words I have just used, reprove Peter to his face in
the presence of the church because he needed reproof? And he left this
written for our instruction. But perhaps I am not a Paul that I should
reprove a Peter. Yea, I am a Paul because I imitate Paul. Just as, and
this is far greater, I become one in spirit with God when I diligently
observe his commandments. Nor is any one made immune from chiding by an
eminence which did not make Peter immune, and many others possessed of
the same rank; for instance, Marcellus,[416] who offered a libation to
the gods, and Celestine [I] who entertained the Nestorian heresy, and
certain even within our own memory whom we know were reproved, to say
nothing of those condemned, by their inferiors, for who is not inferior
to the Pope?[417]

It is not my aim to inveigh against any one and write so-called
Philippics against him—be that villainy far from me—but to root out error
from men’s minds, to free them from vices and crimes by either admonition
or reproof. I would not dare to say [that my aim is] that others, taught
by me, should prune with steel the papal see, which is Christ’s vineyard,
rank with overabundant shoots, and compel it to bear rich grapes instead
of meager wildings. When I do that, is there any one who will want to
close either my mouth or his own ears, much less propose punishment and
death? If one should do so, even if it were the Pope, what should I call
him, a good shepherd, or a deaf viper which would not choose to heed the
voice of the charmer, but to strike his limbs with its poisonous bite?

I know that for a long time now men’s ears are waiting to hear the
offense with which I charge the Roman pontiffs. It is, indeed, an
enormous one, due either to supine ignorance, or to gross avarice which
is the slave of idols, or to pride of empire of which cruelty is ever
the companion. For during some centuries now, either they have not
known that the Donation of Constantine is spurious and forged, or else
they themselves forged it, and their successors walking in the same way
of deceit as their elders have defended as true what they knew to be
false, dishonoring the majesty of the pontificate, dishonoring the memory
of ancient pontiffs, dishonoring the Christian religion, confounding
everything with murders, disasters and crimes. They say the city of Rome
is theirs, theirs the kingdom of Sicily and of Naples,[418] the whole
of Italy, the Gauls, the Spains, the Germans, the Britons, indeed the
whole West; for all these are contained in the instrument of the Donation
itself.[419] So all these are yours, supreme pontiff? And it is your
purpose to recover them all? To despoil all kings and princes of the West
of their cities or compel them to pay you a yearly tribute, is that your
plan?

I, on the contrary, think it fairer to let the princes despoil you of
all the empire you hold. For, as I shall show, that Donation whence the
supreme pontiffs will have their right derived was unknown equally to
Sylvester and to Constantine.

But before I come to the refutation of the instrument of the Donation,
which is their one defense, not only false but even stupid, the right
order demands that I go further back. And first, I shall show that
Constantine and Sylvester were not such men that the former would choose
to give, would have the legal right to give, or would have it in his
power to give those lands to another, or that the latter would be willing
to accept them or could legally have done so. In the second place, if
this were not so, though it is absolutely true and obvious, [I shall show
that in fact] the latter did not receive nor the former give possession
of what is said to have been granted, but that it always remained under
the sway and empire of the Caesars. In the third place, [I shall show
that] nothing was given to Sylvester by Constantine, but to an earlier
Pope (and Constantine had received baptism even before that pontificate),
and that the grants were inconsiderable, for the mere subsistence of the
Pope. Fourth, that it is not true either that a copy of the Donation is
found in the Decretum [of Gratian], or that it was taken from the History
of Sylvester; for it is not found in it or in any history, and it is
comprised of contradictions, impossibilities, stupidities, barbarisms and
absurdities. Further, I shall speak of the pretended or mock donation of
certain other Caesars. Then by way of redundance I shall add that even
had Sylvester taken possession, nevertheless, he or some other pontiff
having been dispossessed, possession could not be resumed after such a
long interval under either divine or human law. Last [I shall show] that
the possessions which are now held by the supreme pontiff could not, in
any length of time, be validated by prescription.

And so to take up the first point, let us speak first of Constantine,
then of Sylvester.

       *       *       *       *       *

It would not do to argue a public and quasi imperial case without more
dignity of utterance than is usual in private cases. And so speaking as
in an assembly of kings and princes, as I assuredly do, for this oration
of mine will come into their hands, I choose to address an audience, as
it were, face to face. I call upon you, kings and princes, for it is
difficult for a private person to form a picture of a royal mind; I seek
your thought, I search your heart, I ask your testimony. Is there any
one of you who, had he been in Constantine’s place, would have thought
that he must set about giving to another out of pure generosity the city
of Rome, his fatherland, the head of the world, the queen of states, the
most powerful, the noblest and the most opulent of peoples, the victor of
the nations, whose very form is sacred, and betaking himself thence to an
humble little town, Byzantium; giving with Rome Italy, not a province but
the mistress of provinces; giving the three Gauls; giving the two Spains;
the Germans; the Britons; the whole West; depriving himself of one of the
two eyes of his empire? That any one in possession of his senses would do
this, I cannot be brought to believe.

What ordinarily befalls you that is more looked forward to, more
pleasing, more grateful, than for you to increase your empires and
kingdoms, and to extend your authority as far and wide as possible? In
this, as it seems to me, all your care, all your thought, all your labor,
night and day is expended. From this comes your chief hope of glory,
for this you renounce pleasures; for this you subject yourselves to a
thousand dangers; for this your dearest pledges, for this your own flesh
you sacrifice with serenity. Indeed, I have neither heard nor read of
any of you having been deterred from an attempt to extend his empire by
loss of an eye, a hand, a leg, or any other member. Nay, this very ardor
and this thirst for wide dominion is such that whoever is most powerful,
him it thus torments and stirs the most. Alexander, not content to have
traversed on foot the deserts of Libya, to have conquered the Orient to
the farthest ocean, to have mastered the North, amid so much bloodshed,
so many perils, his soldiers already mutinous and crying out against such
long, such hard campaigns, seemed to himself to have accomplished nothing
unless either by force or by the power of his name he should have made
the West also, and all nations, tributary to him. I put it too mildly;
he had already determined to cross the ocean, and if there was any other
world, to explore it and subject it to his will. He would have tried, I
think, last of all to ascend the heavens. Some such wish all kings have,
even though not all are so bold. I pass over the thought how many crimes,
how many horrors have been committed to attain and extend power, for
brothers do not restrain their wicked hands from the stain of brothers’
blood, nor sons from the blood of parents, nor parents from the blood of
sons. Indeed, nowhere is man’s recklessness apt to run riot further nor
more viciously. And to your astonishment, you see the minds of old men
no less eager in this than the minds of young men, childless men no less
eager than parents, kings than usurpers.

But if domination is usually sought with such great resolution, how much
greater must be the resolution to preserve it! For it is by no means so
discreditable not to increase an empire as to impair it, nor is it so
shameful not to annex another’s kingdom to your own as for your own to be
annexed to another’s. And when we read of men being put in charge of a
kingdom or of cities by some king or by the people, this is not done in
the case of the chief or the greatest portion of the empire, but in the
case of the last and least, as it were, and that with the understanding
that the recipient should always recognize the donor as his sovereign and
himself as an agent.

Now I ask, do they not seem of a base and most ignoble mind who suppose
that Constantine gave away the better part of his empire? I say nothing
of Rome, Italy, and the rest, but the Gauls where he had waged war in
person, where for a long time he had been sole master, where he had laid
the foundations of his glory and his empire! A man who through thirst
for dominion had waged war against nations, and attacking friends and
relatives in civil strife had taken the government from them, who had to
deal with remnants of an opposing faction not yet completely mastered and
overthrown; who waged war with many nations not only by inclination and
in the hope of fame and empire but by very necessity, for he was harassed
every day by the barbarians; who had many sons, relatives and associates;
who knew that the Senate and the Roman people would oppose this act; who
had experienced the instability of conquered nations and their rebellions
at nearly every change of ruler at Rome; who remembered that after the
manner of other Caesars he had come into power, not by the choice of
the Senate and the consent of the populace, but by armed warfare; what
incentive could there be so strong and urgent that he would ignore all
this and choose to display such prodigality?

They say, it was because he had become a Christian. Would he therefore
renounce the best part of his empire? I suppose it was a crime,
an outrage, a felony, to reign after that, and that a kingdom was
incompatible with the Christian religion! Those who live in adultery,
those who have grown rich by usury, those who possess goods which belong
to another, they after baptism are wont to restore the stolen wife, the
stolen money, the stolen goods. If this be your idea, Constantine, you
must restore your cities to liberty, not change their master. But that
did not enter into the case; you were led to do as you did solely for
the glory of your religion. As though it were more religious to lay
down a kingdom than to administer it for the maintenance of religion!
For so far as it concerns the recipients, that Donation will be neither
honorable nor useful to them. But if you want to show yourself a
Christian, to display your piety, to further the cause, I do not say of
the Roman church, but of the Church of God, now of all times act the
prince, so that you may fight for those who cannot and ought not to
fight, so that by your authority you may safeguard those who are exposed
to plots and injuries. To Nebuchadnezzar, to Cyrus, to Ahasuerus, and
to many other princes, by the will of God, the mystery of the truth was
revealed; but of none of them did God demand that he should resign his
government, that he should give away part of his kingdom, but only that
he should give the Hebrews their liberty and protect them from their
aggressive neighbors. This was enough for the Jews; it will be enough for
the Christians also. You have become a Christian, Constantine? Then it is
most unseemly for you now as a Christian emperor to have less sovereignty
than you had as an infidel. For sovereignty is an especial gift of God,
to which even the gentile sovereigns are supposed to be chosen by God.

But he was cured of leprosy! Probably, therefore, he would have wished to
show his gratitude and give back a larger measure than he had received.
Indeed! Naaman the Syrian, cured by Elisha, wished merely to present
gifts, not the half of his goods, and would Constantine have presented
the half of his empire? I regret to reply to this shameless story as
though it were undoubted and historical, for it is a reflection of the
story of Naaman and Elisha; just as that other story about the dragon is
a reflection of the fabulous dragon of Bel.[420] But yielding this point,
is there in this story any mention made of a “donation”? Not at all. But
of this, more later.

He was cured of leprosy? He took on therefore a Christian spirit; he
was imbued with the fear of God, with the love of God; he wished to
honor him. Nevertheless I cannot be persuaded that he wished to give
away so much; for, so far as I see, no one, either pagan, in honor of
the gods, or believer, in honor of the living God, has resigned his
empire and given it to priests. In sooth, of the kings of Israel none
could be brought to permit his people to go, according to the former
custom, to sacrifice at the temple in Jerusalem; for fear lest, moved by
that solemn religious ceremony and by the majesty of the temple, they
should return to the king of Judah from whom they had revolted. And how
much more is Constantine represented to have done! And that you may not
flatter yourself with the cure of leprosy, [let me say that] Jeroboam
was the first one chosen by God to be king of Israel and indeed from a
very low estate, which to my mind is more than being healed of leprosy;
nevertheless he did not presume to entrust his kingdom to God. And will
you have Constantine give to God a kingdom which he had not received from
him, and that, too, when he would offend his sons (which was not the case
with Jeroboam), humiliate his friends, ignore his relatives, injure his
country, plunge everybody into grief, and forget his own interests!

But if, having been such a man as he was, he had been transformed as it
were into another man, there would certainly not have been lacking those
who would warn him, most of all his sons, his relatives, and his friends.
Who does not think that they would have gone at once to the emperor?
Picture them to yourself, when the purpose of Constantine had become
known, trembling, hastening to fall with groans and tears at the feet of
the prince, and saying:

    “Is it thus that you, a father hitherto most affectionate
    toward your sons, despoil your sons, disinherit them, disown
    them? We do not complain of the fact that you choose to divest
    yourself of the best and largest part of the empire so much
    as we wonder at it. But we do complain that you give it to
    others to our loss and shame. Why do you defraud your children
    of their expected succession to the empire, you who yourself
    reigned in partnership with your father? What have we done to
    you? By what disloyalty to you, to our country, to the Roman
    name or the majesty of the empire, are we deemed to deserve to
    be deprived of the chiefest and best part of our principality;
    that we should be banished from our paternal home, from the
    sight of our native land, from the air we are used to, from our
    ancient ties! Shall we leave our household gods, our shrines,
    our tombs, exiles, to live we know not where, nor in what part
    of the earth?

    “And we, your kindred, your friends, who have stood so often
    with you in line of battle, who have seen brothers, fathers,
    sons, pierced and writhing under hostile sword, and have not
    been dismayed at the death of others, but were ourselves ready
    to seek death for your sake, why are we now deserted one and
    all by you! We who hold the public offices of Rome, who govern
    or are destined to govern the cities of Italy, the Gauls, the
    Spains, and the other provinces, are all of us to be deposed?
    Are all of us to be ordered into private life? Or will you
    compensate us elsewhere for this loss? And how can you, when
    such a large part of the world has been given to another? Will
    your majesty put the man who had charge of a hundred peoples
    over one? How could you have conceived such a plan? How is
    it that you have suddenly become oblivious of your subjects,
    so that you have no consideration for your friends, nor your
    kindred, nor your sons? Would that it had been our lot, your
    Majesty, while your honor and your victory were unimpaired, to
    fall in battle, rather than to see this!

    “You have the power, indeed, to do with your empire what you
    will, and even with us, one thing however excepted, which we
    will resist to the death; we will not give up the worship of
    the immortal gods,—just for the sake of a conspicuous example
    to others, that you may know how much that bounty of yours will
    be worth to the Christian religion. For if you do not give your
    empire to Sylvester, we are willing to be Christians with you,
    and many will imitate us. But if you do give it, not only will
    we not endure to become Christians, but you will make the name
    hateful, detestable, execrable to us, and you will put us in
    such a position that at last you will pity our life and our
    death, nor will you accuse us, but only yourself, of obstinacy.”

Would not Constantine, unless we would have him totally devoid of
humanity, if he were not moved of his own accord, have been moved by this
speech? But if he had not been willing to listen to these men, would
there not have been those who would oppose this act with both word and
deed? Or would the Senate and the Roman people have thought that they had
no obligation to do anything in a matter of such importance? Would it not
have put forward some orator “distinguished in character and service,” as
Virgil says, who would hold forth to Constantine as follows:

    “Your Majesty, if you are heedless of your subjects and of
    yourself, nor care to give your sons an inheritance, nor your
    kindred riches, nor your friends honors, nor to keep your
    empire intact, the Senate and the Roman people at least cannot
    be heedless of its rights and its dignity. How come you to take
    such liberties with the Roman Empire, which has been built
    up, not from your blood, but from ours! Will you cut one body
    into two parts, and out of one kingdom make two kingdoms, two
    heads, two wills, and, as it were, reach out to two brothers
    swords with which to fight over their inheritance! We give to
    states which have deserved well of this city the rights of
    citizenship, so that they may be Roman citizens; you take away
    from us the half of the empire, so that they will not know this
    city as their mother. In beehives, if two kings are born, we
    kill the weaker one; but in the hive of the Roman Empire, where
    there is one prince, and that the best, you think that another
    must be introduced, and that the weakest one, not a bee, but a
    drone.[421]

    “We see a sore lack of prudence on your part, your Majesty.
    For what will happen, if either during your life or after your
    death, war should be waged by barbarian tribes against the part
    of the empire which you are alienating, or against the other,
    which you leave for yourself? With what military force, with
    what resources can we go to meet them? Even now with the troops
    of the whole empire we have scarcely enough power; shall we
    have enough then? Or will this part be forever at peace with
    that? In my opinion it cannot be, for Rome will want to rule
    and the other part will not want to be subject. Nay, even in
    your lifetime, shortly, when the old officials are removed and
    new ones put in their places, when you withdraw to your kingdom
    and fare far forth and another is ruling here, will not all
    interests be different, that is, diverse and contrary? Usually
    when a kingdom is divided between two brothers, at once the
    hearts of the people also are divided, and war arises from
    within sooner than from foreign enemies. That that will happen
    in this empire, who does not see it? Or do you not know that it
    was chiefly on this ground that the patricians once said that
    they would rather die before the eyes of the Roman people than
    allow the motion to be carried that part of the Senate and part
    of the plebeians should be sent to live at Veii and that the
    Roman people should have two cities in common; for if in one
    city there were so many dissensions, how would it be in two
    cities? So in our time, if there are so many disorders in one
    empire, your own knowledge and your labors are a witness, how
    will it be in two empires!

    “Come now, do you think that when you are engaged in wars,
    there will be men here willing or able to bear you aid? Those
    who will be in command of our soldiers and cities will always
    shrink from arms and warfare, as will he who appoints them.
    Indeed, will not either the Roman legions or the provinces
    themselves try to despoil this man, so inexperienced in ruling
    and so inviting to violence, hoping that he will neither fight
    back nor seek revenge? By Hercules! I believe they will not
    remain in allegiance a single month, but immediately, at the
    first news of your departure they will rebel. What will you do?
    What plan will you follow when you are pressed with a twofold
    and even a manifold war? The nations which we have conquered we
    can scarcely hold; how can we withstand them if in addition we
    have war with free peoples?

    “As for your interests, your Majesty, that is for you to see
    to. But this ought to concern us no less than you. You are
    mortal; the Empire of the Roman people ought to be immortal,
    and so far as in us lies, it will be, and not the Empire alone
    but respect for it as well. Shall we, forsooth, accept the
    government of those whose religion we despise; shall we, rulers
    of the world, serve this altogether contemptible being! When
    the city was captured by the Gauls the aged Romans did not
    suffer their beards to be stroked by the victors. Will all
    these men of senatorial, praetorian, tribunician, consular and
    triumphal rank now suffer those to rule them, upon whom as
    upon guilty slaves they themselves have heaped every kind of
    contumely and punishment! Will those men create magistrates,
    govern provinces, wage war, pass sentences of death upon
    us? Will the Roman nobility take wages under them, hope for
    honors and receive rewards at their hands? What greater, what
    deeper wound can we receive? Do not think, your Majesty, that
    the Roman blood has so degenerated as to endure this with
    equanimity and not deem it a thing to be avoided by fair means
    or foul. By my faith, not even our women would suffer it, but
    they would rather burn themselves with their dear children and
    their household gods, for Carthaginian women should not be
    braver than Roman.

