The treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of Constantine Lorenzo Valla 1505 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The treatise of Lorenzo Valla
on the Donation of Constantine
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of Constantine

Author: Lorenzo Valla

Translator: Christopher Bush Coleman

Release date: February 20, 2023 [eBook #70092]

Language: English

Original publication: United States: Yale University Press, 1922

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/70092

Credits: deaurider and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TREATISE
OF LORENZO VALLA ON THE DONATION OF CONSTANTINE ***

THE TREATISE OF
LORENZO VALLA ON THE
DONATION OF CONSTANTINE

The First Page of Valla’s Treatise,
Codex Vaticanus Latinus 5314.

THE TREATISE OF
LORENZO VALLA ON THE
DONATION OF CONSTANTINE
TEXT AND TRANSLATION
INTO ENGLISH

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

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

COPYRIGHT, 1922, BY
YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS

INTRODUCTORY
The Donation of Constantine—the most famous forgery in European
history; papal authority—since the triumph of Christianity the most
perennial question of European society; historical criticism—one of the
most comprehensive, most alluring, and most baffling enterprises of the
modern mind; Lorenzo Valla—the greatest of the professional Italian
humanists; these lines of study have converged, accidentally perhaps, to call
forth the following pages. Much of the subject matter which might properly
form their introduction I have already treated more fully in an earlier work,
[1]
and a brief statement will suffice here.
The Donation of Constantine (Constitutum Constantini), written probably
not long after the middle of the eighth century, became widely known
through its incorporation in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (about 847-853).
Parts of it were included in most of the medieval collections of canon law;
Anselm’s, Deusdedit’s, and Gratian’s great work (the Decretum, or
Concordia discordantium canonum). It purports to reproduce a legal
document in which the Emperor Constantine the Great, reciting his baptism
and the cure of his leprosy at the hands of Sylvester, Bishop of Rome 314-
336, confirmed the privilege of that pontiff as head of all the clergy and
supreme over the other four patriarchates; conferred upon him extensive
imperial property in various parts of the world, especially the imperial
Lateran palace, and the imperial diadem and tiara, and other imperial
insignia; granted the Roman clergy the rank of the highest Roman orders
and their privileges; gave Sylvester and his successors freedom in
consecrating men for certain orders of the clergy; it tells how he,
Constantine, recognized the superior dignity of the Pope by holding the
bridle of his horse; grants Sylvester Rome, all of Italy, and the western
provinces, to remain forever under the control of the Roman See; and states
his own determination to retire to Byzantium in order that the presence of
an earthly emperor may not embarrass ecclesiastical authority. This
remarkable document was almost universally accepted as genuine from the
ninth to the fifteenth century.

The question of the position of the bishop of Rome in the Christian
Church lacks but a few generations of being as old as Christianity itself. His
relation to secular governments became an acute problem as soon as the
imperial government broke down in Italy, and has remained so to the
present moment. For centuries the Papacy was the strongest institution in
western Europe. While its control at any one time rested principally on the
power it actually possessed and on the ability of its representatives, legal
theories and historical documents played a not inconsiderable part in its rise
and decline. Of these documents the Donation of Constantine was perhaps
the most spectacular, even though it was not the most important. It was
cited by no less than ten Popes of whom we know, to mention no lesser
writers, in contentions for the recognition of papal control, and contributed
not a little to the prestige of the Papacy. On the other hand, when its
spuriousness became known, the reaction against it, as in Luther’s case,
contributed powerfully to the revolt from Rome. Its century-long influence
entitles it to a respect difficult for any one who now reads it to feel. And
Valla’s discussion of it contains many interesting reflections on the secular
power of the Papacy, perhaps the most interesting expression in this
connection of fifteenth century Italian humanism.
Among the achievements of modern historical criticism Valla’s work was
a conspicuous pioneer. Its quality and its importance have often been
exaggerated, and as often underestimated. It is some satisfaction to make it
more generally available in the original text and translation, so that the
reader may judge for himself. A critical appraisal would have to take into
account that Nicholas Cusanus some seven years earlier in his De
concordantia catholica covered part of the same ground even better than
Valla did, and anticipated some of his arguments. But Valla’s treatise is
more exhaustive, is in more finished and effective literary form, and in
effect established for the world generally the proof of the falsity of the
Donation. Moreover, for the first time, he used effectively the method of
studying the usage of words in the variations of their meaning and
application, and other devices of internal criticism which are the tools of
historical criticism to-day. So, while Valla’s little book may seem slight
beside later masterpieces of investigation and beside systematic treatises in
larger fields, it is none the less a landmark in the rise of a new science. I
speak from personal experience in adding that it is still useful in college
classes in promoting respect for, and development in, critical scholarship.

