[Page 20]

LAURENTII VALLENSISDE FALSO CREDITA ET EMENTITA

CONSTANTINI DONATIONEDECLAMATIO.[1]

Plures a me libri compluresque emissi suntin omni fere doctrinarum genere. In quibusquod a nonnullis magnisque et longo iamaevo probatis auctoribus dissentio cum sint,qui indigne ferant meque ut temerariumsacrilegumque criminentur, quid tandemnunc facturi quidam putandi sunt?Quantopere in me debacchaturi, et si facultasdetur, quam avide me ad suppliciumfestinanterque rapturi, qui non tantumadversus mortuos scribo, sed adversus etiamvivos; nec in unum alterumve, sed inplurimos; nec contra privatos modo, verumetiam contra magistratus! At quosmagistratus! Nempe summum pontificem,qui non temporali solum armatus est gladio,regum ac principum more, sed ecclesiasticoquoque, ut ab eo neque subter ipsum, ut sicloquar, clipeum alicuius principis[2]protegere te possis, quominusexcommunicatione, anathemate,exsecratione[3] feriare. Quod si prudenter, utdixit, sic fecisse existimatus est, qui inquit,"Nolo scribere in eos qui possunt

[Page 21]

THE DISCOURSE OF LORENZO VALLA ONTHE

FORGERY OF THE ALLEGED DONATION OF CONSTANTINE

I have published many books, a great many, inalmost every branch of learning. Inasmuch as thereare those who are shocked that in these I disagreewith certain great writers already approved by longusage, 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 isafforded how eagerly and how quickly they willdrag me to punishment! For I am writing against notonly the dead, but the living also, not this man orthat, but a host, not merely private individuals, butthe authorities. And what authorities! Even thesupreme pontiff, armed not only with the temporalsword as are kings and princes, but with the spiritualalso, 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 bothspoken and acted prudently who said "I will notwrite against those who can write 'Proscribed,'" howmuch more would it seem that I ought to follow

Lorenzo Valla,Discourse on the Forgery

of the Alleged Donation of ConstantineIn Latin and English

English translation by Christopher B. Coleman (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1922).

Hanover Historical Texts ProjectScanned and proofread by Jonathan Perry, February 2001.

The Discourse of Lorenzo Vallaon the Forgery of the Alleged Donation of Constantine.

20­183

proscribere," quanto mihi magis idemfaciendum

[Page 22] esse videatur in eum qui neproscriptioni quidem relinquat[4] locum,quique invisibilibus me potestatis suaeiaculis persequatur, ut iure possim dicere,"Quo ibo a spiritu tuo et quo a tua fugiamfacie!" Nisi forte putamus patientius haecesse laturum summum pontificem[5] quamceteri[6] fecerent. Nihil minus, si quidemPaulo, quod bona se conscientiaconversatum esse dicerat, Ananias, princepssacerdotum, coram tribuno qui iudex sedbat,iussit os verberari;[7] et Phasur eadempraeditus dignitate, Ieremiam ob loquendilibertatem coniecit in carcerem. Sed illumtribunus ac praeses, hunc rex adversusiniuriam pontificis tutari et potuit et voluit.Me vero quis tribunus, quis praeses, quis rexe manibus summi sacerdotis, si me rapueritille, etiam ut velit eripere poterit?

Verum non est causa cur me duplex hicpericuli terror conturbet arceatque aproposito. Nam neque contra ius fasquesummo pontifici licet aut ligarequempiam[8] aut solvere, et in defendendaveritate atque iustitia profundere animamsummae virtutis, summae laudis, summipraemii est. An vero multi ob terrestrempatriam defendendam mortis adierediscrimen? Ego ob caelestem[9] patriamassequendam (assequuntur autem eam quiDeo placent, non qui homnibus) mortisdiscrimine deterrebor? Facessat igiturtrepidatio; procul abeant metus; timoresexcidant! Forti animo, magna fiducia, bonaspe, defendenda est causa veritatis, causaiustitiae, causa Dei!

Neque enim is verus est habendus orator quibene scit[10] dicere nisi et dicere audeat.Audeamus itaque accusare eum[11]quicumque digna committit accusatione. Etqui in omnes peccat, unius pro omnium vocecarpatur. At non debeo palam obiurgarefratrem, sed inter me et ipsum. Immo,"publice peccans," et qui privatum consiliumnon admitteret, "publice arguendus est, utceteri timorem habeant." An non Paulus,cuius verbis modo sum usus, in

[Page 23] the same course toward him who goes farbeyond proscription, who would pursue me with theinvisible darts of his authority, so that I could rightlysay, "Whither shall I go from thy spirit, or whithershall I flee from thy presence?" [1] Unless perhapswe think the supreme pontiff would bear theseattacks more patiently than would others. Far fromit; for Ananias, the high priest, in the presence of thetribune who sat as judge, ordered Paul when he saidhe lived in good conscience to be smitten on themouth; and Pashur, holding the same rank, threwJeremiah into prison for the boldness of his speech.The tribune and the governor, indeed, were able andwilling to protect the former, and the king the latter,from priestly violence. But what tribune, whatgovernor, what king, even if he wanted to, couldsnatch me from the hands of the chief priest if heshould seize me?

But there is no reason why this awful, twofold perilshould trouble me and turn me from my purpose; forthe supreme pontiff may not bind nor loose any onecontrary to law and justice. And to give one's life indefense of truth and justice is the path of the highestvirtue, the highest honor, the highest reward. Havenot many undergone the hazard of death for thedefense of their terrestrial fatherland? In theattainment of the celestial fatherland (they attain itwho please God, not men), shall I be deterred by thehazard of death? Away then with trepidation, letfears far remove, let doubts pass away. With a bravesoul, with utter fidelity, with good hope, the cause oftruth must be defended, the cause of justice, thecause of God.

Nor is he to be esteemed a true orator who knowshow to speak well, unless he also has the courage tospeak. So let us have the courage to accuse him,whoever he is, that commits crimes calling foraccusation. And let him who sins against all becalled to account by the voice of one speaking forall. Yet perhaps I ought not to reprove my brother inpublic, but by himself. Rather, "Them that sin" anddo not accept private admonition "rebuke before all,that others also may fear." [2] Or did not Paul,whose

[Page 24] os Petrum coram ecclesiareprehendit, quia reprehensibilis erat? Et hoc

[Page 25] words I have just used, reprove Peter tohis face in the presence of the church because he

ad nostram doctrinam scriptum reliquit.­Atnon sum Paulus, qui Petrum possimreprehendere. Immo Paulus sum, qui Paulumimitor. Quemadmodum, quod multo plus est,unus cum Deo spiritus efficior, cum studiosemandatis illius obtempero. Neque aliquemsua dignitas ab increpationibus tutum redditquae Petrum non reddidit, multosque alioseodem praeditos gradu; ut Marcellum quoddiis libasset, ut Celestinum quod cumNestorio haeretico[12] sentiret, ut quosdametiam nostra memoria quos ab inferioribus(quis enim non est inferior papa?)reprehensos scimus, ut taceam condemnatos.

Neque vero id ago ut quemquam[13] cupiaminsectari et in eum quasi Philippicas scribere,hoc enim a me facinus procul absit, sed uterrorem a mentibus hominum convellam, uteos a vitiis sceleribusque vel admonendo velincrepando summoveam. Non ausim dicereut alii per me edocti luxuriantem nimiissarmentis papalem sedem, quae Christi vineaest, ferro coerceant, et plenas uvas nongraciles labruscas ferre compellant. Quodcum facio, numquis[14] erit qui aut mihi osaut sibi aures velit occludere, ne dicamsupplicium mortemque proponere? Huncego, si hoc faciat, etiam si papa sit, quiddicam esse, bonumne pastorem, an aspidemsurdam quae nolit exaudire vocemincantantis, velit eiusdem membra morsuvenenoque praestringere?

Scio iamdudum exspectare[15] aureshominum quidnam pontificibus Romaniscriminis[16] impingam. Profecto ingens, sivesupinae ignorantiae, sive immanis avaritiaequae est idolorum servitus, sive imperandivanitatis cuius crudelitas semper est comes.Nam aliquot iam saeculis aut non[17]intellexerunt donationem Constantinicommenticiam[18] fictamque esse, aut ipsifinxerunt, sive posteriores in maiorumsuorum dolis vestigia imprimentes pro veraquam

needed reproof? And he left this written for ourinstruction. But perhaps I am not a Paul that I shouldreprove a Peter. Yea, I am a Paul because I imitatePaul. Just as, and this is far greater, I become one inspirit with God when I diligently observe hiscommandments. Nor is any one made immune fromchiding by an eminence which did not make Peterimmune, and many others possessed of the samerank; for instance, Marcellus,[3] who offered alibation to the gods, and Celestine [I] whoentertained the Nestorian heresy, and certain evenwithin our own memory whom we know werereproved, to say nothing of those condemned, bytheir inferiors, for who is not inferior to the Pope?[4]

It is not my aim to inveigh against any one and writeso­called Philippics against him­be that villainy farfrom me­but to root out error from men's minds, tofree them from vices and crimes by eitheradmonition or reproof. I would not dare to say [thatmy aim is] that others, taught by me, should prunewith steel the papal see, which is Christ's vineyard,rank with overabundant shoots, and compel it to bearrich grapes instead of meager wildings. When I dothat, is there any one who will want to close eithermy mouth or his own ears, much less proposepunishment and death? If one should do so, even if itwere the Pope, what should I call him, a goodshepherd, or a deaf viper which would not choose toheed the voice of the charmer, but to strike his limbswith its poisonous bite?

I know that for a long time now men's ears arewaiting to hear the offense with which I charge theRoman pontiffs. It is, indeed, an enormous one, dueeither to supine ignorance, or to gross avarice whichis the slave of idols, or to pride of empire of whichcruelty is ever the companion. For during somecenturies now, either they have not known that theDonation of Constantine is spurious and forged, orelse they themselves forged it, and their successorswalking in the same way of deceit as their elders

[Page 26] falsam cognoscerent defenderunt,dedecorantes pontificatus maiestatem,dedecorantes veterum pontificummemoriam, dedecorantes religionemChristianam, et omnia caedibus, ruinis,[19]flagitiisque miscentes. Suam esse aiunturbem Romam; suum regnum Siciliae

[Page 27] have defended as true what they knew tobe false, dishonoring the majesty of the pontificate,dishonoring the memory of ancient pontiffs,dishonoring the Christian religion, confoundingeverything with murders, disasters and crimes. Theysay the city of Rome is theirs, theirs the kingdom ofSicily and of Naples,[5] the whole of Italy, the

Neapolitanumque; suam universam Italiam,Gallias, Hispanias,[20] Germanos,Britannos; suum denique occidentem; haecenim cuncta in ipsa donationis paginacontineri. Ergo haec omnia tua sunt, summepontifex? Omnia tibi in animo estrecuperare? Omnes reges ac principesoccidentis spoliare urbibus, aut cogere utannua tibi tributa pensitent, sententia est?

At ego contra existimo iustius licereprincipibus spoliare te imperio omni quodobtines. Nam, ut ostendam, donatio illa undenatum esse suum ius summi pontificesvolunt Silvestro pariter et Constantino fuitincognita.

Verum antequam ad confutandam donationispaginam venio, quod unum istorumpatrocinium est, non modo falsum verumetiam stolidum, ordo postulat ut altiusrepetam. Et primum dicam non tales fuisseConstantinum Silvestrumque, illum quidemqui donare vellet, qui iure donare posset, quiut in manum alteri ea traderet in sua haberetpotestate, hunc autem qui vellet accipere,quique iure accepturus[21] foret. Secundoloco, si haec non essent, quae verissimaatque clarissima sunt, neque hunc acceptasseneque illum tradidisse possessionem rerumquae dicuntur donatae, sed eas semper inarbitrio et imperio Caesarum permansisse.Tertio, nihil datum Silvestro a Constantino,sed priori pontifici ante quem etiambaptismum[22] acceperat, donaque illamediocria fuisse, quibus

Gauls, the Spains, the Germans, the Britons, indeedthe whole West; for all these are contained in theinstrument of the Donation itself.[6] So all these areyours, supreme pontiff? And it is your purpose torecover them all? To despoil all kings and princes ofthe West of their cities or compel them to pay you ayearly tribute, is that your plan?

I, on the contrary, think it fairer to let the princesdespoil you of all the empire you hold. For, as I shallshow, that Donation whence the supreme pontiffswill have their right derived was unknown equally toSylvester and to Constantine.

But before I come to the refutation of the instrumentof the Donation, which is their one defense, not onlyfalse but even stupid, the right order demands that Igo further back. And first, I shall show thatConstantine and Sylvester were not such men thatthe former would choose to give, would have thelegal right to give, or would have it in his power togive those lands to another, or that the latter wouldbe willing to accept them or could legally have doneso. In the second place, if this were not so, though itis absolutely true and obvious, [I shall show that infact] the latter did not receive nor the former givepossession of what is said to have been granted, butthat it always remained under the sway and empireof the Caesars. In the third place, [I shall show that]nothing was given to Sylvester by Constantine, butto an earlier Pope (and Constantine had receivedbaptism even before that pontificate), and that thegrants were incon­

[Page 28] papa degere vitam posset. Quarto,falso dici donationis exemplum aut apudDecreta reperiri aut ex historia Silvestri essesumptum, quod neque in illa neque in[23]ulla historia invenitur. In eoque quaedamcontraria, impossibilia, stulta, barbara,ridicula contineri. Praeterea loquar dequorundam[24] aliorum Caesarum velsimulata vel frivola donatione. Ubi exabundanti adiciam, si Silvester possedisset,tamen, sive illo sive quovis alio pontifice apossessione deiecto, post tantam temporisintercapedinem nec divino nec humanoiureposse repeti. Postremo, ea quae a summopontifice tenentur nullius temporislongitudine potuisse[25] praescribi.

[Page 29] siderable, for the mere subsistence of thePope. Fourth, that it is not true either that a copy ofthe 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 iscomprised of contradictions, impossibilities,stupidities, barbarisms and absurdities. Further Ishall speak of the pretended or mock donation ofcertain other Caesars. Then by way of redundance Ishall add that even had Sylvester taken possession,nevertheless, he or some other pontiff having beendispossessed, possession could not be resumed aftersuch a long interval under either divine or humanlaw. Last [I shall show] that the possessions whichare now held by the supreme pontiff could not in anylength of time, be validated by prescription.

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

Non est committendum ut publicam et quasiCaesaream causam non maiore quamprivatae solent ore agamus. Itaque quasiin[26] contione[27] regum ac principumorans, ut certe facio, nam mea haec oratio inmanus eorum ventura est, libet tamquampraesentes et in conspectu positos alloqui.Vos appeho reges ac principes, difficile estenim privatum hominem animi regiiconcipere imaginem, vestram menteminquiro, conscientiam scrutor, testimoniumpostulo. Numquid[28] vestrum quispiam, sifuisset Constantini loco, faciendum sibiputasset ut urbem Romam, patriam suam,caput orbis terrarum, reginam civitatum,potentissimam, nobilissimam, ditissimampopulorum, triumphatricem nationum, etipso aspectu sacram, liberalitatis gratiadonaret alteri, et se ad humile oppidumconferret deinde Byzantium? donaretpraeterea una cum Roma Italiam, nonprovinciam sed provinciarum victricem:donaret tres Gallias: donaret duas Hispanias:donaret Germanos: donaret Britannos: totumdonaret occidentem: et se altero exduobus[29] Imperii oculis orbaret? Hoc ego,ut quis faciat compos mentis, adduci nonpossum ut credam.

Quid enim vobis exspectatius, quidiucundius,[30] quid gratius con­

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

It would not do to argue a public and quasi imperialcase without more dignity of utterance than is usualin private cases. And so speaking as in an assemblyof kings and princes, as I assuredly do, for thisoration of mine will come into their hands, I chooseto address an audience, as it were, face to face. I callupon you, kings and princes, for it is difficult for aprivate person to form a picture of a royal mind; Iseek your thought, I search your heart, I ask yourtestimony. Is there any one of you who, had he beenin Constantine's place, would have thought that hemust set about giving to another out of puregenerosity the city of Rome, his fatherland, the headof the world, the queen of states, the most powerful,the noblest and the most opulent of peoples, thevictor of the nations, whose very form is sacred, andbetaking himself thence to an humble little town,Byzantium; giving with Rome Italy, not a provincebut the mistress of provinces; giving the three Gauls;giving the two Spains; the Germans; the Britons; thewhole West; depriving himself of one of the twoeyes of his empire? That any one in possession ofhis senses would do this, I cannot be brought tobelieve.

What ordinarily befalls you that is more lookedforward to,

[Page 30] tingere solet, quam accessionemimperiis vestris vos regnisque adiungere, etlonge lateque quam maxime proferredicionem? In hoc, ut videre videor, omnisvestra cura, omnis cogitatio, omnis labordies[31] noctesque consumitur. Ex hocpraecipua spes gloriae, propter hocvoluptates relinquitis, propter hoc millepericula aditis, propter hoc carissima[32]pignora, propter hoc partem corporis aequoanimo amittitis. Siquidem neminem vestrumaut audivi aut legi a conatu ampliandiimperii fuisse deterritum, quod aut luminis,aut manus, aut cruris, aut alterius membriiacturam fecisset. Quin ipse hic ardor atquehaec late dominandi cupiditas, ut quisquemaxime potens est, ita eum maxime angitatque agitat. Alexander non contentus

[Page 31] more pleasing, more grateful, than for youto increase your empires and kingdoms, and toextend your authority as far and wide as possible? Inthis, as it seems to me, all your care, all yourthought, all your labor, night and day is expended.From this comes your chief hope of glory, for thisyou renounce pleasures; for this you subjectyourselves to a thousand dangers; for this yourdearest pledges, for this your own flesh you sacrificewith serenity. Indeed, I have neither heard nor readof any of you having been deterred from an attemptto extend his empire by loss of an eye, a hand, a leg,or any other member. Nay, this very ardor and thisthirst for wide dominion is such that whoever ismost powerful, him it thus torments and stirs themost. Alexander, not content to have traversed onfoot the deserts of Libya, to have conquered theOrient to the farthest ocean, to have mastered the

deserta Libyae pedibus peragrasse, orientemad extremum usque Oceanum vicisse,domuisse septentrionem, inter tot vulnera,tot casus, recusantibus iam, detestantibus[33]tam longinquas, tam asperas expeditionesmilitibus, ipse sibi nihil effecisse videbatur,nisi et occidentem, et omnes nationes aut vi,aut nominis sui auctoritate sibi tributariasreddidisset. Parum dico: iam Oceanumtransire et si quis alius orbis esset explorare,ac suo subicere arbitrio destinaverat. Incaelum[34] tandem, ut opinor, tentassetascendere. Talis fere est omnium regumvoluntas, etsi non omnium talis audacia.Taceo quanta scelera, quot abominandapropter imperium assequendumampliandumve admissa sunt, ut nec fratres afratrum, nec filii a parentum, nec parentes afiliorum sanguine nefarias abstineant manus.Adeo nusquam magis, nusquam atrociusgrassari solet humana temeritas. Et quodmirari possis, non segniores ad hoc videasanimos senum quam iuvenum, orborumquam parentum, regum quam tyrannorum.

Quod si tanto conatu peti dominatus solet,quanto maiore necesse est conservetur!Neque enim tantopere miserum est nonampliare imperium quam imminuere; nequetam deforme tibi alterius regnum nonaccedere tuo quam tuum accedere alieno.Nam

North, amid so much bloodshed, so many perils, hissoldiers already mutinous and crying out againstsuch long, such hard campaigns, seemed to himselfto have accomplished nothing unless either by forceor by the power of his name he should have madethe West also, and all nations, tributary to him. I putit too mildly; he had already determined to cross theocean, and if there was any other world, to explore itand subject it to his will. He would have tried, Ithink, last of all to ascend the heavens. Some suchwish all kings have, even though not all are so bold.I pass over the thought how many crimes, how manyhorrors have been committed to attain and extendpower, for brothers do not restrain their wickedhands from the stain of brothers' blood, nor sonsfrom the blood of parents, nor parents from theblood of sons. Indeed, nowhere is man's recklessnessapt to run riot further nor more viciously. And toyour astonishment, you see the minds of old men noless eager in this than the minds of young men,childless men no less eager than parents, kings thanusurpers.

But if domination is usually sought with such greatresolution, how much greater must be the resolutionto preserve it! For it is by no means so discreditablenot to increase an empire as to impair it, nor is it soshameful not to annex another's kingdom to yourown as for your own to be annexed to another's. Andwhen

[Page 32] quod ab rege aliquo aut populolegimus nonnullos praepositos regno auturbibus, id factum est non de prima nec demaxima, sed de postrema quodammodo acminima imperii parte, atque ea ratione utdonantem qui donatus est quasi dominum etse ministrum illius semper agnosceret.

Nunc quaeso, nonne abiecto animo etminime generoso videntur esse, quiopinantur Constantinum meliorem a seimperii alienasse partem? Non dico Romam,Italiamque et cetera, sed Gallias, ubi ipseproelia gesserat, ubi solum diu dominatusfuerat, ubi suae gloria suique imperiirudimenta posuerat. Hominem, quicupiditate dominandi nationibus bellaintulisset, socios affinesque bello civilipersecutus imperio privasset; cui nondumperdomitae ac profligatae reliquiae essentalterius factionis, qui cum multis nationibusbella gerere non modo soleret spe gloriae

[Page 33] we read of men being put in charge of akingdom or of cities by some king or by the people,this is not done in the case of the chief or thegreatest portion of the empire, but in the case of thelast and least, as it were, and that with theunderstanding that the recipient should alwaysrecognize the donor as his sovereign and himself asan agent.

Now I ask, do they not seem of a base and mostignoble mind who suppose that Constantine gaveaway the better part of his empire? I say nothing ofRome, Italy, and the rest, but the Gauls where he hadwaged war in person, where for a long time he hadbeen sole master, where he had laid the foundationsof his glory and his empire! A man who throughthirst for dominion had waged war against nations,and attacking friends and relatives in civil strife hadtaken the government from them, who had to dealwith remnants of an opposing faction not yetcompletely mastered and overthrown; who wagedwar with many nations not only by inclination and in

imperiique sed etiam necesse haberet, utpotequotidie[35] a barbaris lacessitus; qui filiis,qui coniunctis sanguine, qui amicitiis[36]abundaret; qui senatum populumqueRomanum huic facto repugnaturum nosset;qui expertus esset instabilitatem victarumnationum , et ad omnem fere Romaniprincipis mutationem rebellantium; qui sememinisset more aliorum Caesarum, nonelectione patrum consensuque plebis, sedexercitu, armis, bello dominatum occupasse;quae tam vehemens causa et urgens aderat,ut ista negligeret et tanta liberalitate utivellet?

Aiunt, quia effectus erat Christianus. ErgoneImperii optima parte se abdicaret? Credoscelus erat, flagitium, nefas iam regnare, neccum Christiana religione coniungi poteratregnum! Qui in adulterio sunt, qui usuris remauxerunt, qui aliena possident, ii[37] postbaptismum alienam uxorem, alienampecuniam, aliena bona reddere solent. Hanccogitationem si habes, Constantine,restituere urbibus libertatem, non mutaredominum debes. Sed non id 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; whoknew that the Senate and the Roman people wouldoppose this act; who had experienced the instabilityof conquered nations and their rebellions at nearlyevery change of ruler at Rome; who rememberedthat after the manner of other Caesars he had comeinto power, not by the choice of the Senate and theconsent of the populace, but by armed warfare; whatincentive could there be so strong and urgent that hewould ignore all this and choose to display suchprodigality?

They say, it was because he had become a Christian.Would he therefore renounce the best part of hisempire? I suppose it was a crime, an outrage, afelony, to reign after that, and that a kingdom wasincompatible with the Christian religion! Those wholive in adultery, those who have grown rich byusury, those who possess goods which belong toanother, they after baptism are wont to restore thestolen wife, the stolen money, the stolen goods. Ifthis be your idea, Constantine, you must restore yourcities to liberty, not change their master. But that didnot enter into the

[Page 34] causa fuit; tantum in honoremreligionis ut faceres adductus es. Quasireligiosum sit magis regnum deponere quampro tutela religionis illud administrare! Namquod ad accipientes attinet, neque honestaerit illis neque utilis ista donatio. Tu vero siChristianum te ostendere, si pietatemindicare tuam, si consultum non dicoRomanae ecclesiae vis sed ecclesiae Dei,nunc praecipue, nunc principem agas, utpugnes pro iis[38] qui pugnare non possuntnec debent, ut eos tua auctoritate tutosreddas qui insidiis iniuriisque obnoxii sunt.Nabuchodonosor, Cyro, Assuero, multisquealiis principibus sacramentum veritatis Deusaperiri voluit; a nullo tamen eorum exegit utimperio cederet, ut partem regni donaret, sedtantum libertatem Hebraeis[39] reddereteosque ab infestantibus finitimis protegeret.Hoc satis fuit Iudaeis; hoc sat erit etChristianis. Factus es, Constantine,Christianus? At indignissima res estChristianum te nunc imperatorem minori[40]esse principatu quam fueras infidelis. Estenim principatus praecipuum quoddam Deimunus, ad quem gentiles etiam principes aDeo eligi existimantur.

[Page 35] case; you were led to do as you did solelyfor the glory of your religion. As though it weremore religious to lay down a kingdom than toadminister it for the maintenance of religion! For sofar as it concerns the recipients, that Donation willbe neither honorable nor useful to them. But if youwant to show yourself a Christian, to display yourpiety, to further the cause, I do not say of the Romanchurch, but of the Church of God, now of all timesact the prince, so that you may fight for those whocannot and ought not to fight, so that by yourauthority you may safeguard those who are exposedto plots and injuries. To Nebuchadnezzar, to Cyrus,to Ahasuerus, and to many other princes, by the willof God, the mystery of the truth was revealed; but ofnone of them did God demand that he should resignhis government, that he should give away part of hiskingdom, but only that he should give the Hebrewstheir liberty and protect them from their aggressiveneighbors. This was enough for the Jews; it will beenough for the Christians also. You have become aChristian, Constantine? Then it is most unseemly foryou now as a Christian emperor to have lesssovereignty than you had as an infidel. Forsovereignty is an especial gift of God, to which eventhe gentile sovereigns are supposed to be chosen byGod.

At erat levatus a lepra. Ideo verisimile estreferre gratiam voluisse, et maiore mensurareddere quod acceperat. Itane? Naaman[41]ille Syrus ab Heliseo curatus munera tantumofferre voluit, non dimidium bonorum.Constantinus dimidium Imperii obtulisset?Piget me impudenti fabellae tamquamindubitatae historiae respondere, sic enimhaec fabula ex historia Naaman et Helisei, utaltera[42] draconis ex fabuloso dracone Beliadumbrata

But he was cured of leprosy! Probably, therefore, hewould have wished to show his gratitude and giveback a larger measure than he had received. Indeed!Naaman the Syrian, cured by Elisha, wished merelyto present gifts, not the half of his goods, and wouldConstantine have presented the half of his empire? Iregret to reply to this shameless story as though itwere undoubted and historical, for it is a reflectionof the story of Naaman and Elisha; just as that otherstory about the dragon is a reflection of the fabulousdragon of Bel.[7] But yielding this point, is

[Page 36] est. Sed, ut ista concedam,numquid in hac historia de donatione fitmentio? Minime. Verum de hoc commodiuspostea.[43]

Levatus est a lepra? Cepit[44] ob id mentemChristianam Dei timore Dei amore imbutus;illi honorem habere voluit. Non tamenpersuaderi possum eum tanta donarevoluisse, quippe cum videam neminem, autgentilem in honorem deorum, aut fidelem inhonorem Dei viventis, imperium deposuissesacerdotibusque donasse. Siquidem exregibus Israel nemo adduci potuit ut pristinomore ad templum Ierusalem populossacrificaturos ire permitteret, eo videlicettimore ne forte ad regem Iudae a quodefecerant redirent, sacro illo cultu religionisadmoniti ac templi maiestate. Et quantomaius est hoc quod fecisse diciturConstantinus! Ac ne quid tibi proptercurationem leprae blandiaris, Ieroboamprimus a Deo in regem Israel electus est, etquidem ex infima condicione, quod measententia plus est quam esse lepra levatum;[45] et tamen is non est ausus regnum suumDeo credere. Et tu vis Constantinum regnumDeo donasse quod ab illo non accepisset, quipraesertim (id quod in Ieroboam noncadebat) offenderet filios, deprimeretamicos, negligeret suos, laederet patriam,maerore omnes afficeret, suiqueolbivisceretur!

Qui si etiam talis fuisset, et quasi in aliumhominem versus, certe non defuissent quieum admonerent, et imprimis filii, propinquiamici; quos quis est qui non putet protinusImperatorem fuisse adituros? Ponite igiturillos ante oculos, mente Constantini audita,trepidos, festinantes cum gemitulacrimisque[46] ad genua principis

[Page 37] 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 aChristian 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 togive away so much; for, so far as I see, no one,either pagan, in honor of the gods, or believer, inhonor of the living God, has resigned his empire andgiven it to priests. In sooth, of the kings of Israelnone could be brought to permit his people to go,according to the former custom, to sacrifice at thetemple in Jerusalem; for fear lest, moved by thatsolemn religious ceremony and by the majesty of thetemple, they should return to the king of Judah fromwhom they had revolted. And how much more isConstantine represented to have done! And that youmay not flatter yourself with the cure of leprosy, [letme say that] Jeroboam was the first one chosen byGod to be king of Israel and indeed from a very lowestate, which to my mind is more than being healedof leprosy; nevertheless he did not presume toentrust his kingdom to God. And will you haveConstantine give to God a kingdom which he hadnot received from him, and that, too, when he wouldoffend his sons (which was not the case withJeroboam), humiliate his friends, ignore hisrelatives, injure his country, plunge everybody intogrief, and forget his own interests!

But if, having been such a man as he was, he hadbeen transformed as it were into another man, therewould certainly not have been lacking those whowould warn him, most of all his sons, his relatives,and his friends. Who does not think that they wouldhave gone at once to the emperor? Picture them toyourself, when the purpose of Constantine hadbecome known, trembling, hastening to fall withgroans and tears at the feet of the prince, and saying:

"Is it thus that you, a father hitherto mostaffectionate toward your sons, despoil your sons,

procumbentes, et hoc voce utentes:

"Itane, pater antehac filiorum amantissime,filios privas, exheredas,[47] abdicas! Namquod te optima maximaque Imperii parteexuere vis, non tam querimur quammiratnur. Querimur autem

disinherit them, disown them? We do not complainof the fact that you choose to divest yourself of thebest and largest part of the empire so much as wewonder at

[Page 38] quod earn ad alios defers, cumnostra et iactura et turpitudine. Quid enimcausae est quod liberos tuos exspectatasuccessiona Imperii fraudas, qui ipse unacum patre regnasti? Quid in te cornmisimus?Qua in te, qua in patriam, qua in nomenRomanum ac maiestatem Imperii impietatedigni videmur quos praecipua optimaqueprives principatus portione, qui a patriislaribus, a conspectu natalis soli, ab assuetaaura, a vetusta consuetudine relegemur![48]Penates, fana,[49] sepulchra exulesrelinquemus, nescio ubi aut qua terrarumregione victuri!

"Quid nos propinqui, quid nos amici, quitecum totiens in acie stetimus, qui fratres,parentes, filios hostili mucrone confossospalpitantesque conspeximus, nec alienamorte territi sumus, et ipsi pro te paratimortem oppetere, nunc abs te universideserimur![50] Qui Romae gerimusmagistratus, qui urbibus Italiae, qui Galliis,qui Hispaniis, qui ceteris provinciis[51]praesumus, aut praefuturi sumus,[52]omnesne revocamur! Omnes privati iubemuresse! An iacturam hanc aliunde pensabis? Etquomodo pro merito ac pro dignitate poteris,tanta orbis terrarum parte alteri tradita? Numqui praeerat centum populis, eum tu, Caesar,uni praeficies? Quomodo tibi istud inmentem venire potuit? Quomodo subitatuorum te cepit oblivio, ut nihil te misereatamicorum, nihil proximorum, nihil filiorum?Utinam nos, Caesar, salva tua dignitate atquevictoria, in bello contigisset occumberepotius quam ista cernamus!

"Et tu quidem de imperio tuo ad tuumarbitratum agere potes, atque etiam de nobis,uno dumtaxat excepto, in quo[53] ad mortemusque erimus contumaces; ne a cultu deorumimmotalium desistamus­magno etiam aliisexemplo, ut scias tua ista largitas quidmereatur de religione Christiana. Nam si nonlargiris Silvestro Imperium, tecum Christianiesse volumus, multis factum nostrum

[Page 39] it. But we do complain that you give it toothers to our loss and shame. Why do you defraudyour children of their expected succession to theempire, you who yourself reigned in partnershipwith your father? What have we done to you? Bywhat disloyalty to you, to our country, to the Romanname or the majesty of the empire, are we deemed todeserve to be deprived of the chiefest and best partof our principality; that we should be banished fromour 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, ourtombs, exiles, to live we know not where, nor inwhat part of the earth?

"And we, your kindred, your friends, who havestood so often with you in line of battle, who haveseen brothers, fathers, sons, pierced and writhingunder hostile sword, and have not been dismayed atthe death of others, but were ourselves ready to seekdeath for your sake, why are we now deserted oneand all by you! We who hold the public offices ofRome, who govern or are destined to govern thecities of Italy, the Gauls, the Spains, and the otherprovinces, are all of us to be deposed? Are all of usto be ordered into private life? Or will youcompensate us elsewhere for this loss? And how canyou, when such a large part of the world has beengiven to another? Will your majesty put the manwho had charge of a hundred peoples over one?How could you have conceived such a plan? How isit that you have suddenly become oblivious of yoursubjects, so that you have no consideration for yourfriends, nor your kindred, nor your sons? Would thatit had been our lot, your Majesty, while your honorand your victory were unimpaired, to fall in battlerather than to see this!

"You have the power, indeed, to do with yourempire what you will, and even with us, one thinghowever excepted, which we will resist to the death;we will not give up the worship of the immortalgods,­just for the sake of a conspicuous example toothers, that you may know how much that bounty ofyours will be worth to the Christian religion. For ifyou do not give your empire to Sylvester, we arewilling to be Christians with you, and many will

imitaturis: sin largiris, non modo Christianifieri non sustinebimus,

imitate us. But if you do give it, not only will we not

[Page 40] sed invisum, detestabile,exsecrandum nobis hoc nomen efficies,talesque reddes ut tandem tu et vitae etmortis nostrae miserearis, nec nos sed teipsum duritiae accuses."

Nonne hac oratione Constantinus, nisiexstirpatam[54] ab eo volumushumanitatem, si sua sponte non movebatur,motus fuisset? Quid si hos audire noluisset,nonne erant qui huic facto et orationeadversarentur et manu? An senatuspopulusque Romanus sibi tanta in re nihilagendum putasset? Nonne oratorem, ut aitVirgilius, gravem pietate ac meritisadvocasset, qui apud Constantinum hanchaberet orationem?

"Caesar, si tu tuorum immemor es atqueetiam tui, ut nec filiis hereditatem, necpropinquis opes, nec amicis honores, nec tibiImperium esse integrum velis, non tamensenatus populusque Romanus immemorpotest esse sui iuris suaeque dignitatis.Etenim quomodo tibi tantum permittis deImperio Romano quod non tuo sed nostrosanguine paratum[55] est! Tune unumcorpus in duas secabis partes, et ex uno duoefficies regna, duo capita, duas voluntates; etquasi duobus fratribus gladios quibus[56] dehereditate decernant porriges! Noscivitatibus quae de hac urbe bene meritaesunt iura civitatis damus, ut cives Romanisint: tu a nobis dimidium Imperii aufers, nehanc urbem parentem suam agnoscant! Et inalveis quidem apium si duo reges nati sunt,alterum qui deterior est occidimus: tu inalveo Imperii Romani, ubi unus et optimusprinceps est,[57] alterum et huncdeterrimum, et non apem sed fucum,collocandum putas! Prudentiam tuamvehementer desideramus, Imperator. Namquid futurum est, si vel te vivo, vel posttuam mortem, aut huic parti quam alienas,aut alteri quam tibi relinquis, bellum abarbaris nationibus inferatur? Quo

[Page 41] endure to become Christians, but you willmake the name hateful, detestable, excretable to us,and you will put us in such a position that at last youwill pity our life and our death, nor will you accuseus, but only yourself, of obstinacy."

Would not Constantine, unless we would have himtotally devoid of humanity, if he were not moved ofhis 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 opposethis act with both word and deed? Or would theSenate and the Roman people have thought that theyhad no obligation to do anything in a matter of suchimportance? Would it not have put forward someorator "distinguished in character and service," asVirgil says, who would hold forth to Constantine asfollows:

"Your Majesty, if you are heedless of your subjectsand yourself, nor care to give you sons aninheritance, nor your kindred riches, nor your friendshonors, nor to keep you empire intact, the Senateand the Roman people at least cannot be heedless ofits rights and its dignity. How come you to take suchliberties with the Roman Empire, which has beenbuilt up, not from your blood, but from ours! Willyou cut one body into two parts, and out of onekingdom make two kingdoms, two heads, two wills,and, as it were, reach out to two brothers swordswith which to fight over their inheritance! We giveto states which have deserved well of this city therights of citizenship, so that they may be Romancitizens; you take away from us the half of theempire,, so that they will not know this city as theirmother. In beehives, if two kings are born, we killthe weaker one; but in the hive of the RomanEmpire, where there is one prince, and that the best,you think that another must be introduced, and thatthe weakest one, not a bee, but a drone.[8]

"We see a sore lack of prudence on your part, yourMajesty. For what will happen, if either during yourlife or after your death, war should be waged bybarbarian tribes against the part of the empire whichyou are alienating, or against the other,

[Page 42] robore militum, quibus copiisoccurremus? Vix nunc totius Imperii viribuspossumus; tunc poterimus? An perpetuomembrum hoc cum illo in concordia erit? Utreor, nec esse poterit, cum Roma dominari

[Page 43] which you leave for yourself? With whatmilitary force, with what resources can we go tomeet them? Even now with the troops of the wholeempire we have scarcely enough power; shall wehave enough then? Or will this part be forever at

velit, nolit pars illa servire. Quin et te vivobreve intra tempus, revocatis veteribuspraesidibus,[58] suffectis novis, te in tuumregnum profecto et longe agente, hic alterodominante, nonne omnia nova, id est diversaatque adversa, erunt? Regno fere inter duosfratres diviso, protinus et populorum animidividuntur, et prius a se ipsis quam abexternis hostibus bellum auspicantur. Idemeventurum in hoc Imperio quis non videt?An ignoras hanc olim imprimis fuissecausam optimatibus, cur dicerent citius se inconspectu populi Romani esse moriturosquam rogationem illam ferri sinerent ut parssenatus ac pars plebis ad incolendum Veiosmitteretur, duasque urbes communes[59]populi Romani esse; si enim in una urbetantum dissensionum esset, quid in duabusurbibus futurum! Ita hoc tempore, si tantumdiscordiarum in uno Imperio, testorconscientiam tuam ac labores, quid induobus imperiis fiet!