    “To be sure, your Majesty, if we had chosen you king, you
    would have a great measure of control over the Roman Empire
    indeed, yet not such that you could in the least diminish
    its greatness, for then we who should have made you king, by
    that same token would order you to abdicate your kingdom. How
    much less then could you divide the kingdom, alienate so many
    provinces, and deliver even the capital of the kingdom over to
    a man who is a stranger and altogether base. We put a watch-dog
    over the sheepfold, but if he tries rather to act like a wolf,
    we either drive him out or kill him. Now will you, who have
    long been the watch-dog of the Roman fold and defended it, at
    the last in unprecedented manner turn into a wolf?

    “But you must know, since you compel us to speak harshly in
    defense of our rights, that you have no right over the Empire
    of the Roman people, for Caesar seized the supreme power by
    force; Augustus was the heir of his wrongdoing and made himself
    master by the ruin of the opposing factions; Tiberius, Gaius,
    Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, and the
    rest, in the same way or nearly so, made spoil of our liberty;
    and you also became ruler by expelling or killing others. I say
    nothing of your being born out of wedlock.

    “Wherefore, to speak our mind, your Majesty; if you do not care
    to keep the government of Rome, you have sons, and by the law
    of nature, with our permission, also, and on our motion, you
    may substitute one of them in your place. If not, it is our
    purpose to defend the public honor and our personal dignity.
    For this is no less an act of violence against the Quirites
    than was once the rape of Lucretia, nor will there fail us a
    Brutus to offer himself to this people as a leader against
    Tarquinius for the recovery of liberty. We will draw our swords
    first upon those whom you are putting over us, and then upon
    you, as we have done against many emperors, and for lighter
    reasons.”

This would surely have prevailed on Constantine, unless we deem him made
of stone or wood. And if the people would not have said this, it could
be believed that they spoke among themselves and vented their rage in
about these words. Let me go on a step and say that Constantine wished to
benefit Sylvester, the one whom he would subject to the hatred and the
swords of so many men that he, Sylvester, would scarcely have survived,
I think, a single day. For it seemed that when he and a few others had
been removed all trace of such a cruel outrage and insult would have been
obliterated from the breasts of the Romans.

Let us suppose, however, if possible, that neither prayers, nor threats,
nor any argument availed aught, and that still Constantine persisted and
was not willing to yield through persuasion the position he had taken.
Who would not acknowledge himself moved by the speech of Sylvester, that
is, if the event had ever actually occurred? It would doubtless have been
something like this:

    “Most worthy prince and son, Caesar, though I cannot but like
    and embrace your piety, so abject and effusive, nevertheless
    you have fallen somewhat into error in offering gifts to God
    and immolating victims, and I am not at all surprised at it,
    for you are still a novice in the Christian service. As once
    it was not right for the priest to sacrifice every sort of
    beast and animal and fowl, so now he is not to accept every
    sort of gift. I am a priest and pontiff, and I ought to look
    carefully at what I permit to be offered on the altar, lest
    perchance there be offered, I do not say an unclean animal,
    but a viper or a serpent. And this is what you would do. But
    if it were your right to give a part of the Empire including
    Rome, queen of the world, to another than your sons, a thing I
    do not at all approve; if this people, if Italy, if the other
    nations, should suffer themselves to be willing to submit to
    the government of those whom they hate and whose religion,
    snared by the enticements of this world, they have hitherto
    spit upon,—an impossible supposition; if you nevertheless think
    I am to be given anything, my most loving son, I could not by
    any argument be brought to give you my assent, unless I were to
    be false to myself, to forget my station, and well-nigh deny
    my Lord Jesus. For your gifts, or if you wish, your payments,
    would tarnish and utterly ruin my honor and purity and holiness
    and that of all my successors, and would close the way to those
    who are about to come to the knowledge of the truth.

    “Elisha was not willing, was he, to accept a reward when Naaman
    the Syrian was cured of the leprosy? Should I accept one when
    you are cured? He rejected presents; should I allow kingdoms
    to be given to me? He was unwilling to obscure the prophetic
    office; could I obscure the office of Christ, which I bear in
    me? But why did he think that the prophetic office would be
    obscured by his receiving gifts? Doubtless because he might
    seem to sell sacred things, to put the gift of God out at
    usury, to want the patronage of men, to lower and lessen the
    worth of his benefaction. He preferred, therefore, to make
    princes and kings his beneficiaries rather than to be himself
    their beneficiary, or even to allow mutual benefactions.
    For, as says the Lord, ‘It is more blessed to give than to
    receive.’[422] I am in the same case, only more so, whom the
    Lord taught, saying, ‘Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise
    the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely
    give.’[423] Shall I commit such a disgrace, your Majesty, as
    not to follow the precepts of God; as to tarnish my glory?
    ‘It were better,’ says Paul, ‘for me to die than that any man
    should make my glorying void.’[424] Our glory is to honor our
    ministry in the sight of God, as Paul also said; ‘I speak to
    you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I
    magnify mine office.’[425]

    “Your Majesty, should even I be both an example and a cause
    for the apostasy of others, I, a Christian, a priest of God,
    pontiff of Rome, vicar of Christ? For how, indeed, will
    the blamelessness of priests remain untouched amid riches,
    magistracies, and the management of secular business? Do we
    renounce earthly possessions in order to attain them more
    richly, and have we given up our own property in order to
    possess another’s and the public’s? Shall we have cities,
    tributes, tolls? How then can you call us ‘clergy’ if we
    do this? Our portion, or our lot, which in Greek is called
    _kleros_, is not earthly, but celestial. The Levites, also
    clergy, were not allotted a portion with their brethren, and do
    you command us to take even our brothers’ portion!

    “What are riches and dominions to me who am commanded by the
    voice of the Lord not to be anxious for the morrow, and to
    whom he said; ‘Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth,
    possess not gold nor silver nor money in your purses,’[426]
    and ‘It is harder for a rich man to enter into the kingdom
    of heaven, than for a camel to go through the eye of a
    needle.’[427] Therefore he chose poor men as his ministers,
    and those who left all to follow him, and was himself an
    example of poverty. Even so is the handling of riches and of
    money, not merely their possession and ownership, the enemy of
    uprightness. Judas alone, he that had the purses and carried
    the alms, was a liar, and for the love of money, to which he
    had become accustomed, chided and betrayed his Master, his
    Lord, his God. So I fear, your Majesty, lest you change me from
    a Peter into a Judas.

    “Hear also what Paul says: ‘We brought nothing into this world,
    and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and
    raiment, let us be therewith content. But they that will be
    rich fall into temptation and a snare of the devil, and into
    many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction
    and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil,
    which while some coveted after, they erred from the faith,
    and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O
    man of God, flee these things.’[428] And you command me, your
    Majesty, to accept what I ought to shun as poison!

    “And consider besides, for prudence’ sake, your Majesty, what
    chance would there be in all this for divine service? To
    certain who complained that their destitute were neglected
    in the daily distribution, the apostles answered that it was
    not reason that they should leave the word of God, and serve
    tables.[429] Yet to feed widows, how different is that from
    exacting tolls, running the treasury, hiring soldiers, and
    engaging in a thousand other cares of this sort! ‘No man that
    warreth for God entangleth himself with the affairs of this
    life,’[430] says Paul. Did Aaron and others of the tribe of
    Levi take care of anything except the tabernacle of the Lord?
    And his sons, because they had put strange fire in their
    censers, were consumed by fire from heaven. And you order us to
    put the fire of worldly riches, forbidden and profane, in our
    sacred censers, that is, our priestly duties! Did Eleazar, did
    Phinehas, did the other priests and ministers, either of the
    tabernacle or of the temple, administer anything except what
    pertained to the divine service? I say did they administer,
    nay, could they have administered anything, if they wished to
    fulfil their own duty? And if they did not wish to, they would
    hear the curse of the Lord, saying, ‘Cursed be they that do the
    work of the Lord deceitfully.’[431] And this curse, though it
    impends over all, yet most of all it impends over the pontiffs.

    “Oh what a responsibility is the pontifical office! What
    a responsibility it is to be head of the church! What a
    responsibility to be appointed over such a great flock as a
    shepherd at whose hand is required the blood of every single
    lamb and sheep lost; to whom it is said, ‘If thou lovest me
    more than these, as thou sayest, feed my lambs.’ Again, ‘If
    thou lovest me, as thou sayest, feed my sheep.’ And a third
    time, ‘If thou lovest me, as thou sayest, feed my sheep.’[432]
    And you order me, your Majesty, to shepherd also goats and
    swine, which cannot be herded by the same shepherd!

    “What! you want to make me king, or rather Caesar, that is
    ruler of kings! When the Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, king
    and priest, affirmed himself king, hear of what kingdom he
    spoke: ‘My kingdom,’ he said, ‘is not of this world; if my
    kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.’[433]
    And what was his first utterance and the oft-repeated burden
    of his preaching, but this: ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven
    is at hand.’[434] ‘The kingdom of God is at hand for him for
    whom the kingdom of heaven is prepared.’ When he said this,
    did he not make clear that he had nothing to do with secular
    sovereignty? And not only did he not seek a kingdom of this
    sort, but when it was offered him, he would not accept it. For
    once when he learned that the people planned to take him and
    make him king, he fled to the solitude of the mountains. He
    not only gave this to us who occupy his place as an example to
    be imitated, but he taught us by precept: ‘The princes of the
    Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great
    exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among
    you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your
    minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be
    your servant; even as the Son of man came not to be ministered
    unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for
    many.’[435]

    “Know this, your Majesty; God formerly established judges over
    Israel, not kings; and he hated the people for demanding a
    king for themselves. And he gave them a king on account of the
    hardness of their hearts, but only because he permitted their
    rejection, which he revoked in the new law. And should I accept
    a kingdom, who am scarcely permitted to be a judge? ‘Or do ye
    not know,’ says Paul, ‘that the saints shall judge the world?
    and if the world shall be judged by you, you are not the ones
    to judge the smallest matters. Know ye not that we shall judge
    angels? How much more things that pertain to this life! If
    then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set
    them to judge who are least in the church.’[436] But judges
    merely gave judgment concerning matters in controversy, they
    did not levy tribute also. Should I do it, with the knowledge
    that when Peter was asked by the Lord, ‘Of whom do the kings of
    the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children or of
    strangers?’ and answered ‘Of strangers,’ the Lord said, ‘Then
    are the children free.’[437] But if all men are my children,
    your Majesty, as they certainly are, then will all be free;
    nobody will pay anything. Therefore your Donation will be no
    good to me, and I shall get nothing out of it but labor which I
    am least able to do, as also I am least justified in doing it.

    “Nay more, I should have to use my authority to shed blood in
    punishing offenders, in waging wars, in sacking cities, in
    devastating countries with fire and sword. Otherwise I could
    not possibly keep what you have given me. And if I do this am
    I a priest, a pontiff, a vicar of Christ? Rather I should hear
    him thunder out against me, saying, ‘My house shall be called
    of all nations the house of prayer, but ye have made it a den
    of thieves.’[438] ‘I am not come into the world,’ said the
    Lord, ‘to judge the world, but to save it.’[439] And shall I
    who have succeeded him be the cause of men’s death, I to whom
    in the person of Peter it was said, ‘Put up again thy sword
    into his place, for all they that take the sword shall perish
    with the sword’?[440] It is not permitted us even to defend
    ourselves with the sword, for Peter wished only to defend his
    Lord, when he cut off the servant’s ear. And do you command
    us to use the sword for the sake of either getting or keeping
    riches?

    “Our authority is the authority of the keys, as the Lord said,
    ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and
    whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:
    and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in
    heaven.’[441] ‘And the gates of hell shall not prevail against
    it.’[442] Nothing can be added to this authority, nor to
    this dignity, nor to this kingdom. He who is not contented
    therewith, seeks something more from the devil, who dared even
    to say to the Lord, ‘I will give thee all the kingdoms of the
    world, if thou wilt fall to the earth and worship me.’[443]
    Wherefore, your Majesty, by your leave let me say it, do not
    play the part of the devil to me by ordering Christ, that is,
    me, to accept the kingdoms of the world at your hand. For I
    prefer rather to scorn than to possess them.

    “And, to speak of the unbelievers, future believers though, I
    hope, do not transform me for them from an angel of light into
    an angel of darkness. I want to win their hearts to piety, not
    impose a yoke upon their necks; to subject them to me with the
    sword of the word of God, not with a sword of iron, that they
    should not be made worse than they are, nor kick, nor gore me,
    nor, angered by my mistake, blaspheme the name of God. I want
    to make them my most beloved sons, not my slaves; to adopt
    them, not cast them out; to have them born again, not to seize
    them out of hand; to offer their souls a sacrifice to God, not
    their bodies a sacrifice to the devil. ‘Come unto me,’ says the
    Lord, ‘for I am meek and lowly in heart. Take my yoke upon you,
    and ye shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and
    my burden is light.’[444]

    “Finally, to come to an end at last, in this matter accept
    that sentence of his, which he spoke as though to me and
    to you; ‘Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s;
    and unto God, the things that are God’s.’[445] Accordingly,
    therefore, your Majesty, you must not surrender the things that
    are yours, and I must not accept the things that are Caesar’s;
    nor will I ever accept them, though you offer them a thousand
    times.”

To this speech of Sylvester’s, worthy of an apostolic hero, what could
there be further for Constantine to bring out in opposition? Since the
case stands thus, do not they who say that the Donation took place do
violence to Constantine when they would have him rob his own family and
tear the Roman Empire asunder? Do they not do violence to the Senate and
the Roman people, to Italy, and to the whole West, which according to
them allowed the government to be changed contrary to law and justice? Do
they not do violence to Sylvester, who according to them accepted a gift
not befitting a holy man? violence to the supreme pontificate, when they
think that it would take charge of earthly kingdoms and rule over the
Roman Empire? Verily, all this tends to show plainly that Constantine,
in the face of so many obstacles, would never have thought of giving
practically the whole Roman state to Sylvester, as they say he did.

       *       *       *       *       *

Proceed to the next point; to make us believe in this “donation” which
your document recites, something ought still to be extant concerning
Sylvester’s acceptance of it. There is nothing concerning it extant. But
it is believable, you say, that he recognized this “donation.” I believe
so, too; that [if it was given] he not only recognized it, but sought
it, asked for it, extorted it with his prayers; that is believable. But
why do you reverse the natural conjecture and then say it is believable?
For the fact that there is mention of the donation in the document of
the deed is no reason for inferring that it was accepted; but on the
contrary, the fact that there is no mention [anywhere] of an acceptance
is reason for saying that there was no donation. So you have stronger
proof that Sylvester refused the gift than that Constantine wished to
give it, and a benefaction is not conferred upon a man against his will.
Indeed, we must suspect not so much that Sylvester refused the grants as
that he tacitly disclosed that neither could Constantine legally make
them nor could he himself legally accept.

O avarice, ever blind and ill-advised! Let us suppose that you may be
able to adduce even genuine documents for the assent of Sylvester,
not tampered with, authentic: even so, were the grants actually made
which are found in such documents? Where is any taking possession, any
delivery? For if Constantine gave a charter only, he did not want to
befriend Sylvester, but to mock him. It is likely, you say, that any
one who makes a grant, gives possession of it, also. See what you are
saying; for it is certain that possession was not given, and the question
is whether the title was given! It is likely that one who did not give
possession did not want to give the title either.

Or is it not certain that possession was never given? To deny it is the
sheerest impudence. Did Constantine ever lead Sylvester in state to the
Capitol amid the shouts of the assembled Quirites, heathen as they were?
Did he place him on a golden throne in the presence of the whole Senate?
Did he command the magistrates, each in the order of his rank, to salute
their king and prostrate themselves before him? This, rather than the
giving of some palace such as the Lateran, is customary in the creation
of new rulers. Did he afterwards escort him through all Italy? Did he
go with him to the Gauls? Did he go to the Spains? Did he go to the
Germans, and the rest of the West? Or if they both thought it too onerous
to traverse so many lands, to whom did they delegate such an important
function, to represent Caesar in transferring possession and Sylvester in
receiving it? Distinguished men, and men of eminent authority, they must
have been: and nevertheless we do not know who they were. And how much
weight there is here in these two words, _give_ and _receive_! To pass
by ancient instances, I do not remember to have seen any other procedure
when any one was made lord of a city, a country, or a province; for we do
not count possession as given until the old magistrates are removed and
the new ones substituted. If then Sylvester had not demanded that this be
done, nevertheless the dignity of Constantine required that he show that
he gave possession not in words but in fact, that he ordered his officers
to retire and others to be substituted by Sylvester. Possession is not
transferred when it remains in the hands of those who had it before, and
the new master dares not remove them.

But grant that this also does not stand in the way, that,
notwithstanding, we assume Sylvester to have been in possession, and
let us say that the whole transaction took place though not in the
customary and natural way. After Constantine went away, what governors
did Sylvester place over his provinces and cities, what wars did he wage,
what nations that took up arms did he subdue, through whom did he carry
on this government? We know none of these circumstances, you answer. So!
I think all this was done in the nighttime, and no one saw it at all!

Come now! Was Sylvester ever in possession? Who dispossessed him? For
he did not have possession permanently, nor did any of his successors,
at least till Gregory the Great, and even he did not have possession.
One who is not in possession and cannot prove that he has been disseized
certainly never did have possession, and if he says he did, he is crazy.
You see, I even prove that you are crazy! Otherwise, tell who dislodged
the Pope? Did Constantine himself, or his sons, or Julian, or some other
Caesar? Give the name of the expeller, give the date, from what place
was the Pope expelled first, where next, and so in order. Was it by
sedition and murder, or without these? Did the nations conspire together
against him, or which first? What! Did not one of them give him aid,
not one of those who had been put over cities or provinces by Sylvester
or another Pope? Did he lose everything in a single day, or gradually
and by districts? Did he and his magistrates offer resistance, or did
they abdicate at the first disturbance? What! Did not the victors use
the sword on those dregs of humanity, whom they thought unworthy of the
Empire, to revenge their outrage, to make sure of the newly won mastery,
to show contempt for our religion, not even to make an example for
posterity? Did not one of those who were conquered take to flight at
all? Did no one hide? Was no one afraid? O marvellous event! The Roman
Empire, acquired by so many labors, so much bloodshed, was so calmly, so
quietly both won and lost by Christian priests that no bloodshed, no war,
no uproar took place; and not less marvellous, it is not known at all by
whom this was done, nor when, nor how, nor how long it lasted! You would
think that Sylvester reigned in sylvan shades, among the trees, not at
Rome nor among men, and that he was driven out by winter rains and cold,
not by men!