As to Valla himself the words of Erasmus will bear repetition; “Valla, a
man who with so much energy, zeal and labor, refuted the stupidities of the
barbarians, saved half-buried letters from extinction, restored Italy to her
ancient splendor of eloquence, and forced even the learned to express
themselves henceforth with more circumspection.”[2] The Italian
Renaissance is much extolled among us,—and so little known. A short time
ago diligent search revealed no copy of Valla’s works in the United States,
and many of the larger libraries had none of his separate writings. The same
is doubtless true in the case of other great names in the Renaissance.
Meanwhile, there are those whose profession it is to teach European history
and who are utterly unacquainted with medieval and later Latin.
The best life of Valla is that by Girolamo Mancini.[3] There is no
satisfactory account of him in English.
Valla wrote his Discourse on the Forgery of the alleged Donation of
Constantine (Declamatio de falso credita et ementita donatione Constantini,
also referred to as Libellus, and Oratio) in 1440, when he was secretary to
Alfonso, king of Aragon, Sicily, and Naples. It may well be considered as
part of the campaign which that king was conducting against Pope Eugenius
IV in furtherance of his claims to Italian territories.
There has hitherto been no satisfactory text of this treatise. The first
printed edition, that of Ulrich von Hutten, in 1517, is excessively rare, and
it, as well as its numerous reprints, is defective in places. The same is true
of the text in the collected works of Valla, the Opera, printed at Basle, 1540,
1543 (?). The only English edition, by Thomas Godfray (London, 1525?), is
rare and of no great merit. A modern French edition by Alcide Bonneau (La
Donation de Constantin, Paris, 1879) gives the text with a French
translation and a long introduction. It is based on the 1520 reprint of
Hutten’s edition, is polemical, uncritical, and admittedly imperfect. A
modern edition with translation into Italian (La dissertazione di Lorenzo
Valla su la falsa e manzognera donazione di Costantino tradotta in Italiano
da G. Vincenti, Naples, 1895) is out of print.
My text is based on the manuscript Codex Vaticanus 5314, dated
December 7, 1451, the only complete manuscript of the treatise I have been
able to find. I have collated this with Hutten’s text as found in one of the
earliest, if not the earliest, reprint (contained in the little volume De

Donatione Constantini quid veri habeat, etc., dated 1520 in the Union
Theological Seminary library copy, but corresponding closely to the one
dated 1518 in E. Böcking’s edition of the works of Ulrich von Hutten, vol.
I, p. 18), and have occasionally used readings from Hutten’s text or later
ones, such as that of Simon Schard,[4] but in every instance I have indicated
the MS. reading. I have used uniform, current spelling and punctuation, and
have used my own judgment in paragraphing.
Preceding Valla’s treatise I reprint, with a translation, the text of the
Donation as given, with the omission of long sections, in Gratian’s
Decretum, or Concordia discordantium canonum, which was the form Valla
used and on which he based his criticism. I take it from A. Friedberg’s
edition of the Corpus Iuris Canonici, vol. I, columns 342-345. The full text
of the Donation is best given by Karl Zeumer, in the Festgabe für Rudolf
von Gneist (Julius Springer, Berlin, 1888), pp. 47-59, reprinted among other
places in my Constantine the Great and Christianity, pp. 228-237. The
document may be studied to advantage also in the Decretales Pseudo-
Isidorianae et Capitula Angilramni, ed. Hinschius (Leipsic, 1863). An
English translation, from Zeumer’s text, is in E. F. Henderson’s Select
Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, pp. 319-329.
In the translation of passages of the Donation I have, so far as possible,
used the words of Henderson’s translation. In quotations from the Bible I
have used the King James version. In translating Valla’s quotations from the
Donation I have usually, though not always, followed him in giving words
their classical and not their medieval meaning.
The Donation of Constantine grew out of the legends about Sylvester I,
Bishop of Rome, as well as out of legends about Constantine. These are
described at length in Constantine the Great and Christianity. The most
familiar form of the Sylvester-Constantine legend is that of Mombritius’
Sanctuarium, sive Vitae collectae ex codibus, Milan, c. 1470, vol. II, folio
279: Paris, 1910, vol. II, pp. 508-531.
Present-day scholarship is not in entire agreement on all points connected
with the Donation of Constantine. The following summary, however, may
be hazarded. The problem of modern criticism, of course, is, not to establish
the spuriousness of the Donation,—that has long been obvious,—but to
locate the origin of the document as closely as possible.