"Age vero, putasne hinc fore qui tibi bellisoccupato esse auxilio aut velint aut sciant?Ita ab armis atque ab omni re bellicaabhorrentes erunt qui praeficientur militibusatque urbibus, ut ille qui praeficit. Quid,nonne hunc tam imperitum regnandi etiniuriae facilem aut Romanae legiones autipsae provinciae[60] spoliare tentabunt, utquem sperabunt vel non repugnaturum, velpoenas non repetiturum? Credo, me hercule,ne unum quidem mensem illos in officiomansuros, sed statim et ad primumprofectionis tuae nuntium[61] rebellaturos.Quid facies? Quid consilii capies, cumduplici atque adeo multiplici bello urgebere?Nationes quas subegimus continere vixpossumus; quomodo illis accedente exliberis gentibus bello resistetur?

peace with that? In my opinion it cannot be, forRome will want to rule and the other part will notwant to be subject. Nay, even in your lifetime,shortly, when the old officials are removed and newones put in their places, when you withdraw to yourkingdom and fare far forth and another is rulinghere, will not all interests be different, that is,diverse and contrary? Usually when a kingdom isdivided between two brothers, at once the hearts ofthe people also are divided, and war arises fromwithin sooner than from foreign enemies. That thatwill happen in this empire, who does not see it? Ordo you not know that it was chiefly on this groundthat the patricians once said that they would ratherdie before the eyes of the Roman people than allowthe motion to be carried that part of the Senate andpart of the plebeians should be sent to live at Veiiand that the Roman people should have two cities incommon; for if in one city there were so manydissensions, how would it be in two cities? So in ourtime, 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 areengaged in wars, there will be men here willing orable to bear you aid? Those who will be in commandof our soldiers and cities will always shrink fromarms and warfare, as will he who appoints them.Indeed, will not either the Roman legions or theprovinces themselves try to despoil this man, soinexperienced in ruling and so inviting to violence,hoping that he will neither fight back nor seekrevenge? By Hercules! I believe they will not remainin allegiance a single month, but immediately, at thefirst news of your departure they will rebel. Whatwill you do? What plan will you follow when youare pressed with a twofold and even a manifold war?The nations which we have conquered we canscarcely hold; how can we withstand them if inaddition we have war with free peoples?

[Page 44] "Tu, Caesar, quid ad te spectetipse videris. Nobis autem haec res non minusquam tibi curae esse debet. Tu mortalis es:Imperium populi Romani decet esseimmortale, et quantum in nobis est erit,neque Imperium modo, verum etiam pudor.Scilicet quorum religionem contemnimuseorum accipiemus imperium, et, principesorbis terrarum, huic contemptissimo hominiserviemus! Urbe a Gallis capta, Romanisenes demulceri sibi barbam a victoribuspassi non sunt: nunc sibi tot senatorii ordinis,

[Page 45] "As for your interests, your Majesty, thatis for you to see to. But this ought to concern us noless than you. You are mortal; the Empire of theRoman people ought to be immortal, and so far as inus lies, it will be, and not the Empire alone butrespect for it as well. Shall we, forsooth, accept thegovernment of those whose religion we despise;shall we, rulers of the world, serve this altogethercontemptible being! When the city was captured bythe Gauls the aged Romans did not suffer theirbeards to be stroked by the victors. Will all thesemen senatorial, praetorian, tribunician, consular and

tot praetorii, tot tribunicii,[62] tot consulates,triumphalesque viri eos dominari patientur,quos ipsi tamquam[63] servos malos omnicontumeliarum genere suppliciorumqueaffecerunt! Istine homines magistratuscreabunt, provincias regent, bella gerent, denobis sententias capitis ferent? Sub hisnobilitas Romana stipendia faciet, honoressperabit, munera assequetur? Et quod maiusquodque altius penetret vulnus acciperepossumus? Non ita putes, Caesar, Romanumdegenerasse sanguinem ut istud passurus sitaequo animo et non quavis rationedevitandum existimet: quod medius fidiusneque mulieres nostrae[64] sustinerent, sedmagis se una cum dulcibus liberis sacrisquepenatibus concremarent, ut nonCarthaginienses[65] feminae[66] fortioresfuerint quam Romanae.

"Etenim, Caesar, si regem te delegissemus,haberes tu quidem magnum de ImperioRomano agendi arbitrium, sed non ita ut velminimum de ipsius imminueres maiestate,alioquin qui te fecissemus regem, eademfacultate abdicare te regno iuberemus­nedumposses regnum dividere, nedum totprovincias[67] alienare, nedum ipsum regnicaput peregrino atque humillimo hominiaddicere. Canem ovili praeficimus;[68]quem si lupi mavult officio fungi, auteicimus aut occidimus. Nunc tu, cum diucanis officio in ovili Romano defendendo sisfunctus, ad extremum in lupum nulloexemplo converteris?

"Atque, ut intelligas, quandoquidem nos proiure nostro cogis[69] asperius loqui, nullumtibi in populi Romani Imperio ius esse.

triumphal rank now suffer those to rule them, uponwhom as upon guiltyslaves they themselves haveheaped every kind of contumely and punishment!Will those men create magistrates, govern provinces,wage war, pass sentences of death upon us? will theRoman nobility take wages under them, hope forhonors and receive rewards at their hands? Whatgreater, what deeper wound can we receive? Do notthink, your Majesty, that the Roman blood has sodegenerated as to endure this with equanimity andnot deem it a thing to be avoided by fair means orfoul. By my faith, not even our women would sufferit, but they would rather burn themselves with theirdear children and their household gods, forCarthaginian women should not be braver thanRoman.

"To be sure, your Majesty, if we had chosen youking, you would have a great measure of controlover the Roman Empire indeed, yet not such thatyou could in the least diminish its greatness, for thenwe who should have made you king, by that sametoken would order you to abdicate your kingdom.How much less then could you divide the kingdom,alienate so many provinces, and deliver even thecapital of the kingdom over to a man who is astranger and altogether base. We put a watch­dogover the sheepfold, but if he tries rather to act like awolf, we either drive him out or kill him. Now willyou, who have long been the watch­dog of theRoman fold and defended it, at the last in theunprecedented manner turn into a wolf?

"But you must know, since you compel us to speakharshly in defense or our rights, that you have noright over the Empire of

[Page 46] Caesar vi dominatum occupavit,[70] Augustus et in vitium successit etadversariorum partium profligatione sedominum fecit, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius,Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasianus,ceterique aut eadem aut simili via libertatemnostram praedati sunt, tu quoque, aliisexpulsis aut interemptis, dominus effectuses. Sileo quod ex matrimonio natus non sis.

"Quare, ut tibi nostram mentem testificemur,Caesar, si non libet te[71] Romaeprincipatum tenere, habes filios, quorumaliquem in locum tuum, nobis quoque

[Page 47] the Roman people, for Caesar seized thesupreme power by force; Augustus was the heir ofhis wrongdoing and made himself master by the ruinof the opposing factions; Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius,Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, and therest, in the same way or nearly so, made spoil of ourliberty; and you also became ruler by expelling orkilling others. I say nothing of your being born outof wedlock.

"Wherefore, to speak our mind, your Majesty; if youdo not care to keep the government of Rome, youhave sons, and by the law of nature, with ourpermission, also, and on our motion, you may

permittentibus ac rogantibus, naturae legesubstituas. Sin minus, nobis in animo estpublicam amplitudinem cum privatadignitate defendere. Neque enim minor haeciniuria Quiritum quam olim fuit violataLucretia, neque nobis deerit Brutus quicontra Tarquinium[72] se ad libertatemrecuperandam huic populo praebeat ducem.Et in istos primum quos nobis praeponis,deinde et in te ferrum stringemus, quod inmultos Imperatores et quidem leviores obcausas fecimus."

Haec profecto Constantinum, nisi lapidemeum aut truncum existimamus,permovissent. Quae si populus non dixisset,tamen dicere apud se et his passim verbisfremere credibile erat. Eamus nunc etdicamus Constantinum gratificari voluisseSilvestro, quem tot hominum odiis, totgladiis subiceret ut vix, quantum sentio,unum Silvester diem in vita futurus fuisset.Nam eo paucisque aliis absumptis,videbatur[73] omnis sublatum iri depectoribus Romanorum tam dirae iniuriaecontumeliaeque suspicio.[74]

Age porro, si fieri potest, concedamus nequepreces, neque minas, neque ullam rationemaliquid profecisse, perstareque adhucConstantinum, nec velle a suscepta semelpersuasione recedere.[75] Quis non adSilvestri orationem, si res vera fuissetumquam,[76] commotum[77] assentiatur?Quae talis haud dubie fuisset:

substitute one of them in your place. If not, it is ourpurpose to defend the public honor and our personaldignity. For this is no less an act of violence againstthe Quirites than was once the rape of Lucretia, norwill there fail us a Brutus to offer himself to thispeople as a leader against Tarquinius for therecovery of liberty. We will draw our swords firstupon those whom you are putting over us, and thenupon 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 ifthe people would not have said this, it could bebelieved that they spoke among themselves andvented their rage in about these words. Let me go ona step and say that Constantine wished to benefitSylvester, the one whom he would subject to thehatred and the swords of so many men that he,Sylvester, would scarcely have survived, I think, asingle day. For it seemed that when he and a fewothers had been removed all trace of such a crueloutrage and insult would have been obliterated fromthe breasts of the Romans.

Let us suppose, however, if possible, that neitherprayers, nor threats, nor any argument availed aught,and that still Constantine persisted and was notwilling to yield through persuasion the position hehad taken. Who would not acknowledge himselfmoved by the speech of Sylvester, that is, if theevent had ever actually occurred? It would doubtlesshave been something like this:

[Page 48] "Princeps optime ac fili, Caesar,pietatem quidem tuam tam pronam tamqueeffusam non possum non amare atqueamplecti, verumtmnen quod in offerendisDeo muneribus immolandisque victimisnonnihil erres, minime demiror; quippe quiadhuc es in Christiana militia tiro. Ut nondecebat olim a sacerdote omnem pecudemferamque et avem[78] sacrificari, ita nonomne ab eodem accipiendum est munus. Egosacerdos sum ac pontifex, qui dispiceredebeo quid ad altare patiar offerri, ne forte,non dico immundum animal offeratur, sedvipera aut serpens. Itaque sic habeas. Si forettui iuris, partem Imperii cum regina orbis,Roma, alteri tradere quam filiis (quodminime sentio); si populus hic, si Italia, siceterae nationes sustinerent, ut quos oderuntet quorum religionem adhuc respuunt, capti

[Page 49] "Most worthy prince and son, Caesar,though I cannot but like and embrace your piety, soabject and effusive, nevertheless you have fallensomewhat into error in offering gifts to God andimmolating victims, and I am not at all surprised atit, for you are still a novice in the Christian service.As once it was not right for the priest to sacrificeevery sort of beast and animal and fowl, so now heis not to accept every sort of gift. I am a priest andpontiff, and I ought to look carefully at what I permitto be offered on the altar, lest perchance there beoffered, I do not say an unclean animal, but a viperor a serpent. And this is what you would do. But if itwere your right to give a part of the Empireincluding Rome, queen of the world, to another thanyour sons, a thing I do not at all approve; if thispeople, if Italy, if the other nations, should sufferthemselves to be willing to submit to thegovernment of those whom they hate and whose

illecebris saeculi, eorum imperio obnoxiiesse vellent (quod impossibile est): tamen, siquid mihi credendum putas, fili amantissime,ut tibi assentirer[79] ulla adduci ratione nonpossem,[80] nisi vellem mihi ipsi essedissimilis et condiconem meam oblivisci acpropemodum dominum Iesum[81] abnegare.Tua enim munera, sive, ut tu vis, tuaeremunerationes et gloriam et innocentiam etsanctimoniam meam atque omnium qui mihisuccessuri sunt polluerent ac prorsuseverterent, viamque iis qui ad cognitionemveritatis venturi sunt intercluderent.

"An vero Heliseus,[82] Naaman Syro a lepracurato, mercedem accipere noluit: ego tecurato accipiam? Ille munera respuit; egoregna mihi dari sinam? Ille personamprophetae maculare noluit; ego personamChristi quam in me gero maculare potero?Cur autem ille accipiendis muneribuspersonam prophetae maculari putavit?Nempe quod videri poterat vendere sacra,faenerare donum Dei, indigere praesidiishominum, elevare atque imminuere beneficiidignitatem. Maluit ergo sibi principes acreges[83] beneficiarios facere, quam ipsebeneficiarius illorum esse; immo ne mutuaquidem beneficentia uti. 'Beatius est enimmulto,' ut inquit Domi­

religion, snared by the enticements of this world,they have hitherto spit upon,­an impossiblesupposition; if you nevertheless think I am to begiven anything, my most loving son, I could not byany argument be brought to give you my assent,unless I were to be false to myself, to forget mystation, and well­nigh deny my Lord Jesus. For yourgifts, or if you wish, your payments, would tarnishand utterly ruin my honor and purity and holinessand that of all my successors, and would close theway to those who are about to come to theknowledge of the truth.

"Elisha was not willing, was he, to accept a rewardwhen Naaman the Syrian was cured of the leprosy?Should I accept one when you are cured? Herejected presents; should I allow kingdoms to begiven to me? He was unwilling to obscure theprophetic office; could I obscure the office of Christ,which I bear in me? But why did he think that theprophetic office would be obscured by his receivinggifts? Doubtless because he might seem to sellsacred things, to put the gift of God out at usury, towant the patronage of men, to lower and lessen theworth of his benefaction. He preferred, therefore, tomake princes and kings his beneficiaries rather thanto be himself their beneficiary, or even to allowmutual benefactions. For, as says the Lord, 'It ismore

[Page 50] nus, 'dare quam accipere.' Eademmihi atque adeo maior est causa, cui etiam aDomino praecipitur dicente, 'Infirmos curate,mortuos suscitate, leprosos mundate,daemones eicite; gratis accepistis, gratisdate.' Egone tantum flagitium admittam,Caesar, ut Dei praecepte[84] non exsequar;ut gloriam meam polluam? 'Melius est,' utinquit Paulus, 'mihi mori quam ut gloriammeam quis evacuet.' Gloria nostra est apudDeum honorificare ministerium nostrum, utidem inquit, 'Vobis dico gentibus; quamdiuego quidem sum gentium apostolus,glorificabo ministerium meum.'

"Ego, Caesar, aliis quoque sim et exemplumet causa delinquendi; Christianus homo,sacerdos Dei, pontifex Romanus, vicariusChristi? Iam vero innocentia sacerdotumquomodo incolumis erit inter opes, intermagistratus, inter administrationemsaecularium negotiorum?[85] Ideone terrenisrenuntiamus, ut eadem uberiora assequamur;

[Page 51] blessed to give than to receive."[9] I am inthe same case, only more so, whom the Lord taught,saying, 'Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise thedead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freelygive."[10] Shall I commit such a disgrace, yourMajesty, as not to follow the precepts of God; as totarnish my glory? 'It were better,' says Paul, 'for meto die than that any man should make my gloryingvoid."[11] Our glory is to honor our ministry in thesight of God, as Paul also said; 'I speak to youGentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of theGentiles, I magnify mine office."[12]

"Your Majesty, should even I be both an exampleand a cause for the apostasy of others, I, a Christian,a priest of God, pontiff of Rome, vicar of Christ! Forhow, indeed, will the blamelessness of priestsremain untouched amid riches, magistracies, and themanagement of secular business? Do we renounceearthly possessions in order to attain them morerichly, and have we given up our own property inorder to possess another's and the public's? Shall wehave cities, tributes, tolls? How then can you call us

et privata abiecimus, ut aliena possideamuset publica? Nostrae erunt urbes? nostratributa? nostra vectigalia? Et cur clericos, sihoc[86] fecerimus, nos vocari licebit? Parsnostra sive sors, quae Graece dicitur _____,[87] est non terrena sed caelestis. Levitae,qui iidem[88] clerici sunt, partem cumfratribus non fuere sortiti: et tu nos iubesetiam fratrum sortiri portionem!

"Quo mihi divitas atque opes, qui Dominivoce iubeor nec de crastino esse sollicitus, etcui dictum est ab illo: 'Nolite thesaurizaresuper terram; nolite possidere aurum, nequeargentum, neque pecuniam in zonis vestris';et, 'Difficilius est divitem introire in regnumcaelorum, quam camelum per foramen acustransire?' Ideoque pauperes sibi ministroselegit et qui omnia relinquerent[89] et eumsequerentur; et paupertatis ipse fuitexemplum. Usque adeo divitiarumpecuniarumque tractatio innocentiae inimicaest, non modo possessio illarum atquedominatus. Unus Iudas, qui loculos

'clergy' if we do this? Our portion, or our lot, whichin Greek is called kleros, is not earthly, but celestial.The Levites, also clergy, were not allotted a portionwith their brethren, and do you command us to takeeven our brothers' portion!

"What are riches and dominions to me who amcommanded by the voice of the Lord not to beanxious for the morrow, and to whom he said; 'Laynot up for yourselves treasures upon earth, possessnot gold nor silver nor money in your purses,"[13]and 'It is harder for a rich man to enter into thekingdom of heaven, than for a camel to go throughthe eye of a needle.'[14] Therefore he chose poormen as his ministers, and those who left all to followhim, and was himself an example of poverty. Evenso is the handling of riches and of money, notmerely their possession and ownership, the enemy ofuprightness. Judas alone, he that had the

[Page 52] habebat et portabat quaemittebantur, praevaricatus est; et amorepecuniae, cui assueverat Magistrum,Dominum, Deum et reprehendit et prodidit.Itaque vereor, Caesar, ne me ex Petro faciasIudam.

"Audi etiam quid Paulus dicat: 'Nihilintulimus in hunc mundum: haud dubium,quod nec auferre quid possumus. Habentesautem alimenta, et quibus tegamur, hiscontenti simus. Nam qui volunt divites fieri,incidunt in tentationem et in laqueum diaboliet desideria multa et inutilia et nociva, quaemergunt homines in interitum etperditionem. Radix enim omnium malorumest cupiditas, quam quidam appetenteserraverunt a fide, et inseruerunt se doloribusmultis. Tu autem, homo Dei, haec fuge.' Ettu me accipere iubes, Caesar, quae velutvenenum effugere debeo!

"Et quis praeterea, pro tua prudentia, Caesar,consideres, quis inter haec divinis rebusfaciendis locus? Apostoli, quibusdamindignantibus quod viduae ipsorum inministerio quotidiano despicerenturresponderunt non esse aequum relinquere severbum Dei et ministrare mensis. Et tamen

[Page 53] purses and carried the alms, was a liar,and for the love of money, to which he had becomeaccustomed, chided and betrayed his Master, hisLord, his God. So I fear your Majesty, lest youchange me from a Peter into a Judas.

"Hear also what Paul says: 'We brought nothing intothis world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.And having food and raiment, let us be therewithcontent. But they that will be rich fall intotemptation and a snare of the devil, and into manyfoolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men indestruction and perdition. For the love of money isthe root of all evil, which while some coveted after,they erred from the faith, and pierced themselvesthrough with many sorrows. But thou, 0 man ofGod, flee these things."[15] And you command me,your Majesty, to accept what I ought to shun aspoison!

"And consider besides, for prudence' sake, yourMajesty, what chance would there be in all this fordivine service? To certain who complained that theirdestitute were neglected in the daily distribution, theapostles answered that it was not reason that theyshould leave the word of God, and serve tables.[16]Yet to feed widows, how different is that fromexacting tolls, running the treasury, hiring soldiers,and engaging in a thousand other cares of this sort!

viduarum mensis ministrare, quanto aliud estquam exigere vectigalia, curare aerarium,stipendium numerare militibus, et mille aliishuiusmodi curis implicari? 'Nemo militansDeo implicat se negotiis saecularibus,' inquitPaulus. Numquid Aaron, cum ceterisLevitici generis, aliud quam Dominitabernaculum procurabat? Cuius[90] filii,quia ignem alienum in thuribula sumpserant,igni caelesti conflagraverunt. Et tu iubes nosignem saecularium divitiarum, vetitum acprofanum,[91] in sacrata thuribula, id est insacerdotalia opera sumere! Num Eleazar,num Phinees, num ceteri pontificesministrique aut tabernaculi aut templiquicquam nisi quod ad rem divinampertineret administrabant? Administrabantdico? Immo administrate poterant, si officiosuo satisfacere volebant? Quod si nolint,audiant exsecrationem Domini dicentis:'Maledicti, qui opus Domini

'No man that warreth for God entangleth himselfwith the affairs of this life,"[17] says Paul. DidAaron and others of the tribe of Levi take care ofanything except the tabernacle of the Lord? And hissons, because they had put strange fire in theircensers, were consumed by fire from heaven. Andyou 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, didthe other priests and ministers, either of thetabernacle or of the temple, administer anythingexcept what pertained to the divine service? I say didthey administer, nay, could they have administeredanything, if they wished to fulfil their own duty?And if they did not wish to, they would hear thecurse of the Lord, saying, 'Cursed be they that do thework of the Lord

[Page 54] faciunt negligenter.' Quaeexsecratio, cam in omnes, tum in pontificesmaxime cadit.

"O quantum est pontificale munus! Quantumest caput esse ecclesiae! Quantum estpraeponi pastorem tanto ovili, e cuius manuuniuscuiusque agni ovisque amissae sanguisexigitur; cui dictum est: 'Si amas meplusquam alii, ut fateris, pasce agnos meos.'Iterum, 'si amas me, ut fateris, pasce ovesmeas.' Tertio, 'si amas me, ut fateris, pasceoves meas!' Et tu me iubes, Caesar, caprasetiam pascere et porcos, qui nequeunt abeodem pastore custodiri!

"Quid, quod me regem facere vis, aut potiusCaesarem, id est regum principem? DominusIesus Christus, Deus et homo, rex etsacerdos, cum se regem affirmaret, audi dequo regno locutus est: 'Regnum meum,'inquit, 'non est de hoc mundo: si enim de hocmundo esset regnum meum, ministri meiutique decertarent.' Et quae fuit prima vox,ac frequentior[92] clamor praedicationiseius, nonne hic:[93] 'Paenitentiam agite;appropinquavit enim regnum caelorum.Appropinquavit regnum Dei, cuicomparabitur regnum caeli?' Nonne, cumhaec dixit, regnum saeculare nihil ad sepertinere declaravit? Eoque non modoregnum huiusmodi non quaesivit, sedoblatum quoque accipere noluit. Nam cum

[Page 55] deceitfully.'[18] And this curse, though itimpends over all, yet most of all it impends over thepontiffs.

"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 agreat flock as a shepherd at whose hand is requiredthe blood of every single lamb and sheep lost; towhom it is said, 'If thou lovest me more than these,as thou sayest, feed my lambs.' Again, 'If thou lovestme, as thou sayest, feed my sheep.' And a third time,'If thou lovest me, as thou sayest, feed mysheep.'[19] And you order me, your Majesty, toshepherd also goats and swine, which cannot beherded 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 himselfking, hear of what kingdom he spoke: 'My kingdom,'he said, 'is not of this world; if my kingdom were ofthis world, then would my servants fight.'[20] Andwhat was his first utterance and the oft­repeatedburden of his preaching, but this: 'Repent, for thekingdom of heaven is at hand.'[21] The kingdom ofGod is at hand for him for whom the kingdom ofheaven is prepared.' When he said this, did he notmake clear that he had nothing to do with secularsovereignty? And not only did he not seek akingdom of this sort, but when it was offered him,he would not accept it. For once when he learnedthat the people planned to take him and make him

intelligeret aliquando populos destinasse uteum raperent regemque facerent, in montiumsolitudines fugit. Quod nobis qui locumeius[94] tenemus non solum exemplo deditimitandum, sed etiam praecepto, inquiens:'Principes gentium dominantur eorum, et quimaiores sunt potestatem exercent in eos.Non ita erit inter vos; sed quicumquevoluerit inter vos maior fieri sit vesterminister, et qui voluerit primus inter vos esseerit vester servus: sicut filius hominis nonvenit ut ministretur ei, sed ut ministret et detanimam suam in[95] redemptionem promultis.'

king, he fled to the solitude of the mountains. He notonly gave this to us who occupy his place as anexample to be imitated, but he taught us by precept:'The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion overthem, and they that are great exercise authority uponthem. But it shall not be so among you; butwhosoever will be great among you, let him be yourminister; and whosoever will be chief among you,let him be your servant; even as the Son of mancame not to be ministered unto, but to minister, andto give his life a ransom for many.'[22]

[Page 56] "Iudices olim Deus, ut scias,Caesar, constituit super Israel, non reges,populumque sibi nomen regium postulantemdetestatus est. Nec aliter ob duritiam[96]cordis illorum regem dedit, quam quodrepudium permiserat, quod in nova legerevocavit. Et ego regnum accipiam qui vixiudex esse permittor? 'An nescitis,' inquitPaulus, 'quod sancti de hoc mundoiudicabunt? Et si in vobis iudicabiturmundus, indigni estis qui de minimisiudicetis. Nescitis quod angelosiudicabimus? Quanto magis saecularia?Saecularia igitur iudicia si habueritis,contemptibiles qui sunt in ecclesia, eosconstituite ad iudicandum.' Atqui iudices derebus et controversiis[97] tantummodoiudicabant, non etiam tributa exigebant. Egoexigam, qui scio a Domino interrogatumPetrum: 'A quibusnam reges terraeacciperent tributum censumve, a filiis an abalienis?' et cum hic respondisset 'Ab alienis,'ad eodem dictum: 'Ergo liberi sunt filii?'Quod si omnes filii mei sunt, Caesar, ut certesunt, omnes liberi erunt; nihil quisquamsolvet. Igitur non est opus mihi tuadonatione, qua nihil assecuturus sum praeterlaborem quem, ut minime debeo, ita minimepossum ferre.

"Quid quod necesse haberem potestatemexercere sanguinis, punire sontes, bellagerere, urbes diripere, regiones ferro igniquevastare! Aliter non est quod sperem posseme tueri quae tradidisses. Et si haec fecero,sacerdos, pontifex, Christi vicarius, sum? Utillum in me tonantem audiam atquedicentem: 'Domus mea domus orationisvocabitur omnibus gentibus, et tu fecisti earn

[Page 57] "Know this, your Majesty; God formerlyestablished judges over Israel, not kings; and hehated the people for demanding a king forthemselves. And he gave them a king on account ofthe hardness of their hearts, but only because hepermitted their rejection, which he revoked in thenew law. And should I accept a kingdom, who amscarcely permitted to be a judge? 'Or do ye notknow,' says Paul, 'that the saints shall judge theworld? and if the world shall be judged by you, youare not the ones to judge the smallest matters. Knowye not that we shall judge angels? How much morethings that pertain to this life! If then ye havejudgements of things pertaining to this life, set themto judge who are least in the church.'[23] But judgesmerely gave judgement concerning matters incontroversy, they did not levy tribute also. Should Ido it, with the knowledge that when Peter was askedby the Lord, 'Of whom do the kings of the earth takecustom or tribute? of their own children or ofstrangers? and answered 'Of strangers,' the Lordsaid, 'Then are the children free.'[24] But if all menare 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, andI shall get nothing out of it but labor which I amleast able to do, as also I am least justified in doingit.

"Nay more, I should have to use my authority toshed blood in punishing offenders, in waging wars,in sacking cities, in devastating countries with fireand sword. Otherwise I could not possibly keep whatyou have given me. And if I do this am I a priest, apontiff, a vicar of Christ? Rather I should hear himthunder out against me, saying, 'My house shall becalled of all nations the house of prayer, but ye havemade it a den of thieves.'[25]'I am not come into theworld, said the Lord, 'to judge the world, but to save

speluncam latronum.' 'Non veni in mundum,'inquit Dominus, 'ut iudicem mundum, sed utliberem eum.' Et ego qui illi successi causamor­

it.'[26] And shall I who have succeeded him be thecause of

[Page 58] tium ero, cui in persona Petridictum est: 'Converte gladium tuum in locumsuum: omnes enim qui acceperint gladiumgladio peribunt?' Ne defendere quidem nobisferro nos licet, siquidem defendereDominum Petrus volebat cum auriculamabscidit servo. Et tu divitiarum autcomparandarum aut tuendarum causa utiferro nos iubes?

"Nostra potestas est potestas clavium,dicente Domino, 'Tibi dabo claves regnicaelorum. Quodcumque[98] ligaveris superterram erit ligatum et in caelis, etquodcumque solveris super terram eritsolutum et in caelis. Et portae inferi nonpraevalebunt adversus eas.' Nihil ad hancpotestatem, nihil ad hanc dignitatem,[99]nihil ad hoc regnum adici potest. Quo quicontentus non est, aliud sibi quoddam adiabolo postulat, qui etiam Domino dicereausus est: 'Tibi dabo omnia regna mundi, sicadens in terram adoraveris me.' Quare,Caesar, cum pace tua dictum sit, noli mihidiabolus effici qui Christum, id est me, regnamundi a te data accipere iubeas. Malo enimilla spernere quam possidere.

"Et ut aliquid de infidelibus, sed, ut spero,futuris fidelibus, loquar; noli me de angelolucis reddere illis angelum tenebrarum,quorum corda ad pietatem inducere volo,non ipsorum cervici iugum imponere, etgladio quod est verbum Dei, non gladioferreo,[100] mihi subicere; ne deterioresefficiantur, ne recalcitrent, ne cornu feriant,ne nomen Dei meo irritati erroreblasphement.[101] Filios mihicarissimos[102] volo reddere, non servos;adoptare, non emere; generare, non manucapere; animas eorum offerre sacrificiumDeo, non diabolo corpora. 'Discite a me,'inquit Dominus, 'quia mitis sum et humiliscorde. Capite iugum meum, et invenietisrequiem animabus vestris. Iugum enimmeum suave[103] et pondus meum leve.'

"Cuius ad extremum, ut iam[104] finemfaciam, illam de[105] hac re

[Page 59] men's death, I to whom in the person ofPeter it was said, 'Put up again thy sword into hisplace, for all they that take the sword shall perishwith the sword'?[27] It is not permitted us even todefend ourselves with the sword, for Peter wishedonly to defend his Lord, when he cut off theservant's ear. And do you command us to use thesword for the sake of either getting or keepingriches?

"Our authority is the authority of the keys, as theLord said, 'I will give unto thee the keys of thekingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bindon earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoeverthou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed inheaven'[28] 'And the gates of hell shall not prevailagainst it.'[29] Nothing can be added to thisauthority, not to this dignity, not to this kingdom. Hewho is not contented therewith, seeks somethingmore from the devil, who dared even to say to theLord, 'I will give thee all the kingdoms of the world,if thou wil fall to the earth and worship me.'[30]Wherefore, your Majesty, by your leave let me sayit, do not play the part of the devil to me by orderingChrist, that is, me, to accept the kingdoms of theworld at your hand. For I prefer rather to scorn thanto possess them.

"And to speak of the unbelievers, future believersthough, I hope, do not transform me for them froman angel of light into an angel of darkness. I want towin their hearts to piety, not impose a yoke upontheir necks; to subject them to me with the sword ofthe word of God, not with a sword of iron, that theyshould not be made worse than they are, nor kick,nor gore me, nor, angered by my mistake, blasphemethe name of God. I want to make them my mostbeloved sons, not my slaves; to adopt them, not castthem out; to have them born again, not to seize themout of hand; to offer their souls a sacrigice to God,not their bodies a sacrifice to the devil. 'Come untome,' says the Lord, 'for I am meek and lowly inheart. Take my yoke upon you, and ye shall find restfor your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burdenis light.'[31]

"Finally, to come to an end at last, in this matteraccept that

[Page 60] sententiam accipe quam quasiinter me et te tulit. 'Reddite quae suntCaesaris Caesari; et quae sunt Dei Deo.' Quofit ut nec tu, Caesar, tua relinquere, nequeego quae Caesaris sunt accipere debeam;quae vel si millies offeras numquamaccipiam."

Ad hanc Silvestri orationem apostolico virodignam, quid esset quod ampliusConstantinus posset opponere? Quod cum itasit, qui aiunt donationem esse factam nonneiniuriosi sunt in Constantinum, quem suosprivare imperiumque Romanum voluisseconvellere; iniuriosi in senatum populumqueRomanum, Italiam, totumque occidentem,quem contra ius fasque mutari imperiumpermississe; iniuriosi in Silvestrum, quemindignam sancto viro donationem acceptamhabuisse; iniuriosi in summum pontificatumcui licere terrenis potiri regnis et Romanummoderari Imperium arbitrantur? Haec tamenomnia eo pertinent, ut appareatConstantinum inter tot impedimentanumquam fuisse facturum, ut rem RomanamSilvestro ex maxima parte donaret ut istiaiunt.

Age porro, ut credamus istam donationem dequa facit pagina vestra mentionem, debetconstare etiam de acceptatione Silvestri.Nunc de illa non constat. At credibile est,dicitis, ratam hunc habuisse donationem. Itacredo, nec ratam habuisse modo, verumetiam petiisse, rogasse, precibus extorsisse,credibile est. Quid vos credibile, quodpraeter opinionem est hominum, dicitis? Necquia in pagina privilegii de donatione fitmentio, putandum est fuisse acceptatum:[106] sed e contrario, quia non fit mentio deacceptatione, dicendum est non fuissedonatum.[107] Ita plus contra vos

[Page 61] sentence of his, which he spoke as thoughto me and to you; 'Render unto Caesar the thingswhich are Caesar's; and unto God, the things that areGod's.'[32] Accordingly, therefore, your Majesty,you must not surrender the things that are yours, andI must not accept the things that are Caesar's; norwill I ever accept them, though you offer them athousand times."

To this speech of Sylvester's, worthy of an apostolichero, what could there be further for Constantine tobring out in opposition? Since the case stands thus,do not they who say that the Donation took place doviolence to Constantine when they would have himrob his own family and tear the Roman Empireasunder? Do they not do violence to the Senate andthe Roman people, to Italy, and to the whole West,which according to them allowed the government tobe changed contrary to law and justice? Do they notdo violence to Sylvester, who according to themaccepted a gift not befitting a holy man? violence tothe supreme pontificate, when they think that itwould take charge of earthly kingdoms and rule overthe Roman Empire? Verily, all this tends to showplainly that Constantine, in the face of so manyobstacles, would never have thought of givingpractically the whole Roman state to Sylvester, asthey say he did.

Proceed to the next point; to make us believe in this"donation" which your document recites, somethingought still to be extant concerning Sylvester'sacceptance of it. There is nothing concerning itextant. But it is believable, you say, that herecognized this "donation." I believe so, too; that [ifit was given] he not only recognized it, but sought it,asked for it, extorted it with his prayers; that isbelievable. But why do you reverse the naturalconjecture and then say it is believable? For the factthat there is mention of the donation in the documentof the deed is no reason for inferring that it wasaccepted; but on the contrary, the fact that there is nomention [anywhere] of an acceptance is reason forsaying that there was no donation. So you havestronger proof

[Page 62] facit, hunc donum respuisse, quamillum dare voluisse; et beneficium in invitumnon confertur. Neque vero tantum donatarespuisse Silvestrum suspicari debemus, sedtacite etiam indicasse nec illum dareiure[108] nec se iure accipere posse.

Sed o caecam semper inconsultamque

[Page 63] that Sylvester refused the gift than thatConstantine wished to give it, and a benefaction isnot conferred upon a man against his will. Indeed,we must suspect not so much that Sylvester refusedthe grants as that he tacitly disclosed that neithercould Constantine legally make them nor could hehimself legally accept.

avaritiam![109] Demus ut tabulas quoque deassensu Silvestri proferre possitis veras,incorruptas, sinceras: num protinus donatasunt quae in talibus[110] continentur? Ubipossessio? Ubi in manus traditio? Nam sichartam modo Constantinus dat, nongratificari Silvestro voluit, sed illudere.Verisimile est, dicitis, qui donat quippiameum et possessionem tradere. Videte quidloquamini! cum possessionem non essedatam constet, et an datum sit ius ambigatur.Verisimile est qui possessionem non dedit,eum ne ius quidem dare voluisse.

An non constat possessionem numquamfuisse traditam? Quod negareimpudentissimum est. Numquid SilvestrumConstantinus in Capitolium quasitriumphantem inter frequentium Quiritum,sed infidelium, plausum duxit? In sella aureaadsistente universo senatu collocavit?Magistratus pro sua quemque dignitateregem salutare et adorare iussit? Hoc[111]erga novos principes fieri solet, non tantumaliquod palatium velut Lateranense tradi.Num postea per universam Italiamcircumduxit?[112] Adiit cum illo Gallias;adiit Hispanos;[113] adiit Germanos,ceterumque occidentem? Aut sigravabantur[114] ambo tantum obireterrarum, quibusnam tam ingens officiumdelegarunt, qui et Caesaris vice traderentpossessionem et Silvestri acciperent? Magniii[115] viri atque eximiae auctoritatis essedebuerunt: et tamen qui fuerint ignoramus.Et quantum in his duobus verbis, tradere etaccipere, subest pondus![116] Nostramemoria, ut exempla vetusta omittam,numquam aliter facitatum vidimus, cum quisaut urbis aut regionis aut provinciae dominusfactus est; ita demum traditam existimaripossessionem, si magis­

0 avarice, ever blind and ill­advised! Let us supposethat you may be able to adduce even genuinedocuments for the assent of Sylvester, not tamperedwith, authentic: even so, were the grants actuallymade which are found in such documents? Where isany taking possession, any delivery? For ifConstantine gave a charter only, he did not want tobefriend Sylvester, but to mock him. It is likely, yousay, that any one who makes a grant, givespossession of it, also. See what you are saying; for itis certain that possession was not given, and thequestion is whether the title was given! It is likelythat one who did not give possession did not want togive the title either.