Who that is at all widely read, does not know what Roman kings, what
consuls, what dictators, what tribunes of the people, what censors, what
aediles were chosen? Of such a large number of men in times so long past,
none escapes us. We know also what Athenian commanders there were, and
Theban, and Lacedemonian; we know all their battles on land and sea.
Nor are the kings of the Persians unknown to us; of the Medes; of the
Chaldeans; of the Hebrews; and of very many others; nor how each of these
received his kingdom, or held it, or lost it, or recovered it. But how
the Roman Empire, or rather the Sylvestrian, began, how it ended, when,
through whom, is not known even in the city of Rome itself. I ask whether
you can adduce any witnesses of these events, any writers. None, you
answer. And are you not ashamed to say that it is likely that Sylvester
possessed—even cattle, to say nothing of men!

But since you cannot [prove anything], I for my part will show that
Constantine, to the very last day of his life, and thereafter all the
Caesars in turn, did have possession [of the Roman Empire], so that you
will have nothing left even to mutter. But it is a very difficult, and, I
suppose, a very laborious task, forsooth, to do this! Let all the Latin
and the Greek histories be unrolled, let the other authors who mention
those times be brought in, and you will not find a single discrepancy
among them on this point. Of a thousand witnesses, one may suffice;
Eutropius, who saw Constantine, who saw the three sons of Constantine who
were left masters of the world by their father, and who wrote thus in
connection with Julian, the son of Constantine’s brother: “This Julian,
who was subdeacon in the Roman church and when he became Emperor returned
to the worship of the gods, seized the government, and after elaborate
preparations made war against the Parthians; in which expedition I also
took part.”[446] He would not have kept silent about the donation of the
Western Empire [had it been made], nor would he have spoken as he did a
little later about Jovian, who succeeded Julian: “He made with Sapor a
peace which was necessary, indeed, but dishonorable, the boundaries being
changed and a part of the Roman Empire being given up, a thing which had
never before happened since the Roman state was founded; no, not even
though our legions, at the Caudine [Forks] by Pontius Telesinus, and in
Spain at Numantia, and in Numidia, were sent under the yoke, were any of
the frontiers given up.”[447]

Here I would like to interrogate you, most recent, though deceased,
Popes, and you, Eugenius, who live, thanks only to Felix.[448] Why do
you parade the Donation of Constantine with a great noise; and all the
time, as though avengers of a stolen Empire, threaten certain kings
and princes; and extort some servile confession or other from the
Emperor when he is crowned, and from some other princes, such as the
king of Naples and Sicily? None of the early Roman pontiffs ever did
this, Damasus in the case of Theodosius, nor Syricius in the case of
Arcadius, nor Anastasius in the case of Honorius, nor John in the case of
Justinian, nor the other most holy Popes respectively in the case of the
other most excellent Emperors: rather they always regarded Rome and Italy
and the provinces I have named as belonging to the Emperors. And so, to
say nothing of other monuments and temples in the city of Rome, there
are extant gold coins of Constantine’s after he became a Christian, with
inscriptions, not in Greek, but in Latin letters, and of almost all the
Emperors in succession. There are many of them in my possession with this
inscription for the most part, under the image of the cross, “Concordia
orbis [The Peace of the World].” What an infinite number of coins of the
supreme pontiffs would be found if you ever had ruled Rome! But none such
are found, neither gold nor silver, nor are any mentioned as having been
seen by any one. And yet whoever held the government at Rome at that time
had to have his own coinage: doubtless the Pope’s would have borne the
image of the Savior or of Peter.

Alas for man’s ignorance! You do not see that if the Donation of
Constantine is authentic nothing is left to the Emperor, the Latin
Emperor, I mean. Ah, what an Emperor, what a Roman king, he would
be, when if any one had his kingdom and had no other, he would have
nothing at all! But if it is thus manifest that Sylvester did not have
possession, that is, that Constantine did not give over possession, then
there will be no doubt that he [Constantine], as I have said, did not
give even the right to possess. That is, unless you say that the right
was given, but that for some reason possession was not transferred. In
that case he manifestly gave what he knew would never in the least exist;
he gave what he could not transfer; he gave what could not come into the
possession of the recipient until after it was nonexistent; he gave a
gift which would not be valid for five hundred years, or never would be
valid. But to say or to think this is insanity.

       *       *       *       *       *

But it is high time, if I am not to be too prolix, to give the
adversaries’ cause, already struck down and mangled, the mortal blow
and to cut its throat with a single stroke. Almost every history worthy
of the name speaks of Constantine as a Christian from boyhood, with his
father Constantius, long before the pontificate of Sylvester; as, for
instance, Eusebius, author of the Church History, which Rufinus, himself
a great scholar, translated into Latin, adding two books on his own
times.[449] Both of these men were nearly contemporary with Constantine.
Add to this also the testimony of the Roman pontiff who not only took
part, but the leading part in these events, who was not merely a witness
but the prime mover, who narrates, not another’s doings, but his own. I
refer to Pope Melchiades, Sylvester’s immediate predecessor. He says:
“The church reached the point where not only the nations, but even the
Roman rulers who held sway over the whole world, came together into the
faith of Christ and the sacraments of the faith. One of their number, a
most devout man, Constantine, the first openly to come to belief in the
Truth, gave permission to those living under his government, throughout
the whole world, not only to become Christians, but even to build
churches, and he decreed that landed estates be distributed among these.
Finally also the said ruler bestowed immense offerings, and began the
building of the temple which was the first seat of the blessed Peter,
going so far as to leave his imperial residence and give it over for the
use of the blessed Peter and his successors.”[450] You see, incidentally,
that Melchiades does not say that anything was given by Constantine
except the Lateran palace, and landed estates, which Gregory mentions
very frequently in his register. Where are those who do not permit us to
call into question whether the Donation of Constantine is valid, when the
“donation” both antedated Sylvester and conferred private possessions
alone?

But though it is all obvious and clear, yet the deed of gift itself,
which those fools always put forward, must be discussed.

And first, not only must I convict of dishonesty him who tried to play
Gratian and added sections to the work of Gratian, but also must convict
of ignorance those who think a copy of the deed of gift is contained in
Gratian; for the well-informed have never thought so, nor is it found in
any of the oldest copies of the Decretum. And if Gratian had mentioned
it anywhere, he would have done so, not where they put it, breaking the
thread of the narrative, but where he treats of the agreement of Louis
[the Pious]. Besides, there are two thousand passages in the Decretum
which forbid the acceptance of this passage; for example, that where
the words of Melchiades, which I have cited above, are given. Some say
that he who added this chapter [the Donation of Constantine] was called
Palea,[451] either because that was his real name or because what he
added of his own, compared with Gratian, is as straw [palea] beside
grain. However that may be, it is monstrous to believe that the compiler
of the Decretum either did not know what was interpolated by this man, or
esteemed it highly and held it for genuine. Good! It is enough! We have
won! First, because Gratian does not say what they lyingly quote; and
more especially because on the contrary, as can be seen in innumerable
passages, he denies and disproves it; and last, because they bring
forward only a single unknown individual, of not the least authority, so
very stupid as to affix to Gratian what cannot be harmonized with his
other statements. This then is the author you bring forward? On his sole
testimony you rely? His charter, in a matter of such importance, you
recite as confirmation against hundreds of kinds of proof? But I should
have expected you to show gold seals, marble inscriptions, a thousand
authors.

But, you say, Palea himself adduces his author, shows the source of his
narrative, and cites Pope Gelasius and many bishops as witnesses; it is,
he says, “from the Acts of Sylvester (which the blessed Pope Gelasius
in the Council of the Seventy Bishops recounts as read by the catholic,
and in accordance with ancient usage many churches he says follow this
example) which reads: ‘Constantine ..., etc.’”[452] Considerably earlier,
where books to be read and books not to be read are treated, he had said
also; “The Acts of the blessed Sylvester, chief priest, though we know
not the name of him who wrote it, we know to be read by many of the
orthodox of the city of Rome, and in accordance with ancient usage the
churches follow this example.”[453] Wonderful authority this, wonderful
evidence, irrefutable proof! I grant you this, that Gelasius in speaking
of the Council of the Seventy Bishops said that. But did he say this,
that the deed of gift is to be read in the Acts of the most blessed
Sylvester? He says, indeed, only that the Acts of Sylvester are read, and
that in Rome, and that many other churches follow her authority. I do
not deny this, I concede it, I admit it, I also stand up with Gelasius
as a witness to it. But what advantage is this to you, except that you
may be shown to have deliberately lied in adducing your witnesses? The
name of the man who interpolated this [“Donation” of yours] is not known,
and he is the only one who says this [that the Donation is in the Acts
of Sylvester]; the name of the man who wrote the history of Sylvester is
not known, and he is the only one cited as witness, and that erroneously.
And good men and prudent as you are, you think this is enough and more
than enough evidence for such an important transaction! Well! how
your judgment differs from mine! Even if this grant were contained
in the Acts of Sylvester, I should not think it was to be considered
genuine, for that history is not history, but fanciful and most shameful
fiction, as I shall later show; nor does any one else of any authority
whatever make mention of this grant. And even James of Voragine,
though as an archbishop disposed to favor the clergy, yet in his Acts
of the Saints[454] preserved silence on the Donation of Constantine as
fictitious and not fit to figure in the Acts of Sylvester; a conclusive
judgment, in a way, against those, if there were any, who would have
committed it to writing.

But I want to take the forger himself, truly a “straw” man without wheat,
by the neck, and drag him into court. What do you say, you forger? Whence
comes it that we do not read this grant in the Acts of Sylvester? This
book, forsooth, is rare, difficult to get, not owned by the many but
rather kept as the Fasti once were by the pontifices, or the Sibylline
books by the Decemvirs! It was written in Greek, or Syriac, or Chaldee!
Gelasius testifies that it was read by many of the orthodox; Voragine
mentions it; we also have seen thousands of copies of it, and written
long ago; and in almost every cathedral it is read when Sylvester’s Day
comes around.[455] Yet nevertheless no one says that he has read there
what you put in it; no one has heard of it; no one has dreamt of it. Or
is there perhaps some other history of Sylvester? And what can that be? I
know no other, nor do I understand that any other is referred to by you,
for you speak of the one which Gelasius says is read in many churches.
In this, however, we do not find your grant. But if it is not found in
the Life of Sylvester, why do you declare that it is? How did you dare to
jest in a matter of such importance, and to make sport of the cupidity of
silly men?

But I am foolish to inveigh against the audacity of this [forger],
instead of inveighing against the insanity of those who give him
credence. If any one should say that this had been recorded for
remembrance among the Greeks, the Hebrews, the barbarians, would you
not bid him name his author, produce his book, and the passage, to be
explained by a reliable translator, before you would believe it? But
now your own language, and a very well-known book are involved, and
either you do not question such an incredible occurrence, or when you
do not find it written down you have such utter credulity as to believe
that it is written down and authentic! And, satisfied with this title,
you move heaven and earth, and, as though no doubt existed, you pursue
with the terrors of war and with other threats those who do not believe
you! Blessed Jesus, what power, what divinity there is in Truth, which
unaided defends itself without any great struggle from all falsehoods
and deceits; so that not undeservedly, when contention had arisen at the
court of king Darius as to what was most powerful, and one said one thing
and another another, the palm was awarded to Truth.[456]

Since I have to do with priests and not with laymen, I suppose I must
seek ecclesiastical precedents. Judas Maccabaeus, when he had sent
ambassadors to Rome and obtained a friendly alliance from the Senate,
took pains to have the terms of the alliance engraved on brass and
carried to Jerusalem. I pass by the stone tables of the Decalogue, which
God gave to Moses. And this Donation of Constantine, so magnificent and
astounding, cannot be proved by any copies, in gold, in silver, in brass,
in marble, or even in books, but only, if we believe it, on paper, or
parchment. According to Josephus, Jubal, the inventor of music, when the
elders expressed the opinion that the world was to be destroyed, once by
water, and again by fire, inscribed his teaching on two columns, one of
brick against the fire, and one of stone against the flood, which columns
still remained at the time of Josephus, as he himself writes, so that his
benefaction to men might always continue. And among the Romans, while
still rustic and country bred, when writing was inadequate and rare,
the laws of the Twelve Tables nevertheless were engraved on brass, and
though the city was stormed and burned by the Gauls they were afterwards
found unharmed. Thus careful foresight overcomes the two mightiest forces
known to man, namely, long lapse of time and the violence of fortune.
Yet Constantine signed a donation of the world on paper alone and with
ink, though the very inventor of the fabulous story makes him say that he
thought there would not be lacking those who with unholy greed would set
aside this Donation! Do you have this fear, Constantine, and do you take
no precaution lest those who would snatch Rome from Sylvester should also
steal the charter?

Why does Sylvester do nothing for himself? Does he leave everything thus
to Constantine? Is he so careless and lazy in such an important matter?
Does he not look ahead at all for himself, for his church, for posterity?
See to whom you commit the administration of the Roman Empire; in the
midst of such an important transaction, fraught with so much either of
gain or of peril, he goes sound asleep! For let the charter ever be lost,
he will not be able, at least as time goes on, to prove the granting of
the “privilege.”[457]

       *       *       *       *       *

“The page of the privilege” this crazy man calls it [i.e., the Donation
of Constantine]. And do you (let me controvert him as though he were
present) call the gift of the earth a “privilege”; do you want it written
thus in the document; and do you want Constantine to use that kind of
language? If the title is ridiculous, what shall we think the rest of it
is?

“The Emperor Constantine the fourth day after his baptism conferred this
privilege on the pontiff of the Roman church, that in the whole Roman
world priests should regard him as their head, as judges do the king.”
This sentence is part of the History [Life] of Sylvester,[458] and it
leaves no doubt where [nor why] the document gets its title “privilege.”
But, in the manner of those who fabricate lies, he begins with the truth
for the purpose of winning confidence in his later statements, which are
false, as Sinon says in Virgil:

                              “... Whate’er
    My fate ordains, my words shall be sincere:
    I neither can nor dare my birth disclaim;
    Greece is my country, Sinon is my name.”[459]

This first; then he put in his lies. So our Sinon does here; for when he
had begun with the truth, he adds:

    “In this privilege, among other things, is this: ‘We—together
    with all our satraps and the whole Senate and the nobles also,
    and all the people subject to the government of the Roman
    church[460]—considered it advisable that, as the blessed Peter
    is seen to have been constituted vicar of God on the earth, so
    the pontiffs who are the representatives of that same chief of
    the apostles, should obtain from us and our Empire the power of
    a supremacy greater than the clemency of our earthly imperial
    serenity is seen to have conceded to it.’”

O thou scoundrel, thou villain! The same history [the Life of Sylvester]
which you allege as your evidence, says that for a long time none of
senatorial rank was willing to accept the Christian religion, and that
Constantine solicited the poor with bribes to be baptized. And you say
that within the first days, immediately, the Senate, the nobles, the
satraps, as though already Christians, with the Caesar passed decrees for
the honoring of the Roman church! What! How do you want to have satraps
come in here? Numskull, blockhead! Do the Caesars speak thus; are Roman
decrees usually drafted thus? Whoever heard of satraps being mentioned
in the councils of the Romans?[461] I do not remember ever to have read
of any Roman satrap being mentioned, or even of a satrap in any of the
Roman provinces. But this fellow speaks of the Emperor’s satraps, and
puts them in before the Senate, though all honors, even those bestowed
upon the ruling prince, are decreed by the Senate alone, or with the
addition “and the Roman people.” Thus we see carved on ancient stones
or bronze tablets or coins two letters, “S. C.,” that is “By decree of
the Senate,” or four, “S. P. Q. R.,” that is, “The Senate and the Roman
People.” And according to Tertullian, when Pontius Pilate had written
to Tiberius Caesar and not to the Senate concerning the wonderful deeds
of Christ, inasmuch as magistrates were supposed to write concerning
important matters to the Senate, the Senate gave way to spite and opposed
Tiberius’ proposal that Jesus be worshipped as a God, merely on account
of its secret anger at the offense to senatorial dignity.[462] And, to
show how weighty was the authority of the Senate, Jesus did not obtain
divine worship.

What now! Why do you say “nobles” [“optimates”]? Are we to understand
that these are leading men in the republic; then why should they be
mentioned when the other magistrates are passed by in silence? Or are
they the opposite of the “popular” party which curries favor with the
people; the ones who seek and champion the welfare of every aristocrat
and of the “better” elements, as Cicero shows in one of his orations?
Thus we say that Caesar before the overthrow of the republic had been a
member of the “popular” party, Cato of the “optimates.” The difference
between them Sallust explained. But the “optimates” are not spoken of as
belonging to the [Emperor’s] council, any more than the “popular” party,
or other respectable men are.

But what wonder that the “optimates” belonged to the council, when, if
we believe this fellow, “all the people,” and the people “subject to
the Roman church” at that, acted officially with the Senate and the
Caesar![463] And what people are these? The Roman people? But why not
say the Roman people, rather than the “people subject”? What new insult
is this to the Quirites of whom the great poet sings:

    “Do thou, O Roman, take care to rule the peoples with imperial
      sway!”[464]

Can those who rule other peoples, themselves be called a subject people?
It is preposterous! For in this, as Gregory in many letters testifies,
the Roman ruler differs from the others, that he alone is ruler of a free
people. But be this as it may. Are not other peoples also subject? Or do
you mean others also? How could it be brought to pass in three days that
all the people subject to the government of the Roman church gave assent
to that decree? Though did every Tom, Dick, and Harry give his judgment?
What! would Constantine, before he had subjected the people to the Roman
pontiff, call them subject? How is it that those who are called subjects
are said to have been in authority in the making of the decree? How is it
that they are said to have decreed this very thing, that they should be
subject and that he to whom they are already subject should have them as
his subjects? What else do you do, you wretch, other than admit that you
have the will to commit forgery, but not the ability?

    “Choosing that same prince of the apostles, or his vicars, to
    be our constant intercessors with God. And, to the extent of
    our earthly imperial power, we have decreed that his holy Roman
    church shall be honored with veneration: and that more than our
    empire and earthly throne, the most sacred seat of the blessed
    Peter shall be gloriously exalted; we giving to it power and
    glory, and dignity, and vigor and honor imperial.”