The development of the Sylvester-Constantine legend was worked out
best by Döllinger (Papstfabeln des Mittelalters, Munich, 1863: ed., J.
Friedrich, Stuttgart, 1890) and by Duchesne (in his edition of the Liber
Pontificalis, vol. I, 1886, pp. cvii-cxx). These have shown the existence at
Rome, as early as the last of the sixth century, of the story which forms
most of the narrative part of the Donation, and gave the forger the whole of
his background.
The earliest known manuscript of the document is in the Codex
Parisiensis Lat. 2778, in the Collectio Sancti Dionysii, found in the
monastery of St. Denis, in France. The collection contains documents
dating from the last years of the eighth century, though it may have been put
together later. The collected Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, in which the
Donation was virtually published to the world, in the middle of the ninth
century, also came out in France. French writers of the ninth century, also,
were the first, so far as we know, to refer to the Donation. Such facts help to
fix the date of the forgery, but under the circumstances they do not fix the
place as France. Rather they are merely another illustration of the well-
known leadership of France in learning and politics during the ninth
century.
Linguistic peculiarities of the document have been most exhaustively
treated by one of the greatest of critical historians, Paul Scheffer-Boichorst,
[5]
not to speak of briefer studies by Döllinger, Brunner, and others. In the
full text of the Donation, as for instance the one published by Zeumer, are
found many features distinctive of Italian documents of the eighth century,
and a number that apparently are peculiar to the chancellery of Stephen II
(III), Bishop of Rome 752-757, and of Paul I (757-767), more particularly
the latter. (Some of these do not occur in the passages and the text which
Valla used; that is, in his copy of Gratian’s Decretum.) This is true in
varying degrees of particularity of the form or usage of the following
words; synclitus (for senatus) in § 15, banda (for vexillum) in § 14, censura
(diploma) in § 17, constitutum (decretum) in §§ 17 and 18, retro (applied to
the future) in §§ 1 and 19, largitas (possessio) in § 13, consul and patricius
(as mere designations of rank) in § 15, vel (et) in §§ 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, seu
(et) in §§ 14 and 17, satraps (as a Roman official) in §§ 8, 11, and 19, and
inluminator in § 7 in some manuscripts. The following phrases, also, are
more or less distinctive; Deo amabilis in § 1, Deo vivo qui nos regnare

precipit in § 19, uno ex eadem sancta Trinitate in § 1, principem
apostolorum vel eius vicarios firmos apud Deum adesse patronos in § 11,
pro concinnatione luminariorum in § 13, et subscriptio imperialis in § 20,
propriis manibus roborantes in § 20, religiosus clericus in § 15. The first
part of § 4, Tres itaque formae ... hominem, is very similar to part of a letter
of Paul I’s in 757. In short, the language of the Donation seems to point to
the papal chancellery as the place of its origin, and the pontificate of Paul I
(757-767) as the most probable time.
That also seems to offer the situation and environment which would most
naturally call forth the document as we have it. This is well brought out by
Ludo Moritz Hartmann in his Geschichte Italiens im Mittelalter,[6] and by
Erich Caspar in his Pippin und die römische Kirche.[7] The Papacy was then
cutting loose from the Emperor at Constantinople and ignoring his
representatives in Italy, as well as developing its own independent policy
toward Italian territory, toward the Lombards, and toward the Franks. The
aim of the forger seems to have been the characteristically medieval one of
supplying documentary warrant for the existence of the situation which had
developed through a long-drawn-out revolution, namely, the passage of
imperial prerogatives and political control in Italy from the Emperor to the
Papacy. Hence, along with general statements of papal primacy, and of gifts
of property, detailed and explicit stress is laid upon the granting of imperial
honors, the imperial palace, and imperial power to the Pope, and upon the
right of the Roman clergy to the privileges of the highest ranks of Roman
society. Legal confirmation was thus given for riding roughshod over the
vestiges and memories of the imperial régime in Italy and for looking to the
Papacy as the source of all honors and dignities. Furthermore we know that
Paul I was extremely devoted to the memory of Sylvester, and so it may
well have been under his influence that this document came into existence
with its tribute to Sylvester’s personal character and historic significance.