Or is it not certain that possession was never given?To deny it is the sheerest impudence. DidConstantine ever lead Sylvester in state to theCapitol amid the shouts of the assembled Quirites,heathen as they were? Did he place him on a goldenthrone in the presence of the whole Senate? Did hecommand the magistrates, each in the order of hisrank, to salute their king and prostrate themselvesbefore him? This, rather than the giving of somepalace such as the Lateran, is customary in thecreation of new rulers. Did he afterwards escort himthrough 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 ittoo onerous to traverse so many lands, to whom didthey delegate such an important function, torepresent Caesar in transferring possession andSylvester in receiving it? Distinguished men, andmen of eminent authority, they must have been: andnevertheless we do not know who they were. Andhow much weight there is here in these two words,give and receive! To pass by ancient instances, I donot remember to have seen any other procedurewhen any one was made lord of a city, a country, ora province; for we do not count possession as given

[Page 64] tratus pristini summoveanturnovique subrogentur. Hoc si tunc Silvesterfieri non postulasset, tamen magnificentiaeConstantini intererat, ut declararet non verbose, sed re possessionem tradere, suospraesides amovere aliosque ab illo substituiiubere. Non traditur possessio quae peneseosdem remanet qui possidebant, et novusdominus illos summovere non audet.

Sed fac istud quoque non obstare, et

[Page 65] until the old magistrates are removed andthe new ones substituted. If then Sylvester had notdemanded that this be done, nevertheless the dignityof Constantine required that he show that he gavepossession not in words but in fact, that he orderedhis officers to retire and others to be substituted bySylvester. Possession is not transferred when itremains in the hands of those who had it before, andthe new master dares not remove them.

But grant that this also does not stand in the way,

nihilominus putari Silvestrum possedisse,atque omnia praeter morem praeterquenaturam tunc esse dicamus administrata.Postquam ille abiit, quos provinciisurbibusque rectores Silvester praeposuit;quae bella gessit; quas nationes ad armaspectantes oppressit; per quos haecadministravit? Nihil horum scimus,respondetis. Ita puto, nocturno tempore haecomnia gesta sunt, et ideo nemo vidit.

Age, fuit in possessione Silvester? Quis eumde possessione deiecit? Nam perpetuo inpossessione non fuit, neque successorumaliquis saltem usque ad Gregorium Magnum,qui et ipse caruit possessione. Qui extrapossessionem est, nec se ab ea deiectumprobare potest, is profecto numquampossedit; 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[117] aliusCaesar? Profer nomen expulsoris, profertempus, unde primum, unde secundo, acdeinceps expulsus est. Num perseditionem[118] et caedes, an sine his?Coniurarunt in eum pariter nationes, an quaeprima? Quid! Nemo omnium auxilio fuit: neillorum quidem qui per Silvestrum aliumvepapam praepositi urbibus ac provinciiserant? Uno die universa amisit; an paulatimet per partes? Restitit ipse suiquemagistratus; an ad primum se tumultumabdicarunt? Quid! Ipsi victores non in eamfaecem[119] hominum, quam indignamimperio ducebant, ferro grassati sunt, inultionem[120] contumeliae, in tutelamoccupatae dominationis, in

that, notwithstanding, we assume Sylvester to havebeen in possession, and let us say that the wholetransaction took place though not in the customaryand natural way. After Constantine went away, whatgovernors did Sylvester place over his provinces andcities, what wars did he wage, what nations that tookup arms did he subdue, through whom did he carryon this government? We know none of thesecircumstances, you answer. So! I think all this wasdone in the nighttime, and no one saw it at all!

Come now! Was Sylvester ever in possession? Whodispossessed him? For he did not have possessionpermanently, nor did any of his successors, at leasttill Gregory the Great, and even he did not havepossession. One who is not in possession and cannotprove that he has been disseized certainly never didhave 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 Constantinehimself, or his sons, or Julian, or some other Caesar?Give the name of the expeller, give the date, fromwhat place was the Pope expelled first, where next,and so in order. Was it by sedition and murder, orwithout these? Did the nations conspire togetheragainst him, or which first? What! Did not one ofthem give him aid, not one of those who had beenput over cities or provinces by Sylvester or anotherPope? Did he lose everything in a single day, orgradually and by districts? Did he and hismagistrates offer resistance, or did they abdicate atthe first disturbance? What! Did not the victors usethe sword on those dregs of humanity, whom theythought unworthy of the Empire, to revenge theiroutrage, to make sure of the newly won mastery, to

[Page 66] contemptum religionis nostrae, inipsum etiam posteritatis exemplum? Omninoeorum qui victi sunt nemo fugam cepit?nemo latuit? nemo timuit? 0 admirabilemcasum! Imperium Romanum tantislaborious, tanto cruore partum, tam placide,tam quiete a Christianis sacerdotibus velpartum est, vel amissum, ut nullus cruor,nullum bellum, nulla querela intercesserit; etquod non minus admirari debeas, per quoshoc gestum sit, quo tempore, quomodo,quamdiu, prorsus ignotum. Putes in silvisinter arbores regnasse Silvestrum, nonRomae, et inter homines; et ab hibernis[121]imbribus frigoribusque, non ab hominibus

[Page 67] show contempt for our religion, not evento make an example for posterity? Did not one ofthose who were conquered take to flight at all? Didno one hide? Was no one afraid? 0 marvellousevent! The Roman Empire, acquired by so manylabors, so much bloodshed, was so calmly, so quietlyboth won and lost by Christian priests that nobloodshed, no war, no uproar took place; and notless marvellous, it is not known at all by whom thiswas done, nor when, nor how, nor how long itlasted! You would think that Sylvester reigned insylvan shades, among the trees, not at Rome noramong men, and that he was driven out by winterrains and cold, not by men!

eiectum.

Quis non babet cognitum, qui paulo pluralectitarit, quot reges Romae, quot consules,quot dictatores, quot tribuni plebis, quotcensores, quot aediles[122] creati fuerint?Nemoque ex tanta hominum copia, ex tantavetustate nos fugit. Scimus item quotAtheniensium duces, quot Thebanorum, quotLacedaemoniorum exstiterint; pugnas eorumterrestres navalesque universas tenemus.Non ignoramus qui reges Persarum,Medorum,[123] Chaldaeorum, Hebraeorumfuerint, aliorumque plurimorum; et quomodohorum quisque aut acceperit regnum, auttenuerit, aut perdiderit, aut recuperaverit.Romanum autem, sive Silvestrianum,Imperium, qua ratione inceperit, aut quadesierit, quando, per quos, in ipsa quoqueurbe nescitur. Interrogo num[124] quosharum rerum testes auctoresque proferrepossitis. Nullos, respondetis. Et non pudetvos, non tam homines, quam pecudes dicereverisimile esse possedisse Silvestrum!

Quod quia vos non potestis, ego e contrariodocebo, ad ultimum usque diem vitaeConstantinum, et gradatim deinceps omnesCaesares possedisse, ut ne quid habeatisquod hiscere possitis. At perdifficile est etmagni, ut opinor, operis hoc docere!Evolvantur omnes Latinae Graecaequehistoriae; citentur ceteri auctores qui de illismeminere temporibus: ac[125] neminemreperies in hac re ab alio discrepare. Unumex mille testimoniis sufficiat.[126]Eutropius, qui Constantinum, qui tresConstantini filios a patre relictos

Who that is at all widely read, does not know whatRoman kings, what consuls, what dictators, whattribunes of the people, what censors, what aedileswere chosen? Of such a large number of men intimes so long past, none escapes us. We know alsowhat Athenian commanders there were, and Theban,and Lacedemonian; we know all their battles on landand sea. Nor are the kings of the Persians unknownto us; of the Medes; of the Chaldeans; of theHebrews; and of very many others; nor how each ofthese received his kingdom, or held it, or lost it, orrecovered it. But how the Roman Empire, or ratherthe Sylvestrian, began, how it ended, when, throughwhom, is not known even in the city of Rome itself.I ask whether you can adduce any witnesses of theseevents, any writers. None, you answer. And are younot ashamed to say that it is likely that Sylvesterpossessed­even cattle, to say nothing of men!

But since you cannot [prove anything], I for my partwill show that Constantine, to the very last day ofhis life, and thereafter all the Caesars in turn, didhave possession [of the Roman Empire], so that youwill have nothing left even to mutter. But it is a verydifficult, and, I suppose, a very laborious task,forsooth, to do this! Let all the Latin and the Greekhistories be unrolled, let the other authors whomention those times be brought in, and you will notfind a single discrepancy among them on this point.Of a thousand witnesses, one may suffice; Eutropius,who saw Constantine, who saw the three sons ofConstantine who were left

[Page 68] dominos orbis terrarum vidit, quide Iuliano filio fratris Constantini ita scribit:"Hic Iulianus, qui fuit subdiaconus[127] inRomana ecclesia, Imperator[128] effectusapostatavit in idolorum cultu,[129] rerumpotitus est, ingentique apparatu Parthisintulit bellum, cui expeditioni ego quoqueinterfui." Nec de donatione Imperiioccidentis tacuisset; nec paulo post deIoviano, qui successit Iuliano, ita dixisset:"Pacem cum Sapore necessariam quidem sedignobilem fecit, mutatis finibus ac nonnullaImperii Romani parte tradita. Quod ante, exquo Romanum Imperium conditum erat,numquam accidit. Quin etiam legiones

[Page 69] masters of the world by their father, andwho wrote thus in connection with Julian, the son ofConstantine's brother: "This Julian, who wassubdeacon in the Roman church and when hebecame Emperor returned to the worship of thegods, seized the government, and after elaboratepreparations made war against the Parthians; inwhich expedition I also took part."[33] He would nothave kept silent about the donation of the WesternEmpire [had it been made], nor would he havespoken as he did a little later about Jovian, whosucceeded Julian: "He made with Sapor a peacewhich was necessary, indeed, but dishonorable, theboundaries being changed and a part of the RomanEmpire being given up, a thing which had never

nostrae apud Caudium per PontiumTelesinum[130] et in Hispania apudNumantiam et in Numidia sub iugo missaesunt, ut nihil tamen finium traderetur."

Hoc loco libet vos,[131] nuperrimelicet[132] defuncti estis, convenire,pontifices Romani, et te, Eugeni, qui viviscum Felicis[133] tamen venia. Curdonationem Constantini magno ore iactitatis,frequenterque vos ultores erepti Imperiiquibusdam regibus principibusque minamini,et confessionem quandam servitutis aCaesare dum coronandus est et a nonnullisaliis principibus extorquetis, veluti ab regeNeapolitano atque Siciliae; id quodnumquam aliquis veterum Romanorumpontificum fecit, non Damasus apudTheodosium, non Syricius apud Arcadium,[134] non Anastasius apud Honorium, nonIoannes apud Iustinianum, non alii apudalios sanctissimi papae apud optimosCaesares, sed semper illorum RomamItaliamque, cum provinciis quas nominavi,fuisse professi sunt? Eoque numismataaurea, ut de aliis monumentis sileamtemplisque urbis Romanae, circumferuntur,non Graecis sed Latinis litteris inscripta,Constantini iam Christiani et deinceps

before happened since the Roman state was founded;no, not even though our legions, at the Caudine[Forks] by Pontius Telesinus, and in Spain atNumantia, and in Numidia, were sent under theyoke, were any of the frontiers given up."[34]

Here I would like to interrogate I you, most recent,though deceased, Popes, and you, Eugenius, wholive, thanks only to Felix.[35] Why do you paradethe Donation of Constantine with a great noise; andall the time, as though avengers of a stolen Empire,threaten certain kings and princes; and extort someservile confession or other from the Emperor whenhe is crowned, and from some other princes, such asthe king of Naples and Sicily? None of the earlyRoman pontiffs ever did this, Damasus in the case ofTheodosius, nor Syricius in the case of Arcadius, norAnastasius in the case of Honorius, nor John in thecase of Justinian, nor the other most holy Popesrespectively in the case of the other most excellentEmperors: rather they always regarded Rome andItaly and the provinces I have named as belonging tothe Emperors. And so, to say nothing of othermonuments and temples in the city of Rome, thereare extant gold coins of Constantine's after hebecame a Christian, with inscriptions,

[Page 70] cunctorum ferme Imperatorum,quorum multa penes me sunt cum hacplerumque subscriptione subter imaginemcrucis, "Concordia orbis." Qualia infinitareperirentur summorum pontificum, siumquam Romae imperassetis! Quae nullareperiuntur, neque aurea, neque argentea,neque ab aliquo visa memorantur. Et tamennecesse erat illo tempore proprium haberenumisma quisquis imperium Romae teneret;saltem sub imagine Salvatoris aut Petri.

Pro[135] imperitiam hominum! Non cernitis,si donatio Constantini vera est, Caesari­deLatino loquor­nihil relinqui. En qualisImperator, qualis rex Romanus erit, cuiusregnum si quis habeat, nec aliud habeat,omnino nil habet! Quod si itaque palam estSilvestrum non possedisse; hoc est,Constantinum non tradidisse possessionem,haud dubium erit ne ius quidem, ut dixi,dedisse possidendi: nisi dicitis ius quidemdatum, sed aliqua causa possessionem nontraditam; ita plane dabat quod minimefuturum intelligebat; dabat quod tradere non

[Page 71] not in Greek, but in Latin letters, and ofalmost all the Emperors in succession. There aremany of them in my possession with this inscriptionfor the most part, under the image of the cross,"Concordia orbis [The Peace of the World]." Whatan infinite number of coins of the supreme pontiffswould be found if you ever had ruled Rome! Butnone such are found, neither gold nor silver, nor areany mentioned as having been seen by any one. Andyet whoever held the government at Rome at thattime had to have his own coinage: doubtless thePope's would have borne the image of the Savior orof Peter.

Alas for man's ignorance! You do not see that if theDonation of Constantine is authentic nothing is leftto the Emperor, the Latin Emperor, I mean. Ah, whatan Emperor, what a Roman king, he would be, whenif any one had his kingdom and had no other, hewould have nothing at all! But if it is thus manifestthat Sylvester did not have possession, that is, thatConstantine did not give over possession, then therewill be no doubt that he [Constantine], as I havesaid, did not give even the right to possess. That is,unless you say that the right was given, but that for

poterat; dabat quod non prius venire inmanus eius cui dabatur possibile erat quamesset extinctum; dabat donum quod antequingentos annos aut numquam valiturumforet. Verum hoc loqui aut sentire insanumest.

Sed iam tempus est, ne longior fiam, causaeadversariorum iam concisae atque lacerataeletale[136] vulnus imprimere et uno eamiugulare ictu. Omnis fere historia, quaenomen historiae meretur, Constantinum apuero cum patre Constantio[137]Christianum refert multo etiam antepontificatum Silvestri; ut Eusebiusecclesiasticae scriptor historiae, quemRufinus,[138] non in postremis doctus, inLatinum interpretatus duo volumina de aevosuo adiecit, quorum

some reason possession was not transferred. In thatcase he manifestly gave what he knew would neverin the least exist; he gave what he could not transfer;he gave what could not come into the possession ofthe recipient until after it was nonexistent; be gave agift which would not be valid for five hundred years,or never would be valid. But to say or to think this isinsanity.

But it is high time, if I am not to be too prolix, togive the adversaries' cause, already struck down andmangled, the mortal blow and to cut its throat with asingle stroke. Almost every history worthy of thename speaks of Constantine as a Christian fromboyhood, with his father Constantius, long beforethe pontificate of Sylvester; as, for instance,Eusebius, author of the Church History, whichRufinus, himself a great scholar, translated intoLatin, adding two books on his own times.[36] Bothof these

[Page 72] uterque paene[139] Constantinitemporibus fuit. Adde huc testimoniumetiam Romani pontificis qui his rebusgerendis non interfuit sed praefuit, non testissed auctor, non alieni negotii sed suinarrator. Is est Melchiades papa, quiproximus fuit ante Silvestrum, qui ita ait:"Ecclesia ad hoc usque pervenit, ut nonsolum gentes sed etiam Romani principes,qui totius orbis monarchiam tenebant, adfidem Christi et[140] fidei sacramentaconcurrerent. E quibus vir religiosissimusConstantinus, primus fidem veritatis patenteradeptus, licentiam dedit per universumorbem[141] suo degentibus imperio nonsolum fieri Christianos, sed etiam fabricandiecclesias, et praedia constituit tribuenda.Denique idem praefatus princeps donariaimmensa contulit, et fabricam templi primaesedis beati Petri instituit; adeo ut sedemimperialem relinqueret et beato Petrosuisque successoribus profuturamconcederet." En nihil Melchiades aConstantino datum ait, nisi palatiumLateranense, et praedia, de quibus Gregoriusin registro facit saepissime mentionem. Ubisunt qui nos[142] in dubium vocare nonsinunt donatio Constantini valeat necne, cumilla donatio fuerit et ante Silvestrum et rerumtantummodo privatarum?

[Page 73] men were nearly contemporary withConstantine. Add to this also the testimony of theRoman pontiff who not only took part, but theleading part in these events, who was not merely awitness but the prime mover, who narrates, notanother's doings, but his own. I refer to PopeMelchiades, Sylvester's immediate predecessor. Hesays: "The church reached the point where not onlythe nations, but even the Roman rulers who heldsway over the whole world, came together into thefaith of Christ and the sacraments of the faith. Oneof their number, a most devout man, Constantine,the first openly to come to belief in the Truth, gavepermission to those living under his government,throughout the whole world, not only to becomeChristians, but even to build churches, and hedecreed that landed estates be distributed amongthese. Finally also the said ruler bestowed immenseofferings, and began the building of the templewhich was the first seat of the blessed Peter, goingso far as to leave his imperial residence and give itover for the use of the blessed Peter and hissuccessors."[37] You see, incidentally, thatMelchiades does not say that anything was given byConstantine except the Lateran palace, and landedestates, which Gregory mentions very frequently inhis register. Where are those who do not permit us tocall into question whether the Donation ofConstantine is valid, when the "donation" bothantedated Svlvester and conferred privatepossessions alone?

[Page 74] Quae res quamquam plana etaperta sit, tamen de ipso quod isti stolidiproferre solent privilegio disserendum est.

Et ante omnia non modo ille qui Gratianusvideri voluit, qui nonnulla ad opus Gratianiadiecit, improbitatis arguendus est, verumetiam inscitiae qui opinantur paginamprivilegii apud Gratianum contineri; quodneque docti umquam putarunt, et invetustissimis quibusque editionibus[143]decretorum non invenitur. Et si quo in locohuius rei Gratianus meminisset, non in hocubi isti collocant seriem ipsam orationisabrumpentes, sed in eo ubi agit deLudovici[144] pactione meminisset.Praeterea duo millia locorum in decretis suntquae ab huius loci fide dissentient; quorumunus est ubi, quae superius retuli, Melchiadisverba ponuntur. Nonnulli eum qui hoccapitulum adiecit aiunt vocatum Paleam velvero nomine, vel ideo quod quae de suoadiunxit ad Gratianum comparata instarpalearum iuxta frumenta existimentur.Utcumque sit, indignissimum est credere,quae ab[145] hoc adiecta sunt, eadecretorum collectorem aut ignorasse, autmagnifecisse habuisseque pro veris. Benehabet, sufficit; vicimus. Primum quod hocGratianus non ait ut isti mentiebantur, immoadeo, prout[146] ex infinitis locis daturintelligi, negat atque confutat. Deinde quodunum et ignotum et nullius auctoritatis acminimi[147] hominem afferunt, ita etiamstolidum, ut ea Gratiano affinxerit, quae cumceteris illius dictis congruere non possent.Hunc ergo vos auctorem profertis? Huiusunius testimonio nitimini?[148] Huiuschartulam ad tantae rei confirmationemcontra sexcenta probationum generarecitatis? At ego exspectaveram ut aureasigilla, marmoratos titulos, mille auctoresostenderetis.

Sed ipse, dicitis, Palea auctorem profert,fontem historiae os­

[Page 75] But though it is all obvious and clear, yetthe deed of gift itself, which those fools always putforward, must be discussed.

And first, not only must I convict of dishonesty himwho tried to play Gratian and added sections to thework of Gratian, but also must convict of ignorancethose who think a copy of the deed of gift iscontained in Gratian; for the well­informed havenever thought so, nor is it found in any of the oldestcopies of the Decretum. And if Gratian hadmentioned it anywhere, he would have done so, notwhere they put it, breaking the thread of thenarrative, but where he treats of the agreement ofLouis [the Pious]. Besides, there are two thousandpassages in the Decretum which forbid theacceptance of this passage; for example, that wherethe 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,[38]either because that was his real name or becausewhat he added of his own, compared with Gratian, isas straw [palea] beside grain. However that may be,it is monstrous to believe that the compiler of theDecretum either did not know what was interpolatedby this man, or esteemed it highly and held it forgenuine. Good! It is enough! We have won! First,because Gratian does not say what they lyinglyquote; and more especially because on the contrary,as can be seen in innumerable passages, he deniesand disproves it; and last, because they bringforward only a single unknown individual, of not theleast authority, so very stupid as to affix to Gratianwhat cannot be harmonized with his otherstatements. This then is the author you bringforward? On his sole testimony you rely? Hischarter, in a matter of such importance, you recite asconfirmation 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

[Page 76] tendit, et Gelasium[149] papamcum multis episcopis in testimonium citat."Ex Gestis," inquit, "Silvestri, quae beatusGelasius in concilio septuagintaepiscoporum a catholicis legi commemorateet pro antiquo usu multas hoc dicit ecclesiasimitari; in quibus legitur, Constantinus etcetera." Multo superius, ubi de libris

[Page 77] source of his narrative, and cites PopeGelasius and many bishops as witnesses; it is, hesays, "from the Acts of Sylvester (which the blessedPope Gelasius in the Council of the Seventy Bishopsrecounts as read by the catholic, and in accordancewith ancient usage many churches he says followthis example) which reads: 'Constantine . . . , etc.' "[39] Considerably earlier, where books to be read

legendis et non legendis agitur, etiamdixerat, "Actus beati Silvestri praesulis, liceteius qui scripsit nomen ignoremus, a multistamen ab urbe Roma catholicis legicognovimus, et pro antiquo usu hocimitantur ecclesiae." Mira haec auctoritas,mirum testimonium, inexpugnabilisprobatio! Dono vobis hoc, Gelasium dum deconcilio septuaginta episcoporum loquitur iddixisse. Num id dixit, paginam privilegii inbeatissimi Silvestri Gestis legi? Is verotantum ait Gesta Silvestri legi[150] et hocRomae, cuius ecclesiae auctoritatem multaealiae sequuntur,[151] quod ego non nego;concedo, fateor; me quoque una cum Gelasiotestem exhibeo. Verum quid vobis ista resprodest, nisi ut in adducendis testibusmentiri voluisse videamini? Ignoratur nomeneius qui hoc in Decretis ascripsit, et solushoc dicit. Ignoratur nomen eius qui scripsithistoriam, et solus is et falso testis affertur.Et vos, boni viri atque prudentes, hoc satissuperque esse ad tantae rei testimoniumexistimatis? At videte, quantum inter meumintersit vestrumque iudicium. Ego ne si hocquidem apud Gesta Silvestri privilegiumcontineretur, pro vero habendum putarem,cum historia illa non historia sit, sed poeticaet impudentissima fabula, ut posteriusostendam; nec quisquam alius alicuiusdumtaxat[152] auctoritatis de hoc privilegio

and books not to be read are treated, he had saidalso; "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 thecity of Rome, and in accordance with ancient usagethe churches follow this example."[40] Wonderfulauthority this, wonderful evidence, irrefutable proof!I grant you this, that Gelasius in speaking of theCouncil of the Seventy Bishops said that. But did hesay this, that the deed of gift is to be read in the Actsof the most blessed Sylvester? He says, indeed, onlythat the Acts of Sylvester are read, and that in Rome,and that many other churches follow her authority. Ido not deny this, I concede it, I admit it, I also standup with Gelasius as a witness to it. But whatadvantage is this to you, except that you may beshown to have deliberately lied in adducing yourwitnesses? The name of the man who interpolatedthis ["Donation" of yours] is not known, and he isthe only one who says this [that the Donation is inthe Acts of Sylvester]; the name of the man whowrote the history of Sylvester is not known, and heis the only one cited as witness, and thaterroneously. And good men and prudent as you are,you think this is enough and more than enoughevidence for such an important transaction! Well!how your judgment differs from mine! Even if thisgrant were contained in the Acts of Sylvester, Ishould not think it was to be considered genuine, forthat history is not history, but fanciful and mostshameful fiction, as I shall later show; nor does anyone else of any authority whatever make mention ofthis grant. And

[Page 78] habeat mentionem. Et IacobusVoraginensis, propensus in amoremclericorum ut archiepiscopus, tamen inGestis sanctorum de donatione Constantini,ut fabulosa nec digna quae inter GestaSilvestri poneretur, silentium egit; lataquodammodo sententia contra eos, si quihaec litteris mandavissent.

Sed ipsum falsarium ac vere "paleam," nontriticum, obtorto collo in iudicium traherevolo. Quid ais, falsarie? Unde fit quod istudprivilegium inter Silvestri Gesta nonlegimus? Credo hic liber rarus est, difficilisinventu, nec vulgo habetur, sed tamquamfasti olim a pontificibus, aut libriSibyllini[153] a decemviris custoditur!Lingua Graeca aut Syriaca aut Chaldaicascriptus est! Testatur Gelasius a multis

[Page 79] even James of Voragine, though as anarchbishop disposed to favor the clergy, yet in hisActs of the Saints[41] preserved silence on theDonation of Constantine as fictitious and not fit tofigure in the Acts of Sylvester; a conclusivejudgment, 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 intocourt. What do you say, you forger? Whence comesit that we do not read this grant in the Acts ofSylvester? This book, forsooth, is rare, difficult toget, not owned by the many but rather kept as theFasti once were by the pontifices, or the Sibyllinebooks by the Decemvirs! It was written in Greek, orSyriac, or Chaldee! Gelasius testifies that it was readby many of the orthodox; Voragine mentions it; wealso have seen thousands of copies of it, and written

catholicis legi; Voraginensis de eo meminit;nos quoque mille et antique scriptaexemplaria vidimus; et in omni ferecathedrali ecclesia, cum adest Silvestrinatalis dies, lectitantur: et tamen nemo seillic legisse istud ait quod tu affingis, nemoaudisse, nemo somniasse. An alia quaedamfortassis historia est? Et quaenam ista erit?Ego aliam nescio, nec abs te aliam diciinterpretor, quippe de ea tu loqueris quamGelasius apud multas ecclesias lectitarirefert. In hac autem tuum privilegium noninvenimus. Quod Si istud in Vita Silvestrinon legitur, quid tu ita legi tradidisti? Quidin tanta re iocari ausus es, et leviumhorninum cupiditatem eludere?

Sed stultus sum qui illius potius insectoraudacium, quam istorum dementiam quicrediderunt. Si quis apud Graecos, apudHebraeos, apud barbaros diceret hoc essememoriae proditum, nonne iuberetisnominari auctorem, proferri codicem, etlocum ab interprete fideli exponi antequamcrederetis? Nunc de lingua

long ago; and in almost every cathedral it is readwhen Sylvester's Day comes around.[42] Yetnevertheless no one says that he has read there whatyou put in it; no one has heard of it; no one hasdreamt of it. Or is there perhaps some other historyof Sylvester? And what can that be? I know noother, nor do I understand that any other is referredto by you, for you speak of the one which Gelasiussays is read in many churches. In this, however, wedo not find your grant. But if it is not found in theLife of Sylvester, why do you declare that it is? Howdid 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 ofthis [forger], instead of inveighing against theinsanity of those who give him credence. If any oneshould say that this had been recorded forremembrance among the Greeks, the Hebrews, thebarbarians, would you not bid him name his author,produce his book, and the passage, to be explainedby a reliable translator, before you would believe it?But now your own language, and a

[Page 80] vestra, de notissimo codice fitmentio, et vos tam incredibile factum autnon inquiritis, aut, cum scriptum nonreperiatis, tam prona estis credulitate ut proscripto habeatis atque pro vero. Et hoc titulocontenti, terras miscetis et maria, et, quasinullum subsit dubium, eos qui vobis noncredunt, terrore bellorum aliisque minisprosequimini. Bone Iesu, quanta vis, quantadivinitas est veritatis, quae per sese sinemagno conatu ab omnibus dolis ac fallaciisse ipsa defendit, ut non immerito, cum essetapud Darium regem exorta contentio quidforet maxime validum et alius aliud diceret,tributa sit palma veritati!

Quia cum sacerdotibus, non cumsaecularibus, mihi res est, ecclesiasticamagis quam saecularia sunt exemplarepetenda. Iudas Machabaeus, cum dimissisRomam legatis foedus amicitiamque asenatu impetrasset, curavit verba foederis inaes incidenda Ierosolimamque portanda.Taceo de lapideis decalogi tabulis, quasDeus Moysi dedit. Ista vero tam magnificaConstantini et tam inaudita donatio nullisneque in auro, neque in argento, neque inaere, neque in marmore, neque postremo inlibris, probari documentis potest; sed tantum,

[Page 81] very well­known book are involved, andeither you do not question such an incredibleoccurrence, or when you do not find it written downyou have such utter credulity as to believe that it iswritten down and authentic! And, satisfied with thistitle, you move heaven and earth, and, as though nodoubt existed, you pursue with the terrors of war andwith other threats those who do not believe you!Blessed Jesus, what power, what divinity there is inTruth, which unaided defends itself without anygreat struggle from all falsehoods and deceits; sothat not undeservedly, when contention had arisen atthe court of king Darius as to what was mostpowerful, and one said one thing and anotheranother, the palm was awarded to Truth.[43]

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 toRome and obtained a friendly alliance from theSenate, took pains to have the terms of the allianceengraved on brass and carried to Jerusalem. I passby the stone tables of the Decalogue, which Godgave to Moses. And this, Donation of Constantine,so magnificent and astounding, cannot be proved byany copies, in gold, in silver, in brass, in marble, oreven in books, but only, if we believe it, on paper, orparchment. According to Josephus, Jubal, theinventor of music, when the elders expressed the

si isti credimus, in charta, sive membrana.Iobal primus musices auctor, ut est apudIosephum, cum esset a maioribus per manustradita opinio res humanas semel aquaiterum igni delendas, doctrinam suamduabus columnis[154] inscripsit, lateritiacontra ignem, lapidea contra aquas; quae adIosephi aevum ut idem scribit, permansit; utsuum in homines beneficium semperexstaret. Et apud Romanos rusticanos[155]adhuc et agrestes, cum parvae et raraelitterae essent, tainen leges duodecimtabularum in aes fuere incisae, quae vi[156]capta atque incensa a Gallis urbe incolumespostea sunt repertae. Adeo duo maxima inrebus humanis, diuturnitatem temporis etfortunae violentiam, vincit

opinion that the world was to be destroyed, once bywater, and again by fire, inscribed his teaching ontwo columns, one of brick against the fire, and oneof stone against the flood, which columns stillremained at the time of Josephus, as he himselfwrites, so that his benefaction to men might alwayscontinue. And among the Romans, while still rusticand country bred, when writing was inadequate andrare, the laws of the Twelve Tables neverthelesswere engraved on brass, and though the city wasstormed and burned by the Gauls they wereafterwards found unharmed. Thus careful foresightovercomes the two mightiest forces known to man,namely, long lapse

[Page 82] circumspecta providentia.Constantinus vero orbis terrarumdonationem papyro[157] tantum etatramento signavit, cum praesertimmachinator fabulae, quisquis ille fuit, faciatConstantinum dicentem se credere nondefore qui donationem hanc impia aviditaterescinderent! Hoc times, Constantine, et noncaves ne ii qui Romam Silvestro eriperentchartulam quoque surriperent?

Quid ipse Silvester pro se nihil agit? Itaomnia Constantino remittit? Ita securus acsegnis est in tanto negotio? Nihil sibi, nihilecclesiae suae, nihil posteritati prospicit? En,cui Imperium Romanum administrandumcommittas,[158] qui tam magnae reitantoque aut lucro aut periculo indormit! Siquidem sublata chartula, privilegiidonationem utique aetate procedente probarenon poterit.

"Paginam privilegii" appellat bomo vesanus.Privilegiumne tu (libet velut praesenteminsectari) vocas donationem orbis terrarum;et hoc in pagina vis esse scriptum; et istogenere orationis usum esse Constantinum?Si titulus absurdus est, qualia ceteraexistimemus?

"Constantinus Imperator quarto die suibaptismatis privilegium Romanae ecclesiaepontifici contulit, ut in toto orbeRomano[159] sacerdotes ita hunc caputhabeant, sicut iudices regem." Hoc in ipsaSilvestri historia continetur; ex quo dubitari

[Page 83] of time and the violence of fortune. YetConstantine signed a donation of the world on paperalone and with ink, though the very inventor of thefabulous story makes him say that he thought therewould not be lacking those who with unholy greedwould set aside this Donation! Do you have thisfear, Constantine, and do you take no precaution lestthose who would snatch Rome from Sylvestershould also steal the charter?

Why does Sylvester do nothing for himself? Does heleave everything thus to Constantine? Is he socareless and lazy in such an important matter? Doeshe not look ahead at all for himself, for his church,for posterity? See to whom you commit theadministration of the Roman Empire; in the midst ofsuch an important transaction, fraught with so mucheither of gain or of peril, he goes sound asleep! Forlet the charter ever be lost, he will not be able, atleast as time goes on, to prove the granting of the"privilege."[44]

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

"The Emperor Constantine the fourth day after hisbaptism conferred this privilege on the pontiff of theRoman church, that in the whole Roman worldpriests should regard him as their head, as judges dothe king." This sentence is part of the History [Life]of Sylvester,[45] and it leaves no doubt where [nor

non potest ubinam scriptum significetur"privilegium." Sed, more eorum quimendacia machinantur, a vero incoepit[160]ut sequentibus, quae falsa sunt, concilietfidem, ut Sinon apud Virgilium:[161]

Imperatoris

why] the document gets its title "privilege." But, inthe manner of those who fabricate lies, he beginswith the truth for the purpose of winning confidencein his later statements, which are false, as Sinon saysin Virgil:

[Page 84] "Cuncta equidem tibi, rex, fuerintquaecumque fatebor. Vera, inquit, nec meArgolica de gente negabo."

Hoc primum, deinde falsa subiecit. Ita hocloco noster Sinon facit, qui cum a veroincoepisset, adiecit:

"In eo privilegio, inter cetera, legitur: 'Utileiudicavimus una cum omnibus satrapisnostris et universo senatu, optimatibus etiam,et cum cuncto populo imperio Romanaeecclesiae subiacenti ut sicut beatus Petrus interris vicarius Dei videtur esse constitutus,etiam et pontifices ipsius principisapostolorum vicem principatus potestatemamplius quam terrenae imperialis nostraeserenitatis mansuetudo habere videretur,concessam a nobis nostroque imperioobtineant.'"

0 scelerate atque malefice! Eadem quamaffers in testimonium refert historia, longotempore neminem senatorii ordinis voluisseaccipere religionem Christianam, etConstantinum pauperes sollicitasse pretio adbaptismum. Et tu ais intra primos statim diessenatum, optimates, satrapes,[161] quasi iamChristianos, de honestanda ecclesia Romanacum Caesare decrevisse! Quid! Quod visinterfuisse satrapes? 0 cautes, 0 stipes! Sicloquuntur Caesares? Sic concipi solentdecreta Romana? Quis umquam satrapes inconsiliis Romanorum nominari audivit? Nonteneo memoria umquam legisse me ullum,non modo Romanum, sed ne in Romanorumquidem provinciis satrapem nominatum. Athic

[Page 85]"... 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."[46]

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

"In this privilege, among other things, is this: 'We­together with all our satraps and the whole Senateand the nobles also, and all the people subject to thegovernment of the Roman church[47]­considered itadvisable that, as the blessed Peter is seen to havebeen constituted vicar of God on the earth, so thepontiffs who are the representatives of that samechief of the apostles, should obtain from us and ourEmpire the power of a supremacy greater than theclemency of our earthly imperial serenity is seen tohave conceded to it.' "

0 thou scoundrel, thou villain! The same history [theLife of Sylvester] which you allege as yourevidence, says that for a long time none of senatorialrank was willing to accept the Christian religion, andthat Constantine solicited the poor with bribes to bebaptized. And you say that within the first days,immediately, the Senate, the nobles, the satraps, asthough already Christians, with the Caesar passeddecrees for the honoring of the Roman church!What! How do you want to have satraps come inhere? Numskull, blockhead! Do the Caesars speakthus; are Roman decrees usually drafted thus?Whoever heard of satraps being mentioned in thecouncils of the Romans?[48] I do not remember everto have read of any Roman satrap being mentioned,or even of a satrap in any of the Roman provinces.But this fellow

[Page 86] satrapes vocat, eosque senatuipraeponit, cum omnes honores, etiam quiprincipi deferuntur, tantum a senatudecernantur, aut iuncto[162] "populoqueRomano." Hinc est quod in lapidibus vetustisaut tabulis aereis aut numismatis duas litterasvidemus scriptas: S.C.; id est, "Senatus

[Page 87] speaks of the Emperor's satraps, and putsthem in before the Senate, though all honors, eventhose bestowed upon the ruling prince, are decreedby the Senate alone, or with the addition "and theRoman people." Thus we see carved on ancientstones or bronze tablets or coins two letters, "S.C.,"that is "By decree of the Senate," or four,

consulto," vel quattuor:[163] S.P.Q.R., hocest, "Senatus populusque Romanus." Et, utTertullianus meminit, cum Pontius Pilatus deadmirandis Christi actionibus ad TiberiumCaesarem, non ad senatum, scripsisset,siquidem ad senatum scribere de magnisrebus magistratus consueverant, senatushanc rem indigne tulit, Tiberioquepraerogativam ferenti ut Iesus pro deocoleretur repugnavit, ob tacitam tantummodoindignationem offensae senatoriae dignitatis.Et ut scias quantum senatus valeat auctoritas,ne pro deo coleretur obtinuit.