Come back to life for a little while, Firmianus Lactantius, stop this
ass who brays so loudly and outrageously. So delighted is he with the
sound of swelling words, that he repeats the same terms and reiterates
what he has just said. Is it thus that in your age the secretaries of the
Caesars spoke, or even their grooms? Constantine chose them not “as his
intercessors” but “to be his intercessors.” The fellow inserted that “to
be” [esse] so as to get a more elegant rhythm. A fine reason! To speak
barbarously so that your speech may run along more gracefully, as if
indeed, anything can be graceful in such filthiness. “Choosing the prince
of the apostles, or his vicars”: you do not choose Peter, and then his
vicars, but either him, excluding them, or them, excluding him.[465] And
he calls the Roman pontiffs “vicars” of Peter, either as though Peter
were living, or as though they were of lower rank than was Peter. And
is not this barbarous; “from us and our empire”?[466] As if the empire
had a mind to give grants, and power! Nor was he content to say “should
obtain,” without also saying “conceded,” though either one would have
sufficed. And that “constant intercessors,”[466] is very elegant indeed!
Doubtless he wants them “constant” so that they may not be corrupted by
money nor moved by fear. And “earthly imperial power”; two adjectives
without a conjunction. And “be honored with veneration”: and “clemency
of our imperial serenity”;[467] it smacks of Lactantian eloquence to
speak of “serenity” and “clemency,” instead of grandeur and majesty,
when the power of the Empire is concerned! And how inflated he is with
puffed-up pride; as in that phrase “gloriously exalted” by “glory, and
power, and dignity, and vigor, and imperial honor”! This seems to be
taken from the Apocalypse, where it says, “Worthy is the Lamb that was
slain, to receive power, and divinity and wisdom, and strength, and honor
and blessing.”[468] Frequently, as will be shown later, Constantine is
made to arrogate to himself the titles of God, and to try to imitate the
language of the sacred scriptures, which he had never read.

    “And we ordain and decree that he shall have the supremacy as
    well over the four seats, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and
    Constantinople, as also over all the churches of God in the
    whole earth. And the pontiff also, who at the time shall be at
    the head of the holy Roman church itself, shall be more exalted
    than, and chief over, all the priests of the whole world; and,
    according to his judgment everything which is to be provided
    for the service of God, and for the faith or the stability of
    the Christians is to be administered.”

I will not speak here of the barbarisms in [the forger’s] language when
he says “chief over the priests” instead of chief of the priests; when he
puts in the same sentence “extiterit” and “existat” [confusing meanings,
moods and tenses]; when, having said “in the whole earth,” he adds again
“of the whole world,” as though he wished to include something else, or
the sky, which is part of the world, though a good part of the earth
even was not under Rome; when he distinguishes between providing for
“the faith” of Christians and providing for their “stability,” as though
they could not coexist;[469] when he confuses “ordain” and “decree,”
and when, as though Constantine had not already joined with the rest in
making the decree, he has him now ordain it, and as though he imposes a
punishment, decree [confirm] it, and confirm it together with the people.
[That, I pass by.] But what Christian could endure this [other thing],
and not, rather, critically and severely reprove a Pope who endures
it, and listens to it willingly and retails it; namely, that the Roman
See, though it received its primacy from Christ, as the Eighth Synod
declared according to the testimony of Gratian and many of the Greeks,
should be represented as having received it from Constantine, hardly yet
a Christian, as though from Christ? Would that very modest ruler have
chosen to make such a statement, and that most devout pontiff to listen
to it? Far be such a grave wrong from both of them!

How in the world—this is much more absurd, and impossible in the nature
of things—could one speak of Constantinople as one of the patriarchal
sees, when it was not yet a patriarchate, nor a see, nor a Christian
city, nor named Constantinople, nor founded, nor planned! For the
“privilege” was granted, so it says, the third day after Constantine
became a Christian; when as yet Byzantium, not Constantinople, occupied
that site. I am a liar if this fool does not confess as much himself. For
toward the end of the “privilege” he writes:

    “Wherefore we have perceived it to be fitting that our empire
    and our royal power should be transferred in the regions of the
    East; and that in the province of Bizantia [_sic_], in the most
    fitting place, a city should be built in our name; and that our
    empire should there be established.”

But if he was intending to transfer the empire, he had not yet
transferred it; if he was intending to establish his empire there, he had
not yet established it; if he was planning to build a city, he had not
yet built it. Therefore he could not have spoken of it as a patriarchal
see, as one of the four sees, as Christian, as having this name, nor as
already built. According to the history [the Life of Sylvester] which
Palea cites as evidence, he had not yet even thought of founding it.
And this beast, whether Palea or some one else whom Palea follows, does
not notice that he contradicts this history, in which it is said that
Constantine issued the decree concerning the founding of the city, not
on his own initiative, but at a command received in his sleep from God,
not at Rome but at Byzantium, not within a few days [of his conversion]
but several years after, and that he learned its name by revelation in a
dream.[470] Who then does not see that the man who wrote the “privilege”
lived long after the time of Constantine, and in his effort to embellish
his falsehood forgot that earlier he had said that these events took
place at Rome on the third day after Constantine was baptized? So the
trite old proverb applies nicely to him, “Liars need good memories.”

And how is it that he speaks of a province of “Byzantia,” when it was a
town, Byzantium by name? The place was by no means large enough for the
erection of so great a city; for the old city of Byzantium was included
within the walls of Constantinople. And this man says the [new] city is
to be built on the most fitting place in it! Why does he choose to put
Thrace, in which Byzantium lies, in the East, when it lies to the north?
I suppose Constantine did not know the place which he had chosen for the
building of the city, in what latitude it was, whether it was a town or a
province, nor how large it was!

    “On the churches of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, for
    the providing of the lights, we have conferred landed estates
    of possessions, and have enriched them with different objects;
    and through our sacred imperial mandate, we have granted them
    of our property in the east as well as in the west; and even
    in the north and in the southern quarter; namely, in Judea,
    Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa and Italy and the various islands;
    under this condition indeed, that all shall be administered
    by the hand of our most blessed father the supreme pontiff,
    Sylvester, and his successors.”

O you scoundrel! Were there in Rome churches, that is, temples, dedicated
to Peter and Paul? Who had constructed them? Who would have dared to
build them, when, as history tells us, the Christians had never had
anything but secret and secluded meeting-places? And if there had been
any temples at Rome dedicated to these apostles, they would not have
called for such great lights as these to be set up in them; they were
little chapels, not sanctuaries; little shrines, not temples; oratories
in private houses, not public places of worship. So there was no need to
care for the temple lights, before the temples themselves were provided.

And what is this that you say? You make Constantine call Peter and Paul
blessed, but Sylvester, still living, “most blessed”; and call his own
mandate, pagan as he had been but a little while before, “sacred”! Is so
much to be donated “for the providing of the lights” that the whole world
would be impoverished? And what are these “landed estates,” particularly
“landed estates of possessions”? The phrase “possessions of landed
estates” is good usage; “landed estates of possessions” is not. You give
landed estates, and you do not explain which landed estates. You have
enriched “with different objects,” and you do not show when nor with
what objects. You want the corners of the earth to be administered by
Sylvester, and you do not explain how they are to be administered. You
say these were granted earlier? Then why do you say that you have now
begun to honor the Roman church, and to grant it a “privilege”? Do you
make the grant now; do you enrich it now? Then why do you say “we have
granted” and “we have enriched”? What are you talking about; what is in
your mind, you beast? (I am speaking to the man who made up the story,
not to that most excellent ruler, Constantine.)

But why do I ask for any intelligence in you, any learning, you who are
not endowed with any ability, with any knowledge of letters, who say
“lights” for lamps, and “be transferred in the regions of the east”
instead of “be transferred to the regions of the east,” as it should be?
And what next? Are these “quarters” of yours really the four quarters of
the world? What do you count as eastern? Thrace? It lies to the north,
as I have said. Judea? It looks rather toward the south, for it is next
to Egypt. And what do you count as western? Italy? But these events
occurred in Italy and no one living there calls it western; for we say
the Spains are in the west; and Italy extends, on one hand to the south
and on the other to the north, rather than to the west. What do you
count as north? Thrace? You yourself choose to put it in the east. Asia?
This alone includes the whole east, but it includes the north also, like
Europe. What do you count as southern? Africa, of course. But why do you
not specify some province? Perhaps you think even the Ethiopians were
subject to the Roman Empire! And anyway Asia and Africa do not come into
consideration when we divide the earth into four parts and enumerate
the countries of each, but when we divide it into three, Asia, Africa,
Europe; that is, unless you say Asia for the province of Asia, and Africa
for that province which is next to the Gaetuli, and I do not see why
they, especially, should be mentioned.

Would Constantine have spoken thus when he was describing the four
quarters of the earth? Would he have mentioned these countries, and not
others? Would he have begun with Judea, which is counted as a part of
Syria and was no longer “Judea” after the destruction of Jerusalem (for
the Jews were driven away and almost exterminated, so that, I suppose,
scarcely one then remained in his own country, but they lived among other
nations)? Where then was Judea? It was no longer called Judea, and we
know that now that name has perished from the earth. Just as after the
driving out of the Canaanites the region ceased to be called Canaan and
was renamed Judea by its new inhabitants, so when the Jews were driven
out and mixed tribes inhabited it, it ceased to be called Judea.

You mention Judea, Thrace, and the islands, but you do not think of
mentioning the Spains, the Gauls, the Germans, and while you speak of
peoples of other tongues, Hebrew, Greek, barbarian, you do not speak
of any of the provinces where Latin is used. I see: you have omitted
these for the purpose of including them afterwards in the Donation.
And why were not these many great provinces of the East sufficient to
bear the expense of providing the lights without the rest of the world
contributing!

I pass over the fact that you say these are granted as a gift, and
therefore not, as our friends say, in payment for the cure of the
leprosy. Otherwise,—well, any one who classes a gift as a payment is
ill-bred.

    “To the blessed Sylvester, his [Peter’s] vicar, we by this
    present do give our imperial Lateran palace, then the diadem,
    that is, the crown of our head, and at the same time the tiara
    and also the shoulder-band,—that is, the strap that usually
    surrounds our imperial neck; and also the purple mantle and
    scarlet tunic, and all the imperial raiment; and the same rank
    as those presiding over the imperial cavalry; conferring also
    on him the imperial scepters, and at the same time all the
    standards and banners and the different imperial ornaments, and
    all the pomp of our imperial eminence, and the glory of our
    power.

    “And we decree also, as to these men of different rank, the
    most reverend clergy who serve the holy Roman church, that they
    have that same eminence of distinguished power and excellence,
    by the glory of which it seems proper for our most illustrious
    Senate to be adorned; that is, that they be made patricians,
    consuls,—and also we have proclaimed that they be decorated
    with the other imperial dignities. And even as the imperial
    militia stands decorated, so we have decreed that the clergy
    of the holy Roman church be adorned. And even as the imperial
    power is ordered with different offices, of chamberlains,
    indeed, and door-keepers and all the bed-watchers, so we wish
    the holy Roman church also to be decorated. And, in order that
    the pontifical glory may shine forth most fully, we decree also
    that the holy clergy of this same holy Roman church may mount
    mounts adorned with saddle-cloths and linens, that is, of the
    whitest color; and even as our Senate uses shoes with felt
    socks, that is, they [the clergy] may be distinguished by white
    linen, and that the celestial [orders] may be adorned to the
    glory of God, just as the terrestrial are adorned.”

O holy Jesus! This fellow, tumbling phrases about in his ignorant
talk,—will you not answer him from a whirlwind? Will you not send the
thunder? Will you not hurl avenging lightnings at such great blasphemy?
Will you endure such wickedness in your household? Can you hear this, see
this, let it go on so long and overlook it? But you are long-suffering
and full of compassion. Yet I fear lest this your long-suffering may
rather be wrath and condemnation, such as it was against those of whom
you said, “So I gave them up unto their own hearts’ lust: and they
walked in their own counsels,”[471] and elsewhere, “Even as they did not
like to retain me in their knowledge, I gave them over to a reprobate
mind, to do those things which are not convenient.”[472] Command me, I
beseech thee, O Lord, that I may cry out against them, and perchance they
may be converted.

O Roman pontiffs, the model of all crimes for other pontiffs! O wickedest
of scribes and Pharisees, who sit in Moses’ seat and do the deeds of
Dathan and Abiram! Will the raiment, the habiliments, the pomp, the
cavalry, indeed the whole manner of life of a Caesar thus befit the vicar
of Christ? What fellowship has the priest with the Caesar? Did Sylvester
put on this raiment; did he parade in this splendor; did he live and
reign with such a throng of servants in his house? Depraved wretches!
They did not know that Sylvester ought to have assumed the vestments of
Aaron, who was the high priest of God, rather than those of a heathen
ruler.

But this must be more strongly pressed elsewhere. For the present,
however, let us talk to this sycophant about barbarisms of speech; for by
the stupidity of his language his monstrous impudence is made clear, and
his lie.

“We give,” he says, “our imperial Lateran palace”: as though it was
awkward to place the gift of the palace here among the ornaments, he
repeated it later where gifts are treated. “Then the diadem;” and as
though those present would not know, he interprets, “that is, the crown.”
He did not, indeed, here add “of gold,” but later, emphasizing the same
statements, he says, “of purest gold and precious gems.” The ignorant
fellow did not know that a diadem was made of coarse cloth or perhaps
of silk; whence that wise and oft-repeated remark of the king, who,
they say, before he put upon his head the diadem given him, held it and
considered it long and exclaimed, “O cloth more renowned than happy! If
any one knew you through and through, with how many anxieties and dangers
and miseries you are fraught, he would not care to pick you up; no, not
even if you were lying on the ground!” This fellow does not imagine but
that it is of gold, with a gold band and gems such as kings now usually
add. But Constantine was not a king, nor would he have dared to call
himself king, nor to adorn himself with royal ceremony. He was Emperor
of the Romans, not king. Where there is a king, there is no republic.
But in the republic there were many, even at the same time, who were
“imperatores” [generals]; for Cicero frequently writes thus, “Marcus
Cicero, imperator, to some other imperator, greeting”: though, later on,
the Roman ruler, as the highest of all, is called by way of distinctive
title the Emperor.

“And at the same time the tiara and also the shoulder-band,—that is the
strap that usually surrounds our imperial neck.” Who ever heard “tiara”
[phrygium] used in Latin? You talk like a barbarian and want it to seem
to me to be a speech of Constantine’s or of Lactantius’. Plautus, in the
Menaechmi, applied “phrygionem” to a designer of garments; Pliny calls
clothes embroidered with a needle “phrygiones” because the Phrygians
invented them; but what does “phrygium” mean? You do not explain
this, which is obscure; you explain what is quite clear. You say the
“shoulder-band” is a “strap,” and you do not perceive what the strap
is, for you do not visualize a leather band, which we call a strap,
encircling the Caesar’s neck as an ornament. [It is of leather], hence we
call harness and whips “straps”: but if ever gold straps are mentioned,
it can only be understood as applying to gilt harness such as is put
around the neck of a horse or of some other animal. But this has escaped
your notice, I think. So when you wish to put a strap around the Caesar’s
neck, or Sylvester’s, you change a man, an Emperor, a supreme pontiff,
into a horse or an ass.

“And also the purple mantle and scarlet tunic.” Because Matthew says “a
scarlet robe,” and John “a purple robe,”[473] this fellow tries to join
them together in the same passage. But if they are the same color, as
the Evangelists imply, why are you not content, as they were, to name
either one alone; unless, like ignorant folk today, you use “purple”
for silk goods of a whitish color? The “purple” [pupura], however, is
a fish in whose blood wool is dyed, and so from the dye the name has
been given to the cloth, whose color can be called red, though it may
rather be blackish and very nearly the color of clotted blood, a sort of
violet. Hence by Homer and Virgil blood is called purple, as is porphyry,
the color of which is similar to amethyst; for the Greeks call purple
“porphyra.” You know perhaps that scarlet is used for red; but I would
swear that you do not know at all why he makes it “coccineum” when we say
“coccum,” or what sort of a garment a “mantle” [chlamys] is.

But that he might not betray himself as a liar by continuing longer
on the separate garments, he embraced them all together in a single
word, saying, “all the imperial raiment.” What! even that which he is
accustomed to wear in war, in the chase, at banquets, in games? What
could be more stupid than to say that all the raiment of the Caesar
befits a pontiff!

But how gracefully he adds, “and the same rank as those presiding over
the imperial cavalry.” He says “seu” [“or” for “and”].[474] He wishes to
distinguish between these two in turn, as if they were very like each
other, and slips along from the imperial raiment to the equestrian rank,
saying—I know not what! He wants to say something wonderful, but fears to
be caught lying, and so with puffed cheeks and swollen throat, he gives
forth sound without sense.

“Conferring also on him the imperial sceptres.” What a turn of speech!
What splendor! What harmony! What are these imperial sceptres? There is
one sceptre, not several; if indeed the Emperor carried a sceptre at all.
Will now the pontiff carry a sceptre in his hand? Why not give him a
sword also, and helmet and javelin?

“And at the same time all the standards and banners.” What do you
understand by “standards” [signa]? “Signa” are either statues (hence
frequently we read “signa et tabulas” for pieces of sculpture and
paintings;—for the ancients did not paint on walls, but on tablets) or
military standards (hence that phrase “Standards, matched eagles”[475]).
In the former sense small statues and sculptures are called “sigilla.”
Now then, did Constantine give Sylvester his statues or his eagles? What
could be more absurd? But what “banners” [banna[476]] may signify, I do
not discover. May God destroy you, most depraved of mortals who attribute
barbarous language to a cultured age!

“And different imperial ornaments.” When he said “banners,” he thought he
had been explicit long enough, and therefore he lumped the rest under a
general term. And how frequently he drives home the word “imperial,” as
though there were certain ornaments peculiar to the Emperor over against
the consul, the dictator, the Caesar!

“And all the pomp of our imperial eminence, and the glory of our power.”
“He discards bombast and cubit-long words,”[477] “This king of kings,
Darius, the kinsman of the gods,”[478] never speaking save in the
plural! What is this imperial “pomp”; that of the cucumber twisted in
the grass, and growing at the belly? Do you think the Caesar celebrated
a triumph whenever he left his house, as the Pope now does, preceded
by white horses which servants lead saddled and adorned? To pass over
other follies, nothing is emptier, more unbecoming a Roman pontiff
than this. And what is this “glory”? Would a Latin have called pomp
and paraphernalia “glory,” as is customary in the Hebrew language? And
instead of “soldiers” [milites] you say soldiery [militia[479]] which we
have borrowed from the Hebrews, whose books neither Constantine nor his
secretaries had ever laid eyes on!