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

Alexander D. Fraser, of Allegheny College, for generous assistance in
reading proof.

FOOTNOTES
[1] C. B. Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, three phases: the
historical, the legendary, and the spurious. Columbia University Studies in
History, Economics and Public Law, vol. LX, no. 1. Columbia University Press,
and Longmans, Green & Co., New York, 1914.
[2] F. M. Nichols, ed., Epistles of Erasmus. Longmans, Green & Co., New
York, 1901.
[3] Vita di Lorenzo Valla (Florence, 1891).
[4] Syntagma tractatuum de imperiali iurisdictione, etc., Strassburg, 1609;
first published under a similar title at Basle, 1566.
[5] Neue Forschungen über die Konstantinische Schenkung, in Mittheilungen
d. Instituts für österr. Geschichtsforschung, vol. X (1889), pp. 325 et seq., XI
(1890), pp. 128 et seq. Reprinted in his Gesammelte Schriften in the Historische
Studien of E. Eberling, vol. XLII.
[6] II, ii (Leipsic, 1903), pp. 218-231.
[7] Berlin, 1914, pp. 185-189.

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

[See English page]

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

PRIMA PARS DISTINCTIO XCVI

[PALEA.

CAPITULUM XIII. DE EODEM.[9]

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

[PALEA.

C. XIV. DE EODEM.

Constantinus imperator quarta die sui baptismi privilegium Romanae
ecclesiae Pontifici contulit, ut in toto orbe Romano sacerdotes ita hunc
caput habeant, sicut iudices regem. [See English page] In eo privilegio ita inter
cetera legitur: “Utile iudicavimus una cum omnibus satrapis nostris, et
universo senatu optimatibusque meis, etiam et cuncto populo Romanae
gloriae imperio subiacenti, ut sicut B. Petrus in terris vicarius Filii Dei esse
videtur constitutus, ita et Pontifices, qui ipsius principis apostolorum gerunt
vices, principatus potestatem amplius quam terrena imperialis nostrae
serenitatis mansuetudo habere videtur, concessam a nobis nostroque
imperio obtineant, eligentes nobis ipsum principem apostolorum vel eius

vicarios firmos apud Deum esse patronos. Et sicut nostram terrenam
imperialem potentiam, sic eius sacrosanctam Romanam ecclesiam
decrevimus veneranter honorari, et amplius quam nostrum imperium et
terrenum thronum sedem sacratissimam B. Petri gloriose exaltari, tribuentes
ei potestatem, et gloriae dignitatem atque vigorem, et honorificentiam
imperialem. Atque decernentes sancimus, ut principatum teneat tam super
quatuor precipuas sedes, Alexandrinam, Antiocenam, Ierosolimitanam,
Constantinopolitanam, quam etiam super omnes in universo orbe terrarum
ecclesias Dei, et Pontifex, qui pro tempore ipsius sacrosanctae Romanae
ecclesiae extiterit, celsior et princeps cunctis sacerdotibus totius mundi
existat, et eius iudicio queque ad cultum Dei vel fidei Christianorum
stabilitatem procuranda fuerint disponantur. Et infra: §. 1. Ecclesiis
beatorum apostolorum Petri et Pauli pro continuatione luminariorum
possessionum predia contulimus, et rebus diversis eas ditavimus, et per
nostram imperialem iussionem sacram tam in oriente, quam in occidente,
vel etiam septentrionali et meridiana plaga, videlicet in Iudea, Grecia, Asia,
Thracia, Affrica et Italia, vel diversis insulis, nostra largitate ei
concessimus, ea prorsus ratione, ut per manus beatissimi patris nostri
Silvestri summi Pontificis successorumque eius omnia disponantur. Et
infra: §. 2. Beatro Silvestro Patri nostro, summo Pontifici et universalis
urbis Romae Papae, et omnibus, eius successoribus Pontificibus, qui usque
in finem mundi [See English page] in sede B. Petri erunt sessuri, de presenti
contradimus palatium imperii nostri Lateranense, deinde diadema, videlicet
coronam capitis nostri, simulque frigium, nec non et superhumerale,
videlicet lorum, quod imperiale circumdare assolet collum; verum etiam et
clamidem purpuream, atque tunicam coccineam, et omnia imperialia
indumenta; sed et dignitatem imperialium presidentium equitum,
conferentes etiam et imperialia sceptra, simulque cuncta signa, atque banda,
et diversa ornamenta imperialia, et omnem processionem imperialis
culminis et gloriam potestatis nostrae. §. 3. Viris autem reverentissimis
clericis in diversis ordinibus eidem sacrosanctae Romanae ecclesiae
servientibus illud culmen singularitate, potentia et precellentia habere
sancimus, cuius amplissimus noster senatus videtur gloria adornari, id est
patricios atque consules effici, nec non et ceteris dignitatibus imperialibus
eos promulgamus decorari. Et sicut imperialis milicia ornatur, ita et clerum
sanctae Romanae ecclesiae ornari decernimus. Et quemadmodum imperalis
[sic] potentia offitiis diversis, cubiculariorum nempe, et ostiariorum, atque