Quid! Quod ais optimates? Quos autprimarios in republica viros intelligimus, quicur nominentur[164] cum de ceterismagistratibus silentium sit? aut eos quipopulates non sunt, benevolentiam populiaucupantes, sed optimi cuiusque et bonarumpartium studiosi ac defensores, ut Ciceroquadain oratione demonstrat? IdeoqueCaesarem ante oppressam rempublicampopularem fuisse dicimus, Catonem exoptimatibus, quorum differentiam Sallustiusexplicavit. Neque hi optimates magisquampopulares aut ceteri boni viri dicuntur inconsilio adhiberi.

Sed quid mirum si adhibentur optimates, ubicunctus populus, si homini credimus, cumsenatu et Caesare iudicavit, et is quidemRomanae ecclesiae subiacens! Et quis isteest populus? Roma­

"S.P.Q.R.," that is, "The Senate and the RomanPeople." And according to Tertullian, when PontiusPilate had written to Tiberius Caesar and not to theSenate concerning the wonderful deeds of Christ,inasmuch as magistrates were supposed to writeconcerning important matters to the Senate, theSenate gave way to spite and opposed Tiberius'proposal that Jesus be worshipped as a God, merelyon account of its secret anger at the offense tosenatorial dignity.[49] And, to show how weightywas the authority of the Senate, Jesus did not obtaindivine worship.

What now! Why do you say "nobles" ["optimates"]?Are we to understand that these are leading men inthe republic; then why should they be mentionedwhen the other magistrates are passed by in silence?Or are they the opposite of the "popular" partywhich curries favor with the people; the ones whoseek and champion the welfare of every aristocratand of the "better" elements, as Cicero shows in oneof his orations? Thus we say that Caesar before, theoverthrow of the republic had been a member of the"popular" party, Cato of the "optimates." Thedifference 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 tothe council, when, if we believe this fellow, "all thepeople," and the people "subject to the Romanchurch" at that, acted officially with the Senate andthe Caesar![50] And what people are these? TheRoman

[Page 88] nusne? At cur non dicitur populusRomanus potiusquam populus subiacens?Quae nova ista contumelia est in Quirites, dequibus optimi poetae elogium est:

"Tu regere imperio populos, Romane,memento?"

Qui regit alios populos,[165] ipse vocaturpopulus subiacens, quod inauditum est. Namin hoc, ut in multis epistolis Gregoriustestatur, differt Romanus princeps[166] aceteris, quod solus est princeps liberi populi.Ceterum ita sit ut vis. Nonne et alii populisubiacent? An alios quoque significas?Quomodo fieri istud triduo poterat, ut omnespopuli subiacentes imperio Romanaeecclesiae illi decreto adessent? Tametsinum[167] omnis faex populi iudicabat?

[Page 89] people? But why not say the Romanpeople, rather than the "people subject"? What newinsult is this to the Quirites of whom the great poetsings:

"Do thou, 0 Roman, take care to rule the peopleswith imperial sway!"[51]

Can those who rule other peoples, themselves becalled a subject people? It is preposterous! For inthis, as Gregory in many letters testifies, the Romanruler differs from the others, that he alone is ruler ofa free people. But be this as it may. Are not otherpeoples also subject? Or do you mean others also?How could it be brought to pass in three days that allthe people subject to the government of the Romanchurch gave assent to that decree? Though did everyTom, Dick, and Harry give his judgment? What!would Constantine, before he had subjected the

Quid! Antequam subiecisset Romanopontifici populum Constantinus subiectumvocaret? Quid! Quod ii[168] qui subiacentesvocantur faciendo dicuntur praefuissedecreto? Quid! Quod hoc ipsum dicunturdecrevisse, ut sint subiacentes et ut ille cuisubiacent hos habeat subiacentes? Quid agisaliud, infelix,[169] nisi ut iudices tevoluntatem fallendi habere, facultatem nonhabere?

"Eligentes nobis ipsum principemapostolorum, vel eius vicarios, firmos apudDeum esse patronos. Et sicut nostra estterrena imperialis potentia, ita eiussacrosanctam Romanam ecclesiamdecrevimus veneranter honorare, et ampliusquam nostrum imperium terrenumquethronum, sedem sacratissimam beati Petrigloriose exaltari,[170] tribuentes eipotestatem et gloriam et dignitatem, atquevigorem et honorificentiam imperialem."

Revivisce paulisper, Firmiane[171] Lactanti,resisteque huic asino tam vasteimmaniterque rudenti. Ita verborumturgentium strepitu delectatur, ut eademrepetat et inculcet quae modo dixerat.

people to the Roman pontiff, call them subject? Howis it that those who are called subjects are said tohave been in authority in the making of the decree?How is it that they are said to have decreed this verything, that they should be subject and that he towhom they are already subject should have them ashis subjects? What else do you do, you wretch, otherthan admit that you have the will to commit forgery,but not the ability?

"Choosing that same prince of the apostles, or hisvicars, to be our constant intercessors with God.And, to the extent of our earthly imperial power, wehave decreed that his holy Roman church shall behonored with veneration: and that more than ourempire and earthly throne, the most sacred seat ofthe blessed Peter shall be gloriously exalted; wegiving to it power and glory, and dignity, and vigorand honor imperial."

Come back to life for a little while, FirmianusLactantius, stop this ass who brays so loudly andoutrageously. So delighted is he with the sound ofswelling words, that he repeats the same terms

[Page 90] Huncne in modum aevo tuoloquebantur Caesarum scribae, ne dicamagasones? Elegit sibi illos Constantinus nonpatronos, sed "esse patronos." Interposuitillud "esse" ut numerum redderetconcinniorem. Honesta ratio! Barbare loquiut venustius currat oratio, si modo quid intanta scabritia venustum esse potest!"Eligentes principem apostolorum, vel eiusvicarios." Non eligis[172] Petrum et eiusdeinceps vicarios, sed aut hunc exclusis illis,aut illos hoc excluso. Et pontifices Romanosappellat vicarios Petri, quasi vel vivat Petrus,vel minori dignitate sint ceteri quam Petrusfuit. Nonne et illud barbarum est; "a nobisnostroque imperio?" Quasi imperium habeatanimum concedendi et potestatem! Nec fuitcontentus dicere "obtineant," nisi etiamdiceret "concessam," cum satis alterum esset.Et illud "firmos patronos," perquam elegansest! Scilicet firmos vult ne pecuniacorrumpantur aut metu labantur. Et illud"terrena imperialis potentia"; duo adiectivasine copula! Et illud "veneranter honorare,"et illud "nostrae imperialis serenitatismansuetudo!" Lactantianam eloquentiam

[Page 91] and reiterates what he has just said. Is itthus that in your age the secretaries of the Caesarsspoke, or even their grooms? Constantine chosethem not "as his intercessors" but "to be hisintercessors." 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 runalong more gracefully, as if indeed, anything can begraceful in such filthiness. "Choosing the prince ofthe apostles, or his vicars": you do not choose Peter,and then his vicars, but either him, excluding them,or them, excluding him.[52] And he calls the Romanpontiffs "vicars" of Peter, either as though Peterwere living, or as though they were of lower rankthan was Peter. And is not this barbarous; "from usand our empire"?[53] As if the empire had a mind togive 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,"[53] is very elegant indeed!Doubtless he wants them "constant" so that theymay not be corrupted by money nor moved by fear.And "earthly imperial power"; two adjectiveswithout a conjunction. And "be honored withveneration": and "clemency of our imperialserenity";[54] it smacks of Lactantian eloquence to

redolet, cum de potentia agatur imperii,serenitatem nominare et mansuetudinem,non amplitudinem et maiestatem. Quodetiam tumida superbia inflatum est, ut in illoquoque, "gloriose exaltari"[173] per"gloriam et potestatem et dignitatem, etvigorem et honorificentiam imperialem"!quod ex Apocalypsi sumptum videtur, ubidicitur: "Dignus est agnus qui occisus est,accipere virtutem et divinitatem[174] etsapientiam et fortitudinem et honorem etbenedictionem." Frequenter, ut posteriusliquebit, titulos Dei sibi

speak of "serenity" and "clemency," instead ofgrandeur and majesty, when the power of the Empireis concerned! And how inflated he is with puffed­uppride; as in that phrase "gloriously exalted" by"glory, and power, and dignity, and vigor, andimperial honor"! This seems to be taken from theApocalypse, where it says, "Worthy is the Lamb thatwas slain, to receive power, and divinity andwisdom, and strength, and honor and blessing."[55]Frequently, as will be shown later, Constantine ismade to arrogate to himself the titles of God, and totry

[Page 92] arrogare fingitur Constantinus, etimitari velle sermonem sacrae Scripturae,quem numquam legerat.

"Atque decernentes sancimus, utprincipatum teneat, tam super quatuor sedesAlexandrinam, Antiochenam,Ierosolimitanam, Constantinopolitanam,quam etiam super omnes in universo orbeterrarum Dei ecclesias; etiam pontifex, quiper tempora ipsius sacrosanctae Romanaeecclesiae extiterit, celsior et princeps cunctissacerdotibus et totius mundi existat, et eiusiudicio, quae ad cultum Dei et fidemChristianorum vel stabilitatem procurandamfuerint, disponantur."[175]

Omitto hic barbariem sermonis, quod"princeps sacerdotibus" pro "sacerdotum"dixit, et quod in eodem loco posuit "extiterit"et existat," et, cum dixerit "in universo orbeterrarum," iterum addit "totius mundi," quasiquiddam diversum, aut caelum, quae mundipars est, complecti velit, cum bona pars orbisterrarum sub Roma non esset, et quod"fidem Christianorum," "vel stabilitatemprocurandam," tamquam non possent simulesse, distinxit, et quod "decernere" et"sancire" miscuit, et veluti prius cum ceterisConstantinus non iudicasset, decernere eumet, tamquam poenam proponat, sancire, etquidem una cum populo sancire facit. Quishoc Christianus pati queat, et non papam, quihoc patitur ac libens audit et recitat, censoriesevereque castiget, quod, cum a Christoprimatum acceperit Romana sedes et id,Gratiano testante multisque Graecorum,octava synodus declararit, accepisse dicatur

[Page 93] to imitate the language of the sacredscriptures, which he had never read.

"And we ordain and decree that he shall have thesupremacy as well over the four seats, Alexandria,Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, as also overall the churches of God in the whole earth. And thepontiff also, who at the time shall be at the head ofthe holy Roman church itself, shall be more exaltedthan, and chief over, all the priests of the wholeworld; and, according to his judgment everythingwhich is to be provided for the service of God, andfor the faith or the stability of the Christians is to beadministered."

I will not speak here of the barbarisms in [theforger's] language when he says "chief over thepriests" instead of chief of the priests; when he putsin the same sentence "extiterit" and "existat"[confusing meanings, moods and tenses]; when,having said "in the whole earth," he adds again "ofthe whole world," as though he wished to includesomething else, or the sky, which is part of theworld, though a good part of the earth even was notunder Rome; when he distinguishes betweenproviding for "the faith" of Christians and providingfor their "stability," as though they could not coexist;[56] when he confuses "ordain" and "decree," andwhen, as though Constantine had not already joinedwith the rest in making the decree, he has him nowordain it, and as though he imposes a punishment,decree [confirm) it, and confirm it together with thepeople. [That, I pass by.] But what Christian couldendure this [other thing], and not, rather, criticallyand severely reprove a Pope who endures it, andlistens to it willingly and retails it; namely, that theRoman See, though it received its primacy fromChrist, as the Eighth Synod declared according tothe testimony of Gratian and many of the Greeks,

[Page 94] a Constantino vix dum Christianotamquam a Christo? Hoc ille modestissimusprinceps dicere, hoc piissimus pontifexaudire voluisset? Absit tarn grave ab utroqueillorum nefas!

Quid, quod multo est absurdius, capitnererum natura, ut quis de Constantinopoliloqueretur tamquam una patriarchaliumsedium, quae nondum esset nec patriarchalis,nec sedes, nec urbs Christiana, nec sicnominata, nec condita, nec ad condendumdestinata? Quippe privilegium concessum esttriduo quod Constantinus esset effectusChristianus, cum Byzantium[176] adhucerat, non Constantinopolis. Mentior nisi hocquoque confiteatur[177] hic stolidus. Scribitenim prope calcem privilegii:

"Unde congruum prospeximus, nostrumimperium et regiam potestatem orientalibustransferri regionibus, et in Byzantiaeprovinciae optimo loco nomini nostrocivitatem aedificari, et illic nostrum constituiimperium."

Si ille transferee volebat alio imperium,nondum transtulerat. Si illic volebatconstituere imperium, nondum constituerat.Si sic volebat aedificare urbem, nondumaedificaverat. Non ergo fecisset mentionemde patriarchali, de una quattuor sedium, deChristiana, de sic nominata, de condita; dequa condenda, ut historiae placet quam Paleain testimonium affert, ne cogitarat quidem. Aqua[178] non videt haec belua, sive is Paleasit, sive alius quem Palea sequitur, sedissentire, ubi Constantinus, non sua sponte,sed inter quietem admonitu Dei, non Romae,sed Byzantii, non intra paucos dies, sed postaliquot annos, dicitur decrevisse de urbecondenda, nomenque quod in somnisedoctus fuerat indidisse. Quis ergo non

[Page 95] should be represented as having receivedit from Constantine, hardly yet a Christian, asthough from Christ? Would that very modest rulerhave chosen to make such a statement, and that mostdevout pontiff to listen to it? Far be such a gravewrong from both of them!

How in the world­this is much more absurd, andimpossible in the nature of things­could one speak ofConstantinople as one of the patriarchal sees, whenit was not yet a patriarchate, nor a see, nor aChristian city, nor named Constantinople, norfounded, nor planned! For the "privilege" wasgranted, so it says, the third day after Constantinebecame a Christian; when as yet Byzantium, notConstantinople, occupied that site. I am a liar if thisfool does not confess as much himself. For towardthe end of the "privilege" he writes:

"Wherefore we have perceived it to be fitting thatour empire and our royal power should betransferred in the regions of the East; and that in theprovince of Bizantia [sic], in the most fitting place, acity should be built in our name; and that our empireshould there be established."

But if he was intending to transfer the empire, hehad not yet transferred it; if he was intending toestablish his empire there, he had not yet establishedit; if he was planning to build a city, he had not yetbuilt it. Therefore he could not have spoken of it as apatriarchal see, as one of the four sees, as Christian,as having this name, nor as already built. Accordingto the history [the Life of Sylvester] which Paleacites as evidence, he had not yet even thought offounding it. And this beast, whether Palea or someone else whom Palea follows, does not notice that hecontradicts this history, in which it is said thatConstantine issued the decree concerning thefounding of the city, not on his own initiative, but ata command received in his sleep from God, not atRome but at Byzantium, not within a few days [ofhis conversion] but several years after, and that helearned its name by revelation in a dream.[57] Whothen does not see that the man who

[Page 96] videt, qui privilegium composuit,eum diu post tempora Constantini fuisse, et,cum vellet adornare mendacium, excidissesibi quod ante dixisset haec gesta esseRomae tertio die quam ille fuisset baptizatus:ut in eum decentissime cadat tritum vetustateproverbium, "Mendaces memores esseoportere"?

[Page 97] wrote the "privilege" lived long after thetime of Constantine, and in his effort to embellishhis falsehood forgot that earlier he had said thatthese events took place at Rome on the third dayafter Constantine was baptized? So the trite oldproverb applies nicely to him, "Liars need goodmemories."

And how is it that he speaks of a province of

Quid, quod Byzantiam provinciam vocatquod erat oppidum nomine[179] Byzantium?Locus haudquaquam capax tantae urbiscondendae: namque muris complexa estConstantinopolis vetus Byzantium! Et hic ineius optimo loco ait urbem esse condendam!Quid, quod Thraciam,[180] ubi positum eratByzantium, vult esse in oriente, quae vergitad Aquilonem! Opinor ignorabatConstantinus locum quem condendae urbidelegerat, sub quo caelo esset, urbsque anprovincia, quanta eius mensura foret!

"Ecclesiis beatorum apostolorum Petri etPauli pro continuatione luminariorumpossessionum praedia contulimus, et rebusdiversis eas ditavimus, et per nostramimperialem iussionem sacram tarn in orientequam in occidente quam etiain a septentrioneet meridionali plaga, videlicet in Iudaea,Graecia, Asia, Thracia, Africa, et Italia, veldiversis insulis, nostra largitate eisconcessimus, ea prorsus ratione, ut permanus beatissimi patris nostri Silvestrisummi pontificis successorumque eiusomnia disponantur."

0 furcifer! Ecclesiaene, id est templa, Romaeerant Petro et Paulo dicatae? Quis casexstruxerat?[181] Quis aedificare aususfuisset cum nusquam foret, ut historia ait,Christianis locus nisi secreta et latebrae? Autsi qua templa Romae fuissent illis dicataapostolis, non erant digna in quibus tantaluminaria accenderentur; aediculae sacrae,non aedes; sacella, non templa; oratoria interprivatos parietes, non publica delubra. Nonergo ante cura gerenda erat de luminaribustemplorum, quam de ipsis templis.

"Byzantia," when it was a town, Byzantium byname? The place was by no means large enough forthe erection of so great a city; for the old city ofByzantium was included within the walls ofConstantinople. And this man says the [new] city isto be built on the most fitting place in it! Why doeshe choose to put Thrace, in which Byzantium lies, inthe East, when it lies to the north? I supposeConstantine did not know the place which he hadchosen for the building of the city, in what latitude itwas, whether it was a town or a province, nor howlarge it was!

"On the churches of the blessed apostles Peter andPaul, for the providing of the lights, we haveconferred landed estates of possessions, and haveenriched them with different objects; and throughour sacred imperial mandate, we have granted themof our property in the east as well as in the west; andeven in the north and in the southern quarter;namely, in Judea, Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa andItaly and the various islands; under this conditionindeed, that all shall be administered by the hand ofour most blessed father the supreme pontiff,Sylvester, and his successors."

0 you scoundrel! Were there in Rome churches, thatis, temples, dedicated to Peter and Paul? Who hadconstructed them? Who would have dared to buildthem, when, as history tells us, the Christians hadnever had anything but secret and secluded meeting­places? And if there had been any temples at Romededicated to these apostles, they would not havecalled for such great lights as these to be set up inthem; they were little chapels, not sanctuaries; littleshrines, not temples; oratories in private houses, notpublic places of worship. So there was no need tocare for the temple lights, before the templesthemselves were provided.

[Page 98] Quid ais tu, qui facisConstantinum dicentem Petrum et Paulumbeatos, Silvestrum vero cum adhuc vivitbeatissimum, et suam qui paulo ante fuissetethnicus iussionem sacram? Tantaneconferenda sunt pro luminaribuscontinuandis, ut totus orbis terrarumfatigetur? At quae ista praedia sunt,praesertim "possessionum"? Praediorumpossessiones dicere solemus, non"possessionum praedia." Das praedia, necquae praedia explicas. Ditasti diversis rebus,nec quando, nec quibus rebus ostendis. Visplagas orbis a Silvestro disponi, nec pandisquo genere disponendi. Concessisti haec

[Page 99] And what is this that you say? You makeConstantine call Peter and Paul blessed, butSylvester, still living, "most blessed"; and call hisown mandate, pagan as he had been but a little whilebefore, "sacred"! Is so much to be donated "for theproviding of the lights" that the whole world wouldbe impoverished? And what are these "landedestates," particularly "landed estates ofpossessions"? The phrase "possessions of landedestates" is good usage; "landed estates ofpossessions" is not. You give landed estates, and youdo not explain which landed estates. You haveenriched "with different objects," and you do notshow when nor with what objects. You want thecorners of the earth to be administered by Sylvester,

antea? Cur te hodie incoepisse significashonorare ecclesiam Romanam et eiprivilegium concedere? Hodie concedis;hodie ditas? Cur dicis "concessimus" et"ditavimus"? Quid loqueris, aut quid sentis,bestia? Cum fabulae machinatore mihisermo est, non cum optimo principeConstantino.

Sed quid in te ullam prudentiam, ullamdoctrinam requiro, qui nullo ingenio, nullalitteratura es praeditus; qui ais"luminariorum" pro luminarium, et"orientalibus transferri regionibus" pro eoquod est ad orientales transferri regiones?Quid porro? Istaene, sunt quattuor plagae?Quam orientalem numeras? Thraciamne? At,ut dixi, vergit ad septentrionem. AnIudaeam? At magis ad meridiem spectat,utpote vicina Aegypto. Quam itemoccidentalem? Italiamne? At haec in Italiagerebantur, quam nemo illic agensoccidentalem vocat; cum Hispanias dicamusesse in occidente; et Italia hinc ad meridiemillinc ad arcton magisquam ad occidentemvergit. Quam septentrionalem? AnThraciam? At ipse ad orientem esse vis. AnAsiam? At haec sola totum possidetorientem, septentrionem verocommunem[182] cum Europa. Quammeridionalem? Certe Africam. At cur nonaliquam nominatim provinciam proferebas?Nisi forte Aethiopes Romano imperio

and you do not explain how they are to beadministered. You say these were granted earlier?Then why do you say that you have now begun tohonor the Roman church, and to grant it a"privilege"? Do you make the grant now; do youenrich it now? Then why do you say "we havegranted" and "we have enriched"? What are youtalking about; what is in your mind, you beast? (I amspeaking to the man who made up the story, not tothat most excellent ruler, Constantine.)

But why do I ask for any intelligence in you, anylearning, you who are not endowed with any ability,with any knowledge of letters, who say "lights" forlamps, 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? Whatdo you count as eastern? Thrace? It lies to the north,as I have said. Judea? It looks rather toward thesouth for it is next to Egypt. And what do you countas western? Italy? But these events occurred in Italyand no one living there calls it western; for we saythe Spains are in the west; and Italy extends, on onehand 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 itincludes the north also, like Europe. What do youcount as southern? Africa, of course. But why doyou not specify some province? Perhaps you thinkeven the Ethiopians were subject to the Roman

[Page 100] suberant. Et nihilominus nonhabent locum Asia et Africa cum orbemterrarum in quattuor dividimus partes etnominatim regiones singularum referimus,sed cum in tres, Asiam, Africam, Europam;nisi Asiam pro Asiatica provincia, Africampro ea provincia quae prope Gaetulos[183]est, appellas, quae non video cur praecipuenominentur.[184]

Sicine[185] locutus esset Constantinus, cumquattuor orbis plagas exsequitur,[186] ut hasregiones nominaret, ceteras non nominaret;et a Iudaea inciperet, quae pars Syriaenumeratur et quae amplius Iudaea non erat,eversa Hierosolima, fugatis et propeexstinctis[187] Iudaeis, ita ut credam vixaliquem in sua tunc patria remansisse, sedalias habitasse nationes? Ubi tandem eratIudaea, quae nec Iudaea amplius vocabatur,

[Page 101] Empire! And anyway Asia and Africa donot come into consideration when we divide theearth into four parts and enumerate the countries ofeach, but when we divide it into three, Asia, Africa,Europe; that is, unless you say Asia for the provinceof Asia, and Africa for that province which is next tothe Gaetuli, and I do not see why they, especially,should be mentioned.

Would Constantine have spoken thus when he wasdescribing the four quarters of the earth? Would hehave mentioned these countries, and not others?Would he have begun with Judea, which is countedas a part of Syria and was no longer "Judea" after thedestruction of Jerusalem (for the Jews were drivenaway and almost exterminated, so that, I suppose,scarcely one then remained in his own country, butthey lived among other nations)? Where then wasJudea? It was no longer called Judea, and we knowthat now that name has perished from the earth. just

ut hodie videmus illud terrae nomenexstinctum? Et sicut exterminatis ChananeisChananea regio desiit appellari, commutatonomine in Iudaeam a novis incolis, itaexterminatis Iudaeis et convenis gentibusearn incolentibus desierat Iudaea nominari.

Nuncupas Iudaeam, Thraciam, insulas;Hispanias vero, Gallias, Germanos non putasnuncupandos, et cum de aliis linguisloquaris, Hebraea, Graeca, barbara, de ullaprovinciarum Latino sermone utentium nonloqueris. Video: has tu ideo[188] omisisti, utpostea in donatione complectereris. Et quidnon tanti erant tot provinciae occidentis, utcontinuandis luminaribus suppeditarentsumptus, nisi reliquus orbis adiuvaret?

Transeo quod haec concedi ais perlargitatem; non ergo, ut isti aiunt, ob lepraecurationem. Alioquin insolens sit, quisquisremunerationem loco munerum ponit.

"Beato Silvestro eius vicario de praesentitradimus palatium imperii nostriLateranense, deinde diadema, videlicetcoronam capitis nostri, simulque phrygium,nec non et superhumerale, videlicet lorumquod imperiale circumdare[189] soletcollum, verum etiam

as after the driving out of the Canaanites the regionceased to be called Canaan and was renamed Judeaby its new inhabitants, so when the Jews were drivenout and mixed tribes inhabited it, it ceased to becalled Judea.

You mention Judea, Thrace, and the islands, but youdo not think of mentioning the Spains, the Gauls, theGermans, and while you speak of peoples of othertongues, Hebrew, Greek, barbarian, you do notspeak of any of the provinces where Latin is used. Isee: you have omitted these for the purpose ofincluding them afterwards in the Donation. And whywere not these many great provinces of the Eastsufficient to bear the expense of providing the lightswithout the rest of the world contributing!

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

"To the blessed Sylvester, his [Peter's] vicar, we bythis present do give our imperial Lateran palace,then the diadem, that is, the crown of our head, andat the same time the tiara and also the shoulder­band,­that is, the strap that usually surrounds

[Page 102] chlamydem[190] purpuream,atque tunicam coccineam, et omniaimperialia indumenta, seu etiam dignitatemimperialium praesidentium equitum;conferentes etiam ei imperialia sceptra,simulque cuncta signa atque banna et diversaornamenta imperialia, et omnemprocessionem imperialis culminis, et gloriampotestatis nostrae.

"Viris etiam diversi ordinisreverendissimis[191] clericis sanctaeRomanae ecclesiae servientibus, illudculmen singularis potentiae et praecellentiaehabere sancimus, cuius amplissimus nostersenatus videtur gloria adornari, id estpatricios,[192] consules effici. Nec non inceteris dignitatibus imperialibus eospromulgavitnus decorari. Et sicut imperialisextat decorata militia, ita clerum sanctaeRomanae ecclesiae adornari decrevimus. Etquemadmodum imperialis potentia diversisofficiis, cubiculariorum nempe et

[Page 103] our imperial neck; and also the purplemantle and scarlet tunic, and all the imperialraiment; and the same rank as those presiding overthe imperial cavalry; conferring also on him theimperial scepters, and at the same time all thestandards and banners and the different imperialornaments, and all the pomp of our imperialeminence, and the glory of our power.

"And we decree also, as to these men of differentrank, the most reverend clergy who serve the holyRoman church, that they have that same eminence ofdistinguished power and excellence, by the glory ofwhich it seems proper for our most illustrious Senateto be adorned; that is, that they be made patricians,consuls,­and also we have proclaimed that they bedecorated with the other imperial dignities. Andeven as the imperial militia stands decorated, so wehave decreed that the clergy of the holy Romanchurch be adorned. And even as the imperial poweris ordered with different offices, of chamberlains,indeed, and door­keepers and all the bed­watchers,so we wish the holy Roman church also to be

ostiariorum[193] atque omniumconcubitorum ordinatur,[194] ita et sanctamRomanam ecclesiam decorari volumus. Et utamplissime pontificale decus praefulgeat,decernimus[195] et ut clerici sancti eiusdemsanctae Romanae ecclesiae mappulis etlinteaminibus, id est candidissimo coloredecoratos equos equitent, et sicut nostersenatus calciamentis utitur cum udonibus, idest candido linteamine illustrentur, et itacaelestia sicut terrena ad laudem Deidecorentur."

0 sancte Iesu! Ad hunc sententias volventemsermonibus imperitis non respondebis deturbine? Non tonabis? Non in tantamblasphemiam[196] ultricia fulminaiaculabere? Tantumne probrum in tuafamilia sustines? Hoc audire, hoc videre, hoctamdiu conniventibus oculis praeterirepotes? Sed patiens[197] es, et multaemisericordiae. Vereor tamen ne patientiahaec tua sit potius ira et condemnatio, qualisin illos fuit, de quibus dixisti: "Et dimisi eossecundum desiderium cordis eorum, ibunt inadinventionibus suis,"

decorated. And, in order that the pontifical glorymay shine forth most fully, we decree also that theholy clergy of this same holy Roman church maymount mounts adorned with saddlecloths and linens,that is, of the whitest color; and even as our Senateuses shoes with felt socks, that is, they [the clergy]may be distinguished by white linen, and that thecelestial [orders] may be adorned to the glory ofGod, just as the terrestrial are adorned."

0 holy Jesus! This fellow, tumbling phrases about inhis ignorant talk,­will you not answer him from awhirlwind? Will you not send the thunder? Will younot hurl avenging lightnings at such greatblasphemy? Will you endure such wickedness inyour household? Can you hear this, see this, let it goon so long and overlook it? But you are long­suffering and full of compassion. Yet I fear lest thisyour long­suffering may rather be wrath andcondemnation, such as it was against those of whomyou said, "So I gave them up unto their own hearts'lust: and they walked

[Page 104] et alibi: "Tradidi eos in reprobumsensum, ut faciant quae non conveniunt, quianon probaverunt se habere notitiam mei."Iube me, quaeso, Domine, ut exclamemadversus eos, et forte convertantur.[198]

0 Romani pontifices, exemplum facinorumomnium ceteris pontificibus! 0 improbissimiscribae et Pharisaei,[199] qui sedetis supercathedram Moysi, et opera Dathan et Abironfacitis! Itane vestimenta, apparatus, pompa,equitatus, omnis denique vita Caesarisvicarium Christi decebit? Quaecommunicatio sacerdotis ad Caesarem?Istane Silvester vestimenta sibi induit? Eoapparatu incessit? Ea celebritateministrantium domi vixit atque regnavit?Sceleratissimi homines non intelliguntSilvestro magis vestes Aaron, qui summusDei sacerdos fuerat, quam gentilis principisfuisse sumendas.

Sed haec alias erunt exagitanda vehementius.Impraesentiarum autem de barbarismocum[200] hoc sycophanta loquamur, cuiusex stultiloquio impudentissimum eiuspatescit[201] sua sponte mendacium.

[Page 105] in their own counsels,"[58] andelsewhere, "Even as they did not like to retain me intheir knowledge, I gave them over to a reprobatemind, to do those things which are not convenient."[59] Command me, I beseech thee, 0 Lord, that Imay cry out against them, and perchance they maybe converted.

0 Roman pontiffs, the model of all crimes for otherpontiffs! 0 wickedest of scribes and Pharisees, whosit in Moses' seat and do the deeds of Dathan andAbiram! Will the raiment, the habiliments, thepomp, the cavalry, indeed the whole manner of lifeof a Caesar thus befit the vicar of Christ? Whatfellowship has the priest with the Caesar? DidSylvester put on this raiment; did he parade in thissplendor; did he live and reign with such a throng ofservants in his house? Depraved wretches! They didnot know that Sylvester ought to have assumed thevestments 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 thissycophant about barbarisms of speech; for by thestupidity of his language his monstrous impudence ismade clear, and his lie.

"Tradimus," inquit, "palatium imperii nostriLateranense"; quasi male hoc loco interornamenta donum palatii posuisset, iterumpostea ubi de donis agitur replicavit. "Deindediadema"; et quasi illi non videant quiadsunt, interpretatur; "videlicet coronam."Verum hic non addidit "ex auro," sedposterius easdem res inculcans inquit; "exauro purissimo et gemmis preciosis."Ignoravit homo imperitus diadema e pannoesse aut fortassis ex serico; unde sapiensillud regis dictum celebrari solet, quemferunt traditum sibi diadema priusquamcapiti imponeret retentum diu considerasseac dixisse: "O nobilem magisquam felicempannum! Quem si quis penitus agnosceret,[202] quam multis sollicitudinibus[203]periculisque et miseriis sis refertus, ne humiquidem iacentem

"We give," he says, "our imperial Lateran palace":as though it was awkward to place the gift of thepalace here among the ornaments, he repeated itlater where gifts are treated. "Then the diadem;" andas though those present would not know, heinterprets, "that is, the crown." He did not, indeed,here add "of gold," but later, emphasizing the samestatements, he says, "of purest gold and preciousgems." The ignorant fellow did not know that adiadem was made of coarse cloth or perhaps of silk;whence that wise and oft­repeated remark of theking, who, they say, before he put upon his head thediadem given him, held it and considered it long andexclaimed, "O cloth more renowned than happy! Ifany one knew you through and through, with howmany anxieties and dangers and miseries you arefraught, he would not

[Page 106] vellet tollere." Iste non putatillud nisi ex auro esse, cui circulus aureusnunc cum gemnis apponi a regibus solet.Verum non erat rex Constantinus, nec regemappellare, nec regio se ritu ornare fuissetausus. Imperator Romanorum erat, non rex.Ubi rex est, ibi respublica non est. At inrepublica multi fuerunt etiam uno temporeimperatores; nam Cicero frequenter itascribit: M. Cicero imperator illi vel illiimperatori salutem: licet postea peculiarinomine Romanus princeps, ut summusomnium, imperator appelletur.

"Simulque phrygium, nec nonsuperhumerale, videlicet lorum quodimperiale circumdare solet collum." Quisumquam phrygium Latine dici audivit? Tumihi dum barbare loqueris videri visConstantini aut Lactantii esse sermonem.Plautus in Menaechmis[204]phrygionem[205] pro concinnatore vestiumposuit. Plinius phrygionas[206] appellatvestes acu pictas, quod earum Phrygesfuerint[207] inventores. Phrygium vero quidsignificat?[208] Hoc non exponis, quodobscurum; exponis quod est clarius.Superhumerale ais esse lorum, nec quid sitlorum tenes; non enim cingulum ex coriofactum, quod dicitur lorum, sentiscircumdari pro ornamento Caesaris collo:hinc est quod habenas et verbera vocamuslora; quod si quando dicantur lora aurea, nonnisi de habenis quae auratae collo equi aut

[Page 107] care to pick you up; no, not even if youwere lying on the ground! " This fellow does notimagine but that it is of gold, with a gold band andgems such as kings now usually add. ButConstantine was not a king, nor would he have daredto call himself king, nor to adorn himself with royalceremony. He was Emperor of the Romans, notking. Where there is a king, there is no republic. Butin the republic there were many, even at the sametime, who were "imperatores" [generals]; for Cicerofrequently writes thus, "Marcus Cicero, imperator, tosome other imperator, greeting": though, later on,the Roman ruler, as the highest of all, is called byway of distinctive title the Emperor.

"And at the same time the tiara and also theshoulder­band,that is the strap that usually surroundsour imperial neck." Who ever heard "tiara"[phrygium] used in Latin? You talk like a barbarianand want it to seem to me to be a speech ofConstantine's or of Lactantius'. Plautus, in theMenaechmi, applied "phrygionem" to a designer ofgarments; Pliny calls clothes embroidered with aneedle "phrygiones" because the Phrygians inventedthem; but what does "phrygium" mean? You do notexplain this, which is obscure; you explain what isquite clear. You say the "shoulderband" is a "strap,"and you do not perceive what the strap is, for you donot visualize a leather band, which we call a strap,encircling the Caesar's neck as an ornament. [It is ofleather], hence we call harness and whips "straps":but if ever gold straps are mentioned, it can only beunderstood as applying to gilt harness such as is putaround the neck of a horse or of some other animal.

alterius pecudis circumdari assolent intelligipotest. Quae te res, ut mea fert opinio,fefellit, et cum lorum circumdare collo[209]Caesaris atque Silvestri vis, de homine, deimperatore, de summo pontifice, equum autasinum[210] facis.

"Verum et chlamydem[211] purpuream,atque tunicam coccineam." Quia Matthaeusait chlamydem coccineam, et Ioannes vestempurpuream, utrumque voluit hic eodem lococoniungere. Quod si idem color est, utEvangelistae significant, quid tu non fuisticontentus alterum nominasse, ut illi contentifuerunt: nisi accipis purpuram, ut nuncimperiti loquuntur, genus panni serici colore

But this has escaped your notice, I think. So whenyou wish to put a strap around the Caesar's neck, orSylvester's, you change a man, an Emperor, asupreme pontiff, into a horse or an ass.

"And also the purple mantle and scarlet tunic."Because Matthew says "a scarlet robe," and John "apurple robe,"[60] this fellow tries to join themtogether in the same passage. But if they are thesame color, as the Evangelists imply, why are younot content, as they were, to name either one alone;unless, like ignorant folk today, you use "purple" forsilk goods of a whitish color? The

[Page 108] albo? Est autem purpura piscis,cuius sanguine lana tingitur, ideoque atinctura datum est nomen panno, cuius colorpro rubro accipi potest, licet sit magisnigricans et proximus colori sanguinisconcreti, et quasi violaceus. Inde ab Homeroatque Virgilio purpureus dicitur sanguis etmarmor porphyritum,[212] cuius color estsimillimus amethysto;[213] Graeci enimpurpuram porphyram vocant. Coccineum prorubro accipi forte non ignoras; sed cur faciatcoccineum cum nos dicamus coccum, etchlamys quod genus sit vestimenti, iuraremte plane nescire.

Atque ut ne se[214] longius persequendosingulas vestes mendacem proderet, unosemel verbo complexus est, dicens; "omniaimperialia indumenta." Quid! Etiamne illaquibus in bello, quibus in venatione, quibusin conviviis, quibus in ludis amiciri solet?Quid stultius quam omnia Caesarisindumenta dicere convenire pontifici?

Sed quam lepide addit; "Seu etiamdignitatem imperialium praesidentiumequitum"! "Seu" inquit. Distinguere duohaec invicem voluit, quasi multum inter sehabeant similitudinis, et de imperatoriohabitu ad equestrem dignitatem delabitur,[215] nescio quid loquens. Mira quaedameffari vult, sed deprehendi in mendacio[216]timet, eoque inflatis buccis et turgido gutturedat sine mente sonum.

"Conferentes ei etiam imperialia sceptra."Quae structure orationis! Qui nitor! Quiordo! Quaenam sunt sceptra ista imperialia?