But how great is your munificence, O Emperor, who deem it not sufficient
to have adorned the pontiff, unless you adorn all the clergy also! As
an “eminence of distinguished power and excellence,” you say, they are
“made patricians and consuls.” Who has ever heard of senators or other
men being made patricians? Consuls are “made,” but not patricians.
The senators, the conscript fathers, are from patrician (also called
senatorial), equestrian, or plebeian families as the case may be. It is
greater, also, to be a senator than to be a patrician; for a senator
is one of the chosen counsellors of the Republic, while a patrician is
merely one who derives his origin from a senatorial family. So one who
is a senator, or of the conscript fathers, is not necessarily forthwith
also a patrician. So my friends the Romans are now making themselves
ridiculous when they call their praetor “senator,” since a senate cannot
consist of one man and a senator must have colleagues, and he who is now
called “senator” performs the function of praetor. But, you say, the
title of patrician is found in many books.[480] Yes; but in those which
speak of times later than Constantine; therefore the “privilege” was
executed after Constantine.

But how can the clergy become consuls?[481] The Latin clergy have
denied themselves matrimony; and will they become consuls, make a levy
of troops, and betake themselves to the provinces allotted them with
legions and auxiliaries? Are servants and slaves made consuls? And are
there to be not two, as was customary; but the hundreds and thousands
of attendants who serve the Roman church, are they to be honored with
the rank of general? And I was stupid enough to wonder at what was said
about the Pope’s transformation! The attendants will be generals; but
the clergy soldiers. Will the clergy become soldiers or wear military
insignia, unless you share the imperial insignia with all the clergy? [I
may well ask,] for I do not know what you are saying. And who does not
see that this fabulous tale was concocted by those who wished to have
every possible license in the attire they were to wear? If there are
games of any kind played among the demons which inhabit the air I should
think that they would consist in copying the apparel, the pride and the
luxury of the clergy, and that the demons would be delighted most by this
kind of masquerading.

Which shall I censure the more, the stupidity of the ideas, or of the
words? You have heard about the ideas; here are illustrations of his
words. He says, “It seems proper for our Senate to be adorned” (as though
it were not assuredly adorned), and to be adorned forsooth with “glory.”
And what is being done he wishes understood as already done; as, “we
have proclaimed” for “we proclaim”: for the speech sounds better that
way. And he puts the same act in the present and in the past tense; as,
“we decree,” and “we have decreed.” And everything is stuffed with these
words, “we decree,” “we decorate,” “imperial,” “imperial rank,” “power,”
“glory.” He uses “extat” for “est,” though “extare” means to stand out or
to be above; and “nempe” for “scilicet” [that is, “indeed” for “to wit”];
and “concubitores” [translated above, bed-watchers] for “contubernales”
[companions or attendants]. “Concubitores” are literally those who sleep
together and have intercourse; they must certainly be understood to
be harlots. He adds those with whom he may sleep, I suppose, that he
may not fear nocturnal phantoms.[482] He adds “chamberlains”; he adds
“door-keepers.”

It is not an idle question to ask why he mentions these details. He is
setting up, not an old man, but a ward or a young son, and like a doting
father, himself arranges for him everything of which his tender age has
need, as David did for Solomon! And that the story may be filled in in
every respect, horses are given the clergy,—lest they sit on asses’ colts
in that asinine way of Christ’s! And they are given horses, not covered
nor saddled with coverings of white, but decorated with white color. And
what coverings! Not horse-cloths, either Babylonian or any other kind,
but “mappulae” [translated above, saddle-cloths] and “linteamina” [linen
cloths or sheets, translated above, linen]. “Mappae” [serviettes] go with
the table, “linteamina” with the couch. And as though there were doubt
as to their color, he explains, “that is to say, of the whitest color.”
Talk worthy of Constantine; fluency worthy of Lactantius; not only in the
other phrases, but also in that one, “may mount mounts”!

And when he had said nothing about the garb of senators, the broad
stripe, the purple, and the rest, he thought he had to talk about their
shoes; nor does he specify the crescents [which were on their shoes],
but “socks,” or rather he says “with felt socks,” and then as usual he
explains, “that is, with white linen,” as though socks were of linen! I
cannot at the moment think where I have found the word “udones” [socks],
except in Valerius Martial, whose distich inscribed “Cilician Socks” runs:

    “Wool did not produce these, but the beard of an ill-smelling goat.
    Would that the sole in the gulf of the Cinyps might lie.”[483]

So the “socks” are not linen, nor white, with which this two-legged ass
says, not that the feet of senators are clad, but that senators are
distinguished.

And in the phrase “that the terrestrial orders may be adorned to the
glory of God, just as the celestial,” what do you call celestial, what
terrestrial? How are the celestial orders adorned?[484] You may have seen
what glory to God this is. But I, if I believe anything, deem nothing
more hateful to God and to the rest of humanity than such presumption of
clergy in the secular sphere. But why do I attack individual items? Time
would fail me if I should try, I do not say to dwell upon, but to touch
upon them all.

    “Above all things, moreover, we give permission to the blessed
    Sylvester and his successors, from our edict, that he may make
    priest whomever he wishes, according to his own pleasure and
    counsel, and enroll him in the pious number of the religious
    clergy [i.e., regular clergy; or perhaps cardinals]: let
    no one whomsoever presume to act in a domineering way in
    this.”[485]

Who is this Melchizedek that blesses the patriarch Abraham? Does
Constantine, scarcely yet a Christian, give to the man by whom he was
baptized and whom he calls blessed, authority to make priests? As
though Sylvester had not and could not have done it before! And with
what a threat he forbids any one to stand in the way! “Let no one,
whomsoever, presume to act in a domineering way in this matter.” What
elegant diction, too! “Enroll in the pious number of the religious”; and
“clericare,” “clericorum,” “indictu,” and “placatus”!

And again he comes back to the diadem:

    “We also therefore decreed this, that he himself and his
    successors might use, for the honor of the blessed Peter, the
    diadem, that is the crown, which we have granted him from our
    own head, of purest gold and precious gems.”

Again he explains the meaning of diadem, for he was speaking to
barbarians, forgetful ones at that. And he adds “of purest gold,” lest
perchance you should think brass or dross was mixed in. And when he has
said “gems,” he adds “precious,” again fearing lest you should suspect
them of being cheap. Yet why did he not say most precious, just as he
said “purest gold”? For there is more difference between gem and gem,
than between gold and gold. And when he should have said “distinctum
gemmis,” he said “ex gemmis.” Who does not see that this was taken from
the passage, which the gentile ruler had not read, “Thou settest a crown
of precious stone on his head”?[486] Did the Caesar speak thus, with
a certain vanity in bragging of his crown, if indeed the Caesars were
crowned, but cheapening himself by fearing lest people would think that
he did not wear a crown “of purest gold and precious gems,” unless he
said so?

Find the reason why he speaks thus: “for the honor of the blessed Peter.”
As though, not Christ, but Peter, were the chief corner-stone on which
the temple of the church is built; an inference he later repeats! But if
he wanted to honor him so much, why did he not dedicate the episcopal
temple at Rome to him, rather than to John the Baptist?

What? Does not that barbarous way of talking show that the rigmarole was
composed, not in the age of Constantine, but later; “decernimus quod
uti debeant”[487] for the correct form “decernimus ut utantur”? Boors
commonly speak and write that way now; “Iussi quod deberes venire” for
“Iussi ut venires.” And “we decreed,” and “we granted,” as though it were
not being done now, but had been done some other time!

    “But he himself, the blessed Pope, did not allow that crown of
    gold to be used over the clerical crown which he wears to the
    glory of the most blessed Peter.”

Alas for your singular stupidity, Constantine! Just now you were saying
that you put the crown on the Pope’s head for the honor of the blessed
Peter; now you say that you do not do it, because Sylvester refuses it.
And while you approve his refusal, you nevertheless order him to use
the gold crown; and what he thinks he ought not to do, that you say his
own successors ought to do![488] I pass over the fact that you call the
tonsure a crown, and the Roman pontiff “Pope,” although that word had not
yet begun to be applied to him as a distinctive title.

    “But we placed upon his most holy head, with our own hands, a
    glittering tiara of the most dazzling white, representing the
    Lord’s resurrection. And holding the bridle of his horse, out
    of reverence for the blessed Peter, we performed for him the
    duty of squire; decreeing that all his successors, and they
    alone, use this same tiara in processions in imitation of our
    power.”

Does not this fable-fabricator seem to blunder, not through imprudence,
but deliberately and of set purpose, and so as to offer handles
for catching him? In the same passage he says both that the Lord’s
resurrection is represented by the tiara, and that it is an imitation
of Caesar’s power; two things which differ most widely from each other.
God is my witness, I find no words, no words merciless enough with which
to stab this most abandoned scoundrel; so full of insanity are all the
words he vomits forth. He makes Constantine not only similar in office
to Moses, who at the command of God honored the chief priest, but also
an expounder of secret mysteries, a most difficult thing even for those
long versed in the sacred books. Why did you not make Constantine supreme
pontiff while you were about it, as many emperors have been, that he
might more conveniently transfer his attire to the other high priest? But
you did not know history. And I give thanks to God on this very score,
that he did not permit this utterly vicious scheme to be suggested save
to an exceedingly stupid man. Subsequent considerations also show this.
For he suggests the fact that Moses performed for Aaron, seated on a
horse, the duty of squire [dextratoris], and that in the midst not of
Israel, but of the Canaanites and the Egyptians, that is, of an heathen
state, where there was not so much a secular government as one of demons
and demon-worshipping peoples.

    “Wherefore, in order that the supreme pontificate may not
    deteriorate, but may rather be adorned with glory and power
    even more than is the dignity of an earthly rule; behold,
    we give over and relinquish to the most blessed pontiff and
    universal Pope, Sylvester, as well our palace as also the city
    of Rome and all the provinces, places and cities of Italy
    or[489] of the western regions; and by our pragmatic sanction
    we have decreed that they are to be controlled by him and by
    his successors, and that they remain under the law of the holy
    Roman church.”

We have already, in the oration of the Romans and that of Sylvester,
said a good deal about this.[490] Here it is in place to say that no one
would have thought of including all the nations in a single word of a
grant; and that a man who had earlier followed out the minutest details
of straps, the shoes, the linen horse-cloths, would not have thought
of omitting to cite by name provinces which now have separate kings or
rulers equal to kings, and more than one to each. But this forger, of
course, did not know which provinces were under Constantine, and which
were not. For certainly not all were under him. When Alexander died, we
see all the countries enumerated one by one in the division among the
generals. We see the lands and rulers which were under the government of
Cyrus, whether voluntarily or by conquest, named by Xenophon. We see the
names of the Greek and barbarian kings, their lineage, their country,
their bravery, their strength, their excellence, the number of their
ships and the approximate number of their men, included by Homer in his
catalog. And not only did many Greeks follow his example, but our Latin
authors also, Ennius, Virgil, Lucan, Statius, and others. By Joshua and
Moses, in the division of the promised land, even all the little villages
were described. And you refuse to enumerate even provinces! You name
only the “western provinces.”[491] What are the boundaries of the west;
where do they begin; where do they end? Are the frontiers of west and
east, south and north, as definite and fixed as those of Asia, Africa and
Europe? Necessary words you omit, you heap on superfluous ones. You say,
“provinces, places and cities.” Are not provinces and cities, “places”?
And when you have said provinces you add cities, as though the latter
would not be understood with the former. But it is not strange that a man
who gives away so large a part of the earth should pass over the names of
cities and of provinces, and as though overcome with lethargy not know
what he says. “Of Italy or of the western regions,” as though he meant
“either ... or” when he means “both”;[492] speaking of “provinces ... of
the ... regions,” when it should rather be the regions of the provinces;
and using the gerundive, “permanendas,” for the future infinitive
(permansuras).

    “Wherefore we have perceived it to be fitting that our empire
    and our royal power should be transferred in the regions of the
    East; and that in the province of Byzantia [_sic_], in the most
    fitting place, a city should be built in our name; and that our
    empire should there be established.”

I pass over the fact that in saying “a city should be built” [he uses
the word for “the state” instead of “the city”], and cities, not states,
are built; and the fact that he says “the province of Byzantia.”[493]
If you are Constantine, give the reason why you should choose that as
the best place for founding your city. For that you should “transfer”
yourself elsewhere after giving up Rome, was not so much “fitting” as
necessary. You should neither call yourself Emperor when you have lost
Rome and deserved least from the Roman name whose meaning you destroy;
nor call yourself “royal,” for no one before you has done so,—unless you
call yourself a king because you have ceased to be a Roman.[494] But you
allege a reason sound and honorable:

    “For where the chief of [all] priests and the head of the
    Christian religion has been established by the heavenly
    Emperor, it is not right that there an earthly Emperor should
    have jurisdiction.”

O stupid David, stupid Solomon, stupid Hezekiah, Josiah, and all the
other kings, stupid all and irreligious, who persisted in dwelling in
the city of Jerusalem with the chief priests, and did not yield them the
whole city! Constantine in three days is wiser than they could be in
their whole life. And you call [the Pope] a “heavenly Emperor” because
he accepts an earthly empire; unless by that term you mean God (for you
speak ambiguously) and mean that an earthly sovereignty of priests was by
him established over the city of Rome and other places, in which case you
lie.

    “We decreed, moreover, that all these things which through this
    sacred imperial [charter] and through other godlike decrees we
    establish and confirm, remain inviolate and unshaken unto the
    end of the world.”

A moment ago, Constantine, you called yourself earthly; now you call
yourself divine and sacred. You relapse into paganism and worse than
paganism. You make yourself God, your words sacred, and your decrees
immortal; for you order the world to keep your commands “inviolate and
unshaken.” Do you consider who you are: just cleansed from the filthiest
mire of wickedness, and scarcely fully cleansed? Why did you not add,
“Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from this ‘privilege’”?[495] The kingdom of Saul, chosen by God, did not
pass on to his sons; the kingdom of David was divided under his grandson,
and afterward destroyed. And by your own authority you decree that the
kingdom which you give over without God, shall remain even until the end
of the world! Whoever taught you that the world is to pass away so soon?
For I do not think that at this time you had faith in the poets, who
alone bear witness to this. So you could not have said this, but some one
else passed it off as yours.

However, he who spoke so grandly and loftily, begins to fear, and to
distrust himself, and so takes to entreating:

    “Wherefore, before the living God, who commanded us to reign,
    and in the face of his terrible judgment, we entreat all the
    emperors our successors, and all the nobles, the satraps also
    and the most glorious Senate, and all the people in the whole
    world, likewise also for the future, that no one of them,
    in any way, be allowed either to break this, or in any way
    overthrow it.”

What a fair, what a devout adjuration! It is just as if a wolf should
entreat by his innocence and good faith the other wolves and the
shepherds not to try to take away from him, or demand back, the sheep
which he has taken and divided among his offspring and his friends. Why
are you so afraid, Constantine? If your work is not of God it will be
destroyed; but if it is of God it cannot be destroyed. But I see! You
wished to imitate the Apocalypse, where it says: “For I testify unto
every man that heareth all the words of the prophecy of this book, If any
man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that
are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words
of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the
book of life, and out of the holy city.”[496] But you had never read the
Apocalypse; therefore these are not your words.

    “If any one, moreover—which we do not believe—prove a scorner
    in this matter, he shall be condemned and shall be subject to
    eternal damnation; and shall feel the holy apostles of God,
    Peter and Paul, opposed to him in the present and in the future
    life. And he shall be burned in the lower hell and shall perish
    with the devil and all the impious.”

This terrible threat is the usual one, not of a secular ruler, but of
the early priests and flamens, and nowadays, of ecclesiastics. And so
this is not the utterance of Constantine, but of some fool of a priest
who, stuffed and pudgy, knew neither what to say nor how to say it,
and, gorged with eating and heated with wine, belched out these wordy
sentences which convey nothing to another, but turn against the author
himself. First he says, “shall be subject to eternal damnation,” then
as though more could be added, he wishes to add something else, and to
eternal penalties he joins penalties in the present life; and after he
frightens us with God’s condemnation, he frightens us with the hatred
of Peter, as though it were something still greater. Why he should add
Paul, and why Paul alone, I do not know. And with his usual drowsiness
he returns again to eternal penalties, as though he had not said that
before. Now if these threats and curses were Constantine’s, I in turn
would curse him as a tyrant and destroyer of my country, and would
threaten that I, as a Roman, would take vengeance on him. But who would
be afraid of the curse of an overly avaricious man, and one saying a
counterfeit speech after the manner of actors, and terrifying people in
the rôle of Constantine? This is being a hypocrite in the true sense, if
we press the Greek word closely; that is, hiding your own personality
under another’s.

    “The page,[497] moreover, of this imperial decree, we, confirming
    it with our own hands, did place above the venerable body of the
    blessed Peter.”[498]

Was it paper or parchment, the “page” on which this was written? Though,
in fact, we call one side of a leaf, as they say, a page; for instance, a
pamphlet[?] has ten leaves, twenty pages.

But oh! the unheard of and incredible thing [that Constantine did]! I
remember asking some one, when I was a youth, who wrote the book of
Job; and when he answered, “Job himself,” I rejoined, “How then would
he mention his own death?” And this can be said of many other books,
discussion of which is not appropriate here. For how, indeed, can that
be narrated which has not yet been done; and how can that which [the
speaker] himself admits was done after the burial, so to say, of the
records, be contained in the records? This is nothing else than saying
that “the page of the privilege” was dead and buried before it was born,
and yet never returned from death and burial; and saying expressly that
it was confirmed before it had been written, and not with one hand
alone at that, but with both of the Caesar’s hands! And what is this
“confirming”? Was it done with the signature of the Caesar, or with
his signet ring? Surely, hard and fast that,—more so by far than if
he had entrusted it to bronze tablets! But there is no need of bronze
inscription, when the charter is laid away above the body of the blessed
Peter. But why do you here suppress Paul, though he lies with Peter, and
the two could guard it better than if the body of one alone were present?