omnium excubitorum ornatur, ita et sanctam Romanam ecclesiam decorari
volumus. Et ut amplissime pontificale decus prefulgeat, decernimus et hoc,
clericorum eiusdem sanctae Romanae ecclesiae manipulis et linteaminibus,
id est candidissimo colore, decorari equos, ita et equitare. Et sicut noster
senatus calciamentis utitur cum udonibus, id est candido linteamini
illustratis, sic utantur et clerici, ut sicut celestia, ita et terrena ad laudem Dei
decorentur. §. 4. Pre omnibus autem licentiam tribuimus ipsi sanctissimo
Patri nostro Silvestro et successoribus eius ex nostro indicto, ut quem
placatus proprio consilio clericare voluerit, et in religiosorum numero
clericorum connumerare, nullus ex omnibus presumat superbe agere. §. 5.
Decrevimus itaque et hoc, ut ipse et successores eius diademate, [See English
page]
videlicet corona, quam ex capite nostro illi concessimus, ex auro
purissimo et gemmis pretiosis uti debeant, et in capite ad laudem Dei pro
honore B. Petri gestare. Ipse vero beatissimus Papa, quia super coronam
clericatus, quam gerit ad gloriam B. Petri, omnino ipsa ex auro non est
passus uti corona, nos frigium candido nitore splendidum, resurrectionem
dominicam designans, eius sacratissimo vertici manibus nostris
imposuimus, et tenentes frenum equi ipsius pro reverentia B. Petri stratoris
offitium illi exhibuimus, statuentes eodem frigio omnes eius successores
singulariter uti in processionibus ad imitationem imperii nostri. §. 6. Unde
ut pontificalis apex non vilescat, sed magis quam terreni imperii dignitas
gloria et potentia decoretur, ecce tam palatium nostrum, ut predictum est,
quam Romanam urbem, et omnes Italiae seu occidentalium regionum
provincias, loca et civitates prefato beatissimo Pontifici nostro Silvestro
universali Papae contradimus atque relinquimus, et ab eo et a successoribus
eius per hanc divalem nostram et pragmaticum constitutum decernimus
disponenda, atque iuri sanctae Romanae ecclesiae concedimus permansura.
§. 7. Unde congruum perspeximus nostrum imperium et regni potestatem in
orientalibus transferri regionibus, et in Bizantiae provinciae optimo loco
nomini nostro civitatem edificari, et nostrum illic constitui imperium,
quoniam ubi principatus sacerdotum et Christianae religionis caput ab
imperatore celesti constitutum est, iustum non est, ut illic imperator terrenus
habeat potestatem. §. 8. Hec vero omnia que per hanc nostram imperialem
sacram, et per alia divalia decreta statuimus atque confirmavimus, usque in
finem mundi illibata et inconcussa permanere decernimus. Unde coram Deo
vivo, qui nos regnare precepit, et coram terribili eius iudicio obtestamur per
hoc nostrum imperiale constitutum omnes nostros successores imperatores,

vel cunctos optimates, satrapas etiam, amplissimum senatum, et universum
[See English page]
populum in toto orbe terrarum nunc et in posterum cunctis
retro temporibus imperio nostro subiacentem, nulli eorum quoquo modo
licere hec aut infringere, aut in quoquam convellere. Si quis autem, quod
non credimus, in hoc temerator aut contemptor extiterit, eternis
condempnationibus subiaceat innodatus, et sanctos Dei, principes
apostolorum Petrum et Paulum sibi in presenti et in futura vita sentiat
contrarios, atque in inferno inferiori concrematus cum diabolo et omnibus
deficiat impiis. Huius vero imperialis decreti nostri paginam propriis
manibus roborantes, super venerandum corpus B. Petri principis
apostolorum posuimus. Datum Romae 3. Calend. Aprilis, Domino nostro
Flavio Constantino Augusto quater, et Gallicano V. C. Coss.”]