[Page 109] "purple" [pupura], however, is a fish inwhose blood wool is dyed, and so from the dye thename has been given to the cloth, whose color canbe called red, though it may rather be blackish andvery nearly the color of clotted blood, a sort ofviolet. Hence by Homer and Virgil blood is calledpurple, as is porphyry, the color of which is similarto amethyst; for the Greeks call purple "porphyra."You know perhaps that scarlet is used for red; but Iwould swear that you do not know at all why hemakes it "coccineum" when we say "coccum," orwhat sort of a garment a "mantle" [chlamys] is.

But that he might not betray himself as a liar bycontinuing longer on the separate garments, heembraced them all together in a single word, saying,"all the imperial raiment." What! even that which heis accustomed to wear in war, in the chase, atbanquet;, in games? What could be more stupid thanto say that all the raiment of the Caesar befits apontiff!

But how gracefully he adds, "and the same rank asthose presiding over the imperial cavalry." He says"seu" ["or" for "and"].[61] He wishes to distinguishbetween these two in turn, as if they were very likeeach other, and slips along from the imperial raimentto the equestrian rank, saying­I know not what! Hewants to say something wonderful, but fears to becaught lying, and so with puffed cheeks and swollenthroat, he gives forth sound without sense.

"Conferring also on him the imperial sceptres."What a turn of speech! What splendor! Whatharmony! What are these imperial sceptres? There isone sceptre, not several; if indeed the Emperorcarried a sceptre at all. Will now the pontiff carry asceptre in his hand? Why not give him a sword also,

Unum est sceptrum, non plura; si modosceptrum gerebat imperator. Num et pontifexsceptrum manu gestabit? Cur non ei dabimuset ensem et galeam et iaculum?

"Simulque cuncta signa atque banna." Quidtu "signa" accipis? Signa sunt aut statuae,unde frequenter legimus signa et tabulas

and helmet and javelin?

"And at the same time all the standards andbanners." What do you understand by "standards"[signa]? "Signa" are either statues (hence frequentlywe read "signa et tabulas" for pieces

[Page 110] pro sculpturis ac picturis,­priscienim non in parietibus pingebant, sed intabulis,­aut vexilla, unde illud; "Signa, paresaquilas." A priore significato sigilla dicunturparvae statuae atque sculpturae. Num ergostatuas aut aquilas suas Silvestro dabatConstantinus? Quid hoc absurdius? At"banna" quid sibi velit, non invenio. Deus teperdat, improbissime mortalium, quisermonem barbarum attribuis saeculoerudito!

"Et diversa ornamenta imperialia." Quiadixit "banna," satis putavit significatum esse,et ideo cetera sub verbum universaleconclusit. Et quam frequenter inculcat"imperalia"; quasi propria quaedam sintornamenta imperatoris magis quam consulis,quam dictatoris, quam Caesaris!

"Et omnem processionem imperialisculminis, et glorimn potestatis nostrae."

"Proicit ampullas et sesquipedalia verba,""Rex regum Darius, consanguineusquedeorum,"

numquam nisi numero plurali loquens.[217]Quae est ista processio imperialis; cucumerisper herbam torti, et crescentis[218] inventrem? Triumphasse existimas Caesaremquotiens domo prodibat, ut nunc solet papa,praecedentibus albis equis, quos stratosornatosque famuli dextrant; quo, ut taceamalias ineptias, nihil est vanius, nihilque apontifice Romano alienius? Quae etiam istagloria est? Gloriamne, ut Hebraeae linguaemos est, pompam et apparatus illumsplendorem homo Latinus appellasset? Utillud quoque militiam pro milites, quod abHebraeis sumus mutuati, quorum librosConstantinus aut ipsius scribae numquamaspexerant?

Verum quanta est munificentia tua,Imperator, qui non satis habes ornasse[219]

[Page 111] of sculpture and paintings;­for theancients did not paint on walls, but on tablets) ormilitary standards (hence that phrase "Standards,matched eagles"[62]). In the former sense smallstatues and sculptures are called "sigilla." Now then,did Constantine give Sylvester his statues or hiseagles? What could be more absurd? But what"banners" [banna[63]] may signify, I do notdiscover. May God destroy you, most depraved ofmortals who attribute barbarous language to acultured age!

"And different imperial ornaments." When he said"banners," he thought he had been explicit longenough, and therefore he lumped the rest under ageneral term. And how frequently he drives homethe word "imperial," as though there were certainornaments peculiar to the Emperor over against theconsul, the dictator, the Caesar! "And all the pompof our imperial eminence, and the glory of ourpower." "He discards bombast and cubit­longwords."[64]"This king of kings, Darius, the kinsmanof the gods,"[65] never speaking save in the plural!What is this imperial "pomp"; that of the cucumbertwisted in the grass, and growing at the belly? Doyou think the Caesar celebrated a triumph wheneverhe left his house, as the Pope now does, preceded bywhite horses which servants lead saddled andadorned? To pass over other follies, nothing isemptier, more unbecoming a Roman pontiff thanthis. And what is this "glory"? Would a Latin havecalled pomp and paraphernalia "glory," as iscustomary in the Hebrew language? And instead of"soldiers" [milites] you say soldiery [militia[66]]which we have borrowed from the Hebrews, whosebooks neither Constantine nor his secretaries hadever laid eyes on!

But how great is your munificence, 0 Emperor, whodeem it not sufficient to have adorned the pontiff,unless you adorn all the clergy also! As an"eminence of distinguished power and excel­

pontificem, nisi ornes et omnem clerum!"Culmen

[Page 112] singularis potentiae etpraecellentiae," ais, "effici patricios,consules." Quis audivit senatores aliosvehomines effici patricios? Consulesefficiuntur, non patricii;[220] ex domo velpatricia, quae eadem senatoria dicitur,siquidem senatores patres conscripti sunt, velex equestri, vel ex plebeia; plusque estsenatorem esse quam patricium, nam senatorest unus e delectis consiliariis reipublicae,patricius[221] vero qui e domo senatoriaortum ducit. Ita qui senator aut ex patribusconscriptis non protinus et patricius[221] est.Ridiculeque Romani mei hoc temporefaciunt, qui praetorem suum senatoremvocant, cum neque senatus ex uno homineconstare possit, necesseque sit senatoremhabere collegas; et is[222] qui nunc senatordicitur fungatur officio praetoris. At dignitaspatriciatus in multis libris invenitur, inquies.Audio: sed in his qui de temporibus postConstantinum loquuntur. Ergo postConstantinum privilegium confectum est.

Sed numquid clerici fieri consules possunt?Coniugio sibi interdixere Latini clerici: etconsules fient, habitoque delectu militumcum legionibus et auxiliis in provincias, quasfuerint sortiti, se conferent? Ministrine etservi consules fient?[223] Nec bini, utsolebat, sed centeni ac milleni ministri quiRomanae ecclesiae servient, dignitateafficientur imperatoria? Et ego stolidusmirabar quod papa effici diceretur! Ministriimperatores erunt; clerici vero milites.Militesne clerici fient, aut militariaornamenta gestabunt, nisi imperialiaornarnenta universis clericis impertis? Namnescio quid dicas. Et quis non videt hancfabulam ab iis excogitatam esse, qui sibiomnem vestiendi licentiam esse voluerunt?Ut existimem,

[Page 113] lence," you say, they are "madepatricians and consuls." Who has ever heard ofsenators or other men being made patricians?Consuls are "made," but not patricians. The senators,the conscript fathers, are from patrician (also calledsenatorial), equestrian, or plebeian families as thecase may be. It is greater, also, to be a senator thanto be a patrician; for a senator is one of the chosencounsellors of the Republic, while a patrician ismerely one who derives his origin from a senatorialfamily. So one who is a senator, or of the conscriptfathers, is not necessarily forthwith also a patrician.So my friends the Romans are now makingthemselves ridiculous when they call their praetor"senator," since a senate cannot consist of one manand a senator must have colleagues, and he who isnow called "senator" performs the function ofpraetor. But, you say, the title of patrician is found inmany books.[67] Yes; but in those which speak oftimes later than Constantine; therefore the"privilege" was executed after Constantine.

But how can the clergy become consuls?[68] TheLatin clergy have denied themselves matrimony; andwill they become consuls, make a levy of troops, andbetake themselves to the provinces allotted themwith legions and auxiliaries? Are servants and slavesmade consuls? And are there to be not two, as wascustomary; but the hundreds and thousands ofattendants who serve the Roman church, are they tobe honored with the rank of general? And I wasstupid enough to wonder at what was said about thePope's transformation! The attendants will begenerals; but the clergy soldiers. Will the clergybecome soldiers or wear military insignia, unlessyou share the imperial insignia with all the clergy? [Imay well ask,] for I do not know what you aresaying. And who does not see that this fabulous talewas concocted by those who wished to have everypossible license in the

[Page 114] si qua inter daemones qui aeremincolunt ludorum genera exercentur, eosexprimendo clericorum cultu, fastu, luxu,exerceri, et hoc scaenici[224] lusus generemaxime delectari.

Utrum magis insequar, sententiarum anverborum stoliditatem? Sententiarumaudistis. Verborum haec est; ut dicat

[Page 115] attire they were to wear? If there aregames of any kind played among the demons whichinhabit the air I should think that they would consistin copying the apparel, the pride and the luxury ofthe clergy, and that the demons would be delightedmost by this kind of masquerading.

Which shall I censure the more, the stupidity of theideas, or of the words? You have heard about the

senatum videri adornari, quasi non utiqueadornetur, et quidem adornari gloria; et quodfit, factum esse velit, ut "promulgavimus"pro promulgamus, illo enim modo sonatiucundius oratio; et eandem rem per praesenset per praeteritum enuntiet, velut"decernimus" et "decrevimus"; et omnia sintreferta his vocibus, "decernimus,""decoramus"," imperialis", "imperatoria,""potentia", "gloria"; et "exstat" pro estposuerit, cum "extare" sit supereminere, velsuperesse; et "nempe" pro scilicet; et"concubitores" pro contubernales."Concubitores" sunt qui concumbunt, etcoeunt; nimirum scorta intelligenda sunt.Addit, cum quibus dormiat, ne timeat,opinor, nocturna phantasmata: additcubicularios: addit hostiarios.

Non otiosum[225] est, quare haec ab eominuta referuntur. Pupillum instituit autadolescentem filium, non senem; cui omniaquibus necesse habet tenera aetas ipse velutamantissimus pater praeparat, ut DavidSalomoni[226] fecit. Atque ut per omnesnumeros fabula impleatur, dantur clericisequi, ne asinario illo Christi more superasellos sedeant; et dantur non operti siveinstrati operimentis coloris albi, sed decoraticolore albo. At quibus operimentis! Nonstragulis, non Babylonicis, aut quo aliogenere, sed "map­

ideas; here are illustrations of his words. He says, "Itseems proper for our Senate to be adorned" (asthough it were not assuredly adorned), and to beadorned forsooth with "glory." And what is beingdone he wishes understood as already done; as, "wehave proclaimed" for "we proclaim": for the speechsounds better that way. And he puts the same act inthe present and in the past tense; as, "we decree,"and "we have decreed." And everything is stuffedwith these words, "we decree," "we decorate," "imperial," "imperial rank," "power," "glory." Heuses "extat" for "est," though "extare" means tostand out or to be above; and "nempe" for "scilicet"[that is, "indeed" for "to wit"]; and "concubitores"[translated above, bed­watchers] for "contubernales"[companions or attendants]. "Concubitores" areliterally those who sleep together and haveintercourse; they must certainly be understood to beharlots. He adds those with whom he may sleep, Isuppose, that he may not fear nocturnal phantoms.[69] He adds "chamberlains"; he adds "door­keepers."

It is not an idle question to ask why he mentionsthese details. He is setting up, not an old man, but award or a young son, and like a doting father,himself arranges for him everything of which histender age has need, as David did for Solomon! Andthat 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 aregiven horses, not covered nor saddled withcoverings of white, but decorated with white color.And what coverings! Not horse­cloths, eitherBabylonian or any other kind, but "mappulae"[translated above, saddle­cloths] and

[Page 116] pulis et linteaminibus"! Mappaead mensam pertinent, linteamina ad lectulos.Et quasi dubium sit cuius sint haec coloris,interpretatur; "id est candidissimo colore."Dignus Constantino sermo, digna Lactantiofacundia, cum in ceteris, turn vero in illo"equos equitent"!

Et cum de vestitu senatorum nihil dixerit,non de laticlavo, non de purpura, non deceteris, de calceamentis sibi loquendumputavit; nec lunulas appellavit, sed udones,sive "cum udonibus," quos ut solet homoineptus exponit, "id est candido linteamine,"quasi udones linteamen sint! Non occurritimpraesentiarum,[227] ubi repererim"udones," nisi apud Martialem Valerium,

[Page 117] "linteamina" [linen cloths or sheets,translated above, linen]. "Mappae" [serviettes] gowith the table, "linteamina" with the couch. And asthough there were doubt as to their color, heexplains, "that is to say, of the whitest color." Talkworthy of Constantine; fluency worthy ofLactantius; not only in the other phrases, but also inthat one, "may mount mounts"!

And when he had said nothing about the garb ofsenators, the broad stripe, the purple, and the rest, hethought he had to talk about their shoes; nor does hespecify the crescents [which were on their shoes],but "socks," or rather he says "with felt socks," andthen as usual he explains, "that is, with white linen,"as though socks were of linen! I cannot at themoment think where I have found the word

cuius disticon quod inscribitur "UdonesCilicii"[228] hoc est:

"Non hos lana dedit, sed olentis barba mariti;Cinyphio[229] poterit planta latere sinu."

Ergo non linei utique, nec candidi suntudones, quibus hic bipes asellus non calcearipedes senatorum ait, sed senatores illustrari.

Atque per hoc, "sicut caelestia itaterrena[230] ad laudem Dei decorentur,"quae tu "caelestia" vocas; quae "terrena"?Quomodo caelestia decorantur? Quae autemDeo laus sit ista tu videris. Ego vero, si quamihi fides est, nihil puto nec Deo nec ceterishominibus magis esse invisum quam tantamclericorum in rebus saecularibus licentiam.Verum quid ego in singula impetum facio?Dies me deficiat,[231] si universa, non dicoamplificare, sed attingere velim.

"Pre[232] omnibus autem licentiamtribuimus beato Silvestro et successoribuseius ex nostro indictu, ut quem placatusproprio consilio clericare voluerit et inreligiose numero religiosorum

"udones" [socks], except in Valerius Martial, whosedistich inscribed "Cilician Socks" runs:

"Wool did not produce these, but the beard of an ill­smelling goat. Would that the sole in the gulf of theCinyps might lie."[70]

So the "socks" are not linen, nor white, with whichthis two­legged ass says, not that the feet of senatorsare clad, but that senators are distinguished.

And in the phrase "that the terrestrial orders may beadorned to the glory of God, just as the celestial,"what do you call celestial, what terrestrial? How arethe celestial orders adorned?[71] You may have seenwhat glory to God this is. But I, if I believeanything, deem nothing more hateful to God and tothe rest of humanity than such presumption of clergyin the secular sphere. But why do I attack individualitems? Time would fail me if I should try, I do notsay to dwell upon, but to touch upon them all.

"Above all things, moreover, we give permission tothe blessed Sylvester and his successors, from ouredict, that he may make priest whomever he wishes,according to his own pleasure and counsel, andenroll him in the pious number of the religiousclergy

[Page 118] clericorum connumerare, nullusex omnibus praesumat superbe agere."

Quis est hic Melchisedec, qui patriarchamAbraam benedicit? Constantinusne, vixChristianus, facultatem ei, a quo baptizatusest et quem beatum appellat, tribuitclericandi? Quasi prius nec fecisset hocSilvester nec facere potuisset! Et quacomminatione vetuit, ne quis impedimentoesset? "Nullus ex omnibus praesumatsuperbe agere." Qua etiam elegantia!"Connumerare in numero religiosoreligiosorum," "clericare . . . clericorum," et"indictu," et "placatus."

Atque iterum ad diadema revertitur:

"Decrevimus itaque et hoc, ut ipse etsuccessores eius diademate, videlicet corona,quam ex capite nostro illi concesserimus,[233] ex auro purissimo et gemmispretiosis[234] uti debeant pro honore beatiPetri."

Iterum interpretatur diadema; cum barbaris

[Page 119] [i.e., regular clergy; or perhapscardinals]: let no one whomsoever presume to act ina domineering way in this."[72]

Who is this Melchizedek that blesses the patriarchAbraham? Does Constantine, scarcely yet aChristian, give to the man by whom he was baptizedand whom he calls blessed, authority to makepriests? As though Sylvester had not and could nothave done it before! And with what a threat heforbids any one to stand in the way! "Let no one,whomsoever, presume to act in a domineering wayin this matter." What elegant diction, too! "Enroll inthe 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 andhis successors might use, for the honor of theblessed Peter, the diadem, that is the crown, whichwe have granted him from our own head, of purestgold and precious gems."

Again he explains the meaning of diadem, for hewas speaking to barbarians, forgetful ones at that.

enim et obliviosis loquebatur; et adicit "deauro purissimo," ne forte aliquid aeris autscoriae crederes admixtum.[235] Et gemmascum dixit, addit "pretiosas" eodem timore neviles forsitan suspicareris. Cur tamen non"pretiosissimas," quemadmodum "aurumpurissimum"? Plus namque[236] interestinter gemmam et gemmam, quam interaurum et aurum. Et cum dicere debuissetdistinctum gemmis, dixit "ex gemmis." Quisnon vidit ex eo loco sumptum, quemprinceps gentilis non legerat; "Posuisti incapite eius coronam de lapide pretioso"? Siclocutus[237] est Caesar vanitate quadamcoronae suae iactandae, si modo Caesarescoronabantur, in se ipsum contume­

And he adds "of purest gold," lest perchance youshould think brass or dross was mixed in. And whenhe has said "gems," he adds "precious," againfearing 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 betweengem and gem, than between gold and gold. Andwhen he should have said "distinctum gemmis," hesaid "ex gemmis." Who does not see that this wastaken from the passage, which the gentile ruler hadnot read, "Thou settest a crown of precious stone onhis head"?[73] Did the Caesar speak thus, with acertain vanity in bragging of his crown, if indeed theCaesars were crowned, but cheapening himself byfearing lest

[Page 120] liosus, qui vereretur ne hominesopinarentur eum non gestare coronam exauro purissimo cum gemmis pretiosis, nisiindicasset?

Accipe causam cur sic loquatur; "pro honorebeati Petri." Quasi Christus non sit summusangularis lapis, in quo templum ecclesiaeconstructum est, sed Petrus; quod iterumpostea facit. Quem si tantopere venerarivolebat, cur non templum episcopale illipotius quam Ioanni Baptistae Romaedicavit?

Quid? Illa loquendi barbaries nonne testaturnon saeculo Constantini, sed posteriori,cantilenam hanc esse confictam?"Decernimus quod....uti debeant,"[238] proeo quod est decernimus[239] ut utantur: sicnunc barbari homines vulgo loquuntur etscribunt, "Iussi quod deberes venire," pro eoquod est, "Iussi ut venires": et "decrevimus"et "concessimus," quasi non tunc fiant illa,sed alio quodam tempore facta sint.

"Ipse vero beatus papa super coronamclericatus, quam gerit ad gloriam beatissimiPetri, ipsa ex auro non est passus uticorona."

0 tuam singularem stultitiam, Constantine!Modo dicebas coronam super caput papae adhonorem facere beati Petri; nunc ais nonfacere, quia Silvester illam recusat; et cumfactum recusantis probes, tamen iubes eumaurea uti corona; et quod hic non debere seagere existimat, id tu ipsius successores dicisagere debere. Transeo quod rasuram

[Page 121] people would think that he did not weara crown "of purest gold and precious gems," unlesshe said so?

Find the reason why he speaks thus: "for the honorof the blessed Peter." As though, not Christ, butPeter, were the chief corner­stone on which thetemple of the church is built; an inference he laterrepeats! But if he wanted to honor him so much,why did he not dedicate the episcopal temple atRome to him, rather than to John the Baptist?

What? Does not that barbarous way of talking showthat the rigmarole was composed, not in the age ofConstantine, but later; "decemimus quod utidebeant"[74] for the correct form "decernimus ututantur"? Boors commonly speak and write that waynow; "lussi quod deberes venire" for "lussi utvenires." And "we decreed," and "we granted," asthough it were not being done now, but had beendone some other time!

"But he himself, the blessed Pope, did not allow thatcrown of gold to be used over the clerical crownwhich he wears to the glory of the most blessedPeter."

Alas for your singular stupidity, Constantine! justnow you were saying that you put the crown on thePope's head for the honor of the blessed Peter; nowyou say that you do not do it, because Sylvesterrefuses it. And while you approve his refusal, younevertheless order him to use the gold crown; andwhat he thinks he ought not to do, that you say hisown successors ought to do![75] I pass over the factthat you call the tonsure a crown, and the Romanpontiff "Pope," although that word had not yet begunto be applied to him as a distinctive title.

coronam vocas, et papam pontificemRomanum, qui nondum peculiariter sicappellari erat coeptus.

"Phrygium vero candidissimo nitoresplendidum, resurrectionem

"But we placed upon his most holy head, with ourown hands,

[Page 122] Dominicam designans, eiussacratissimo vertici manibus nostrisimposuimus, et tenentes frenum equi proreverentia beati Petri dextratoris officium illiexhibuimus, statuentes eodem phrygioomnes eius successores singulariter uti inprocessionibus ad imperii nostriimitationem."

Nonne videtur hic auctor fabulae non perimprudentiam, sed consulto et dedita operapraevaricari et undique ansas ad sereprehendendum praebere? In eodem[240]loco ait, phrygio et Dominicamresurrectionem repraesentari,[241] et imperiiCaesarei esse imitationem; quae duo inter semaxime discrepant. Deum testor, noninvenio quibus verbis, qua verborumatrocitate, confodiam hunc perditissimumnebulonem. Ita omnia verba plena insaniaeevomit. Constantinum non tantum officiosimilem Moysi, qui summum sacerdotemiussu Dei ornavit, sed secreta mysteria[242]facit exponentem, quod difficillimum est iisqui diu in sacris litteris[243] sunt versati.Cur non fecisti etiam Constantinumpontificem maximum, ut multi Imperatoresfuerunt, ut commodius ipsius ornamenta inalterum summum pontificem transferrentur?Sed nescisti historias. Ago itaque Deo etiamhoc nomine gratias, quod[244] istamnefandissimam mentem non nisi instultissimum hominem cadere permisit: quodetiam posteriora declarant. Namque Aaronsedenti in equo Moysen[245] inducitdextratoris exhibuisse officium, et hoc nonper medium Israel, sed per Chananeos atqueAegyptios, id est per infidelem civitatem, ubinon tam imperium erat orbis terrarum quamdaemonum, et daemones colentiumpopulorum.

"Unde ut pontificalis apex non vilescat, sedut[246] magis quam imperii terreni dignitas,gloria et potentia decoretur, ecce tampalatium nostrum, quamque Romanamurbem et omnes Italiae sive occidentaliumregionum provincias,[247] loca, civitates

[Page 123] a glittering tiara of the most dazzlingwhite, representing the Lord's resurrection. Andholding the bridle of his horse, out of reverence forthe blessed Peter, we performed for him the duty ofsquire; decreeing that all his successors, and theyalone, use this same tiara in processions in imitationof our power."

Does not this fable­fabricator seem to blunder, notthrough imprudence, but deliberately and of setpurpose, and so as to offer handles for catching him?In the same passage he says both that the Lord'sresurrection is represented by the tiara, and that it isan imitation of Caesar's power; two things whichdiffer most widely from each other. God is mywitness, I find no words, no words merciless enoughwith 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 toMoses, who at the command of God honored thechief priest, but also an expounder of secretmysteries, a most dffficult thing even for those longversed in the sacred books. Why did you not makeConstantine supreme pontiff while you were aboutit, as many emperors have been, that he might moreconveniently transfer his attire to the other highpriest? But you did not know history. And I givethanks to God on this very score, that he did notpermit this utterly vicious scheme to be suggestedsave to an exceedingly stupid man. Subsequentconsiderations also show this. For he suggests thefact that Moses performed for Aaron, seated on ahorse, the duty of squire [dextratoris], and that in themidst not of Israel, but of the Canaanites and theEgyptians, that is, of an heathen state, where therewas not so much a secular government as one ofdemons and demon­worshipping peoples.

"Wherefore, in order that the supreme pontificatemay not deteriorate, but may rather be adorned withglory and power even more than is the dignity of anearthly rule; behold, we give over and relinquish tothe most blessed pontiff and universal Pope,Sylvester, as well our palace as also the city ofRome and all the provinces, places and cities of Italyor[76] of the western

beatissimo pontifici et universali papaeSilvestro tradimus atque relin­

[Page 124] quimus, et ab eo et asuccessoribus eius per pragmaticumconstitutum decrevimus disponendas atqueiuri sanctae Romanae ecclesiaepermanendas."

De hoc in oratione Romanorum atqueSilvestri multa disseruimus. Huius loci est utdicamus neminem fuisse facturum utnationes uno cunctas verbo donationisinvolveret, et qui minutissima quaequesuperius est exsecutus, lorum, calceos,[248]linteamina equorum,[249] non referretnominatim provincias,[250] quarum singulaenon[251] singulos reges nunc aut principesregibus pares habent. Sed ignoravit videlicethic falsator quae provinciae sub Constantinoerant, quae non erant. Nam certe cunctae subeo non erant.[252] Alexandro exstinctovidemus singulas regiones in ducumpartitione numeratas; a Xenophonte terrasprincipesque nominatos, qui vel ultro velarmis sub imperio Cyri fuerunt; ab HomeroGraecorum barbarorumque regum nomen,genus, patriam, mores, vires,pulchritudinem, numerum navium et propenumerum[253] militum, catalogo[254]comprehensum, cuius exemplum cum multiGraeci, tum Vero nostri Latini, Ennius,Virgilius, Lucanus, Statius, aliique nonnulliimitati sunt; a Iosue et Moyse in divisioneterrae promissionis viculos quoque universosfuisse descriptos;[255] et tu gravaris etiamprovincias recensere? Occidentales tantumprovincias nominas. Qui sunt finesoccidentis; ubi incipiunt, ubi desinunt? Numita certi constitutique sunt termini occidentiset orientis, meridieique et septentrionis, utsunt Asiae, Africae, Europae? Necessariaverba subtrahis, ingeris supervacua. Dicis,"provincias, loca, civi­

[Page 125] regions; and by our pragmatic sanctionwe have decreed that they are to be controlled byhim and by his successors, and that they remainunder the law of the holy Roman church."

We have already, in the oration of the Romans andthat of Sylvester, said a good deal about this.[77]Here it is in place to say that no one would havethought of including all the nations in a single wordof a grant; and that a man who had earlier followedout the minutest details of straps, the shoes, the linenhorsecloths, would not have thought of omitting tocite by name provinces which now have separatekings or rulers equal to kings, and more than one toeach. But this forger, of course, did not know whichprovinces were under Constantine, and which werenot. For certainly not all were under him. WhenAlexander died, we see all the countries enumeratedone by one in the division among the generals. Wesee the lands and rulers which were under thegovernment of Cyrus, whether voluntarily or byconquest, named by Xenophon. We see the names ofthe Greek and barbarian kings, their lineage, theircountry, their bravery, their strength, theirexcellence, the number of their ships and theapproximate number of their men, included byHomer in his catalog. And not only did many Greeksfollow his example, but our Latin authors also,Ennius, Virgil, Lucan, Statius, and others. By Joshuaand Moses, in the division of the promised land,even all the little villages were described. And yourefuse to enumerate even provinces! You name onlythe "western provinces."[78] What are theboundaries of the west; where do they begin; wheredo they end? Are the frontiers of west and east,south and north, as definite and fixed as those ofAsia, Africa and Europe? Necessary words youomit, you heap on superfluous ones. You say,"provinces,

[Page 126] tates." Nonne et provinciae eturbes loca sunt? Et cum dixeris provincias,subiungis civitates, quasi hae sub illis nonintelligantur. Sed non est mirum qui tantamorbis terrarum partem a se alienate, eundemurbium provinciarumque nomina praeterire,et quasi lethargo oppressum, quid loquaturignorare. "Italiae sive occidentaliumregionum," tamquam aut hoc aut illud, cumtamen utrumque intelligat: appellans

[Page 127] places and cities." Are not provinces andcities, "places"? And when you have said provincesyou add cities, as though the latter would not beunderstood with the former. But it is not strange thata man who gives away so large a part of the earthshould pass over the names of cities and ofprovinces, and as though overcome with lethargy notknow what he says. "Of Italy or of the westernregions," as though he meant "either . . . or" when hemeans "both";[79] speaking of "provinces . . . of the

"provincias regionum," cum sint potiusregiones provinciarum; et "permanendam"[256] dicens pro permansuram.

"Unde congruum prospeximus, nostrumimperium et regiam potestatem orientalibustransferri regionibus, et in Byzantiaeprovinciae optimo loco nomini nostrocivitatem aedificari, et illic nostrum constituiimperium."[257]

Taceo quod dixit civitates aedificari, cumurbes aedificentur non civitates; et"Byzantiam[258] provinciam." Si tu esConstantinus, redde causam cur illumpotissimum locum condendae urbi[259]delegeris. Quod enim alio te transferas postRomam traditam non tam congruum quamnecessarium est. Nec te appellesimperatorem, qui Romam amisisti, et denomine Romano, quod discerpis, pessimemeritus es; nec regem, quod nemo ante tefecit; nisi ideo te regem appelles quiaRomanus esse desiisti.[260] Sed afferscausam sane honestam:

"Quoniam ubi princeps sacerdotum etChristianae religionis caput constitutum estab imperatore caelesti iustum non est ut illicimperator terrenus habeat potestatem."

. . . regions," when it should rather be the regions ofthe provinces; and using the gerundive,"permanendas," for the future infinitive(permansuras).

"Wherefore we have perceived it to be fitting thatour empire and our royal power should betransferred in the regions of the. East; and that in theprovince of Byzantia [sic], in the most fitting place,a city should be built in our name; and that ourempire should there be established."

I pass over the fact that in saying "a city should bebuilt" [he uses the word for "the state" instead of"the city"], and cities, not states, are built; and thefact that he says "the province of Byzantia."[80] Ifyou are Constantine, give the reason why you shouldchoose that as the best place for founding your city.For that you should "transfer" yourself elsewhereafter giving up Rome, was not so much "fitting" asnecessary. You should neither call yourself Emperorwhen you have lost Rome and deserved least fromthe Roman name whose meaning you destroy; norcall yourself "royal," for no one before you has doneso,­unless you call yourself a king because you haveceased to be a Roman.[81] But you allege a reasonsound and honorable:

"For where the chief of [all] priests and the head ofthe Christian religion has been established by theheavenly Emperor, it is not right that there an earthlyEmperor should have jurisdiction."

[Page 128] 0 stultum David, stultumSalomonem, stultum Ezechiam, Iosiamque,et ceteros reges, stultos ac parum religiosos,qui in urbe Hierusalem cum summissacerdotibus habitare sustinuerunt, nec totaillis urbe cesserunt! Plus sapit Constantinustriduo quam illi tota vita sapere potuerunt! Et"imperatorem caelestem" appellas, quiaterrenum accepit imperium; nisi Deumintelligis,­nam ambigue loqueris,­a quoterrenum principatum sacerdotum super urbeRomana ceterisque locis constitutum essementiris.

"Haec vero omnia, quae per hanc imperialemsacram[261] et per alia divalia decretastatuimus et firmamus,[262] usque in finemmundi illibata et inconcussa permaneredecrevimus."

Modo terrenum te vocaveras, Constantine:nunc divum sacrumque vocas. Ad

[Page 129] 0 stupid David, stupid Solomon, stupidHezekiah, Josiah, and all the other kings, stupid alland irreligious, who persisted in dwelling in the cityof Jerusalem with the chief priests, and did not yieldthem the whole city! Constantine in three days iswiser than they could be in their whole life. And youcall [the Pope] a "heavenly Emperor" because heaccepts an earthly empire; unless by that term youmean God (for you speak ambiguously) and meanthat an earthly sovereignty of priests was by himestablished over the city of Rome and other places,in which case you lie.

"We decreed, moreover, that all these things whichthrough this sacred imperial [charter] and throughother godlike decrees we establish and confirm,remain inviolate and unshaken unto the end of theworld."

A moment ago, Constantine, you called yourselfearthly; now you call yourself divine and sacred.You relapse into paganism and worse than

gentilitatem recidis, et plusquamgentilitatem. Deum te facis, et verba tuasacra, et decreta immortalia; nam mundoimperas ut tua iussa conservet "illibata etinconcussa." Non cogitas quis tu es, modoe[263] sordidissimo impietatis caeno[264]lotus et vix perlotus? Cur non addebas; "Iotaunum aut unus apex de privilegio hoc nonpraeteribit,[265] ut non magis pereat caelumet terra?" Regnum Saul a Deo electi ad filiosnon pervenit; regnum David in nepotediscerptum est, et postea exstinctum. Et tu adfinem usque mundi regnum, quod tu sineDeo[266] tradis, permansurum tuaauctoritate decernis? Quis etiam tam cito tedocuit mundum esse periturum? Nam poetis,qui hoc etiam testantur, non puto te hoctempore fidem habere. Ergo hoc tu nondixisses, sed alius tibi affinxit.

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

paganism. You make yourself God, your wordssacred, and your decrees immortal; for you order theworld to keep your commands "inviolate andunshaken." Do you consider who you are: justcleansed from the filthiest mire of wickedness, andscarcely fully cleansed? Why did you not add, "Tillheaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall inno wise pass from this 'privilege"'?[82] The kingdomof Saul, chosen by God, did not pass on to his sons;the kingdom of David was divided under hisgrandson, and afterward destroyed. And by yourown authority you decree that the kingdom whichyou give over without God, shall remain even untilthe end of the world! Whoever taught you that theworld is to pass away so soon? For I do not thinkthat at this time you had faith in the poets, who alonebear 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 takesto entreating:

[Page 130] "Unde coram Deo vivo, qui nosregnare praecepit,[267] et coram terribilieius iudicio obtestamur[268] omnes nostrossuccessores Imperatores vel cunctosoptimates, satrapas etiam amplissimumquesenatum et universum populum in universoorbe terrarum, nec non[269] et in posterum,[270] nulli eorum quoquo modo licere hocaut confringere vel in quoquam convelli."

Quam aequa, quam religiose adiuratio! Nonsecus ac si lupus per innocentiam et fidemobtestetur ceteros lupos atque pastores, neoves, quas sustulit interque filios et amicospartitus est, aut illi adimere, aut hi repeteretentent. Quid tantopere extimescis,Constantine? Si opus tuum ex Deo non est,dissolvetur: sin ex Deo, dissolvi non poterit.Sed video! Voluisti imitari Apocalypsim ubidicitur: "Contestor autem audienti omniaverba prophetiae libri huius; si quisapposuerit ad haec, apponet Deus superillum plagas scriptas in libro isto. Et si quisdiminuerit de verbis libri prophetiae huius,auferet Deus partem eius de libro vitae et decivitate sancta." At tu numquam legerasApocalypsim, ergo non sunt haec verba tua.

"Si quis autem, quod non[271] credimus, inhoc temerator exstiterit, aeterniscondemnationibus subiaceat condemnatus, et

[Page 131] "Wherefore, before the living God, whocommanded us to reign, and in the face of histerrible judgment, we entreat all the emperors oursuccessors, and all the nobles, the satraps also andthe most glorious Senate, and all the people in thewhole world, likewise also for the future, that no oneof 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 ifa wolf should entreat by his innocence and goodfaith the other wolves and the shepherds not to try totake away from him, or demand back, the sheepwhich he has taken and divided among his offspringand his friends. Why are you so afraid, Constantine?If your work is not of God it will be destroyed; but ifit is of God it cannot be destroyed. But I see! Youwished to imitate the Apocalypse, where it says:"For I testify unto every man that heareth all thewords of the prophecy of this book, If any man shalladd unto these things, God shall add unto him theplagues that are written in this book: And if any manshall take away from the words of the book of thisprophecy, God shall take away his part out of thebook of life, and out of the holy city."[83] But youhad never read the Apocalypse; therefore these arenot your words.

"If any one, moreover­which we do not believe­prove a scorner in this matter, he shall becondemned and shall be subject to eternal

sanctos Dei apostolos Petrum et Paulum sibiin praesenti et in futura vita sentiatcontrarios, atque in inferno inferioriconcrematus cum diabolo et omnibusdeficiat impiis."

Hic terror atque haec comminatio non[272]saecularis principis solet esse, sed priscorumsacerdotum ac flaminum, et nuncecclesiasticorum. Itaque non est Constantinioratio haec, sed alicuius clericuli stolidi, necquid dicat aut quomodo dicat scientis,saginati et crasi, ac inter crapulam interquefervorem vini has sententias et haec verbaructantis, quae non in alium transeunt, sed

damnation; and shall feel the holy apostles of God,Peter and Paul, opposed to him in the present and inthe future life. And he shall be burned in the lowerhell and shall perish with the devil and all theimpious."

This terrible threat is the usual one, not of a secularruler, but of the early priests and flamens, andnowadays, of ecclesiastics. And so this is not theutterance of Constantine, but of some fool of a priestwho, stuffed and pudgy, knew neither what to saynor how to say it, and, gorged with eating and heatedwith wine, belched out these wordy sentences whichconvey nothing to

[Page 132] in ipsum convertuntur auctorem.Primum ait, "aeternis condemnationibussubiaceat," deinde, quasi plus addi queat,alia addere vult, et post aeternitatempoenarum adiungit poenas vitae praesentis;et cum Dei condemnatione nos terreat,adhuc, quasi maius quiddam sit, terret nosodio Petri,­cui Paulum cur adiungat, aut cursolum, nescio. Iterumque solito lethargo adpoenas aeternas redit, veluti non hoc antedixisset. Quod si minae hae exsecrationesqueConstantini forent, invicem exsecrarer uttyrannum et profligatorem reipublicae meae,et illi me Romano ingenio minarer ultorem.Nunc quis extimescat[273] exsecrationemavarissimi hominis et ritu histrionum verbasimulantis ac sub persona Constantini aliosdeterrentis? Hoc est proprie hypocritam esse,si Graecam vocem exquirimus, sub alienapersona abscondere tuam.