You see the malicious artfulness of the cunning Sinon![499] Because the
Donation of Constantine cannot be produced, therefore he said that the
“privilege” is not on bronze but on paper records; therefore he said that
it lies with the body of the most holy apostle, so that either we should
not dare to seek it in the venerable tomb, or if we should seek it, we
would think it rotted away. But where then was the body of the blessed
Peter? Certainly it was not yet in the temple where it now is, not in a
place reasonably protected and safe. Therefore the Caesar would not have
put the “page” there. Or did he not trust the “page” to the most blessed
Sylvester, as not holy enough, not careful nor diligent enough? O Peter!
O Sylvester! O holy pontiffs of the Roman church! to whom the sheep of
the Lord were entrusted, why did you not keep the “page” entrusted to
you? Why have you suffered it to be eaten by worms, to rot away with
mold? I presume that it was because your bodies also have wasted away.
Constantine therefore acted foolishly. Behold the “page” reduced to dust;
the right conferred by the “privilege” at the same time passes away into
dust.

And yet, as we see, a copy of the “page” is shown. Who then was so bold
as to take it from the bosom of the most holy apostle? No one did it,
I think. Whence then the copy? By all means some ancient writer ought
to be adduced, one not later than the time of Constantine. However,
none such is adduced, but as it happens some recent writer or other.
Whence did he get it? For whoever composes a narrative about an earlier
age, either writes at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, or follows
the authority of former writers, and of those, of course, who wrote
concerning their own age. So whoever does not follow earlier writers will
be one of those to whom the remoteness of the event affords the boldness
to lie. But if this story is to be read anywhere, it is not consistent
with antiquity any more than that stupid narrative of the glossator
Accursius about Roman ambassadors being sent to Greece to get laws agrees
with Titus Livius and the other best writers.

    “Given at Rome, on the third day before the Kalends of April,
    Constantine Augustus consul for the fourth time, and Gallicanus
    consul for the fourth time.”[500]

He took the next to the last day of March so that we might feel that this
was done in the season of holy days, which, for the most part, come at
that time. And “Constantine consul for the fourth time, and Gallicanus
consul for the fourth time.” Strange if each had been consul thrice, and
they were colleagues in a fourth consulship! But stranger still that the
Augustus, a leper, with elephantiasis (which disease is as remarkable
among diseases, as elephants are among animals), should want to even
accept a consulship, when king Azariah, as soon as he was affected with
leprosy, kept himself secluded, while the management of the kingdom was
given over to Jotham his son;[501] and almost all lepers have acted
similarly. And by this argument alone the whole “privilege” is confuted
outright, destroyed, and overturned. And if any one disputes the fact
that Constantine must have been leprous before he was consul, he should
know that according to physicians this disease develops gradually, that
according to the known facts of antiquity the consulate is an annual
office and begins in the month of January; and these events are said to
have taken place the following March.

Nor will I here pass over the fact that “given” is usually written on
letters, but not on other documents, except among ignorant people. For
letters are said either to be given one (illi) or to be given to one (ad
illum); in the former case [they are given to] one who carries them, a
courier for instance, and puts them in the hand of the man to whom they
are sent; in the latter case [they are given] to one in the sense that
they are to be delivered to him by the bearer, that is [they are given
to] the one to whom they are sent. But the “privilege,” as they call it,
of Constantine, as it was not to be delivered to any one, so also it
ought not to be said to be “given.” And so it should be apparent that he
who spoke thus lied, and did not know how to imitate what Constantine
would probably have said and done. And those who think that he has told
the truth, and defend him, whoever they are, make themselves abetters and
accessories in his stupidity and madness. However, they have nothing now
with which to honorably excuse their opinion, not to speak of defending
it.

Or is it an honorable excuse for an error, to be unwilling to acquiesce
in the truth when you see it disclosed, because certain great men have
thought otherwise? Great men, I call them, on account of their position,
not on account of their wisdom or their goodness. How do you even know
whether those whom you follow, had they heard what you hear, would have
continued in their belief, or would have given it up? And moreover it is
most contemptible to be willing to pay more regard to man than to Truth,
that is, to God. [I say this] for some men beaten at every argument are
wont to answer thus: “Why, have so many supreme pontiffs believed this
Donation to be genuine?” I call you to witness, that you urge me where I
would not, and force me against my will to rail at the supreme pontiffs
whose faults I would prefer to veil. But let us proceed to speak frankly,
inasmuch as this case cannot be conducted in any other way.

Admitting that they did thus believe and were not dishonest; why wonder
that they believed these stories where so much profit allured them,
seeing that they are led to believe a great many things, in which no
profit is apparent, through their extraordinary ignorance? Do you not, at
Ara Coeli, in that most notable temple and in the most impressive place
see the fable of the Sibyl and Octavian[502] depicted by the authority,
they say, of Innocent III, who wrote it and who also left an account of
the destruction of the Temple of Peace on the day of the Savior’s birth,
that is, at the delivery of the Virgin?[503] These stories tend rather
to the destruction of faith, by their falsity, than to the establishment
of faith, by their wonders. Does the vicar of Truth dare to tell a lie
under the guise of piety, and consciously entangle himself in this sin?
Or does he not lie? Verily, does he not see that in perpetrating this
he contradicts the most holy men? Omitting others; Jerome cites the
testimony of Varro that there were ten Sibyls, and Varro wrote his work
before the time of Augustus. Jerome also writes thus of the Temple of
Peace: “Vespasian and Titus, after the Temple of Peace was built at Rome,
dedicated the vessels of the temple [of the Jews] and all manner of gifts
in her shrine, as the Greek and Roman historians tell.” And this ignorant
man, alone, wants us to believe his libel, barbarously written at that,
rather than the most accurate histories of ancient and most painstaking
authors!

Since I have touched on Jerome, I will not suffer the following insult to
him to be passed by in silence. At Rome, by the authority of the Pope,
with the candles ever burning, as though for a relic of the saints, is
shown a copy of the Bible, which they say is written in the hand of
Jerome. Do you seek proof? Why, there is “much embroidered cloth and
gold,” as Virgil says, a thing which indicates rather that it was not
written by the hand of Jerome. When I inspected it more carefully, I
found that it was written by order of a king, Robert, I think, and in
the handwriting of an inexperienced man.

Similarly,—there are indeed ten thousand things of this sort at
Rome,—among sacred objects is shown the panel portrait of Peter and
Paul, which, after Constantine had been spoken to by these apostles in
his sleep, Sylvester produced in confirmation of the vision. I do not
say this because I deny that they are portraits of the apostles (would
that the letter sent in the name of Lentulus about the portrait of
Christ were as genuine, instead of being no less vicious and spurious
than this “privilege” which we have refuted), but because that panel was
not produced for Constantine by Sylvester. At that story my mind cannot
restrain its astonishment.

So I will briefly discuss the Sylvester legend, because the whole
question hinges on this; and, since I have to do with Roman pontiffs,
it will be in order to speak chiefly of the Roman pontiff so that from
one example an estimate of the others may be formed. And of the many
absurdities told in this [legend] I shall touch upon one alone, that of
the serpent,[504] in order to show that Constantine had not been a leper.
And verily the Life of Sylvester (Gesta Silvestri), according to the
translator, was written by Eusebius,[505] a Greek, always the readiest
people at lying, as Juvenal’s satirical judgment runs:

    “Whatever in the way of history a lying Greek dares tell.”[506]

Whence came that dragon? Dragons are not engendered in Rome. Whence, too,
his venom? In Africa alone, on account of its hot climate, are there said
to be pest-producing dragons. Whence, too, so much venom that he wasted
with pestilence such a spacious city as Rome; the more remarkable that
the serpent was down in a cavern so deep that one descended to it by
a hundred and fifty steps? Serpents, excepting possibly the basilisk,
inject their poison and kill, not with their breath, but with their bite.
Cato, fleeing from Caesar through the very midst of the African deserts
with such a large force as he had, did not see any of his company slain
by the breath of a serpent, either on the march or in camp; nor do the
natives think the air pestilential on account of serpents. And if we
believe at all in the stories, the Chimaera, the Hydra and Cerberus have
all often been seen and touched without injury.

Why hadn’t the Romans already slain it instead [of waiting for
Sylvester]? They couldn’t, you say? But Regulus killed a much larger
serpent in Africa on the banks of the Bagradas. And it was very easy
indeed to kill the one at Rome; for instance, by closing the mouth of
the cavern. Or didn’t they want to? Ah, they worshipped it as a god, I
suppose, as the Babylonians did? Why then, as Daniel is said to have
killed that serpent,[507] had not Sylvester killed this one when he had
bound him with a hempen thread, and destroyed that brood forever? The
reason the inventor of the legend did not want the dragon slain was that
it might not be apparent that he had copied the narrative of Daniel. But
if Jerome, a most learned and accurate translator, Apollinaris, Origen,
Eusebius and others affirm the story of Bel to be apocryphal, if the Jews
in their original of the Old Testament do not know it; that is, if all
the most learned of the Latins, most of the Greeks, and certain of the
Hebrews, condemn that as a legend, shall I not condemn this adumbration
of it, which is not based on the authority of any writer, and which far
surpasses its model in absurdity?

For who had built the underground home for the beast? Who had put it
there and commanded it not to come out and fly away (for dragons fly, as
some say; even though others deny it)? Who had thought out that kind of
food for him? Who had directed that women, virgins at that, devoted to
chastity, go down to him, and only on the Kalends? Or did the serpent
remember what day was the Kalends? And was he content with such scant and
occasional food? And did not the virgins dread such a deep cavern, and a
beast so monstrous and greedy? I suppose the serpent wheedled them, as
they were women, and virgins, and brought him his victuals; I suppose
he even chatted with them. What if, pardon the expression, he even had
intercourse with them; for both Alexander and Scipio are said to have
been born by the embrace of a dragon, or a serpent, with their mothers!
Why, if food were afterward denied him, would he not have come out then,
or have died?

O the strange folly of men who have faith in these senile ravings! How
long now had this been going on? When did the beginning occur? Before the
advent of the Savior, or after? As to this, nothing is known. We should
be ashamed! We should be ashamed of these silly songs, and this frivolity
worse than dangerous! A Christian, who calls himself a son of truth and
light, should blush to utter things which not only are not true, but are
not credible.

But, they say, the demons obtained this power over the heathen, so as
to mock them for serving the gods. Silence, you utter ignoramuses, not
to call you utter rascals, you who always spread such a veil over your
stories! True Christianity does not need the patronage of falsehood; it
is maintained satisfactorily by itself, and by its own light and truth,
without those lying and deceitful fables,—unmitigated insults to God,
to Christ, and to the Holy Spirit. Would God thus have given the human
race over into the power of demons, to be seduced by such evident, such
imposing miracles, that he might well-nigh be accused of the injustice of
turning sheep over to wolves, and that men should have good excuse for
their errors? But if so much license was once given demons, even more
would be given them now among infidels; which is by no means the case,
nor are any legends of this sort told by them.

Passing by other peoples, I will speak of the Romans. Among them the
miracles reported are few, and they early and obscure. Valerius Maximus
tells that that chasm in the middle of the forum, when Curtius, armed
and spurring on his horse, plunged into it, closed again, and returned
forthwith to its former state.[508] Again, the [effigy of] Juno Moneta,
when it was asked, in jest, by a certain Roman soldier at the capture of
Veii, whether it wanted to move to Rome, replied that it did.[509]

Titus Livius, an earlier and more authoritative writer, knows neither of
these stories. For he has it that the chasm was permanent, not a sudden
opening but an old one, there before the founding of the city, and called
Curtius’ Pond, because Mettius Curtius, a Sabine, fleeing from an attack
by the Romans, had hidden in it; and that the Juno did not reply, but
nodded assent, and it was added to the story afterwards that she had
spoken.[510] And about the nod also, it is evident that they lied, either
by interpreting the movement of the image when they pulled it away as
made by its own accord, or by pretending in the same joking way in which
they asked the question that the hostile, conquered, stone goddess nodded
assent. Indeed, Livy does not say that she nodded, but that the soldiers
exclaimed that she nodded. Such stories, too, good writers do not defend
as facts, but excuse as tradition. For even as this same Livy says,
“This indulgence is to be granted antiquity, that by mingling the human
and the divine it may make the beginnings of cities more august.”[511]
And elsewhere: “But in connection with events of such ancient times, if
probabilities should be accepted as facts, no harm would be done. These
stories are more suited to the display of a stage which delights in
wonders, than to sober belief; it is not worth while either to affirm or
to refute them.”[512]

Terentius Varro, an earlier, more learned and, I think, more
authoritative writer than these two, says there were three accounts of
Curtius’ Pond given by as many writers; one by Proculus, that this pond
was so called for a Curtius who cast himself into it; another by Piso,
that it was named for Mettius the Sabine; the third by Cornelius, and he
adds Luctatius as his associate in the matter, that it was for Curtius
the consul, whose colleague was Marcus Genutius.[513]

Nor should I have concealed that Valerius cannot be altogether criticised
for speaking as he does, since a little later he earnestly and seriously
adds; “And I do not ignore the fact that as to human eyes and ears
perceiving the movement and the voice of immortal gods, our judgment
is rather confused by wavering opinion; but because what is said is
not new but the repetition of traditions, the authors may lay claim to
credence.”[514] He spoke of the voice of the gods on account of the Juno
Moneta,[515] and on account of the statue of Fortune which is represented
to have twice spoken in these words, “With due form have you seen me,
matrons; with due form have you dedicated me.”[516]

But our own story-tellers every once in a while bring in talking idols of
which the heathen themselves, and the worshippers of the idols; do not
speak; rather they deny them more earnestly than the Christians affirm
them. Among the heathen the very few wonders which are told make their
way not by the belief of writers, but by the sanction of their antiquity,
as something sacred and venerable; among our writers wonders more recent
are narrated, wonders of which the men of those times did not know.

I neither disparage admiration for the saints, nor do I deny their divine
works, for I know that faith, as much of it as a grain of mustard seed,
is able even to remove mountains. Rather I defend and uphold them, but I
do not allow them to be confused with ridiculous legends. Nor can I be
persuaded that these writers were other than either infidels, who did
this to deride the Christians in case these bits of fiction handed out by
crafty men to the ignorant should be accepted as true, or else believers
with a zeal for God, to be sure, but not according to knowledge, men
who did not shrink from writing shameless accounts not only of the
acts of the saints but even of the mother of God, and indeed of Christ
himself, nor from writing pseudo-gospels. And the supreme pontiff calls
these books apocryphal as though it were no blemish that their author
is unknown, as though what was told were credible, as though they were
sacred, tending to establish religion; so that now there is no less fault
on his part in that he approves evils, than on the part of the one who
devised them. We detect spurious coins, we pick them out and reject them;
shall we not detect spurious teaching? Shall we retain it, confuse it
with the genuine and defend it as genuine?

But I, to give my frank opinion, deny that the Acts of Sylvester is an
apocryphal book; because, as I have said, a certain Eusebius is said to
have been its author; but I think it is false and not worth reading,
in other parts as well as in what it has to say about the serpent, the
bull,[517] and the leprosy, to refute which I have gone over so much
ground. For even if Naaman was leprous, should we forthwith say that
Constantine also was leprous? Many writers allude to it in Naaman’s
case; that Constantine the head of the whole earth had leprosy no one
mentioned; at least none of his fellow citizens, but perhaps some
foreigner or other, to be given no more credence than that other fellow
who wrote about wasps building their nest in Vespasian’s nostrils, and
about the frog taken from Nero at birth, whence they say the place was
called the Lateran, for the frog (rana) is concealed (latere) there in
its grave.[518] Such stuff neither the wasps themselves, nor frogs, if
they could speak, would have uttered! [I pass over the statement that
boys’ blood is a remedy for leprosy, which medical science does not
admit;[519]] unless they attribute this to the Capitoline gods, as though
they were wont to talk and had ordered this to be done!

But why should I wonder that the pontiffs are not informed on these
points, when they do not know about their own name! For they say that
Peter is called Cephas because he was the head of the apostles, as though
this noun were Greek, from κεφαλή, and not Hebrew, or rather Syriac;
a noun which the Greeks write κηφᾶς, and which with them means rock
(Petrus), and not head! For “petrus,” “petra,” (rock) is a Greek noun.
And “petra” is stupidly explained by them through a Latin derivation, as
from “pede trita” (trodden by foot)! And they distinguish “metropolitan”
from “archbishop,” and claim that the former is so called from the size
of the city, though in Greek it is not called μετρόπολις but μητρόπολις,
that is, the mother-state or city. And they explain “patriarch” as “pater
patrum” (father of fathers); and “papa” (pope) from the interjection
“pape” (indeed); and “orthodox” as from the words meaning “right glory”;
and they pronounce “Simonem” (Simon) with a short middle vowel, though it
should be read with a long one, as are “Platonem” (Plato) and “Catonem”
(Cato). And there are many similar instances which I pass, lest for the
fault of some of the supreme pontiffs I should seem to attack all. These
instances had to be given so that no one should wonder that many of the
Popes have been unable to detect that the Donation of Constantine was
spurious; though, in my opinion, this deception originated with one of
them.

       *       *       *       *       *

But you say, “Why do not the Emperors, who were the sufferers from
this forgery, deny the Donation of Constantine, instead of admitting
it, confirming it and maintaining it?” A great argument! a marvellous
defense! For of which Emperor are you speaking? If of the Greek one,
who was the true Emperor, I will deny the admission; if of the Latin, I
will confess it, and with pleasure. For who does not know that the Latin
Emperor was gratuitously established by a supreme pontiff, Stephen I
think, who robbed the Greek Emperor because he would not aid Italy, and
established a Latin Emperor; so the Emperor thus received more from the
Pope than the Pope from the Emperor?[520] Oh, of course, Achilles and
Patroclus divided the Trojan spoils between themselves alone on some
such terms. The words of Louis [the Pious] seem to me to imply just this
when he says, “I, Louis, Roman Emperor, Augustus, ordain and grant,
by this compact of our confirmation, to you, blessed Peter, prince of
the apostles, and through you to your vicar, the supreme pontiff, lord
Paschal [I], and to his successors forever, to hold, just as from our
predecessors until now you have held, under your authority and rule, the
Roman state with its duchy, with all its towns and villages, its mountain
districts, sea coasts and harbors, and all cities, forts, walled towns,
and estates in the districts of Tuscany.”[521]

Do you, Louis, make a pact with Paschal? If these are yours, that is, the
Roman Empire’s, why do you grant them to another? If they are his and
are held in his own possession, what sense is there in your confirming
them? How little of the Roman Empire will be yours if you lose the very
head of the Empire? From Rome the Roman Emperor takes his name. What!
Are your other possessions yours or Paschal’s? Yours, you will say, I
suppose. Therefore, the Donation of Constantine is not valid at all;
that is, if you possess what was given by him to the pontiff. If it is
valid, by what right does Paschal give you the rest [of the Empire],
retaining for himself only what he possesses? What does your excessive
prodigality toward him at the expense of the Roman Empire mean, or his
toward you? Therefore, deservedly do you call it a “compact,” something
like collusion.