[See English page]

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

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

Verum non est causa cur me duplex hic periculi terror conturbet
arceatque a proposito. Nam neque contra ius fasque summo pontifici licet
aut ligare quempiam[17] aut solvere, et in defendenda veritate atque iustitia
profundere animam summae virtutis, summae laudis, summi praemii est.
An vero multi ob terrestrem patriam defendendam mortis adiere discrimen?
Ego ob caelestem[18] patriam assequendam (assequuntur autem eam qui
Deo placent, non qui hominibus) mortis discrimine deterrebor? Facessat
igitur trepidatio; procul abeant metus; timores excidant! Forti animo, magna
fiducia, bona spe, defendenda est causa veritatis, causa iustitiae, causa Dei!
Neque enim is verus est habendus orator qui bene scit[19] dicere nisi et
dicere audeat. Audeamus itaque accusare eum[20] quicumque digna
committit accusatione. Et qui in omnes peccat, unius pro omnium voce
carpatur. At non debeo palam obiurgare fratrem, sed inter me et ipsum.
Immo, “publice peccans,” et qui privatum consilium non admitteret,
“publice arguendus est, ut ceteri timorem habeant.” An non Paulus, cuius
verbis modo sum usus, in [See English page] os Petrum coram ecclesia
reprehendit, quia reprehensibilis erat? Et hoc ad nostram doctrinam
scriptum reliquit.—At non sum Paulus, qui Petrum possim reprehendere.
Immo Paulus sum, qui Paulum imitor. Quemadmodum, quod multo plus est,
unus cum Deo spiritus efficior, cum studiose mandatis illius obtempero.
Neque aliquem sua dignitas ab increpationibus tutum reddit quae Petrum
non reddidit, multosque alios eodem praeditos gradu; ut Marcellum quod
diis libasset, ut Celestinum quod cum Nestorio haeretico[21] sentiret, ut
quosdam etiam nostra memoria quos ab inferioribus (quis enim non est
inferior papa?) reprehensos scimus, ut taceam condemnatos.
Neque vero id ago ut quemquam[22] cupiam insectari et in eum quasi
Philippicas scribere, hoc enim a me facinus procul absit, sed ut errorem a
mentibus hominum convellam, ut eos a vitiis sceleribusque vel admonendo
vel increpando summoveam. Non ausim dicere ut alii per me edocti
luxuriantem nimiis sarmentis papalem sedem, quae Christi vinea est, ferro
coerceant, et plenas uvas non graciles labruscas ferre compellant. Quod
cum facio, numquis[23] erit qui aut mihi os aut sibi aures velit occludere, ne
dicam supplicium mortemque proponere? Hunc ego, si hoc faciat, etiam si
papa sit, quid dicam esse, bonumne pastorem, an aspidem surdam quae