"Huius vero imperialis decreti paginampropriis manibus roborantes supervenerandum corpus beati Petri posuimus."

Chartane an membrana fuit pagina in quascripta haec sunt? Tametsi paginam vocamusalteram faciem, ut dicunt, folii; velutiquinternio habet folia dena, paginas vicenas.

0 rem inauditam et incredibilem! Cum essemadolescentulus, interrogasse me quendammemini, quis librum Iob scripsisset; cumqueille respondisset, "Ipse Iob," tunc mesubiunxisse, "Quo pacto igitur de sua ipsiusmorte faceret mentionem?" Quod de multisaliis libris dici potest, quorum ratio huic loconon convenit. Nam quomodo vere narrari

[Page 133] another, but turn against the authorhimself. First he says, "shall be subject to eternaldamnation," then as though more could be added, hewishes to add something else, and to eternalpenalties he joins penalties in the present life; andafter he frightens us with God's condemnation, hefrightens us with the hatred of Peter, as though itwere something still greater. Why he should addPaul, and why Paul alone, I do not know. And withhis usual drowsiness he returns again to eternalpenalties, as though he had not said that before. Nowif these threats and curses were Constantine's, I inturn would curse him as a tyrant and destroyer of mycountry, and would threaten that I, as a Roman,would take vengeance on him. But who would beafraid of the curse of an overly avaricious man, andone saying a counterfeit speech after the manner ofactors, and terrifying people in the role ofConstantine? This is being a hypocrite in the truesense, if we press the Greek word closely; that is,hiding your own personality under another's.

"The page,[84] moreover, of this imperial decree,we, confirming it with our own hands, did placeabove the venerable body of the blessed Peter."[85]

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

But oh! the unheard of and incredible thing [thatConstantine did]! I remember asking some one,when I was a youth, who wrote the book of job; andwhen he answered, "Job himself," I rejoined, "Howthen would he mention his own death?" And this canbe said of many other books, discussion of which isnot appropriate here. For how, indeed, can that be

potest id quod nondum esset administratum,et in tabulis contineri id quod posttabularum, ut sic

narrated which has not yet been done; and how canthat which [the speaker] himself

[Page 134] dicam, sepulturam factum esseipie fateatur? Hoc nihil aliud est quampaginam privilegii ante fuisse mortuamsepultamque quam natam, nec tamenumquam a morte atque sepultura reversam;praesertim antequam conscripta essetroboratam, nec id una tanturn sed utraqueCaesaris manu. Et quid istud est roborareillam? Chirographone Caesaris, aut anulosignatorio? Magnum nimirum robur,maiusque multo quain si tabulis aereismandavisset! Sed non est opus scripturaaerea, cum super corpus beati Petri chartareponatur. Cur hic Paulum retices, qui simuliacet cum Petro, et magis custodire possentambo quam si afforet tantummodo corpusunius?

Videtis artes malitiamque[275] nequissimiSinonis. Quia donatio Constantini doceri nonpotest, ideo non in tabulis aereis sed charteisprivilegium esse, ideo latere illud cumcorpore sanctissimi apostoli dixit, ne autauderemus e venerabili sepulcro[276]inquirere, aut, si inquireremus, carieabsumptum putaremus. Sed ubi tunc eratcorpus beati Petri? Certe nondum in temploubi nunc est, non in loco sane munito actuto. Ergo non illic Caesar paginamcollocasset. An beatissimo Silvestropaginam non credebat, ut parum sancto,parum cauto, parum diligenti? 0 Petre, 0Silvester, 0 sancti[277] Romanae ecciesiaepontifices, quibus oves Domini commissaesunt, cur vobis commissam paginam noncustodistis?[278] Cur a tineis illam rodi, cursitu tabescere passi estis? Opinor quiacorpora quoque vestra contabuerunt. Stulteigitur fecit Constantinus. En redacta inpulverem pagina, ius simul privilegii inpulverem abiit!

Atqui, ut videmus, paginae exemplarostenditur. Quis ergo illam de sinusanctissimi apostoli temerarius accepit?Nemo, ut reor, hoc fecit. Unde porroexemplar?[279] Nimirum aliquis antiquorum

[Page 135] admits was done after the burial, so tosay, of the records, be contained in the records? Thisis nothing else than saying that "the page of theprivilege" was dead and buried before it was born,and yet never returned from death and burial; andsaying expressly that it was confirmed before it hadbeen 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 theCaesar, or with his signet ring? Surely, hard and fastthat,­more so by far than if he had entrusted it tobronze tablets! But there is no need of bronzeinscription, when the charter is laid away above thebody of the blessed Peter. But why do you heresuppress Paul, though he lies with Peter, and the twocould guard it better than if the body of one alonewere present?

You see the malicious artfulness of the cunningSinon![86] Because the Donation of Constantinecannot 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 themost holy apostle, so that either we should not dareto seek it in the venerable tomb, or if we should seekit, we would think it rotted away. But where thenwas the body of the blessed Peter? Certainly it wasnot yet in the temple where it now is, not in a placereasonably protected and safe. Therefore the Caesarwould not have put the "page" there. Or did he nottrust the "page" to the most blessed Sylvester, as notholy enough, not careful nor diligent enough? 0Peter! 0 Sylvester! 0 holy pontiffs of the Romanchurch! to whom the sheep of the Lord wereentrusted, why did you not keep the "page" entrustedto you? Why have you suffered it to be eaten byworms, to rot away with mold? I presume that it wasbecause 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 bosomof the most holy apostle? No one did it, I think.Whence then the copy? By all means some

[Page 136] scriptorum debet afferri, necposterior Constantini temporibus. At is

[Page 137] ancient writer ought to be adduced, onenot later than the time of Constantine. However,

nullus affertur, sed fortasse aliquis recens.Unde hic habuit? Quisquis enim de superioreaetate historiam texit, aut Spiritu Sanctodictante loquitur, aut veterum scriptorum eteorum quidem qui de sua aetate scripseruntsequitur auctoritatem. Quare quicumqueveteres non sequitur, is de illorum numeroerit quibus ipsa vetustas praebet audaciammentiendi. Quod si quo in loco ista reslegitur, non aliter cum antiquitate consentitquam illa glossatoris[280] Accursii delegatis Romanis ad leges accipiendasdimissis in Graeciam plusquam stultanarratio cum Tito Livio aliisquepraestantissimis scriptoribus convenit.

"Datum Romae tertio Kalendas[281] Aprilis,Constantino Augusto quarto consule etGallicano quarto consule."

Diem posuit penultimum Martii utsentiremus hoc factum esse sub tempussanctorum dierum, qui illo plerumquetempore solent esse. Et Constantino quartumconsule, et Gallicano quartum consule!Mirum si uterque ter fuerat consul et inquarto consulatu forent collegae! Sedmirandum magis Augustum leprosumelephantia, qui morbus inter ceteros utelephas inter beluas eminet, velle etiamaccipere consulatum, cum rex Azarias simulac lepra tactus est in privato se continuerit,procuratione regni ad Ionatam[282] filiumrelegata, ut fere omnes leprosi fecerunt! Quouno argumento totum prorsus privilegiumconfutatur, profligatur, evertitur. Ac ne quisambigat ante leprosum esse debuisse quamconsulem, sciat et ex medicina paulatimhunc morbum succrescere, et ex notitia

none such is adduced, but as it happens some recentwriter or other. Whence did he get it? For whoevercomposes a narrative about an earlier age, eitherwrites at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, or followsthe authority of former writers, and of those, ofcourse, who wrote concerning their own age. Sowhoever does not follow earlier writers will be oneof those to whom the remoteness of the event affordsthe boldness to lie. But if this story is to be readanywhere, it is not consistent with antiquity anymore than that stupid narrative of the glossatorAccursius about Roman ambassadors being sent toGreece to get laws agrees with Titus Livius and theother best writers.

"Given at Rome, on the third day before the Kalendsof April, Constantine Augustus consul for the fourthtime, and Gallicanus consul for the fourth time."[87]

He took the next to the last day of March so that wemight feel that this was done in the season of holydays, which, for the most part, come at that time.And "Constantine consul for the fourth time, andGallicanus consul for the fourth time." Strange ifeach had been consul thrice, and they werecolleagues in a fourth consulship! But stranger stillthat the Augustus, a leper, with elephantiasis (whichdisease is as remarkable among diseases, aselephants are among animals), should want to evenaccept a consulship, when king Azariah, as soon ashe was affected with leprosy, kept himself secluded,while the management of the kingdom was givenover to Jotham his son;[88] and almost all lepershave acted similarly. And by this argument alone thewhole "privilege" is confuted outright, destroyed,and overturned. And if any one disputes the fact thatConstantine must have been leprous before he wasconsul, he should know that according to physiciansthis disease develops gradually, that according to the

[Page 138] antiquitatis consulatum iniriIanuario mense magistratumque esseannuum, et haec Martio proximo gestareferuntur.

Ubi neque hoc[283] silebo; in epistolis scribisolere "datum," non autem in ceteris, nisiapud indoctos. Dicuntur enim epistolae darivel illi, vel ad illum; illi quidem qui perfertut puta tabellario, ut reddat et in manumporrigat homini cui mittuntur; ad illum verout ei a perferente reddantur, hic est is cuimittuntur.[284] Privilegium autem, ut aiunt,Constantini, quod reddi alicui non debebat,

[Page 139] known facts of antiquity the consulate isan annual office and begins in the month of January;and these events are said to have taken place thefollowing March.

Nor will I here pass over the fact that "given" isusually written on letters, but not on otherdocuments, except among ignorant people. Forletters are said either to be given one (illi) or to begiven to one (ad illum); in the former case [they aregiven to] one who carries them, a courier forinstance, and puts them in the hand of the man towhom they are sent; in the latter case [they aregiven] to one in the sense that they are to be

nec dari debuit dici: ut appareat eum qui siclocutus est mentitum esse, nec[285] scissefingere quod Constantinum dixisse ac fecisseverisimile esset. Cuius stultitiae atquevesaniae affines se ac socios faciuntquicumque hunc vera dixisse existimantatque defendunt; licet nihil iam habeant quoopinionem suam, non dico defendere, sedhoneste excusare, possint.

An honesta erroris excusatio est, cumpatefactam videas veritatem, nolle illiacquiescere quia nonnulli magni hominesaliter senserint?[286] Magni, inquam,dignitate, non sapientia nec virtute. Undetantum[287] scis an illi quos tu sequeris, sieadem audissent quae tu, mansuri insententia fuerint, an a sententia recessuri? Etnihilominus indignissimum est plus hominivelle tribuere quam veritati, id est Deo. Itaenim quidam omnibus defecti rationibussolent mihi[288] respondere: Cur tot summipontifices donationem hanc veram essecrediderunt? Testificor vos, me vocatis quonolo, et invitum me maledicere summispontificibus cogitis, quos magis in delictissuis operire vellem. Sed pergamus ingenueloqui, quandoquidem aliter agi nequit haeccausa.

Ut fatear eos ita credidisse, et nonmalitia[289] fecisse; quid mirum

delivered to him by the bearer, that is [they are givento] the one to whom they are sent. But the"privilege," as they call it, of Constantine, as it wasnot to be delivered to any one, so also it ought not tobe said to be "given." And so it should be apparentthat he who spoke thus lied, and did not know howto imitate what Constantine would probably havesaid and done. And those who think that he has toldthe truth, and defend him, whoever they are, makethemselves abetters and accessories in his stupidityand madness. However, they have nothing now withwhich to honorably excuse their opinion, not tospeak of defending it.

Or is it an honorable excuse for an error, to beunwilling to acquiesce in the truth when you see itdisclosed, because certain great men have thoughtotherwise? Great men, I call them, on account oftheir position, not on account of their wisdom ortheir goodness. How do you even know whetherthose whom you follow, had they heard what youhear, would have continued in their belief, or wouldhave given it up? And moreover it is mostcontemptible to be willing to pay more regard toman than to Truth, that is, to God. [I say this] forsome men beaten at every argument are wont toanswer thus: "Why have so many supreme pontiffsbelieved this Donation to be genuine?" I call you towitness, that you urge me where I would not, andforce me against my will to rail at the supremepontiffs whose faults I would prefer to veil. But letus proceed to speak frankly, inasmuch as this casecannot be conducted in any other way.

Admitting that they did thus believe and were notdishonest;

[Page 140] si ista crediderunt, ubi tantumlucri blanditur, cum plurima, ubi nullumlucrum ostenditur, per insignem imperitiamcredant? Nonne apud Aram Coeli, in tameximio templo et in loco maxime augusto,[290] cernimus pictam fabulam Sibyllae etOctaviani, ut ferunt ex auctoritate Innocentiitertii haec scribentis, qui etiam de ruinatempli Pacis sub natale Salvatoris, hoc est inpartu Virginis, scriptum reliquit? Quae adevertendam magis fidem quia falsa, quam adstabiliendam quia miranda sunt, pertinent.Mentirine ob speciem[291] pietatis audetvicarius veritatis, et se scientem hoc piaculoobstringere? An non mentitur? Immo vero asanctissimis viris se, cum hoc facit,dissentire non videt? Tacebo alios:

[Page 141] why wonder that they believed thesestories where so much profit allured them, seeingthat they are led to believe a great many things, inwhich no profit is apparent, through theirextraordinary ignorance? Do you not, at Ara Coeli,in that most notable temple and in the mostimpressive place see the fable of the Sibyl andOctavian[89] depicted by the authority, they say, ofInnocent III, who wrote it and who also left anaccount of the destruction of the Temple of Peace onthe day of the Savior's birth, that is, at the deliveryof the Virgin?[90] These stories tend rather to thedestruction of faith, by their falsity, than to theestablishment of faith, by their wonders. Does thevicar of Truth dare to tell a lie under the guise ofpiety, and consciously entangle himself in this sin?Or does he not lie? Verily, does he not see that in

Hieronymus Varronis testimonio utitur,decem Sibyllas fuisse; quod opus Varro anteAugustum condidit. Idem de templo Pacis itascribit: "Vespasianus et Titus Romae temploPacis aedificato, vasa templi et universadonaria in delubro illius consecrarunt, quaeGraeca et Romana narrat historia." Et hicunus indoctus plus vult libello suo etiambarbare scripto credi quam fidelissimisveterum, prudentissimorum hominumhistoriis!

Quia Hieronymum attigi, non patiar hanccontumeliam ipsius tacito[292] praeteriri.Romae ex auctoritate papae ostenditur codexBibliae,[293] tamquam reliquiae sanctorumluminibus[294] semper accensis, quoddicunt[295] scriptum chirographoHieronymi. Quaeris argumentum? Quiamultum, ut inquit Virgilius, est pictai vestiset auri: res quae magis Hieronymi manuindicat scriptum non esse.

perpetrating this he contradicts the most holy men?Omitting others; Jerome cites the testimony of Varrothat there were ten Sibyls, and Varro wrote his workbefore the time of Augustus. Jerome also writes thusof the Temple of Peace: "Vespasian and Titus, afterthe Temple of Peace was built at Rome, dedicatedthe vessels of the temple [of the Jews] and allmanner of gifts in her shrine, as the Greek andRoman historians tell." And this ignorant man,alone, wants us to believe his libel, barbarouslywritten at that, rather than the most accurate historiesof ancient and most painstaking authors!

Since I have touched on Jerome, I will not suffer thefollowing insult to him to be passed by in silence. AtRome, by the authority of the Pope, with the candlesever burning, as though for a relic of the saints, isshown a copy of the Bible, which they say is writtenin the hand of Jerome. Do you seek proof? Why,there is "much embroidered cloth and gold," asVirgil says, a thing which indicates rather that it wasnot written by the hand of Jerome. When Iinspected,it more carefully, I found that it waswritten

[Page 142] Illum ego diligentius inspectumcomperi scriptum esse iussu regis, ut opinor,Roberti chirographo hominis imperiti.

Huic simile est, quamquam decem milliahuiusmodi Romae sunt, quod inter religiosademonstratur in tabella effigies Petri etPauli, quam Silvester Constantino ab eisdemapostolis in somnis admonito inconfirmationem visionis exhibuit. Non hocdico quia negem effigies illas esseapostolorum (utinamque tam vera essetepistola nomine Lentuli missa de effigieChristi, quae non minus improbe ementitaest quam privilegium quod confutavimus!)sed quia tabella illa a Sylvestro non fueritexhibita Constantino; in quo non sustineoanimi mei admirationem continere.

Disputabo enim aliquid de fabula Silvestri,quia et omnis in hoc quaestio versatur, etmihi cum sermo sit cum pontificibusRomanis, de pontifice Romano potissimumloqui decebit, ut ex uno exemplo facilealiorum coniectura capiatur. Et ex multisineptiis quae ibi narrantur unam tantum dedracone attingam, ut doceam Constantinumnon fuisse leprosum. Etenim Gesta Silvestriab Eusebio quodam Graeco homine, ut

[Page 143] by order of a king, Robert, I think, and inthe handwriting of an inexperienced man.

Similarly,­there are indeed ten thousand things ofthis sort at Rome,­among sacred objects is shown thepanel portrait of Peter and Paul, which, afterConstantine had been spoken to by these apostles inhis sleep, Sylvester produced in confirmation of thevision. I do not say this because I deny that they areportraits of the apostles (would that the letter sent inthe name of Lentulus about the portrait of Christwere as genuine, instead of being no less vicious andspurious than this "privilege" which we haverefuted), but because that panel was not produced forConstantine by Sylvester. At that story my mindcannot 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 inorder to speak chiefly of the Roman pontiff so thatfrom one example an estimate of the others may beformed. And of the many absurdities told in this[legend] I shall touch upon one alone, that of theserpent,[91] in order to show that Constantine hadnot been a leper. And verily the Life of Sylvester(Gesta Silvestri), according to the translator, waswritten by Eusebius,[92] a Greek, always thereadiest people at lying, as juvenal's satirical

interpres testatur, composita sunt,[296] quaenatio ad mendacia semperpromptissima[297] est, ut Iuvenalissatirica[298] censura ait:

"...Quicquid Graecia mendax Audet inhistoria."

Unde draco ille venerat? Romae draconesnon gignuntur. Unde etiam illi venenum? InAfrica tantum pestiferi dracones ob ardoremregionis esse dicuntur. Unde praetereatantum veneni

judgment runs:

"Whatever in the way of history a lying Greek darestell."[93]

Whence came that dragon? Dragons are notengendered in Rome. Whence, too, his venom? InAfrica alone, on account of its hot climate, are theresaid to be pest­producing dragons. Whence, too, somuch venom that he wasted with pestilence such

[Page 144] ut tam spatiosam civitatem pestecorrumperet, praesertim cum in tam altospecu demersus esset, ad quem centumquinquaginta gradibus descenderetur?Serpentes, excepto forsitan basilisco, nonafflatu, sed morsu virus inspirant atqueinterimunt. Nec Cato Caesarem fugiens cumtanta hominum manu per medias Africaeharenas, dum iter faceret ac dormiret, ullumsuorum comitum[299] serpentis afflatu viditexstinctum; neque illi populi ob id aeremsentiunt pestilentem. Et si quid fabuliscredimus, et Chimaera et Hydra et Cerberussine noxa vulgo conspecti sunt ac tacti.

Adhuc quin eum Romani potius occidissent?Non poterant, inquis? At multo grandioremserpentem in Africa ad ripam Bagradae[300]Regulus occidit. Hunc vero vel obstructo orespecus facile erat interimere. An nolebant?Ita, opinor, pro deo colebant, ut Babyloniifecerunt. Cur ergo, ut[301] Daniel illumdicitur occidisse, non et Silvester huncpotius occidisset, quem[302] canabaceo filoalligasset, et domum illam in aeternumperdidisset? Ideo commentator fabulae noluitdraconem interimi, ne plane Danielisnarratio referri videretur. Quod siHieronymus, vir doctissimus ac fidelissimusinterpres, Apollinarisque et Origenes atqueEusebius et nonnuili alii narrationem Belifictam esse affirmant, si earn Iudaei inVeteris Instrumenti archetypo nonagnoscunt; id est, si doctissimi quiqueLatinorum, plerique Graecorum, singuliHebraeorum illam ut fabulam damnant, egonon hanc adumbratam ex illa damnabo, quaenullius scriptoris auctoritate fulcitur, et quaemagistram multo superat stultitia?

[Page 145] a spacious city as Rome; the moreremarkable that the serpent was down in a cavern sodeep that one descended to it by a hundred and fiftysteps? Serpents, excepting possibly the basilisk,inject their poison and kill, not with their breath, butwith their bite. Cato, fleeing from Caesar throughthe very midst of the African deserts with such alarge force as he had, did not see any of his companyslain by the breath of a serpent, either on the marchor in camp; nor do the natives think the airpestilential on account of serpents. And if we believeat all in the stories, the Chimaera, the Hydra andCerberus have all often been seen and touchedwithout injury.

Why hadn't the Romans already slain it instead [ofwaiting for Sylvester]? They couldn't, you say? ButRegulus killed a much larger serpent in Africa on thebanks of the Bagradas. And it was very easy indeedto kill the one at Rome; for instance, by closing themouth of the cavern. Or didn't they want to? Ah,they worshipped it as a god, I suppose, as theBabylonians did? Why then, as Daniel is said tohave killed that serpent,[94] had not Sylvester killedthis one when he had bound him with a hempenthread, and destroyed that brood forever? The reasonthe inventor of the legend did not want the dragonslain was that it might not be apparent that he hadcopied the narrative of Daniel. But if Jerome, a mostlearned and accurate translator, Apollinaris, Origen,Eusebius and others affirm the story of Bel to beapocryphal, if the Jews in their original of the OldTestament do not know it; that is, if all the mostlearned of the Latins, most of the Greeks, and certainof the Hebrews, condemn that as a legend, shall I notcondemn this adumbration of it, which is not basedon the authority of any writer, and which farsurpasses its model in absurdity?

For who had built the underground home for the

Nam quis beluae subterraneam domumaedificaverat? Quis illic eam collocaverat, etne prodiret atque avolaret (volant enimdracones, ut quidam aiunt, etsi alii negant)imperaverat? Quis genus illud cibiexcogitaverat?[303] Quis feminas,[304]easque virgines ac

beast? Who had put it there and commanded it not tocome out and fly away (for dragons fly, as some say;even though others deny it)? Who had thought outthat kind of food for him? Who had directed thatwomen, virgins at that, devoted to chastity, go downto him,

[Page 146] sanctimoniales, descenderepraeceperat, nec nisi Kalendis? An tenebatdraco quis esset dies Kalendarum? Et tamparco raroque erat cibo contentus? Necvirgines tam altum specum, tam immanem etesurientem beluam exhorrebant? Credo,blandiebatur eis draco, ut feminis, utvirginibus, ut cibaria afferentibus. Credo,etiam cum illis fabulabatur. Quid ni, honoredicto, etiam coibat? Nam et Alexander etScipio ex draconis serpentisve cum matreconcubitu geniti dicuntur. Quid, denegatopostea victu, non potius aut prodisset,[305]aut fuisset exstinctus?

0 miram hominum dementiam, qui hisanilibus deliramentis fidem habent! Iam veroquamdiu hoc factitatum est? Quandofieri[306] coeptum? Ante adventumSalvatoris, an postea? Nihil horum scitur.Pudeat nos, pudeat harum neniarum etlevitatis plusquam inimicae.[307] ErubescatChristianus homo, qui veritatis se ac lucisfilium nominate proloqui quae non modovera non sunt, sed nec verisimilia.

At enim inquiunt, hanc daemones potestatemin gentibus obtinebant, ut eas diis servientesilluderent. Silete, imperitissimi[308]homines, ne dicam sceleratissimos, quifabulis vestris tale semper velamentumobtenditis! Non desiderat sinceritasChristiana patrocinium falsitatis; satis per se,superque sua ipsius luce ac veritatedefenditur, sine istis commenticiis acpraestigiosis fabellis, in Deum, in Christum,in Spiritum Sanctum contumeliosissimis.Siccine Deus arbitrio daemonum[309]tradiderat genus humanum, ut tammanifestis, tam imperiosis miraculisseducerentur;[310] ut propemodum possetiniustitiae[311] accusari, qui oves lupiscommisisset, et homines magnam errorumsuorum haberent excusationem? Quod sitantum olim licebat daemonibus, et nuncapud infideles vel magis liceret; quodminime videmus, nec ullae ab eis huiusmodi

[Page 147] and only on the Kalends? Or did theserpent remember what day was the Kalends? Andwas 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 theserpent wheedled them, as they were women, andvirgins, and brought him his victuals; I suppose heeven chatted with them. What if, pardon theexpression, he even had intercourse with them; forboth Alexander and Scipio are said to have beenborn by the embrace of a dragon, or a serpent, withtheir mothers! Why, if food were afterward deniedhim, would he not have come out then, or have died?

0 the strange folly of men who have faith in thesesenile ravings! How long now had this been goingon? When did the beginning occur? Before theadvent of the Savior, or after? As to this, nothing isknown. We should be ashamed! We should beashamed of these silly songs, and this frivolity worsethan dangerous! A Christian, who calls himself a sonof truth and light, should blush to utter things whichnot only are not true, but are not credible.

But, they say, the demons obtained this power overthe heathen, so as to mock them for serving thegods. Silence, you utter ignoramuses, not to call youutter rascals, you who always spread such a veil overyour stories! True Christianity does not need thepatronage of falsehood; it is maintainedsatisfactorily by itself, and by its own light and truth,without those lying and deceitful fables,­unmitigatedinsults to God, to Christ, and to the Holy Spirit.Would God thus have given the human race overinto the power of demons, to be seduced by suchevident, such imposing miracles, that he might well­nigh be accused of the injustice of turning sheepover to wolves, and that men should have goodexcuse for their errors? But if so much license wasonce given demons, even more would be given themnow 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 theRomans. Among them the miracles reported are few,and they early and obscure.

fabulae proferuntur.

Tacebo de aliis populis; dicam de Romanis,apud quos paucissima miracula feruntur,eaque vetusta atque incerta. Valerius

[Page 148] Maximus ait hiatum illum terraein medio foro, cum se in eum Curtiusarmatum adacto equo immisisset, iterumcoisse inque pristinam formam continuorevertisse. Item Iunonem Monetam, cum aquodam milite Romano captis Veiis periocum interrogata esset, an Romam migrarevellet, respondisse velle.

Quorum neutrum Titus Livius sentit et priorauctor et gravior. Nam et hiatumpermansisse vult, nec tam fuisse subitumquam vetustum, etiam ante conditam urbem,appellatumque Curtium lacum quod in eodelituisset Curtius Mettius SabinusRomanorum fugiens impressionem; etIunonem annuisse, non respondisse,adiectumque fabulae postea vocemreddidisse. Atque de nutu quoque palam estillos esse mentitos, vel quod motumsimulacri, avellebant autem illud, interpretatisunt sua sponte esse factum, vel qua lasciviahostilem et victam et lapideam deaminterrogabant, eadem lascivia annuissefinxerunt. Tametsi Livius[312] inquit nonannuisse, sed milites quod annuissetexclamasse. Quae tamen boni scriptores nondefendunt facta, sed dicta excusant. Namprout idem Livius ait; "Datur haec[313]venia antiquitati, ut miscendo humanadivinis primordia urbium augustiora faciat."Et alibi: "Sed in rebus tam antiquis si quasimilia veri sunt pro veris accipiantur, satishabeam. Haec[314] ad ostentationem scenaegaudentis miraculis aptiora quam ad fidem;neque affirmare neque refellere est operaepretium."[315]

Terentius Varro, his duobus et prior etdoctior et, ut sentio, gravior auctor, aittriplicem historiam de lacu Curtio a totidemauctoribus proditam; unam a Proculo, quodis lacus ita sit appel­

[Page 149] Valerius Maximus tells that that chasmin the middle of the forum, when Curtius, armed andspurring on his horse, plunged into it, closed again,and returned forthwith to its former state.[95] Again,the [effigy of] Juno Moneta, when it was asked, injest, by a certain Roman soldier at the capture ofVeii, whether it wanted to move to Rome, repliedthat it did.[96]

Titus Livius, an earlier and more authoritativewriter, knows neither of these stories. For he has itthat the chasm was permanent, not a sudden openingbut an old one, there before the founding of the city,and called Curtius' Pond, because Mettius Curtius, aSabine, fleeing from an attack by the Romans, hadhidden in it; and that the Juno did not reply, butnodded assent, and it was added to the storyafterwards that she had spoken.[97] And about thenod also, it is evident that they lied, either byinterpreting the movement of the image when theypulled it away as made by its own accord, or bypretending in the same joking way in which theyasked the question that the hostile, conquered, stonegoddess nodded assent. Indeed, Livy does not saythat she nodded, but that the soldiers exclaimed thatshe nodded. Such stories, too, good writers do notdefend as facts, but excuse as tradition. For even asthis same Livy says, "This indulgence is to begranted antiquity, that by mingling the human andthe divine it may make the beginnings of cities moreaugust."[98] And elsewhere: "But in connection withevents of such ancient times, if probabilities shouldbe accepted as facts, no harm would be done. Thesestories are more suited to the display of a stagewhich delights in wonders, than to sober belief; it isnot worth while either to affirm or to refute them."[99]

Terentius Varro, an earlier, more learned and, Ithink, more authoritative writer than these two, saysthere were three accounts of Curtius' Pond given byas many writers; one by Proculus, that

[Page 150] latus a Curtio, qui se in eumdeiecit; alteram a Pisone, quod a MettioSabino; tertiam a Cornelio, cuius rei sociumaddit Luctatium, quod a Curtio consule, cui

[Page 151] this pond was so called for a Curtiuswho cast himself into it; another by Piso, that it wasnamed for Mettius the Sabine; the third byCornelius, and he adds Luctatius as his associate in

collega fuit M. Genutius.[316] Neque verodissimulaverim Valerium non plane possereprehendi quod ita loquatur, cum paulo postgraviter et severe subiciat: "Nec me praeteritde motu et voce deorum immortaliumhumanis oculis auribusque percepto, quam inancipiti opinione aestimatio versetur. Sedquia non nova dicuntur, sed traditarepetuntur, fidem auctores vendicent." Devoce deorum dixit propter IunonemMonetam et propter simulacrum Fortunae,quod bis locutum fingitur his verbis: "Riteme, matronae, vidistis,[317] rite dedicastis."

At vero nostri fabulatores passim inducuntidola loquentia, quod ipsi gentiles etidolorum cultores non dicunt et sinceriusnegant quam Christiani affirmant. Apudillos[318] paucissima miracula non fideauctorum, sed veluti sacra quadam acreligiosa vetustatis commendatione nituntur;apud istos recentiora quaedam narrantur,quae illorum homines temporum nescierunt.[319]

Neque ego admirationi sanctorum derogo,nec ipsorum divina opera abnuo,[320] cumsciam tantum fidei quantum est granumsinapis[321] montes etiam posse transferre.Immo defendo illa ac tueor, sed misceri cumfabulis non sino. Nec persuaderi possumhos[322] scriptores alios fuisse quaiii autinfideles, qui hoc agerent in derisumChristianorum, si haec figmenta per dolososhomines in

the matter, that it was for Curtius the consul, whosecolleague was Marcus Genutius.[100]

Nor should I have concealed that Valerius cannot bealtogether criticised for speaking as he does, since alittle later he earnestly and seriously adds; "And I donot ignore the fact that as to human eyes and earsperceiving the movement and the voice of immortalgods, our judgment is rather confused by waveringopinion; but because what is said is not new but therepetition of traditions, the authors may lay claim tocredence."[101] He spoke of the voice of the godson account of the Juno Moneta,[102] and on accountof the statue of Fortune which is represented to havetwice spoken in these words, "With due form haveyou seen me, matrons; with due form have youdedicated me."[103]

But our own story­tellers every once in a while bringin talking idols of which the heathen themselves, andthe worshippers of the idols, do not speak; ratherthey deny them more earnestly than the Christiansaffirm them. Among the heathen the very fewwonders which are told make their way not by thebelief of writers, but by the sanction of theirantiquity, as something sacred and venerable; amongour writers wonders more recent are narrated,wonders of which the men of those times did notknow.

I neither disparage admiration for the saints, nor do Ideny their divine works, for I know that faith, asmuch of it as a grain of mustard seed, is able even toremove mountains. Rather I defend and upholdthem, but I do not allow them to be confused withridiculous legends. Nor can I be persuaded that thesewriters were other than either infidels, who did thisto deride the Christians in case these bits of fictionhanded out by crafty men to the

[Page 152] manus imperitorum delataacciperentur pro veris, aut fideles habentesquidem aemulationem Dei, sed nonsecundum scientiam,[323] qui non modo degestis sanctorum, verum etiam Dei genetricisatque adeo Christi improba quaedam et[324]pseudevangelia scribere non reformidarunt.Et summus pontifex hos libros appellatapocryphos, quasi nihil vitii sit[325] quodeorum ignoratur auctor, quasi credibilia sintquae narrantur, quasi sancta et adconfirmationem religionis pertinentia; ut iamnon minus culpae sit penes hunc qui malaprobat quam penes illum qui malaexcogitavit. Nummos reprobos discernimus,

[Page 153] ignorant should be accepted as true, orelse believers with a zeal for God, to be sure, but notaccording to knowledge, men who did not shrinkfrom writing shameless accounts not only of the actsof the saints but even of the mother of God, andindeed of Christ himself, nor from writing pseudo­gospels. And the supreme pontiff calls these booksapocryphal as though it were no blemish that theirauthor is unknown, as though what was told werecredible, as though they were sacred, tending toestablish religion; so that now there is no less faulton his part in that he approves evils, than on the partof the one who devised them. We detect spuriouscoins, we pick them out and reject them; shall wenot detect spurious teaching? Shall we retain it,

separamus, abicimus;[326] doctrinamreprobam non discernemus, sed retinebimus,sed cum bona miscebimus, sed pro bonadefendemus?

Ego vero, ut ingenue[327] feram sententiam,Gesta Silvestri nego esse apocrypha, quia, utdixi, Eusebius quidam fertur auctor; sedfalsa atque indigna quae legantur existimocum in aliis tum vero in alio[328] quodnarratur de dracone, de tauro, de lepra,propter quam refutandam tanta repetii.Neque enim si Naaman leprosus fuit,continuo et Constantinum leprosum fuissedicemus? De illo multi auctores meminerunt,de hoc principe orbis terrarum nemo nesuorum quidem civium scripsit, nisi nescioquis alienigena, cui non aliter habenda estfides quam alteri cuidam de vespis intranares Vespasiani nidificantibus, et de ranapartu a Nerone emissa, unde Lateranumvocitatum locum dicunt, quod ibi rana lateatin sepulcro: quod nec vespae ipsae necranae, si loqui possent, dixis­

confuse it with the genuine and defend it as genuine?

But I, to give my frank opinion, deny that the Actsof Sylvester is an apocryphal book; because, as Ihave said, a certain Eusebius is said to have been itsauthor; but I think it is false and not worth reading,in other parts as well as in what it has to say aboutthe serpent, the bull,[104]­ and the leprosy, to refutewhich I have gone over so much ground. For even ifNaaman was leprous, should we forthwith say thatConstantine also was leprous? Many writers alludeto it in Naaman's case; that Constantine the head ofthe whole earth had leprosy no one mentioned; atleast none of his fellow citizens, but perhaps someforeigner or other, to be given no more credencethan that other fellow who wrote about waspsbuilding their nest in Vespasian's nostrils, and aboutthe frog taken from Nero at birth, whence they saythe place was called the Lateran, for the frog (rana)is concealed (latere) there in its grave.[105] Suchstuff neither the wasps themselves, nor frogs, if theycould speak, would have uttered! [I pass over thestatement that boys' blood is a remedy for leprosy,which medical

[Page 154] sent;[329] nisi ad deosCapitolinos hoc referunt, quasi illi loquiconsuessent et hoc fieri iussissent.[330]

Sed quid mirer haec non intelligerepontifices, cum nomen ignorent suum!Cephas enim dicunt vocari Petrum quiacaput apostolorum esset, tamquam hocvocabulum sit Graecum______________[331] et non Hebraicum,seu[332] potius Syriacum, quod Graeci_______[333] scribunt, quod apud eosinterpretatur Petrus, non caput. Est enim"petrus," et "petra," Graecum vocabulum,stulteque per etymologiam Latinamexponitur petra, quasi pede trita. Etmetropolitanum ab archiepiscopodistinguunt[334] voluntque illum a mensuracivitatis dictum, cum Graece dicatur non_____________ sed ____________,[335] idest mater­civitas sive urbs;[336] etpatriarcham quasi patrem patrum; et papamab interiectione pape dictum; et fidemorthodoxam quasi rectae gloriae; etSimonem media correpta, cum legendum sitmedia longa, ut Platonem et Catonem;[337]et multa similia quae transeo, ne culpaaliquorum omnes summos pontifices videarinsectari. Haec dicta sint, ut nemo miretur sidonationem Constantini commenticiam[338]

[Page 155] science does not admit;[106]] unlessthey attribute this to the Capitoline gods, as thoughthey were wont to talk and had ordered this to bedone!

But why should I wonder that the pontiffs are notinformed on these points, when they do not knowabout their own name! For they say that Peter iscalled Cephas because he was the head of theapostles, as though this noun were Greek, from______ and not Hebrew, or rather Syriac; a nounwhich the Greeks write ________, and which withthem means rock (Petrus), and not head I For"petrus," "petra," (rock) is a Greek noun. And"petra" is stupidly explained by them through aLatin derivation, as from "pede trita" (trodden byfoot)! And they distinguish "metropolitan" from"archbishop," and claim that the former is so calledfrom the size of the city, though in Greek it is notcalled ___________,; but __________, that is, themother­state 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 ashort middle vowel, though it should be read with along one, as are "Platonem" (Plato) and "Catonem"(Cato). And there are many similar instances which Ipass, lest for the fault of some of the supremepontiffs I should seem to attack all. These instances

fuisse papae multi non potueruntdeprehendere, tametsi ab aliquo eorum ortamesse hanc fallaciam reor.

At dicitis, cur Imperatores, quorumdetrimento res ista cedebat, donationemConstantini non negant, sed fatentur,affirmant, con­

had to be given so that no one should wonder thatmany of the Popes have been unable to detect thatthe Donation of Constantine was spurious; though,in my opinion, this deception originated with one ofthem.