    “But what shall I do?” you will say. “Shall I try to recover
    by force what the Pope has in his possession? But he, alas,
    has now become more powerful than I. Shall I seek to regain it
    by law? But my right is only such as he is willing for it to
    be. For I came to the throne, not through an inherited title,
    but by a compact that if I wish to be Emperor I should promise
    the Pope in turn such and such considerations. Shall I say
    that Constantine did not give away any of the Empire? But that
    way I should be arguing the cause of the Greek Emperor, and I
    should rob myself of all imperial dignity. For the Pope says
    he makes me Emperor with this very thing in view, as a kind of
    vicar of his; and unless I bind myself, he will not make me
    Emperor; and unless I obey I shall have to abdicate. If only
    he gives me the throne I will acknowledge everything, I will
    agree to everything. Only; take my word for it, if I had Rome
    and Tuscany in my possession, I would act quite differently and
    Paschal would sing me that old song of the Donation, spurious
    in my opinion, in vain. As things are, I yield what I neither
    have nor hope to have. To question the right of the Pope is not
    my concern but that of the Emperor yonder at Constantinople.”

I quite excuse you, Louis, and every other ruler similarly placed.
What must we suspect of the compact of other Emperors with the supreme
pontiffs, when we know what Sigismund did, a ruler otherwise most
excellent and courageous, but at that time affected and weakened by age?
We saw him, hedged in throughout Italy, with a few retainers, living from
day to day at Rome, and he would, indeed, have perished with hunger, had
not Eugenius fed him,—but not for nothing, for he extorted the Donation
from him. When he had come to Rome to be crowned Emperor of the Romans,
he could not get the Pope to crown him, except by confirming the Donation
of Constantine and by granting anew all that it contained. What more
contradictory than for him to be crowned Roman Emperor who had renounced
Rome itself, and that by the man whom he both acknowledges and, so far
as he can, makes master of the Roman Empire; and [for the Emperor] to
confirm the Donation which, if genuine, leaves none of the Empire for
the Emperor! It is a thing which, as I think, not even children would
have done. So it is not strange that the Pope arrogates to himself the
coronation of the Caesar, which ought to belong to the Roman people.

If you, O Pope, on the one hand can deprive the Greek Emperor of Italy
and the western provinces, and on the other you create a Latin Emperor,
why do you resort to “compacts”? Why do you divide the Caesar’s estate?
Why do you transfer the Empire to yourself?

Wherefore, let whoever is called Emperor of the Romans know that in my
judgment he is not Augustus, nor Caesar, nor Emperor, unless he rules at
Rome; and unless he takes up the recovery of the city of Rome, he will
plainly be forsworn. For those earlier Caesars, and Constantine first
of them, were not forced to take the oath by which the Caesars are now
bound; but rather the oath that, so far as it lay in human power, they
would not diminish the extent of the Roman Empire, but would diligently
add to it.

Yet not for this reason are they called Augusti, namely that they
ought to augment the Empire, as some think whose knowledge of Latin is
imperfect; for he is called Augustus, as consecrated, from “avium gustus”
(the taste, or appetite, of the birds), a customary step in consulting
the omens: and this derivation is supported by the language of the
Greeks, among whom the Augustus is called Σεβαστός, from which Sebastia
gets its name. Better might the supreme pontiff be called Augustus from
“augere” (to augment), except for the fact that when he augments his
temporal he diminishes his spiritual power. Thus it is a fact that the
worse the supreme pontiff is, the more he exerts himself to defend this
Donation. Take the case of Boniface VIII, who deceived Celestine by
means of pipes fixed in the wall.[522] He both writes concerning the
Donation of Constantine, and he despoils the French king; and, as though
he wished to put the Donation of Constantine in execution, he decrees
that the kingdom itself belonged to and was subject to the Roman church.
This decretal his successors, Benedict and Clement, revoked outright, as
wicked and unjust.

But what is the significance of your anxiety, Roman pontiffs, in
requiring each Emperor to confirm the Donation of Constantine, unless it
be that you distrust its legality? But you are washing bricks [you labor
in vain], as they say; for that Donation never existed, and since it does
not exist it cannot be confirmed; and whatever the Caesars grant, their
acts are due to deception as to the precedent of Constantine; and they
cannot grant the Empire.

       *       *       *       *       *

However, let us grant that Constantine made the Donation and that
Sylvester was at one time in possession, but afterwards either he himself
or another of the Popes lost possession. (I am speaking now of that of
which the Pope is not in possession; later on I will speak of that of
which he is in possession.) What more can I grant you than to concede
the existence of that which never was and never could be? But even so, I
say that you cannot effect a recovery either by divine or by human law.
In the ancient law it was forbidden that a Hebrew be a Hebrew’s slave
more than six years, and every fiftieth year also everything reverted
to the original owner. Shall a Christian, in the dispensation of grace,
be oppressed in eternal slavery by the vicar of the Christ who redeemed
us from our servitude? What do I say! Shall he be recalled to servitude
after he has been set free and has long enjoyed his freedom?

How brutal, how violent, how barbarous the tyranny of priests often is,
I do not say. If this was not known before, it has lately been learned
from that monster of depravity, John Vitelleschi, cardinal and patriarch,
who wore out the sword of Peter, with which [the apostle] cut off the ear
of Malchus, with the blood of Christians. By this sword he himself also
perished.[523] But is it true that the people of Israel were permitted
to revolt from the house of David and Solomon whom prophets sent by God
had anointed, because their impositions were too heavy; and that God
approved their act? May we not revolt on account of such great tyranny,
particularly from those who are not kings, and cannot be; and who from
being shepherds of the sheep, that is to say, of souls, have become
thieves and brigands?

And to come to human law, who does not know that there is no right
conferred by war, or if there is any, that it prevails just as long as
you possess what you have gotten by war? For when you lose possession,
you have lost the right. And so ordinarily, if captives have escaped
no one summons them into court: and so also with plunder if the former
owners have recovered it. Bees and any other kind of winged creatures, if
they have flown away far from my property and have settled on another’s,
cannot be reclaimed. And do you seek to reclaim men, who are not only
free creatures, but masters of others, when they set themselves free by
force of arms, [reclaim them] not by force of arms, but by law, as though
you were a man, and they sheep?

Nor can you say, “The Romans were [considered] just in waging wars
against the nations, and just in depriving them of liberty.” Do not
drag me into that discussion, lest I be forced to speak against my
fellow Romans. However, no fault could be so serious that people should
merit everlasting servitude therefor. And in this connection [one must
remember also] that people often waged a war for which a prince or some
important citizen in the Republic was to blame, and, being conquered,
were undeservedly punished with servitude. There are everywhere abundant
examples of this.

Nor in truth does the law of nature provide that one people should
subjugate another people to itself. We can instruct others, we can urge
them; we cannot rule them and do them violence, unless, leaving humanity
aside, we wish to copy the more savage beasts which force their bloody
rule upon the weaker, as the lion among quadrupeds, the eagle among
birds, the dolphin among fish. Yet even these creatures do not vaunt
authority over their own kind, but over an inferior. How much more ought
we to act thus, and as men have due regard for men, since in the words
of Marcus Fabius there is no beast upon the earth so fierce that his own
likeness is not sacred to him?

Now there are four reasons why wars are waged: either for avenging a
wrong and defending friends; or for fear of incurring disaster later, if
the strength of others is allowed to increase; or for hope of booty; or
for desire of glory. Of these the first is rather honorable, the second
less so, and the last two are far from honorable. And wars were indeed
often waged against the Romans, but after they had defended themselves,
they waged war against their assailants and against others. Nor is
there any nation which yielded to their sway unless conquered in war
and subdued; whether justly, or for what cause, they themselves could
judge. I should be unwilling to condemn them as fighting unjustly or to
acquit them as fighting in a just cause. I can only say that the Roman
people waged wars against others for the same reason as other peoples
and kings did, and that it was left open even to those who were attacked
and conquered in war to revolt from the Romans just as they revolted
from other masters; lest perchance (and none would agree to this) all
authority should be imputed to the oldest people who were first masters;
that is, to those who were the first to take possession of what belonged
to others.

And yet the Roman people had a better right over nations conquered in
war than had the Caesars in their overthrow of the Republic. Wherefore,
if it was right for the nations to revolt from Constantine, and, what is
far more, from the Roman people, purely it will be right to revolt from
him to whom Constantine gave his authority. And to put the matter more
boldly, if the Roman people were free either to drive Constantine out,
as they did Tarquinius, or to slay him, as they did Julius Caesar, much
more will the Romans or the provinces be free to slay him, who at any
time has succeeded Constantine. But though this is true, yet it is beyond
the scope of my argument, and so I want to restrain myself and not press
anything I have said further than this, that it is folly to adduce any
verbal right, where the right of arms prevails, because that which is
acquired by arms, is likewise lost by arms.

This, indeed, the more, that other, new, peoples as we have heard in the
case of the Goths, who were never subject to Roman rule, after putting
to flight the earlier inhabitants, seized upon Italy and many provinces.
What justice, pray, is there in restoring these to a servitude which they
have never experienced; especially as they are the conquering peoples;
and to servitude perchance under the conquered peoples? And if at this
time any cities and nations, deserted by the Emperor at the arrival of
the barbarians, as we know to have been the case, had been compelled to
elect a king under whose leadership they then won victory, is there any
reason why they should later depose this ruler? Or should they bid his
sons, popular it may be for their father’s praise, it may be for their
own valor, become private citizens, that they might again become subjects
of a Roman prince, even though they were greatly in need of their
assistance and hoped for no aid elsewhere? If the Caesar himself, or
Constantine, returned to life, or even the Senate and Roman people should
call them before a general court such as the Amphictyony was in Greece,
[the plaintiff] would at once be ruled out at his first plea because he
was reclaiming to bondage and slavery those who once had been abandoned
by him, their guardian, those who for a long time had been living under
another ruler, those who had never been subject to a foreign-born king,
men, in conclusion, who were free-born and proclaimed free by their
vigor of mind and body. How clear it should be, that if the Caesar, if
the Roman people, is thus debarred from recovering control, much more
decidedly is the Pope! And if the other nations which have been subject
to Rome are free either to appoint a king for themselves or to maintain
a republic, far more are the Roman people themselves free to do this,
especially against the innovation of papal tyranny.

       *       *       *       *       *

Estopped from defending the Donation, since it never existed and, if
it had existed, it would now have expired from lapse of time, our
adversaries take refuge in another kind of defense; figuratively
speaking, the city being given up for lost, they betake themselves to
their citadel,—which forthwith they are constrained by lack of provisions
to surrender. “The Roman church,” they say, “is entitled by prescription
to what it possesses.” Why then does it lay claim to that, the greater
part, to which it has no title by prescription, and to which others are
entitled by prescription; unless others cannot act toward it as it can
act toward them?

The Roman church has title by prescription! Why then does it so often
take care to have the Emperors confirm its right? Why does it vaunt
the Donation, and its confirmation by the Caesars? If this alone is
sufficient, you seriously weaken it by not at the same time keeping
silent about the other title [by prescription]. Why don’t you keep silent
about that other? Obviously because this is not sufficient.

The Roman church has prescribed! And how can it have entered a
prescription where no title is established but only possession through
bad faith? Or if you deny that the possession was a case of bad faith, at
least you cannot deny that the faith [in the Donation] was stupid. Or, in
a matter of such importance and notoriety, ought ignorance of fact and
of law to be excused? Of fact, because Constantine did not make a grant
of Rome and the provinces; a fact of which a man of the common people
might well be ignorant, but not the supreme pontiff. Of law, because
they could not be granted; which any Christian ought to know. And so,
will stupid credulity give you a right to that which, had you been more
conscientious, would never have been yours? Well! Now, at least, after
I have shown that you held possession through ignorance and stupidity,
do you not lose that right, if it was such? and what ignorance unhappily
brought you, does not knowledge happily take away again? and does not
the property revert from the illegal to the legal master, perchance even
with interest? But if you continue to keep possession in the future, your
ignorance is henceforth changed into malice aforethought and into deceit,
and you become a fraudulent holder.

The Roman church has entered a prescription! O simpletons, O ignoramuses
in divine law! No length of years whatever can destroy a true title. Or
indeed, if I were captured by barbarians and supposed to have perished,
and should return again home after a hundred years of captivity, as a
claimant of my paternal inheritance, should I be excluded? What could be
more inhuman! And, to give another example, did Jephthah, the leader of
Israel, when the Ammonites demanded back the land from “the borders of
Arnon even unto Jabbok and unto Jordan,” reply, “Israel has prescribed
this now through three hundred years’ occupation”? Or did he not show
that the land which they demanded as theirs, had never been theirs, but
had been the Amorites’? And the proof that it did not belong to the
Ammonites was that they had never in the course of so many years claimed
it.[524]

The Roman church has prescribed! Keep still, impious tongue! You transfer
“prescription,” which is used of inanimate, senseless objects, to man;
and holding man in servitude is the more detestable, the longer it lasts.
Birds and wild animals do not let themselves be “prescribed,” but however
long the time of captivity, when they please and occasion is offered,
they escape. And may not man, held captive by man, escape?

Let me tell why the Roman pontiffs show fraud and craft rather than
ignorance in using war instead of law as their arbiter,—and I believe
that the first pontiffs to occupy the city [of Rome] and the other
towns did about the same. Shortly before I was born, Rome was led by an
incredible sort of fraud, I call those then present there to witness,
to accept papal government or rather usurpation, after it had long been
free.[525] The Pope was Boniface IX, fellow of Boniface VIII in fraud
as in name,—if they are to be called Boniface (benefactor) at all, who
are the worst malefactors. And when the Romans, after the treachery
had been detected, stirred up trouble, the good Pope, after the manner
of Tarquinius, struck off all the tallest poppies with his stick.[526]
When his successor, Innocent [VII], afterwards tried to imitate this
procedure he was driven out of the city. I will not speak of other Popes;
they have always held Rome down by force of arms. Suffice it to say
that as often as it could it has rebelled; as for instance, six years
ago,[527] when it could not obtain peace from Eugenius, and it was not
equal to the enemies which were besieging it, it besieged the Pope within
his house, and would not permit him to go out before he either made peace
with the enemy or turned over the administration of the city to the
citizens. But he preferred to leave the city in disguise, with a single
companion in flight, rather than to gratify the citizens in their just
and fair demands. If you give them the choice, who does not know that
they would choose liberty rather than slavery?

We may suspect the same of the other cities, which are kept in servitude
by the supreme pontiff, though they ought rather to be liberated by him
from servitude. It would take too long to enumerate how many cities taken
from their enemies the Roman people once set free; it went so far that
Titus Flaminius [Flamininus] set free the whole of Greece, which had been
under Antiochus,[528] and directed that it enjoy its own laws. But the
Pope, as may be seen, lies in wait assiduously against the liberty of
countries; and therefore one after another, they daily, as opportunity
affords, rebel. (Look at Bologna just now.) And if at any time they
have voluntarily accepted papal rule, as may happen when another danger
threatens them from elsewhere, it must not be supposed that they have
accepted it in order to enslave themselves, so that they could never
withdraw their necks from the yoke, so that neither themselves nor those
born afterwards should have control of their own affairs; for this would
be utterly iniquitous.

    “Of our own will we came to you, supreme pontiff, that you
    might govern us; of our own will we now leave you again, that
    you may govern us no more. If you have any claim against us,
    let the balance of debit and credit be determined. But you
    want to govern us against our will, as though we were wards of
    yours, we who perhaps could govern you more wisely than you do
    yourself! Add to this the wrongs all the time being committed
    against this state either by you or by your magistrates. We
    call God to witness that our wrong drives us to revolt, as
    once Israel did from Rehoboam. And what great wrong did they
    have? What [a small] part of our calamity is the [mere] payment
    of heavier taxes! What then if you impoverish the Republic?
    You _have_ impoverished it. What if you despoil our temples?
    You _have_ despoiled them. What if you outrage maidens and
    matrons? You _have_ outraged them. What if you drench the city
    with the blood of its citizens? You _have_ drenched it. Must
    we endure all this? Nay, rather, since you have ceased to be
    a father to us, shall we not likewise forget to be sons? This
    people summoned you, supreme pontiff, to be a father, or if it
    better pleases you, to be their lord, not to be an enemy and a
    hangman; you do not choose to act the father or the lord, but
    the enemy and the hangman. But, since we are Christians, we
    will not imitate your ferocity and your impiety, even though
    by the law of reprisal we might do so, nor will we bare the
    avenging sword above your head; but first your abdication
    and removal, and then we will adopt another father or lord.
    Sons may flee from vicious parents who brought them into the
    world; may we not flee from you, not our real father but an
    adopted one who treats us in the worst way possible? But do you
    attend to your priestly functions; and don’t take your stand
    in the north, and thundering there hurl your lightning and
    thunderbolts against this people and others.”

But why need I say more in this case, absolutely self-evident as it is? I
contend that not only did Constantine not grant such great possessions,
not only could the Roman pontiff not hold them by prescription, but
that even if either were a fact, nevertheless either right would have
been extinguished by the crimes of the possessors, for we know that the
slaughter and devastation of all Italy and of many of the provinces
has flowed from this single source. If the source is bitter, so is
the stream; if the root is unclean, so are the branches; if the first
fruit is unholy, so is the lump.[529] And _vice versa_, if the stream is
bitter, the source must be stopped up; if the branches are unclean, the
fault comes from the root; if the lump is unholy, the first fruit must
also be accursed. Can we justify the principle of papal power when we
perceive it to be the cause of such great crimes and of such great and
varied evils?

Wherefore I declare, and cry aloud, nor, trusting God, will I fear men,
that in my time no one in the supreme pontificate has been either a
faithful or a prudent steward, but they have gone so far from giving food
to the household of God that they have devoured it as food and a mere
morsel of bread! And the Pope himself makes war on peaceable people,
and sows discord among states and princes. The Pope both thirsts for
the goods of others and drinks up his own: he is what Achilles calls
Agamemnon, Δημοβόρος βασιλεύς, “a people-devouring king.” The Pope not
only enriches himself at the expense of the republic, as neither Verres
nor Catiline nor any other embezzler dared to do, but he enriches himself
at the expense of even the church and the Holy Spirit as old Simon
Magus himself would abhor doing. And when he is reminded of this and is
reproved by good people occasionally, he does not deny it, but openly
admits it, and boasts that he is free to wrest from its occupants by any
means whatever the patrimony given the church by Constantine; as though
when it was recovered Christianity would be in an ideal state,—and not
rather the more oppressed by all kinds of crimes, extravagances and
lusts; if indeed it can be oppressed more, and if there is any crime yet
uncommitted!

And so, that he may recover the other parts of the Donation, money
wickedly stolen from good people he spends more wickedly, and he supports
armed forces, mounted and foot, with which all places are plagued, while
Christ is dying of hunger and nakedness in so many thousands of paupers.
Nor does he know, the unworthy reprobate, that while he works to deprive
secular powers of what belongs to them, they in turn are either led by
his bad example, or driven by necessity (granting that it may not be a
real necessity) to make off with what belongs to the officers of the
church. And so there is no religion anywhere, no sanctity, no fear of
God; and, what I shudder to mention, impious men pretend to find in the
Pope an excuse for all their crimes. For he and his followers furnish
an example of every kind of crime, and with Isaiah and Paul, we can say
against the Pope and those about him: “The name of God is blasphemed
among the Gentiles through you, you who teach others, but do not teach
yourselves; who preach against stealing and yourselves are robbers; who
abhor idols, and commit sacrilege; who make your boast of the law and
the pontificate, and through breaking the law dishonor God, the true
pontiff.”[530]

But if the Roman people through excess of wealth lost the well-known
quality of true Romans; if Solomon likewise fell into idolatry through
the love of women; should we not recognize that the same thing happens in
the case of a supreme pontiff and the other clergy? And should we then
think that God would have permitted Sylvester to accept an occasion of
sin? I will not suffer this injustice to be done that most holy man, I
will not allow this affront to be offered that most excellent pontiff,
that he should be said to have accepted empires, kingdoms, provinces,
things which those who wish to enter the clergy are wont, indeed, to
renounce. Little did Sylvester possess, little also the other holy
pontiffs, those men whose presence was inviolable even among enemies, as
Leo’s presence overawed and broke down the wild soul of the barbarian
king, which the strength of Rome had not availed to break down nor
overawe.[531] But recent supreme pontiffs, that is, those having riches
and pleasures in abundance, seem to work hard to make themselves just as
impious and foolish as those early pontiffs were wise and holy, and to
extinguish the lofty praises of those men by every possible infamy. Who
that calls himself a Christian can calmly bear this?

However, in this my first discourse I do not wish to urge princes and
peoples to restrain the Pope in his unbridled course as he roams about,
and compel him to stay within bounds, but only to warn him, and perhaps
he has already learned the truth, to betake himself from others’ houses
to his own, and to put to port before the raging billows and savage
tempests. But if he refuses, then I will have recourse to another
discourse far bolder than this.[532] If only I may sometime see, and
indeed I can scarcely wait to see it, especially if it is brought about
by my counsel, if only I may see the time when the Pope is the vicar of
Christ alone, and not of Caesar also! If only there would no longer be
heard the fearful cry, “Partisans for the Church,” “Partisans against the
Church,” “The Church against the Perugians,” “against the Bolognese”!
It is not the church, but the Pope, that fights against Christians; the
church fights against “spiritual wickedness in high places.”[533] Then
the Pope will be the Holy Father in fact as well as in name, Father of
all, Father of the church; nor will he stir up wars among Christians, but
those stirred up by others he, through his apostolic judgment and papal
prerogative, will stop.[534]


FOOTNOTES

[411] The meaning of this word in this connection is unknown. The
chapters to which it is prefixed are for the most part supposed to have
been early marginal annotations afterwards incorporated in the text of
the Decretum. Cf. Friedberg, Corpus Iuris Canonici, vol. I, Prolegomena,
p. lxxxvi.

[412] The subject of chapters xi and xii is, “The Emperors must be under
the Pontiffs, not over them.” Chapters xiii and xiv continue the same
subject.

[413] _retro_ was used at Rome in the latter part of the eighth century
with the peculiar meaning of “still” or “again.” This is one of the
clues to the date and place of the document. Henderson’s translation is
erroneous.

[414] Ps. cxxxix, 7.

[415] I Tim. v, 20.

[416] Valla’s error for Marcellinus. The whole story is apocryphal.

[417] A reference to the reforming councils of the fifteenth century.

[418] Valla was in the service of the king of Sicily and of Naples when
he wrote this.

[419] The phrase “Italy and the western provinces,” in the Donation of
Constantine, meant to the writer of that document the Italian peninsula,
including Lombardy, Venetia, Istria, and adjacent islands. Other
countries probably did not occur to him as part of the Roman Empire.
Valla, however, followed the current interpretation.

[420] In many versions of the Life of Sylvester there is a marvellous
story of an enormous serpent, finally subdued by the saint. Cf. _infra_,
p. 143; Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, pp. 161 _et
seq._; Mombritius, Sanctuarium, Sive Vitae collectae ex codibus (Milan,
_c._ 1479), v, ii, pp. 279 _et seq._, also Paris edition, 1910. For the
story of Bel and the Dragon, cf. the book of that name in the Apocrypha.

[421] I have made two English paragraphs of the rather long Latin one.
[Ed.]

[422] Acts xx, 35.

[423] Matt. x, 8.

[424] I Cor. ix, 15.

[425] Rom. xi, 13.

[426] Quoted, freely, from Matt. vi, 19 and Luke x, 4.

[427] Quoted, freely, from Matt. xix, 24; Mk. x, 25; Luke xviii, 25.

[428] I Tim. vi, 7-11.

[429] Acts vi, 2.

[430] II Tim. ii, 4.

[431] Jer. xlviii, 10, quoted freely.

[432] Free quotations from John xxi, 15-17.

[433] John xviii, 36.

[434] Matt. iv, 17.

[435] Matt. xx, 25-28.

[436] I Cor. vi, 2-5, distorted in punctuation and meaning. Paul argues
that cases should be settled inside the church, and that even the
humblest Christians are competent to act as judges; Valla quotes him to
show that church leaders are not to be judges.

[437] Quotations are from Matt. xvii, 25-26.

[438] Mk. xi, 17.

[439] John xii, 47.

[440] Matt. xxvi, 52.

[441] Matt. xvi, 19.

[442] Matt. xvi. 18.

[443] Matt. iv, 8-9, free quotation.

[444] Matt. xi, 28-30, with the phrases transposed.

[445] Matt. xxii, 21.

[446] Eutropius, Breviarum ab urbe condita, X, xvi, 1.

[447] _Ibid._, X, xvii, 1 and 2.

[448] The antipope elected by the Council of Basle in 1439. This
reference is one of the clues to the date of Valla’s treatise.

[449] Valla’s statement about Eusebius’ Church History is slightly
overdrawn. Some passages, while not definitely saying that Constantine
was a Christian from boyhood, would naturally be construed as implying
this, especially when taken in connection with the chapter headings
in use long before Valla’s time; e.g., ix, 9, §§ 1-12. In his Life of
Constantine, i, 27-32, however, Eusebius tells the story of the Emperor’s
conversion in the campaign against Maxentius in 312 by the heavenly
apparition, thus implying that he was not previously a Christian. Valla
does not seem to have known of this latter work. Nor is he aware of the
passage in Jerome, Chron. ad. ann., 2353, that Constantine was baptized
near the end of his life by Eusebius of Nicomedia.

[450] This is an extract from a spurious letter purporting to be from
Melchiades, or Miltiades; as palpable a forgery as the Donation of
Constantine itself. The whole letter is given in Migne, P. L., viii,
column 566.

For the question when Constantine became a Christian, and of his
relations with the Popes and the church, cf. Coleman, Constantine the
Great and Christianity, with references to sources and literature.

[451] A number of chapters in Gratian’s Decretum added after Gratian have
this word at their head, the one containing the Donation of Constantine
among them. Cf. Friedberg’s edition of the Decretum Gratiani, Prima pars,
dist. xcvi, c. xiii, in his Corpus Iuris Canonici, Leipsic, 1879-1881.

[452] Decretum Gratiani, Prima pars, dist. xcvi, c. xiii; in Friedberg,
Corpus Iuris Canonici, vol. II, p. 342.

[453] _Ibid._, Pars prima, dist. xv, c. iii, Palea 19; in Friedberg, vol.
II.

[454] Cf. Voragine, Golden Legend, trans. by Wm. Caxton, rev. by Ellis
(London, 1900).

[455] December 31.

[456] A reference to the story of the three young men in the bodyguard of
Darius; cf. I Esdras iii and iv.

[457] In the following section my translation of the phrases of the
Donation is harmonized so far as possible with the translation in E. F.
Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages.

[458] Cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, p. 224, ll. 8
_et seq._

[459] Virgil, Aeneid, ii, 77-78. Dryden’s translation.

[460] The text of the Donation which Valla used, though apparently in
a copy of Gratian’s Decretum extant in his time, differs here and in
a number of other places, from the texts which we have, whether in
Gratian’s Decretum, or in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.

[461] The word _satrap_ was in fact applied to higher officials at
Rome only in the middle of the eighth century. Scheffer-Boichorst,
Mitteilungen des Instituts f. österreichische Geschichtsforschung, x
(1889), p. 315.

[462] Tertullian tells this apocryphal story in his Apology, chaps. 5 and
21. For a translation of letters alleged to have been written to Tiberius
by Pilate, see Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff (New
York, 1890-1897), vol. VIII, pp. 459-463.

[463] Valla’s argument in this paragraph is partly based on the defective
text of the Donation which he used, cf. _supra_, p. 85, note 2. Zeumer’s
text would be translated, “all the Roman people who are subject to the
glory of our rule,” and Friedberg’s, “all the people subject to the
glorious rule of Rome.”

[464] Virgil, Aeneid, vi, 852.

[465] The conjunction “seu” in classical Latin meant, as Valla insists,
“or”; in the eighth century it was often used with the meaning “and.” The
forger of the Donation used it in the latter sense. Valla did not see the
significance of this usage for dating the forgery.

[466] Cf. _supra_, p. 85, note 2.

[467] “firmos patronos,”—this use of “firmus” characterizes the style of
Pope Paul I (757-767). See Scheffer-Boichorst, _op. cit._, p. 311.

[468] Rev. v, 12; with variations.

[469] Part of this criticism rests upon the peculiarities of the text of
the Donation which Valla used.

[470] Cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, pp. 148-151,
161-164.

[471] Ps. lxxxi, 12.

[472] Rom. i, 28, with the person of the verb changed.

[473] Matt. xxvii, 28; John xix, 2.

[474] Here, as was common in medieval Latin, “seu” is the equivalent of
“et,” and means “and.” Valla’s criticism is correct, but might go further
in fixing the time of the forgery. Cf. _supra_, p. 91, note 1.

[475] Lucan, Pharsalia, i, 7.

[476] In our best texts of the Donation this word is “banda,” used in the
eighth century for “colors” or “flags.”

[477] Horace, Ars Poetica, l. 97.

[478] Julius Valerius, Res Gestae Alexandri, i, 37.

[479] At Rome in the eighth century, the time of the forgery, “militia”
indicated a civil rank, rather than soldiers.

[480] The allusion is to the title of Patrician given to Pippin and to
his sons as defenders of the Roman See.

[481] The office of consul as it existed in the Republic and the Empire
disappeared in the time of the German invasions. The word was later
applied quite differently, to a group, practically a social class, at
Rome.

[482] Where Valla’s text of the Donation reads “concubitorum,” Zeumer’s
reads “excubiorum” [guards].

[483] Martial, XIV, 141 (140).

[484] Valla for this part of his criticism uses the rather unintelligible
order of words found in most texts of the Donation, instead of the more
intelligible order which he used in his earlier quotations. Cf. pp. 102,
103.

[485] Valla’s text of the Donation in this paragraph differs greatly from
Zeumer’s, Hinschius’, and Friedberg’s. It is not very clear in any of
the texts whether the intent is to give the Pope power to take any one
whomsoever into the clergy and thus relieve him from civil and military
duties, or to prevent the Roman nobility from forcing their way into
ecclesiastical offices against the will of the Pope.

[486] Ps. xxi, 3, with variation.

[487] Valla does not, here, quote his own text of the Donation correctly.

[488] This singular confusion about the crown in the Donation is
explained by Brunner, Festgabe für Rudolf von Gneist, pp. 25 _et seq._,
as giving the Pope the possession, but not the use, of the imperial
crown, thus paving the way for his prerogative of conferring the crown
upon Louis the Pious in 816. Scheffer-Boichorst takes the whole episode
as an attempt of the forger to glorify Sylvester by having the emperor
honor him with the imperial crown, and having the Pope display the
clerical humility (and pride) of rejecting it.

[489] Valla’s text of the Donation here has “sive” for “seu,” cf.
_supra_, p. 91, note 1. In the whole paragraph there are many deviations
from other texts of the Donation.

[490] Cf. _supra_, pp. 41 _et seq._, 49 _et seq._

[491] This phrase as used in the Donation probably meant Lombardy,
Venetia and Istria; i.e., practically, northern, as distinct from
peninsular, Italy. Cf. _supra_, p. 27, note 2, also, Döllinger,
Papstfabeln (ed. Friedrich), p. 122, note. In classical Latin it would
have been, as Valla insists, a vague term.

[492] Cf. _supra_, pp. 91, 109.

[493] Cf. _supra_, p. 95.

[494] King [rex] was a forbidden title at Rome after the time of the
Tarquins.

[495] A parody on Matt. v, 18.

[496] Rev. xxii, 18-19.

[497] “Pagina” in medieval Latin often meant “document.”

[498] In the Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne, i, 454) the keys of
Ravenna and other cities included in the so-called Donation of Pippin are
said to have been placed in “the confession of St. Peter” (i.e., before
his tomb). This association seems to have been common in the eighth
century.

[499] Cf. _supra_, p. 85.

[500] In the best text of the Donation this is not called the fourth
consulship of Gallicanus. In any case, however, the date is impossible;
no such consulship as this is known.

[501] II Kings xv, 5.

[502] This apocryphal story ran that the Sibyl prophesied of Christ, and
that Augustus erected an altar to him.

[503] The Temple of Peace was built by Vespasian and was not destroyed
until it was burned down in the time of Commodus.

[504] This episode in the Gesta, or Actus, or Vita, Silvestri, as may
be gathered from Valla’s subsequent discussion, involves an enormous
serpent, dwelling in a cave under the Tarpeian rock, devastating the
entire city of Rome with his poisonous breath, appeased only by maidens
being given him to devour, and finally bound forever in his cave by
Sylvester. For references, cf. Coleman, Constantine, etc., pp. 161, 168.

[505] Apparently Valla assumes that the Gesta Silvestri was written by a
Greek named Eusebius, but not Eusebius of Caesarea, author of the Church
History. Cf., however, Coleman, Constantine, pp. 161-168.

[506] Satura, x, 174-175.

[507] Cf. the story of Bel and the Dragon in the Apocrypha.

[508] Factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri novem, V, vi, 2.

[509] _Ibid._, I, viii, 3.

[510] Livy, VII, 6, incorrectly summarized.

[511] Livy, Preface, 7.

[512] Livy, V, 21, 9.

[513] Terentius Varro, de lingua latina, lib. v, 148-150.

[514] Valerius Maximus, factorum et dictorum memorabilium, lib. i, viii,
7.

[515] _Ibid._, i, viii, 3.

[516] _Ibid._, i, viii, 4, with the substitution of “seen” for “given.”

[517] In a disputation between Sylvester and Jewish rabbis the rabbis
are said to have killed a bull by shouting the sacred name, Jehovah, and
Sylvester is said to have brought him to life by whispering the name of
Christ. Cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great, etc., p. 163.

[518] These stories were to be found, among other places, in the
Mirabilia urbis Romae, a guidebook to Rome dating from the twelfth
century. English translation by F. M. Nichols, The Marvels of Rome
(London and Rome, 1889), pp. 19-20.

[519] This clause, though not in the MS. or Hutten, seems necessary to
the sense of the following clause, so I have translated it from Bonneau’s
text. In the Vita Silvestri we are told that the pagan priests ordered
Constantine to bathe in infants’ blood in order to cure himself of
leprosy. Cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great, etc., p. 162.

[520] It will be remembered that Valla wrote this while in the service
of the King of Naples, who was in conflict with imperial as well as with
papal claims.

[521] A forgery of the eleventh century. Cf. E. Emerton, Medieval Europe,
p. 55.

[522] Gossip had it that Boniface VIII induced his predecessor to
abdicate by angelic warnings, which he himself produced through
improvised speaking tubes.

[523] The assassination of Vitelleschi, supposedly by order of the Pope,
took place in March, 1440, and is one of the means of dating Valla’s
treatise.

[524] Judges xi, 12-28.

[525] For these episodes, cf. Creighton, History of the Papacy, etc.,
vol. I, _passim_.

[526] Tarquinius, by striking down the tallest poppies with his cane,
gave the hint that the leaders of the opposition should be executed; cf.
Livy, I, 54.

[527] The ensuing episode occurred in 1434 and thus fixes the date of the
writing of this passage as 1439 or 1440. Cf. Mancini, Vita di Lorenzo
Valla, p. 163.

[528] Flamininus had defeated Philip V of Macedonia, and it was from
Philip, not Antiochus, that he “freed” Greece.

[529] A reminiscence of Rom. xi, 16.

[530] Free quotations from Rom. ii, 21-24.

[531] A reference to the well-known interview in which Leo I persuaded
Attila to desist from his invasion of Italy.

[532] This other discourse did not appear.

[533] Eph. vi, 12.

[534] The MS., Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314, on which this translation is based,
was finished December 7, 1451.

                 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA



*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of Constantine" ***


Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.