But you say, "Why do not the Emperors, who werethe sufferers from this forgery, deny the Donation ofConstantine, instead of admitting it, confirming itand maintaining it?" A great argument!

[Page 156] servant? Ingens argumentum;mirifica defensio! Nam de quo tu loquerisImperatore? Si de Graeco, qui verus fuitImperator, negabo confessionem: si deLatino, libenter etiam confitebor. Etenimquis nescit Imperatorem Latinum gratisfactum esse a summo pontifice, ut opinorStephano, qui Graecum Imperatorem, quodauxilium non ferret Italiae, privavit,Latinumque fecit; ita ut plura Imperator apapa quam papa ab Imperatore acciperet?Sane Troianas opes quibusdam pactionibussoli Achilles et Patroclus inter se partiti sunt!Quod etiam mihi videntur indicareLudovici[339] verba, cum ait; "EgoLudovicus, Imperator Romanus Augustus,statuo et concedo per hoc pactumconfirmationis nostrae tibi beato Petro,principi apostolorum, et per te vicario tuodomino Paschali[340] summo pontifici etsuccessoribus eius in perpetuum,[341] sicuta praedecessoribus[342] nostris usque nuncin vestra potestate et dicione[343] tenuistis,Romanam civitatem cum ducatu suo etsuburbanis atque viculis omnibus etterritoriis eius montanis atque maritimislitoribus et portubus, seu cunctis civitatibus,castellis, oppidis ac villis in Tusciaepartibus."[344]

Tune, Ludovice, cum Paschale pacisceris? Situa, id est Imperii Romani, sunt ista, curalteri concedis? Si ipsius et ab eo[345]possidentur, quid attinet te illa confirmare?Quantulum etiam ex Imperio Romano tuumerit, si caput ipsum Imperii amisisti? ARoma dicitur Romanus Imperator. Quid,cetera quae possides tuane an Paschalis sunt?Credo tua dices. Nihil ergo valet donatioConstantini, si ab eo pontifici donata tupossides. Si valet, quo iure Paschalis tibicetera remittit, retentis tantum sibi quaepossidet? Quid sibi vult tanta, aut tua inillum, aut illius in te de Imperio Romano

[Page 157] a marvellous defense! For of whichEmperor are you speaking? If of the Greek one, whowas the true Emperor, I will deny the admission; ifof the Latin, I will confess it, and with pleasure. Forwho does not know that the Latin Emperor wasgratuitously established by a supreme pontiff,Stephen I think, who robbed the Greek Emperorbecause he would not aid Italy, and established aLatin Emperor; so the Emperor thus received morefrom the Pope than the Pope from the Emperor?[107] Oh, of course, Achilles and Patroclus dividedthe Trojan spoils between themselves alone on somesuch terms. The words of Louis [the Pious] seem tome to imply just this when he says, "I, Louis, RomanEmperor, Augustus, ordain and grant, by thiscompact 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 hissuccessors forever, to hold, just as from ourpredecessors until now you have held, under yourauthority 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, walledtowns, and estates in the districts of Tuscany."[108]

Do you, Louis, make a pact with Paschal? If theseare yours, that is, the Roman Empire's, why do yougrant them to another? If they are his and are held inhis own possession, what sense is there in yourconfirming them? How little of the Roman Empirewill be yours if you lose the very head of theEmpire? From Rome the Roman Emperor takes hisname. What! Are your other possessions yours orPaschal's? Yours, you will say, I suppose. Therefore,the Donation of Constantine is not valid at all; thatis, if you possess what was given by him to thepontiff. If it is valid, by what right does Paschal giveyou the rest [of the Empire], retaining for himselfonly what he possesses? What does your excessiveprodigality toward him at the expense of the RomanEmpire mean, or his toward you? Therefore,deservedly do you call it a "compact," somethinglike collusion.

largitio? Merito igitur pactum appellas, quasiquandam collusionem.

[Page 158] "Sed quid faciam?" inquies."Repetam armis quae papa occupat? At ipseiam factus est me potentior. Repetam iure?At ius meum tantum est quantum ille essevoluit;[346] non enim hereditario nomine adImperium veni, sed pacto, ut, si Imperatoresse volo, haec et haec invicem papaepromittam. Dicam nihil donasse ex ImperioConstantinum? At isto modo causam ageremGraeci Imperatoris et me omni fraudaremImperii dignitate. Hac enim ratione papa sedicit facere Imperatorem me, quasi quendamvicarium suum, et nisi promittam, nonfacturum; et nisi paream, me abdicaturum.Dummodo mihi det, omnia fatebor, omniapaciscar. Mihi tantum[347] crede, si Romamego ac[348] Tusciam possiderem, tantumabest ut facerem quae facio; ut etiam frustramihi Paschalis donationis, sicut reor falsae,[349] caneret cantilenam. Nunc concedoquae nec teneo nec habiturum esse me spero.De iure papae inquirere non ad me pertinet,sed ad Constantinopolitanum illum[350]Augustum."

Iam apud me excusatus es, Ludovice, etquisquis alius princeps[351] es Ludovicisimilis. Quid de aliorum Imperatorum cumsummis pontificibus pactione suspicandumest, cum sciamus quid Sigismundus fecerit,princeps alioqui[352] optimus acfortissimus, sed iam affecta aetate minusfortis, quem per Italiam paucis stipatoribussaeptum in diem vivere vidimus Romaeetiam fame periturum, nisi eum, sed nongratis­extorsit enim donationem­Eugeniuspavisset! Is cum Romam venisset ut proImperatore Romanorum coronaretur, nonaliter a papa coronari potuit, quam[353]Constantini donationem ratam habereteademque omnia de integro donaret. Quidmagis contrarium quam pro ImperatoreRomano[354] coronari qui Romae ipsirenuntiasset, et coronari ab illo quem etconfiteatur et, quantum in se est, dominumRomani Imperii faciat, ac ratam

[Page 159] "But what shall I do?" you will say."Shall I try to recover by force what the Pope has inhis possession? But he, alas, has now become morepowerful than I. Shall I seek to regain it by law? Butmy right is only such as he is willing for it to be. ForI came to the throne, not through an inherited title,but by a compact that if I wish to be Emperor Ishould promise the Pope in turn such and suchconsiderations. Shall I say that Constantine did notgive away anv of the Empire? But that way I shouldbe arguing the cause of the Greek Emperor, and Ishould rob myself of all imperial dignity. For thePope says he makes me Emperor with this very thingin view, as a kind of vicar of his; and unless I bindmyself, he will not make me Emperor; and unless Iobey I shall have to abdicate. If only he gives me thethrone I will acknowledge everything, I will agree toeverything. Only; take my word for it, if I had Romeand Tuscany in my possession, I would act quitedifferently and Paschal would sing me that old songof the Donation, spurious in my opinion, in vain. Asthings are, I yield what I neither have nor hope tohave. To question the right of the Pope is not myconcern but that of the Emperor yonder atConstantinople."

I quite excuse you, Louis, and every other rulersimilarly placed. What must we suspect of thecompact of other Emperors with the supremepontiffs, when we know what Sigismund did, a rulerotherwise most excellent and courageous, but at thattime 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 Eugeniusfed him,­but not for nothing, for he extorted theDonation from him. When he had come to Rome tobe crowned Emperor of the Romans, he could notget the Pope to crown him, except by confirming theDonation of Constantine and by granting anew allthat it contained. What more contradictory than forhim to be crowned Roman Emperor who hadrenounced Rome itself, and that by the man whomhe both acknowledges and, so far as he can, makesmaster of the Roman Empire; and [for the

[Page 160] habere donationem, quae vera sisit, nihil Imperatori de Imperio reliqui fiat?Quod, ut arbitror, nec pueri fecissent.Quominus mirum si papa sibi arrogatCaesaris coronationem, quae populi Romani

[Page 161] Emperor] to confirm the Donationwhich, if genuine, leaves none of the Empire for theEmperor! It is a thing which, as I think, not evenchildren would have done. So it is not strange thatthe Pope arrogates to himself the coronation of the

esse deberet.

Si tu, papa, et potes Graecum Imperatoremprivare Italia provinciisque[355] occidentis,et Latinum Imperatorem facis, curpactionibus uteris; cur bona Caesaris partiris;cur in te Imperium[356] transfers?

Quare sciat, quisquis est qui dicitur[357]Imperator Romanorum, me iudice se nonesse nec Augustum, nec Caesarem, necImperatorem, nisi Romae imperium teneat;et nisi operam det ut urbem Romamrecuperet, plane esse periurum. NamCaesares illi priores, quorum fuit primusConstantinus, non adigebantur iusiuranduminterponere quo nunc Caesaresobstringuntur, sed quantum humana opepraestari potest, nihil imminuturos esse deamplitudine Imperii Romani, eamque seduloadaucturos.

Non ea re tamen vocati[358] Augusti, quodImperium augere deberent, ut aliqui sentiuntLatinae linguae imperiti, est enim Augustusquasi sacer ab avium gustu dictus, quae inauspiciis adhiberi solebant, Graecorumquoque testante lingua, apud quos Augustus_________[359] dicitur, unde Sebastiavocata. Melius summus pontifex ab augendoAugustus diceretur, nisi quod dumtemporalia auget, spiritualia minuit. Itaquevideas ut quisque pessimus est summorumpontificum, ita maxime defendendae huicdonationi incumbere; qualis Bonifaciusoctavus, qui Caelestinum tubis parietiinsertis decepit. Hic et de donationeConstantini scribit et regem Franciae[360]privavit, regnumque ipsum, quasidonationem Con

Caesar, which ought to belong to the Roman people.If you, 0 Pope, on the one hand can deprive theGreek Emperor of Italy and the western provinces,and on the other you create a Latin Emperor, why doyou resort to "compacts"? Why do you divide theCaesar's estate? Why do you transfer the Empire toyourself?

Wherefore, let whoever is called Emperor of theRomans know that in my judgment he is notAugustus, nor Caesar, nor Emperor, unless he rulesat Rome; and unless he takes up the recovery,of thecity of Rome, he will plainly be forsworn. For thoseearlier Caesars, and Constantine first of them, werenot forced to take the oath by which the Caesars arenow bound; but rather the oath that, so far as it lay inhuman power, they would not diminish the extent ofthe 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, assome think whose knowledge of Latin is imperfect;for he is called Augustus, as consecrated, from"avium gustus" (the taste, or appetite, of the birds), acustomary step in consulting the omens: and thisderivation is supported by the language of theGreeks, among whom the Augustus is called_________,;, from which Sebastia gets its name.Better might the supreme pontiff be called Augustusfrom "augere" (to augment), except for the fact thatwhen he augments his temporal he diminishes hisspiritual power. Thus it is a fact that the worse thesupreme pontiff is, the more he exerts himself todefend this Donation. Take the case of BonifaceVIII, who deceived Celestine by means of pipesfixed in the wall.[109] He both writes concerning theDonation of Constantine, and he despoils the Frenchking; and, as though he wished to put the Donation

[Page 162] stantini exsequi vellet, ecclesiaeRomanae fuisse et esse subiectum iudicavit;quod statim successores eius, Benedictus etClemens, ut improbum iniustumquerevocarunt.

Verum quid sibi vult ista vestra, pontificesRomani, sollicitudo quod a singulisImperatoribus donationem Constantiniexigitis confirmari, nisi quod iuri diffiditisvestro? Sed laterem lavatis, ut dicitur; namneque illa umquam fuit, et quod non estconfirmari non potest; et quicquid donantCaesares, decepti exemplo Constantini

[Page 163] of Constantine in execution, he decreesthat the kingdom itself belonged to and was subjectto the Roman church. This decretal his successors,Benedict and Clement, revoked outright, as wickedand unjust.

But what is the significance of your anxiety, Romanpontiffs, in requiring each Emperor to confirm theDonation of Constantine, unless it be that youdistrust its legality? But you are washing bricks [youlabor in vain], as they say; for that Donation neverexisted, and since it does not exist it cannot beconfirmed; and whatever the Caesars grant, theiracts are due to deception as to the precedent of

faciunt, et donare Imperium nequeunt.

Age vero, demus Constantinum donasseSilvestrumque aliquando possedisse, sedpostea vel ipsum, vel aliquem ipsorum[361]a possessione deiectum. (Loquor nunc de hisquae papa non possidet; postea loquar de hisquae possidet.) Quid possum vobis magisdare quam ut ea quae nec fuerunt nec essepotuerunt fuisse concedam? Tamen[362]dico vos nec iure divino nec iure humano adrecuperationem agere posse. In lege veteriHebraeus supra sextum annum Hebraeoservire vetabatur, et quinquagesimo[363]quoque anno omnia redibant ad pristinumdominum. Tempore gratiae Christianus avicario Christi, redemptoris nostraeservitutis, premetur servitio aeterno? Quiddicam! Revocabitur ad servitutem postquamliber factus est diuque potitus libertate?

Sileo quam saevus, quam vehemens, quambarbarus dominatus frequenter estsacerdotum; quod si antea ignorabatur, nuperest cognitum ex monstro illo atque portento,Ioanne Vitellesco, cardinale et patriarcha,qui gladium Petri quo auriculam Malchoabscidit in Christianorum sanguine lassavit;quo gladio et ipse

Constantine; and they cannot grant the Empire.

However, let us grant that Constantine made theDonation and that Sylvester was at one time inpossession, but afterwards either he himself oranother of the Popes lost possession. (I am speakingnow of that of which the Pope is not in possession;later on I will speak of that of which he is inpossession.) What more can I grant you than toconcede the existence of that which never was andnever could be? But even so, I say that you cannoteffect a recovery either by divine or by human law.In the ancient law it was forbidden that a Hebrew bea Hebrew's slave more than six years, and everyfiftieth year also everything reverted to the originalowner. Shall a Christian, in the dispensation ofgrace, be oppressed in eternal slavery by the vicar ofthe Christ who redeemed us from our servitude?What do I say! Shall he be recalled to servitude afterhe has been set free and has long enjoyed hisfreedom?

How brutal, how violent, how barbarous the tyrannyof priests often is, I do not say. If this was notknown before, it has lately been learned from thatmonster of depravity, John Vitelleschi, cardinal andpatriarch, who wore out the sword of Peter, withwhich [the apostle] cut off the ear of Malchus, withthe blood of Christians. By this sword he himselfalso perished.[110] But is it true

[Page 164] periit. An vero populis Israel adomo David et Salomonis, quos prophetae aDeo missi unxerant, tamen propter gravioraonera desciscere licuit, factumque eorumDeus probavit; nobis ob tantam tyrannidemdesciscere non licebit, ab his praesertim quinec sunt reges, nec esse possunt, et qui depastoribus ovium, id est animarum, facti suntfures ac latrones?

Et, ut ad ins humanum veniam, quis ignoratnullum ins esse bellorum; aut si quod est,tamdiu valere quamdiu possideas quae belloparasti? Nam cum possessionem perdis, etius perdidisti; ideoque captivos, si fugerint,nemo ad iudicem repetere solet; etiam necpraedas,[364] si eas priores dominireceperint. Apes et quaedam alia volucrumgenera, si e privato meo longius evolaverintet in alieno desederint, repeti non queunt. Tuhomines, non modo liberum animal, seddominum ceterorum, si se in libertatemmanu et armis asserant, non manu et armisrepetes, sed iure, quasi tu homo sis, illi

[Page 165] that the people of Israel were permittedto revolt from the house of David and Solomonwhom prophets sent by God had anointed, becausetheir impositions were too heavy; and that Godapproved their act? May we not revolt on account ofsuch great tyranny, particularly from those who arenot kings, and cannot be; and who from beingshepherds of the sheep, that is to say, of souls, havebecome thieves and brigands?

And to come to human law, who does not know thatthere is no right conferred by war, or if there is any,that it prevails just as long as you possess what youhave gotten by war? For when you lose possession,you have lost the right. And so ordinarily, if captiveshave escaped no one summons them into court: andso also with plunder if the former owners haverecovered it. Bees and any other kind of wingedcreatures, if they have flown away far from myproperty and have settled on another's, cannot bereclaimed. And do you seek to reclaim men, who arenot only free creatures, but masters of others, whenthey set themselves free by force of arms, [reclaimthem] not by force of arms, but by law, as though

pecudes.

Neque est quod dicas: Romani iuste bellanationibus intulerunt, iusteque libertate illasexuerunt. Noli me ad istam vocarequaestionem,[365] ne quid in Romanos meoscogar dicere; quamquam nullum crimen tamgrave esse potuit ut aeternam mererenturpopuli servitutem; cum eo quod saepe culpaprincipis, magnive alicuius in republicacivis, bella gesserunt, et victi immeritaservitutis poena affecti sunt; quorumexemplis plena sunt omnia.

Neque vero lege naturae comparatum est, utpopulus sibi populum subigat. Praeciperealiis eosque exhortari possumus; imperareillis ac vim afferre non possumus, nisi relictahumanitate velimus ferociores beluas imitari,quae sanguinarium in infirmiores imperiumexercent, ut leo in quadrupedes, aquila involucres, delphinus in pisces. Verumtamenhae beluae non in suum genus

you were a man, and they sheep?

Nor can you say, "The Romans were [considered]just in waging wars against the nations, and just indepriving them of liberty." Do not drag me into thatdiscussion, lest I be forced to speak against myfellow Romans. However, no fault could be soserious that people should merit everlastingservitude therefor. And in this connection [one mustremember also] that people often waged a war forwhich a prince or some important citizen in theRepublic was to blame, and, being conquered, wereundeservedly punished with servitude. There areeverywhere abundant examples of this.

Nor in truth does the law of nature provide that onepeople should subjugate another people to itself. Wecan instruct others, we can urge them; we cannotrule them and do them violence, unless, leavinghumanity aside, we wish to copy the more savagebeasts which force their bloody rule upon theweaker, as the lion among quadrupeds, the eagleamong birds, the dolphin among fish. Yet even thesecreatures do not vaunt authority over their

[Page 166] sibi ius vindicant,[366] sed ininferius. Quod quanto magis faciendumnobis est, et homo homini religionihabendus, cum, ut M. Fabius inquit, nullasupra terras adeo rabiosa belua, cui nonimago sua sancta sit.

Itaque quattuor fere causae sunt ob quasbella inferuntur: aut ob ulciscendam iniuriamdefendendosque amicos; aut timoreaccipiendae postea calamitatis, si viresaliorum augeri sinantur; aut spe praedae; autgloriae cupiditate; quarum prima nonnihilhonesta, secunda parum, duae posterioresnequaquam honestae sunt. Et Romanisquidem illata fuere bella frequenter, sedpostquam se defenderant, et illis et aliis ipsiintulerunt; nec ulla gens est quae dicionieorum cesserit, nisi bello victa et domita,quam recte aut qua causa, ipsi viderint. Eosego nolim nec damnare, tamquam iniustepugnaverint, nec absolvere tamquam iuste;tantum dicain eadem ratione Romanosceteris bella intulisse qua reliqui populiregesque, atque ipsis qui bello lacessitivictique sunt licuisse deficere a Romanis, utab aliis dominis defecerunt; ne forte, quodnemo diceret, imperia omnia advetustissimos illos, qui primi domini fuere,id est, qui primi praeripuere aliena,

[Page 167] own kind, but over an inferior. Howmuch more ought we to act thus, and as men havedue regard for men, since in the words of MarcusFabius there is no beast upon the earth so fierce thathis 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 strengthof others is allowed to increase; or for hope ofbooty; or for desire of glory. Of these the first israther honorable, the second less so, and the last twoare far from honorable. And wars were indeed oftenwaged against the Romans, but after they haddefended themselves, they waged war against theirassailants and against others. Nor is there any nationwhich yielded to their sway unless conquered in warand subdued; whether justly, or for what cause, theythemselves could judge. I should be unwilling tocondemn them as fighting unjustly or to acquit themas fighting in a just cause. I can only say that theRoman people waged wars against others for thesame reason as other peoples and kings did, and thatit was left open even to those who were attacked andconquered in war to revolt from the Romans just asthey revolted from other masters; lest perchance(and none would agree to this) all authority shouldbe imputed to the oldest people who were firstmasters; that is, to those who were the first to takepossession of what belonged to others.

referantur.

Et tamen melius in victis bello nationibuspopulo Romano quam Caesaribusrempublicam opprimentibus ius est.Quocirca si fas erat gentibus a Constantino,et quod multo plus est a populo Romanodesciscere, profecto et ab eo ius eritcuicumque cesserit ille ius suum. Atque, utaudacius agam, si Romanis licebatConstantinum aut exigere ut Tarquinium, autoccidere ut Iulium Caesarem, multo magiseum vel Romanis vel provinciis licebitoccidere qui in locum Constantini utcumquesuccessit. Hoc etsi verum, tamen ultracausam meam est, et idcirco[367] mereprimere volo nec aliud ex his colligerequae dixi, nisi ineptum esse, ubi

And yet the Roman people had a better right overnations conquered in war than had the Caesars intheir overthrow of the Republic. Wherefore, if it wasright for the nations to revolt from Constantine, and,what is far more, from the Roman people, surely itwill be right to revolt from him to whomConstantine gave his authority. And to put the mattermore boldly, if the Roman people were free either todrive Constantine out, as they did Tarquinius, or toslay him, as they did Julius Caesar, much more willthe Romans or the provinces be free to slay him,who at any time has succeeded Constantine. Butthough this is true, yet it is beyond the scope of myargument, and so I want to restrain myself and notpress anything I have said further than this, that it isfolly to adduce any verbal right, where the right of

[Page 168] armorum vis est, ibi ius quemqueafferre verborum; quia quod armisacquiritur, idem rursus armis amittitur.

Eo quidem magis, quod aliae novae gentes,ut de Gothis accepimus quae numquam subimperio Romano fuerunt, fugatis veteribusincolis, Italiam et multas provinciasoccuparunt, quas in servitutem revocari inqua numquam fuerunt, quae tandem aequitasest, praesertim victrices, et fortasse a victis?Quo tempore, si quae urbes ac nationes, utfactum fuisse scimus, ab Imperatore desertaead barbarorum adventum necesse habueruntdeligere sibi regem, sub cuius auspiciisvictoriam reportarunt, numquid hunc posteaa principatu deponerent; aut eius filios, tumcommendatione patris, tum propria virtutefavorabiles iuberent esse privatos, ut iterumsub Romano principe essent, maxime cumeorum opera assidue indigerent, et nullumaliunde auxilium sperarent? Hos[368] siCaesar ipse, aut Constantinus ad vitamreversus, aut etiam senatus populusqueRomanus ad commune iudicium, quale inGraecia Amphictyonum[369] fuit, vocaret,prima statim actione repelleretur, quod a seolim custode desertos, quod tamdiu[370] subalio principe degentes, quod numquamalienigenae regi subditos, quod deniquehomines libertati natos et in libertatemrobore animi corporisque assertos, adfamulatum servitiumque reposceret. Utappareat, si Caesar, si populus Romanus arepetendo exclusus est, multo vehementiuspapam esse exclusum! Et si licet aliis

[Page 169] arms prevails, because that which isacquired by arms, is likewise lost by arms.

This, indeed, the more, that other, new, peoples aswe have heard in the case of the Goths, who werenever subject to Roman rule after putting to flightthe earlier inhabitants, seized upon Italy and manyprovinces. What justice, pray, is there in restoringthese to a servitude which they have neverexperienced; especially as they are the conqueringpeoples; and to servitude perchance under theconquered peoples? And if at this time any cities andnations, deserted by the Emperor at the arrival of thebarbarians, as we know to have been the case, hadbeen compelled to elect a king under whoseleadership they then won victory, is there any reasonwhy they should later depose this ruler? Or shouldthey bid his sons, popular it may be for their father'spraise, it may be for their own valor, become privatecitizens, that they might again become subjects of aRoman prince, even though they were greatly inneed of their assistance and hoped for no aidelsewhere? If the Caesar himself, or Constantine,returned to life, or even the Senate and Romanpeople should call them before a general court suchas the Amphictyony was in Greece, [the plaintiff ]would at once be ruled out at his first plea becausehe was reclaiming to bondage and slavery those whoonce had been abandoned by him, their guardian,those who for a long time had been living underanother ruler, those who had never been subject to aforeign­born king, men, in conclusion, who werefreeborn and proclaimed free by their vigor of mindand body. How clear it should be, that if the Caesar,if the Roman people, is thus debarred fromrecovering control, much more decidedly is the

nationibus quae sub Roma fuerunt, autregem sibi creare, aut rempublicam tenere,multo magis id licere populo Romano,praecipue adversus novam papaetyrannidem.

Exclusi a defendenda donatione adversarii,quod nec umquam fuit et si qua fuisset iamtemporum conditione intercidisset,confugiunt ad alterum genus defensionis, etvelut relicta urbe in

Pope! And if the other nations which have beensubject to Rome are free either to appoint a king forthemselves or to maintain a republic, far more arethe Roman people themselves free to do this,especially against the innovation of papal tyranny.

Estopped from defending the Donation, since itnever existed and, if it had existed, it would nowhave expired from lapse of time, our adversaries takerefuge in another kind of defense;

[Page 170] arcem se recipiunt, quam statimdeficientibus cibariis dedere cogentur.Praescripsit, inquiunt, Romana ecclesia iniis[371] quae possidet. Cur ergo, quae maiorpars est, ea reposcit, in quibus nonpraescripsit, et in quibus alii praescripserunt?Nisi id non licet aliis in hanc, quod huic licetin alios.

Praescripsit Romana ecclesia! Cur ergo abImperatoribus totiens curat sibi iusconfirmandum? Cur donationemconfirmationemque Caesarum iactat? Si hocunum satis est, iniuriam ei facis si de alteroquoque iure non sileas. Cur igitur de alteronon siles? Nempe quia hoc sibi non sufficit.

Praescripsit Romana ecclesia! Et quomodopotest praescripsisse ubi de nullo titulo sedde malefidei[372] possessione constat; aut, simalefidei possessionem neges, profectostultae fidei negare non possis? An in tantare tamque aperta excusata debet esse et iuriset facti ignorantia? Facti quidem, quodRomam provinciasque non deditConstantinus, quod ignorare idiotae hominisest, non summi pontificis; iuris autem, quodilla nec donari potuere nec accipi, quodnescire vix Christiani est. Itane stultacredulitas dabit tibi ins in his quae, siprudentior fores, tua numquam fuissent?Quid! Nonne nunc saltem, postquam te perignorantiam atque stultitiam possedissedocui, ius istud, si quod erat, amittes, et quodinscitia male contulerat tibi, nonne id rursumcognitio bene adimet, mancipiumque abiniusto ad iustum dominum revertetur,fortassis etiam cum usufructu? Quod siadhuc possidere pergis, iam inscitia inmalitiam[373] fraudemque conversa est,planeque effectus es[374] malefideipossessor.

[Page 171] figuratively speaking, the city beinggiven up for lost, they betake themselves to theircitadel,­which forthwith they are constrained by lackof provisions to surrender. "The Roman church,"they say, "is entitled by prescription to what itpossesses." Why then does it lay claim to that, thegreater 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 acttoward them?

The Roman church has title by prescription! Whythen does it so often take care to have the Emperorsconfirm its right? Why does it vaunt the Donation,and its confirmation by the Caesars? If this alone issufficient, you seriously weaken it by not at thesame time keeping silent about the other title [byprescription]. Why don't you keep silent about thatother? Obviously because this is not sufficient.

The Roman church has prescribed! And how can ithave entered a prescription where no title isestablished but only possession through bad faith?Or if you deny that the possession was a case of badfaith, at least you cannot deny that the faith [in theDonation] was stupid. Or, in a matter of suchimportance and notoriety, ought ignorance of factand of law to be excused? Of fact, becauseConstantine did not make a grant of Rome and theprovinces; a fact of which a man of the commonpeople might well be ignorant, but not the supremepontiff. Of law, because they could not be granted;which any Christian ought to know. And so, willstupid credulity give you a right to that which, hadyou been more conscientious, would never havebeen yours? Well! Now, at least, after I have shownthat you held possession through ignorance andstupidity, do you not lose that right, if it was such?and what ignorance unhappily brought you, does notknowledge happily take away again? and does notthe property revert from the illegal to the legalmaster, perchance even with interest? But if youcontinue to keep possession in the future, your

Praescripsit Romana ecclesia! 0 imperiti, 0divini iuris ignari!

ignorance is henceforth changed into maliceaforethought and into deceit, and you become afraudulent holder.

The Roman church has entered a prescription! 0simpletons, 0 ignoramuses in divine law! No lengthof years whatever can

[Page 172] Nullus quantusvis[375] annorumnumerus verum abolere titulum potest. Anvero captus ego a barbaris, creditusqueperisse,[376] post centum annos quibuscaptivus fui, postliminio reversus paternaehereditatis repetitor excludar? Quid hac reinhumanius? Atque, ut aliquod afferamexemplum, num Jephte, dux Israel,reposcentibus filiis Ammon terram "a finibusArnon usque in Iaboc atque in Iordanem"respondit, "Praescripsit Israel iam pertrecentos annos?" An quod numquamillorum, sed Amorreorum fuisset terra quamreposcerent ostendit; et hoc argumentumesse, ad Ammonitas[377] illam nonpertinere, quod numquam intra tot annorumcurriculum repoposcissent?

Praescripsit Romana ecclesia! Tace, nefarialingua! Praescriptionem, quae fit de rebusmutis et irrationabilibus, ad hominemtransfers, cuius quo diuturnior in servitutepossessio eo est detestabilior? Aves ac feraein se praescribi nolunt, sed quantolibettempore possessae, cum libuerit et oblatafuerit occasio, abeunt: homini ab hominepossesso abire non licebit?[378]

Accipe unde magis fraus dolusque quamignorantia Romanorum pontificum appareatutentium iudice bello non iure; cui similequiddam primos pontifices in occupandaurbe ceterisque oppidis credo fecisse. Parumante me natum, testor eorum memoriam quiinterfuerunt, per inauditum genus fraudisRoma papale accepit imperium seutyrannidem potius, cum diu libera fuisset. Isfuit Bonifacius nonus, octavo in fraudeut[379] in nomine par, si modoBonifacii[380] dicendi sunt qui pessimefaciunt. Et cum Romani deprehenso doloapud se indignarentur, bonus[381] papa inmorem Tarquinii summa quaeque papaveravirga decussit. Quod cum postea, qui eisuccessit, Innocentius imitari vellet, urbefugatus

[Page 173] destroy a true title. Or indeed, if I werecaptured by barbarians and supposed to haveperished, and should return again home after ahundred years of captivity, as a claimant of mypaternal inheritance, should I be excluded? Whatcould be more inhuman! And, to give anotherexample, did Jephthah, the leader of Israel, when theAmmonites demanded back the land from "theborders of Arnon even unto Jabbok and untoJordan," reply, "Israel has prescribed this nowthrough three hundred years' occupation"? Or did henot show that the land which they demanded astheirs, had never been theirs, but had been theAmorites'? And the proof that it did not belong tothe Ammonites was that they had never in the courseof so many years claimed it.[111]

The Roman church has prescribed! Keep still,impious tongue! You transfer "prescription," whichis used of inanimate, senseless objects, to man; andholding man in servitude is the more detestable, thelonger it lasts. Birds and wild animals do not letthemselves be "prescribed," but however long thetime of captivity, when they please and occasion isoffered, they escape. And may not man, held captiveby man, escape?

Let me tell why the Roman pontiffs show fraud andcraft rather than ignorance in using war instead oflaw as their arbiter,­and I believe that the firstpontiffs to occupy the city [of Rome] and the othertowns did about the same. Shortly before I was born,Rome was led by an incredible sort of fraud, I callthose then present there to witness, to accept papalgovernment or rather usurpation, after it had longbeen free.[112] The Pope was Boniface IX, fellowof Boniface VIII in fraud as in name,­if they are tobe called Boniface (benefactor) at all, who are theworst malefactors. And when the Romans, after thetreachery had been detected, stirred up trouble, thegood Pope, after the manner of Tarquinius, struckoff all the tallest poppies with his stick.[113] Whenhis successor, Innocent [VII], afterwards tried to

[Page 174] est. De aliis pontificibus nolodicere, qui Romam vi semper oppressamarmisque tenuerunt; licet, quotiens potuit,rebellavit; ut sexto abhinc anno, cum pacemab Eugenio obtinere non posset, necpar[382] esset hostibus qui eam obsidebant,et ipsa papam intra aedes obsedit, nonpermissura ilium abire priusquam aut pacemcum hostibus faceret aut administrationemcivitatis relegaret ad cives. At ille maluiturbem deserere dissimulato habitu uno fugaecomite, quam civibus gratificari iusta etaequa petentibus. Quibus si des electionem,quis ignorat libertatem magis quamservitium electuros?

Idem suspicari libet de ceteris urbibus quae asummo pontifice in servitute retinentur, perquem a servitute liberari debuissent. Longumesset recensere quot urbes ex hostibus captaspopulus Romanus olim liberas fecit, adeo utTitus Flaminius omnem Graeciam, quae subAntiocho fuisset, liberam esse et suis utilegibus iuberet. At papa, ut videre licet,insidiatur sedulo libertati populorum;ideoque vicissim illi quotidie oblata facultate(ad Bononiam modo respice) rebellant. Quisi quando sponte, quod evenire potest aliquoaliunde periculo urgente, in papale imperiumconcenserunt, non ita accipiendum estconcensisse, ut servos se facerent; utnumquam subtrahere a iugo colla possent; utpostea nati non et ipsi arbitrium sui habeant;nam hoc iniquissimum foret.

"Sponte ad te, summe pontifex, ut nosgubernares venimus; sponte nunc rursus abste ne gubernes diutius recedimus. Si qua

[Page 175] imitate this procedure he was driven outof the city. I will not speak of other Popes; they havealways held Rome down by force of arms. Suffice itto say that as often as it could it has rebelled; as forinstance, six years ago,[114] when it could notobtain peace from Eugenius, and it was not equal tothe enemies which were besieging it, it besieged thePope within his house, and would not permit him togo out before he either made peace with the enemyor turned over the administration of the city to thecitizens. But he preferred to leave the city indisguise, with a single companion in flight, ratherthan to gratify the citizens in their just and fairdemands. If you give them the choice, who does notknow that they would choose liberty rather thanslavery?

We may suspect the same of the other cities, whichare kept in servitude by the supreme pontiff, thoughthey ought rather to be liberated by him fromservitude. It would take too long to enumerate howmany cities taken from their enemies the Romanpeople once set free; it went so far that TitusFlaminius [Flamininus] set free the whole of Greece,which had been under Antiochus,[115] and directedthat it enjoy its own laws. But the Pope, as may beseen, lies in wait assiduously against the liberty ofcountries; and therefore one after another, they daily,as opportunity affords, rebel. (Look at Bologna justnow.) And if at any time they have voluntarilyaccepted papal rule, as may happen when anotherdanger threatens them from elsewhere, it must not besupposed that they have accepted it in order toenslave themselves, so that they could neverwithdraw their necks from the yoke, so that neitherthemselves nor those born afterwards should havecontrol of their own affairs; for this would be utterlyiniquitous.

"Of our own will we came to you, supreme pontiff,that you might govern us; of our own will we nowleave you again, that you may govern us no more. Ifyou have any claim against us, let

[Page 176] tibi a nobis debentur, ponaturcalculus datorum et acceptorum. At tugubernare invitos vis, quasi pupilli simus,qui te ipsum forsitan sapientius gubernarepossemus. Adde huc iniurias quae aut abs teaut a tuis magistratibus huic civitatifrequentissime inferuntur. Deum testamur,iniuria cogit nos rebellare, ut olim Israel aRoboam fecit. Et quae tanta fuit illi[383]iniuria? Quanta portio nostrae calamitatisgraviora solvere tributa? Quid enim si

[Page 177] the balance of debit and credit bedetermined. But you want to govern us against ourwill, as though we were wards of yours, we whoperhaps could govern you more wisely than you doyourself! Add to this the wrongs all the time beingcommitted against this state either by you or by yourmagistrates. We call God to witness that our wrongdrives us to revolt, as once Israel did fromRehoboam. 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

rempublicam nostram exhaurias? Exhausisti.[384] Si templa spolies? Spoliasti. Sivirginibus matribusque familias stupruminferas? Intulisti. Si urbem sanguine civiliperfundas? Perfudisti. Haec nobis sustinendasunt? An potius, cum tu pater nobis essedesieris, nos quoque filios esse[385]obliviscemur? Pro patre, summe pontifex,aut si te hoc magis iuvat, pro domino hic tepopulus advocavit, non pro hoste atquecarnifice: patrem agere aut dominum nonvis, sed hostem ac carnificem. Nos saevitiamtuam impietatemque, etsi iure offensaepoteramus, tamen quia Christiani sumus, nonimitabimur, nec in tuum caput ultoremstringemus gladium, sed te abdicato atquesummoto, alterum patrem dominumveadoptabimus. Filiis a malis parentibus aquibus geniti sunt fugere licet; nobis a te,non vero patre sed adoptivo et pessime nostractante, non licebit? Tu vero, quaesacerdotii operis sunt, cura, et noli tibiponere sedem ad Aquilonem et illinctonando[386] fulgurantia fulmina in huncpopulum ceterosque vibrare."

Sed quid plura opus est in re apertissimadicere? Ego non modo Constantinum nondonasse tanta, non modo non potuisseRomanum pontificem in eisdempraescribere, sed etiam si utrumque esset,tamen utrumque ius sceleribus possessorumexstinctum esse contendo, cum videamustotius Italiae multarumque provinciarumcladem ac vastitatem[387] ex hoc uno fontefluxisse. Si fons

impoverish the Republic? You have impoverished it.What if you despoil our temples? You havedespoiled them. What if you outrage maidens andmatrons? You have outraged them. What if youdrench the city with the blood of its citizens? Youhave 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 peoplesummoned you, supreme pontiff, to be a father, or ifit better pleases you, to be their lord, not to be anenemy and a hangman; you do not choose to act thefather or the lord, but the enemy and the hangman.But, since we are Christians, we will not imitateyour ferocity and your impiety, even though by thelaw of reprisal we might do so, nor will we bare theavenging sword above your head; but first yourabdication and removal, and then we will adoptanother father or lord. Sons may flee from viciousparents who brought them into the world; may wenot flee from you, not our real father but an adoptedone who treats us in the worst way possible? But doyou attend to your priestly functions; and don't takeyour stand in the north, and thundering there hurlyour lightning and thunderbolts against this peopleand others."

But why need I say more in this case, absolutelyself­evident as it is? I contend that not only didConstantine not grant such great possessions, notonly could the Roman pontiff not hold them byprescription, but that even if either were a fact,nevertheless either right would have beenextinguished by the crimes of the possessors, for weknow that the slaughter and devastation of all Italyand of many of the provinces has flowed from this

[Page 178] amarus est, et rivus; si radiximmunda, et rami; si delibatio sancta nonest, nec massa. Ita e diverso, si rivus amarus,fons obstruendus est; si rami immundi, eradice vitium venit; si massa sancta non est,delibatio quoque abominanda[388] est. Anpossumus principium potentiae papalis proiure proferre, quod tantorum scelerumtantorumque omnis generis malorumcernimus esse causam?

Quamobrem dico, et exclamo, neque enimtimebo homines, Deo fretus; neminem meaaetate in summo pontificatu fuisse autfidelem dispensatorem aut prudentem; quitantum abest ut dederit familiae Dei cibum,ut devorarit illam velut cibum et escam

[Page 179] single source. If the source is bitter, so isthe stream; if the root is unclean so are the branches;if the first fruit is unholy, so is the lump.[116] Andvice versa, if the stream is bitter, the source must bestopped up; if the branches are unclean, the faultcomes from the root; if the lump is unholy, the firstfruit must also be accursed. Can we justify theprinciple of papal power when we perceive it to bethe cause of such great crimes and of such great andvaried evils?

Wherefore I declare, and cry aloud, nor, trustingGod, will I fear men, that in my time no one in thesupreme pontificate has been either a faithful or aprudent steward, but they have gone so far fromgiving food to the household of God that they havedevoured it as food and a mere morsel of bread! And

panis.[389] Papa et ipse bella pacatis populisinfert, et inter civitates principesquediscordias ferit. Papa et alienas sitit opes, etsuas exsorbet,[390] ut Achilles inAgamemnonem, ___________[391] id estpopuli vexator rex.[392] Papa non modorempublicam, quod non Verres, non Catilina,non quispiam peculator auderet, sed etiamrem ecclesiasticam et Spiritum Sanctumquaestui[393] habet, quod Simon itle Magusetiam detestaretur. Et cum horumadmonetur, et a quibusdam bonis virisreprehenditur, non negat, sed palam fatetur,atque gloriatur licere enim[394] quavisratione patrimonium ecclesiae a Constantinodonatum ab occupantibus extorquere; quasieo recuperato religio Christiana futura sitbeata,­et non magis omnibus flagitiis,luxuriis libidinibusque oppressa, si modoopprimi magis potest, et ullus est sceleriulterior locus!

Ut igitur recuperet cetera membradonationis, male ereptas a bonis virispecunias peius effundit, militumqueequestres pedestresque copias, quibus omniainfestantur, alit, cum Christus in tot millibuspauperum fame ac nuditate moriatur. Necintelligit, 0

the Pope himself makes war on peaceable people,and sows discord among states and princes. ThePope both thirsts for the goods of others and drinksup his own: he is what Achilles calls Agamemnon,___________ ________, "a people­devouring king."The Pope not only enriches himself at the expense ofthe republic, as neither Verres nor Catiline nor anyother embezzler dared to do, but he enriches himselfat the expense of even the church and the Holy Spiritas old Simon Magus himself would abhor doing.And when he is reminded of this and is reproved bygood people occasionally, he does not deny it, butopenly admits it, and boasts that he is free to wrestfrom its occupants by any means whatever thepatrimony given the church by Constantine; asthough when it was recovered Christianity would bein an ideal state,­and not rather the more oppressedby all kinds of crimes, extravagances and lusts; ifindeed it can be oppressed more, and if there is anycrime yet uncommitted!

And so, that he may recover the other parts of theDonation, money wickedly stolen from good peoplehe spends more wickedly, and he supports armedforces, mounted and foot, with which all places areplagued, while Christ is dying of hunger andnakedness in so many thousands of paupers. Nordoes he know,

[Page 180] indignum facinus! cum ipsesaecularibus auferre[395] quae ipsorum suntlaborat, illos vicissim sive pessimo exemploinduci, sive necessitate cogi, licet non estvera necessitas, ad auferenda quae suntecclesiasticorum. Nulla itaque usquamreligio, nulla sanctitas, nullus Dei timor; etquod referens quoque horresco, omniumscelerum impii homines a papa sumuntexcusationem. In illo enim comitibusqueeius est[396] omnis facinoris exemplum, utcum Esaia et Paulo, in papam et papaeproximos dicere possumus: "Nomen Dei pervos blasphematur inter gentes. Qui aliosdocetis, vos ipsos non docetis; quipraedicatis non furandum, latrocinamini; quiabominamini idola, sacrilegium facitis; quiin lege et in pontificatu gloriamini, perpraevaricationem legis Deum verumpontificem inhonoratis."

Quod si populus Romanus ob nimias opesveram illam Romanitatem perdidit, siSalomon ob eandem causam in idolatriamamore feminarum lapsus est, nonne idem

[Page 181] the unworthy reprobate, that while heworks to deprive secular powers of what belongs tothem, they in turn are either led by his bad example,or driven by necessity (granting that it may not be areal necessity) to make off with what belongs to theofficers of the church. And so there is no religionanywhere, no sanctity, no fear of God; and, what Ishudder to mention, impious men pretend to find inthe Pope an excuse for all their crimes. For he andhis followers furnish an example of every kind ofcrime, and with Isaiah and Paul, we can say againstthe Pope and those about him: "The name of God isblasphemed among the Gentiles through you, youwho teach others, but do not teach yourselves; whopreach against stealing and yourselves are robbers;who abhor idols, and commit sacrilege; who makeyour boast of the law and the pontificate, andthrough breaking the law dishonor God, the truepontiff."[117]

But if the Roman people through excess of wealthlost the wellknown quality of true Romans; ifSolomon likewise fell into idolatry through the loveof women; should we not recognize that the samething happens in the case of a supreme pontiff and

putamus fieri in summo pontifice ac reliquisclericis? Et postea putamus Deum fuissepermissurum ut materiam peccandi Silvesteracciperet? Non patiar hanc iniuriam fierisanctissimo viro; non feram hanccontumeliam fieri[397] pontifici optimo, utdicatur imperia, regna, provincias accepisse,quibus renuntiare[398] etiam solent quiclerici fieri volunt. Pauca possedit Silvester,pauca ceterique sancti pontifices, quorumaspectus apud hostes quoque eratsacrosanctus; veluti illius Leonis, qui trucembarbari regis animum terruit ac fregit, quemRomanae vires nec[399] frangere nec terrerepotuerant. Recentes vero summi pontifices,id est divitiis ac deliciis[400] affluentes, idvidentur laborare, ut quantum prisci fueresapientes et sancti, tantum ipsi et impii sintet stulti, et illorum egregias laudes omnibusprobris

the other clergy? And should we then think that Godwould have permitted Sylvester to accept anoccasion of sin? I will not suffer this injustice to bedone that most holy man, I will not allow this affrontto be offered that most excellent pontiff, that heshould be said to have accepted empires, kingdoms,provinces, things which those who wish to enter theclergy are wont, indeed, to renounce. Little didSylvester possess, little also the other holy pontiffs,those men whose presence was inviolable evenamong enemies, as Leo's presence overawed andbroke down the wild soul of the barbarian king,which the strength of Rome had not availed to breakdown nor overawe.[118] But recent supremepontiffs, that is, those having riches and pleasures inabundance, seem to work hard to make themselvesjust as impious and foolish as those early pontiffswere wise and holy, and to extinguish the lofty

[Page 182] vincant. Haec quis Christianinominis queat aequo animo ferre?

Verum ego in hac prima nostra oratione noloexhortari principes ac populos, ut papameffrenato cursu volitantem inhibeant eumqueintra suos fines consistere compellant, sedtantum admoneant, qui forsitan iam edoctusveritatem, sua sponte ab aliena domo insuam, et ab insanis fluctibus saevisquetempestatibus in portum se recipiet. Sinrecuset, tunc ad alteram orationem multotruculentiorem accingemur. Utinam, utinamaliquando videam, nec enim mihi quicquamest longius quam hoc videre, et praesertimmeo consilio effectum, ut papa tantumvicarius Christi sit, et non etiam Caesaris;nec amplius horrenda vox audiatur: "Partesecclesiae," "Partes contra ecclesiam,""Ecclesia contra Perusinos pugnat," "contraBononienses!" Non contra Christianospugnat ecclesia, sed papa; illa pugnat contraspiritualia nequitiae in caelestibus. Tuncpapa et dicetur et erit Pater Sanctus, pateromnium, pater ecclesiae; nec bella interChristianos excitabit, sed ab aliis excitatacensura apostolica et papali maiestatesedabit.[401]

[Page 183] praises of those men by every possibleinfamy. Who that calls himself a Christian cancalmly bear this?

However, in this my first discourse I do not wish tourge princes and peoples to restrain the Pope in hisunbridled course as he roams about, and compel himto stay within bounds, but only to warn him, andperhaps he has already learned the truth, to betakehimself from others' houses to his own, and to put toport before the raging billows and savage tempests.But if he refuses, then I will have recourse to anotherdiscourse far bolder than this.[119] If only I maysometime see, and indeed I can scarcely wait to seeit, especially if it is brought about by my counsel, ifonly I may see the time when the Pope is the vicar ofChrist alone, and not of Caesar also! If only therewould no longer be heard the fearful cry, "Partisansfor the Church," "Partisans against the Church,""The Church against the Perugians," "against theBolognese"! It is not the church, but the Pope, thatfights against Christians; the church fights against"spiritual wickedness in high places."[120] Then thePope will be the Holy Father in fact as well as inname, Father of all, Father of the church; nor will hestir up wars among Christians, but those stirred upby others he, through his apostolic judgment andpapal prerogative, will stop.[121]

Latin Footnotes English Footnotes

[1] De falso credita et ementita Constantinidonatione is the title Valla gave his work; cf.

[1] Ps. cxxxix, 7.

[2] I Tim. v, 20.

letter to Guarini from Naples in November,1443; Epistolae principum (Venice, 1574), p.356; also Barozzi e Sabbadini, Studii sulPanormita e sul Valla (Florence, 1891), p.93. In L. Valla Opera (Basle, 1543), p. 762,the title runs, Contra Donationis, quaeConstantini dicitur, privilegia, ut falsocreditum declamatio.No title appears with the text of CodexVaticanus Lat. 5314. The title in Ulrich vonHutten's edition inserts patricii Romani afterVallensis. The treatise is also frequentlyentitled libellus or oratio instead ofdeclamatio.

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

[3] execratione; Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314, sothroughout.

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

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

[6] caeteri; Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314 (hereafterreferred to as MS.), so throughout.

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

[8] quippiam; Hutten.

[9] coelestem; MS., so throughout.

[10] Hutten. sit; MS.

[11] Omit eum; Hutten.

[12] heretico; MS.

[13] quempiam; Hutten.

[14] nunquis; MS., so throughout.

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

[16] quodnam . . . crimen; Hutten.

[17] vero; Hutten.

[18] commentitiam; MS.

[19] minis; Hutten.

[3] Valla's error for MarceIIinus. The whole story isapocryphal.

[4] A reference to the reforming coundis of thefifteenth century.

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

[6] The phrase "Italy and the western provinces," inthe Donation of Constantine, meant to the writer ofthat document the Italian peninsula, includingLombardy, Venetia, Istria, and adjacent islands.Other countries probably did not occur to him as partof the Roman Empire. Valla, however, followed thecurrent interpretation.

[7] In many versions of the Life of Sylvester there isa marvellous story of an enormous serpent, finallysubdued by the saint. Cf, infra, p. 143; Coleman,Constantine the Great and Christianity, pp. 161 etseq.; Mombritius, Sanctuarium, Sive Vitae collectaeex codibus (Milan, c. 1479), v, ii, pp. 279 et seq.,also Paris edition, 1910. For the story of Bel and theDragon, cf. the book of that name in the Apocrypha.

[8] I have made two English paragraphs of the ratherlong Latin one [Ed.]

[9] Acts xx, 35.

[10] Matt. x, 8.

[11] I Cor. ix, 15.

[12] Rom. xi, 13.

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

[14] Quoted, freely, from Matt. xix, 24; Mk. x, 29;Luke xviii, 25.

[15] I Tim. vi, 7­11.

[16] Acts vi, 2.

[17] II Tim. ii, 4.

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

[19] Free quotations from John xxi, 15­17.

[20] John xviii, 36.

[21] Matt. iv, 17.

[20] Hyspanias; MS., so throughout.

[21] accaepturus; MS., so throughout.

[22] Pontifici a quo baptismum; Bonneau.

[23] Hutten. Ms. omits in.

[24] quorumdam; MS., so throughout.

[25] posse; Hutten.

[26] in in; MS. error.

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

[28] nunquid; MS., so throughout.

[29] omit duobus; Hutten.

[30] iocundius; MS., so throughout.

[31] diesque; Hutten.

[32] charissima; MS., so throughout.

[33] detestantibusque; Hutten.

[34] coelum; MS., so throughout.

[35] quottidie; MS.

[36] amicis; Hutten.

[37] hi; Hutten.

[38] his; Hutten.

[39] Hebreis; MS., so throughout.

[40] minorem; Hutten.

[41] Neeman; MS., so throughout.

[42] altero; MS. error.

[43] Insert loquar; Bonneau.

[44] coepit; MS.

[45] lavatum; Hutten.

[46] lachrimisque; MS., so throughout.

[47] exhaeredas; MS.

[48] relegamur; MS.

[22] Matt. xx, 25­28.

[23] I Cor. vi, 2­5, distorted in punctuation andmeaning. Paul argues that cases should be settledinside the church, and that even the humblestChristians are competent to act as judges; Vallaquotes him to show that church leaders are not to bejudges.

[24] Quotations are from Matt. xvii, 25­26.

[25] Mk. xi, 17.

[26] John xii, 47.

[27] Matt. xxvi, 52.

[28] Matt. xvi, 19.

[29] Matt. xvi, 18.

[30] Matt. iv, 8­9, free quotation.

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

[32] Matt. xxii, 21.

[33] Eutropius, Breviarum ab urbe condita, X, xvi, I.

[34] Ibid., X, xvii, I and 2.

[35] The antipope elected by the Council of Basle in1439. This reference is one of the clues to the date ofValla's treatise.

[36] Valla's statement about Eusebius' ChurchHistory is slightly overdrawn. Some passages, whilenot definitely saying that Constantine was aChristian from boyhood, would naturally beconstrued as implying this, especially when taken inconnection with the chapter headings in use longbefore Valia's time; e.g., ix, 9, 1­12. In his Lifeof Constantine, i, 27­32, however, Eusebius tells thestory of the Emperor's conversion in the campaignagainst 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 latterwork. Nor is he aware of the passage in Jerome,Chron. ad. ann., 2353, that Constantine was baptizednear the end of his life by Eusebius of Nicomedia.

[37] This is an extract from a spurious letterpurporting to be from Melchiades, or Miltiades; aspalpable a forgery as the Donation of Constantineitself. The whole letter is given in Migne, P. L., viii,column 566.

[49] phana; MS.

[50] destituimur; Hutten.

[51] provintiis; MS.

[52] praefuturi fuimus; Hutten. praefecturisumus; Bonneau. praefecturi fuimus; Schard.

[53] Insert vel; Hutten.

[54] extirpatam; MS., so throughout.

[55] partum; Hutten.

[56] qui; Hutten.

[57] es; Hutten.

[58] praesidiis; Hutten.

[59] comunes; MS., so throughout.

[60] provintiae; MS.

[61] initium; Hutten.

[62] tribunitii; MS.

[63] tanquam; MS., so throughout.

[64] 0mit nostrae; Hutten.

[65] Carthaginenses; MS.

[66] foeminae; MS.

[67] provintias; MS.

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

[69] coges; Hutten.

[70] Insert occupavit; Hutten. Insertoccupanti; Bonneau.

[71] tibi; Hutten.

[72] Tarquinum; MS.

[73] videtur; Hutten.

[74] suspitio; MS.

[75] discedere; Hutten.

[76] unquam; MS., so throughout.

For the question when Constantine became aChristian, and of his relations with the Popes and thechurch, cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great andChristianity, with references to sources andliterature.

[38] A number of chapters in Gratian's Decretumadded after Gratian have this word at their head, theone containing the Donation of Constantine amongthem. Cf. Friedberg's edition of the DecretumGratiani, Prima pars, dist. xcvi, c. xiii, in his CorpusIuris Canonici, Leipsic, 1879­1881.

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

[40] Ibid., Pars prima, dist. xv, c. iii, Palea 19; inFriedberg, vol. II.

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

[42] December 31.

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

[44] In the following section my translation of thephrases of the Donation is harmonized so far aspossible with the translation in E. F. Henderson,Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages.

[45] Cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great andChristianity, P. 224, 11. 8 et seq.

[46] Virgil, Aeneid, ii, 77­78. Dryden's translation.

[47] The text of the Donation which Valla used,though apparently in a copy of Gratian's Decretumextant in his time, differs here and in a number ofother places, from the texts which we have, whetherin Gratian's Decretum, or in the PseudoIsidorianDecretals.

[48] The word satrap was in fact applied to higherofficials at Rome only in the middle of the eighthcentury. Scheffer­Boichorst, Mitteilungen desInstituts f. osterreichische Geschichtsforschung, x(I889), P. 315.

[49] Tertullian tells this apocryphal story in hisApology, chaps. 5 and 21. For a translation of lettersalleged to have been written to Tiberius by Pilate,see Nicene and Post­Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip

[77] Apparently se was omitted, or it hasdropped out of the text.

[78] ovem; Hutten, Bonneau.

[79] assentiar; Hutten.

[80] possum; Hutten.

[81] Ihesum; MS., so throughout.

[82] Insert a; Hutten.

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

[84] praecaepta; MS., so throughout.

[85] negociorum; MS., so throughout.

[86] haec; Hutten.

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

[88] idem; Hutten.

[89] reliquerunt; MS.

[90] Eius; Hutten.

[91] prophanum; MS., so throughout.

[92] frequenter; Hutten.

[93] haec; Hutten.

[94] ipsius; Hutten. suum; Bonneau.

[95] omit in; Hutten.

[96] duriciam; MS.

[97] de rebus controversis; Hutten.

[98] quodcunque; MS., so throughout.

[99] dignationem; Hutten.

[100] ferri; Hutten.

[101] blasfement; MS., so throughout.

[102] charissimos; MS.

Schaff (New York, 1890­1897), vol. VIII, PP. 459­463.

[50] Valla's argument in this paragraph is partlybased on the defective text of the Donation which heused, cf. supra, p. 85, note 2. Zeumer's text would betranslated, "all the Roman people who are subject tothe glory of our rule," and Friedberg's, "all thepeople subject to the glorious rule of Rome."

[51] Virgil, Aeneid, vi, 852.

[52] The conjunction "seu" in classical Latin meant,as Valla insists, "or"; in the eighth century it wasoften used with the meaning "and." The forger of theDonation used it in the latter sense. Valla did not seethe significance of this usage for dating the forgery.

[53] Cf. supra, p. 85, note 2.

[54] "firmos patronos,"­this use of "firmus"characterizes the style of Pope Paul I (757­767). SeeScheffer­Boichorst, op. cit., P. 311.

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

[56] Part of this criticism rests upon the peculiaritiesof the text of the Donation which Valla used.

[57] Cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great andChristianity, pp. 148­151, 161­164.

[58] Ps. lxxxi, 12.

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

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

[61] Here, as was common in medieval Latin, "seu"is the equivalent of "et," and means "and." Valla'scriticism is correct, but might go further in fixing thetime of the forgery. Cf. supra, P.91, note I.

[62] Lucan, Pharsalia, i, 7.

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

[64] Horace, Ars Poetica, 1. 97.

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

[66] At Rome in the eighth century, the time of theforgery, "Militia" indicated a civil rank, rather thansoldiers.

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

[104] Omit ut iam; Hutten. in hoc, instead ofut iam; Bonneau.

[105] in; Hutten.

[106] acceptatam; Hutten.

[107] Bonneau omits acceptatum ... nonfuisse.

[108] iuste; Hutten.

[109] avariciam; MS.

[110] tabulis; Hutten.

[111] haec ... solent; Hutten.

[112] circunduxit; MS.

[113] Hispanias; Hutten.

[114] Hutten. gratulabantur; MS.

[115] hi; Hutten.

[116] This sentence is omitted by Hutten.

[117] aliquis; Hutten.

[118] sedicionem; MS.

[119] fecem; MS.

[120] ulcionem; MS.

[121] hybernis; MS.

[122] ediles; MS.

[123] Moedorum; MS.

[124] enim; Hutten.

[125] at; Hutten.

[126] Hutten. sufficiet; MS.

[127] diaconus; Hutten.

[128] imperatorque; Hutten.

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

[67] The allusion is to the title of Patrician given toPippin and to his sons as defenders of the RomanSee.

[68] The office of consul as it existed in theRepublic and the Empire disappeared in the time ofthe German invasions. The word was later appliedquite differently, to a group, practically a socialclass, at Rome.

[69] Where Valla's text of the Donation reads"concubitarum," Zeumer's reads "excubiorum"[guards].

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

[71] Valla for this part of his criticism uses therather unintelligible order of words found in mosttexts of the Donation, instead of the more intelligibleorder which he used in his earlier quotations. Cf. pp.102, 103.

[72] Valla's text of the Donation in this paragraphdiffers greatly from Zeumer's, Hinschius', andFriedberg's. It is not very clear in any of the textswhether the intent is to give the Pope power to takeany one whomsoever into the clergy and thus relievehim from civil and military duties, or to prevent theRoman nobility from forcing their way intoecclesiastical offices against the will of the Pope.

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

[74] Valla does not, here, quote his own text of theDonation correctly.

[75] This singular confusion about the crown in theDonation is explained by Brunner, Festgabe forRudolf von Gneist, pp. 25 et seq., as giving the Popethe possession, but not the use, of the imperialcrown, thus paving the way for his prerogative ofconferring the crown upon Louis the Pious in 816.Scheffer­Boichorst takes the whole episode as anattempt of the forger to glorify Sylvester by havingthe emperor honor him with the imperial crown, andhaving the Pope display the clerical humility (andpride) of rejecting it.

[76] Valla's text of the Donation here has "sive" for"seu," cf. supra, p. 91, note I. In the wholeparagraph there are many deviations from other textsof the Donation.

[77] Cf. supra, pp. 41 et seq., 49 et seq.

[130] Eutropius, Bonneau. Claudiumpropontum, thelesium; MS. Claudiumpropontum Telestinum; Hutten. CaudiumPropontum Telesinum; Schard. Valla makesomissions in this and in the precedingsentence from Eutropius.

[131] Insert qui; Hutten.

[132] Omit licet; Hutten.

[133] Faelicis; MS.

[134] Archadium; MS.

[135] Proho; MS. Proh; Hutten.

[136] laetale; MS., Hutten.

[137] Hutten. Constantino; MS. error.

[138] Ruffinus; MS.

[139] pene; MS., Hutten.

[140] Insert ad; Hutten.

[141] Insert sub; Hutten.

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

[143] codicibus; Hutten.

[144] Lodoici; MS.

[145] ad; Hutten.

[146] ut; Hutten.

[147] nauci; Hutten, Bonneau.

[148] utimini; Hutten.

[149] Gelatium; MS., so throughout.

[150] omit Is ... legi; Hutten, evidentlycopyist's error.

[151] secuntur; MS.

[152] duntaxat; MS.

[153] Sybillini; MS.

[154] collumnis; MS.

[78] This phrase as used in the Donation probablymeant Lombardy, Venetia and Istria; i.e., practically,northern, as distinct from peninsular, Italy. Cf.supra, p. 27, note 2, also, Dollinger, Papstfabeln (ed.Friedrich), p. 122, note. In classical Latin it wouldhave been, as Valla insists, a vague term.

[79] Cf. supra, pp. 91, 109.

[80] Cf. supra, p. 95.

[81] King [rex] was a forbidden title at Rome afterthe time of the Tarquins.

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

[83] Rev. xxii, 18­19.

[84] "Pagina" in medieval Latin often meant"document."

[85] In the Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne, i, 494)the keys of Ravenna and other cities included in theso­called Donation of Pippin are said to have beenplaced in "the confession of St. Peter" (i.e., beforehis tomb). This association seems to have beencommon in the eighth century.

[86] Cf. supra, p. 85.

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

[88] II Kings xv, 5.

[89] "This apocryphal story ran that the Sibylprophesied of Christ, and that Augustus erected analtar to him.

[90] The Temple of Peace was built by Vespasianand was not destroyed until it was burned down inthe time of Commodus.

[91] This episode in the Gesta, or Actus, or Vita,Silvestri, as may be gathered from Valla'ssubsequent discussion, involves an enormousserpent, dwelling in a cave under the Tarpeian rock,devastating the entire city of Rome with hispoisonous breath, appeased only by maidens beinggiven him to devour, and finally bound forever in hiscave by Sylvester. For references, cf. Coleman,Constantine, etc., pp. 161, 168.

[92] Apparently Valla assumes that the Gesta

[155] Hutten. christianos; MS.

[156] in; Hutten, Bonneau.

[157] papiro; MS.

[158] committis; Hutten.

[159] in urbe Roma; Hutten. in tota urbeRomana; Bonneau.

[160] incipit; Bonneau.

[161] satrapas; Hutten, so throughout.

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

[163] quatuor; MS., so throughout.

[164] nominantur; Hutten.

[165] Bonneau omits Romane . . . populos.

[166] pontifex; Hutten, Bonneau.

[167] non; Hutten, Bonneau.

[168] hi; Hutten, Bonneau.

[169] infaelix; MS., so throughout.

[170] exaltare; Hutten.

[171] Formiane; MS.

[172] elegis; Hutten, Bonneau.

[173] exaltare; Hutten.

[174] dignitatem; Hutten.

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

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

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

[178] Atqui; Hutten. Atque; Bonneau.

[179] Hutten omits Byzantiam . . . nomine.

[180] Trachia; MS., so throughout.

[181] extruxerat; MS.

Silvestri was written by a Greek named Eusebius,but not Eusebius of Caesarea, author of the ChurchHistory. Cf., however, Coleman, Constantine, pp.161­168.

[93] Satura, x, 174­175.

[94] Cf. the story of Bel and the Dragon in theApocrypha.

[95] Factorum et dictorum memorabilium librinovem, V, vi, 2.

[96] Ibid., I, viii, 3.

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

[98] Livy, Preface, 7.

[99] Livy, V, 21, 9.

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

[101] Valerius Maximus, factorum et dictorummemorabilium, lib. i, viii, 7.

[102] Ibid., i, viii, 3.

[103] Ibid., i, viii, 4, with the substitution of "seen"for "given."

[104] In a disputation between Sylvester and Jewishrabbis the rabbis are said to have killed a bull byshouting the sacred name, Jehovah, and Sylvester issaid to have brought him to life by whispering thename of Christ. Cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great,etc., p. 163.

[105] These stories were to be found, among otherplaces, in the Mirabilia urbis Romae, a guidebook toRome dating from the twelfth century. Englishtranslation by F. M. Nichols, The Marvels of Rome(London and Rome, 1889), pp. 19­20.

[106] 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 theVita Silvestri we are told that the pagan priestsordered Constantine to bathe in infants' blood inorder to cure himself of leprosy. Cf. Coleman,Constantine the Great, etc., p. 102.

[107] It will be remembered that Valla wrote thiswhile in the service of the King of Naples, who wasin conflict with imperial as well as with papal

[182] comunem; MS.

[183] Getulos; MS.

[184] Hutten. nominetur; Ms.

[185] Siccine; MS.

[186] exequitur; MS., so throughout.

[187] extinctis; MS., so throughout.

[188] igitur, instead of tu ideo; Hutten. teomnino omisisse; Bonneau.

[189] circundare; MS.

[190] Hutten. clamydem; MS.

[191] revendissimis; MS., an error.

[192] patritios; MS.

[193] Hutten. hostiariorum; MS.

[194] adomatur; Hutten.

[195] decrevimus; Hutten.

[196] blasfemiam; MS.

[197] paciens; MS., so throughout.

[198] convertentur; Hutten, Bonneau.

[199] Pharisei; MS.

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

[201] patescet; MS.

[202] cognosceret; Hutten, Bonneau.

[203] solicitudinibus; MS.

[204] Menecbinis; MS.

[205] Hutten. frygionem; MS.

[206] Correct form is phrygionias. Bonneauomits this whole sentence.

[207] fuerunt; Hutten.

[208] significet; Hutten.

[209] loro circumdari collum; Bonneau.

claims.

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

[109] Gossip had it that Boniface VIII induced hispredecessor to abdicate by angelic warnings, whichhe himself produced through improvised speakingtubes.

[110] The assassination of Vitelleschi, supposedlyby order of the Pope, took place in March, 1440, andis one of the means of dating Valla's treatise.

[111] Judges xi, 12­28.

[112] For these episodes, cf. Creighton, History ofthe Papacy, etc., Vol. 1, passim.

[113] Tarquinius, by striking down the tallestpoppies with his cane, gave the hint that the leadersof the opposition should be executed; cf. Livy, I, 54.

[114] The ensuing episode occurred in 1434 andthus fixes the date of the writing of this passage as1439 or 1440. Cf. Mancini, Vita di Lorenzo Valla, p.163.

[115] Flamininus had defeated Phihp V ofMacedonia, and it was from Philip, not Antiochus,that he "freed" Greece.

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

[117] Free quotations from Rom. ii, 21­24.

[118] A reference to the well­known interview inwhich Leo I persuaded Attila to desist from hisinvasion of Italy.

[119] This other discourse did not appear.

[120] Eph. vi, 12.

[121] The MS., Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314, on which thistranslation is based, was finished December 7, 1451.

[210] Insert aut canem; Hutten, Bonneau.

[211] chlamidem; MS., so below.

[212] porphiritum; MS.

[213] amethisto; MS.

[214] si; Hutten.

[215] dilabitur; Hutten, Bonneau.

[216] mendatio; MS.

[217] loqueris; Hutten, Bonneau.

[218] cresentis; MS.

[219] Insert summum; Hutten.`

[220] patritii; MS.

[221] patritius; MS.

[222] Hutten, Bonneau. iis; MS.

[223] fiant; Hutten. faciunt; Bonneau. Addaut militaria ornamenta; Hutten, Bonneau.

[224] scenid; MS.

[225] ociosum; MS.

[226] Hutten, Bonneau. Salomon; MS.

[227] inpraesentiarum; MS.

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

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

[230] terrestria; Hutten, Bonneau. Thequotation, to correspond with Valla's earliercitation, should be "ita caelestia sicut terrenaad laudem Dei decorentur"

[231] deficiet; Hutten, Bonneau. Insert aliasdeficient; Bonneau.

[232] prae; Hutten, Bonneau.

[233] concessimus; Bonneau, Zeumer's textof the Constitutum Constantini.

[234] preciosis; MS., so below.

[235] Hutten. admistum; MS.

[236] nanque; MS.

[237] loqutus; MS., so throughout.

[238] Decrevimus hoc ut....uti debeant, is thecorrect quotation from the ConstitutumConstantini. Decrevimus quod uti debeant;Hutten.

[239] decrevimus; MS., Hutten.

[240] eodo; MS.

[241] representari; MS.

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

[243] libris; Bonneau.

[244] qui; Bonneau.

[245] Moysem; MS.

[246] Omit ut; Hutten, Zeumer's text of theConstitutum Constantini.

[247] provintias; MS.

[248] calceo; MS., an error.

[249] Insert ornamenta; Hutten.

[250] provintias; MS., so below.

[251] Omit non; Bonneau.

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

[253] numero; MS., an error.

[254] cathalogo; MS.

[255] descirptos; MS.

[256] permanendas in the passage as quotedabove by Valla. The form used varies indifferent texts of the Donation;permansurum, permanenda, permanendam,permanendas.

[257] Bonneau includes as part of thisquotation the next quoted passage below,quoniam . . . potestatem. He repeats it in itsproper place without quotation marks.

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

[259] urbis; Hutten, Bonneau.

[260] desisti; MS.

[261] Insert scripturam; Hutten, Bonneau.

[262] firmavimus; Hutten. confirmamus;Bonneau. confirmavimus; Zeumer's text ofthe Constitutum Constantini.

[263] et; MS.

[264] coeno; MS.

[265] peribit; Hutten.

[266] quod tu Summo Deo; Hutten. quod tuSummo Pontifici; Bonneau.

[267] Hutten, Bonneau. praccipit; MS.

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

[269] nunc instead of nec non; Bonneau,Zeumer's text of the ConstitutumConstantini.

[270] imposterum; MS.

[271] Hutten, Bonneau, Zeumer's text of theConstitutum Constantini. Omit non; MS.

[272] Insert Caesaris aut; Hutten, Bonneau.

[273] existimat; Hutten.

[274] quemdam; MS.

[275] maliciamque; MS.

[276] sepulchro; MS.

[277] sanctae; Hutten, Bonneau.

[278] custoditis; Hutten, Bonneau.

[279] Hutten's text omits two sentences,"Nemo....exemplar."

[280] glosatoris; MS.

[281] Kalendarum; Bonneau. KalendarumApriliarum; Zeumer's text of theConstitutum Constantini.

[282] joathan; Bonneau.

[283] Omit hoc; Hutten, Bonneau.

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

[285] ne; MS.

[286] senserunt; Hutten.

[287] tamen; Hutten.

[288] Omit mihi; Hutten.

[289] malicia; MS.

[290] Hutten. angusto; MS.

[291] Insert veritatis; Hutten.

[292] tacite; Hutten.

[293] bybliae; MS.

[294] luminaribus; Hutten.

[295] Hutten, Bonneau. dicant; MS.

[296] Hutten, Bonneau, est; MS.

[297] prumptissima; MS.

[298] satyrica; MS.

[299] ullum sociorum ac comitum suorum;Hutten.

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

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

[302] quin; Hutten, Bonneau.

[303] Instead of the two precedingsentences, Bonneau has; Volant enimdracones; imperite eum cuius genus illud sitexcogitaverat.

[304] foeminas; MS., so throughout.

[305] prodiisset; MS.

[306] fuit; Hutten.

[307] mimicae; Bonneau.

[308] impudentissimi; Hutten.

[309] demonum; MS.

[310] seduceretur; Hutten, Bonneau.

[311] iniusticiae; MS.

[312] Hutten, Bonneau. illius; MS.

[313] Omit haec; Hutten.

[314] hec; MS.

[315] opereprecium; MS. operepretium;Hutten.

[316] Hutten. Genuitius; MS. Bonneau omitsthis sentence Terentius Varro . . .M.Genutius.

[317] dedistis; Valerius Maximus, factotumet dictorum memorabilium, lib. i, viii, 4.

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

[319] nescirent; Bonneau.

[320] inficior; Bonneau.

[321] synapis; MS.

[322] horum; Bonneau.

[323] aemulationem si non scientiam;Bonneau.

[324] Omit improba quaedam et; Bonneau.

[325] Insert nisi; Bonneau.

[326] abiicimus; MS.

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

[328] illo; Hutten. eo; Bonneau.

[329] Bonneau inserts Transeo quodcruorem puerorum ad curationem lepraefacere dicunt, quod medicina non confitetur.

[330] iusissent; MS.

[331] Hutten, Bonneau.; MS.

[332] sed; Hutten, Bonneau.

[333] MS. Hutten. ; Bonneau.

[334] Hutten, Bonneau. distingunt; MS.

[335] Bonneau. Metropolis sed Mitropolis;MS. metropolis.

[336] civitatis sive urbis; Hutten, Bonneau.

[337] Insert ita legendum Simonem; Hutten.

[338] commentitiam; MS.

[339] Lodoici; MS., so throughout,

[340] Pascali; MS., so throughout.

[341] imperpetuum; MS.

[342] predecessoribus; MS.

[343] ditione; MS.

[344] Insert et cetera; Hutten.

[345] ipso; Hutten.

[346] voluerit; Hutten, Bonneau.

[347] tamen; Hutten, Bonneau.

[348] aut; Hutten, Bonneau.

[349] false; MS.

[350] Omit illum; Hutten, Bonneau.

[351] Omit princeps; Hutten.

[352] alioquin; MS.

[353] Insert ut; Hutten, Bonneau.

[354] Omit Romano; Hutten.

[355] provintiisque; MS.

[356] Insert non; Bonneau.

[357] Omit qui dicitur; Hutten.

[358] vocantur; Bonneau.

[359] MS. leaves blank.; Hutten.

[360] Insert regno; Bonneau.

[361] ipsius successorum; Bonneau.

[362] tantum; MS.

[363] quinquagessimo; MS.

[364] predas; MS., so throughout.

[365] questionem; MS.

[366] vendicant; MS.

[367] iccirco; MS.

[368] hoc; Hutten, Bonneau.

[369] Amphitrionum; MS., Hutten.

[370] tandiu; MS., Hutten.

[371] his; Hutten, Bonneau.

[372] malae fidei; Hutten, Bonneau, sobelow.

[373] maliciam; MS.

[374] est; MS.

[375] quantumvis; Hutten, Bonneau, sothroughout.

[376] periisse; Hutten, Bonneau, sothroughout.

[377] Amonitas; MS.

[378] licet; Hutten.

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

[380] bonifatii; MS.

[381] Bonifacius; Hutten, Bonneau.

[382] pax; Hutten, Bonneau.

[383] illa; Hutten, Bonneau.

[384] exhauristi; MS.

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

[386] Hutten, Bonneau. tonantem; MS.

[387] vastitate; MS.

[388] abbominanda; MS., so throughout.

[389] ut dederit familiae cibum, et escampanis; Hutten. donaret, instead of devorarit;Bonneau.

[390] exorbet; MS.

[391] MS. leaves blank space for the Greekwords.

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

[393] questui; MS.

[394] ei; Bonneau.

[395] aufferre; MS.

[396] esse; MS.

[397] Bonneau omits sanctissimo . . . fieri.

[398] renunciare; MS.

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

[400] delitiis; MS.

[401] MS. bears postscript; Finis septimoIdus Decembris, Mccccli. Laus Deo.

Return ot Contents Return to Hanover Historical Texts Project