nolit exaudire vocem incantantis, velit eiusdem membra morsu venenoque
praestringere?
Scio iamdudum exspectare[24] aures hominum quidnam pontificibus
Romanis criminis[25] impingam. Profecto ingens, sive supinae ignorantiae,
sive immanis avaritiae quae est idolorum servitus, sive imperandi vanitatis
cuius crudelitas semper est comes. Nam aliquot iam saeculis aut non[26]
intellexerunt donationem Constantini commenticiam[27] fictamque esse, aut
ipsi finxerunt, sive posteriores in maiorum suorum dolis vestigia
imprimentes pro vera quam [See English page] falsam cognoscerent
defenderunt, dedecorantes pontificatus maiestatem, dedecorantes veterum
pontificum memoriam, dedecorantes religionem Christianam, et omnia
caedibus, ruinis,[28] flagitiisque miscentes. Suam esse aiunt urbem Romam;
suum regnum Siciliae Neapolitanumque; suam universam Italiam, Gallias,
Hispanias,[29] Germanos, Britannos; suum denique occidentem; haec enim
cuncta in ipsa donationis pagina contineri. Ergo haec omnia tua sunt,
summe pontifex? Omnia tibi in animo est recuperare? Omnes reges ac
principes occidentis spoliare urbibus, aut cogere ut annua tibi tributa
pensitent, sententia est?
At ego contra existimo iustius licere principibus spoliare te imperio omni
quod obtines. Nam, ut ostendam, donatio illa unde natum esse suum ius
summi pontifices volunt Silvestro pariter et Constantino fuit incognita.
Verum antequam ad confutandam donationis paginam venio, quod unum
istorum patrocinium est, non modo falsum verum etiam stolidum, ordo
postulat ut altius repetam. Et primum dicam non tales fuisse Constantinum
Silvestrumque, illum quidem qui donare vellet, qui iure donare posset, qui
ut in manum alteri ea traderet in sua haberet potestate, hunc autem qui
vellet accipere, quique iure accepturus[30] foret. Secundo loco, si haec non
essent, quae verissima atque clarissima sunt, neque hunc acceptasse neque
illum tradidisse possessionem rerum quae dicuntur donatae, sed eas semper
in arbitrio et imperio Caesarum permansisse. Tertio, nihil datum Silvestro a
Constantino, sed priori pontifici ante quem etiam baptismum[31] acceperat,
donaque illa mediocria fuisse, quibus [See English page] papa degere vitam
posset. Quarto, falso dici donationis exemplum aut apud Decreta reperiri
aut ex historia Silvestri esse sumptum, quod neque in illa neque in[32] ulla

historia invenitur. In eoque quaedam contraria, impossibilia, stulta, barbara,
ridicula contineri. Praeterea loquar de quorundam[33] aliorum Caesarum vel
simulata vel frivola donatione. Ubi ex abundanti adiciam, si Silvester
possedisset, tamen, sive illo sive quovis alio pontifice a possessione deiecto,
post tantam temporis intercapedinem nec divino nec humano iure posse
repeti. Postremo, ea quae a summo pontifice tenentur nullius temporis
longitudine potuisse[34] praescribi.
Atque quod ad primam partem attinet, loquamur autem de Constantino
prius, deinde de Silvestro.
Non est committendum ut publicam et quasi Caesaream causam non
maiore quam privatae solent ore agamus. Itaque quasi in[35] contione[36]
regum ac principum orans, ut certe facio, nam mea haec oratio in manus
eorum ventura est, libet tamquam praesentes et in conspectu positos alloqui.
Vos appello reges ac principes, difficile est enim privatum hominem animi
regii concipere imaginem, vestram mentem inquiro, conscientiam scrutor,
testimonium postulo. Numquid[37] vestrum quispiam, si fuisset Constantini
loco, faciendum sibi putasset ut urbem Romam, patriam suam, caput orbis
terrarum, reginam civitatum, potentissimam, nobilissimam, ditissimam
populorum, triumphatricem nationum, et ipso aspectu sacram, liberalitatis
gratia donaret alteri, et se ad humile oppidum conferret deinde Byzantium?
donaret praeterea una cum Roma Italiam, non provinciam sed provinciarum
victricem: donaret tres Gallias: donaret duas Hispanias: donaret Germanos:
donaret Britannos: totum donaret occidentem: et se altero ex duobus[38]
Imperii oculis orbaret? Hoc ego, ut quis faciat compos mentis, adduci non
possum ut credam.
Quid enim vobis exspectatius, quid iucundius,[39] quid gratius contingere
[See English page]
solet, quam accessionem imperiis vestris vos regnisque
adiungere, et longe lateque quam maxime proferre dicionem? In hoc, ut
videre videor, omnis vestra cura, omnis cogitatio, omnis labor dies[40]
noctesque consumitur. Ex hoc praecipua spes gloriae, propter hoc
voluptates relinquitis, propter hoc mille pericula aditis, propter hoc
carissima[41] pignora, propter hoc partem corporis aequo animo amittitis.
Siquidem neminem vestrum aut audivi aut legi a conatu ampliandi imperii
fuisse deterritum, quod aut luminis, aut manus, aut cruris, aut alterius
membri iacturam fecisset. Quin ipse hic ardor atque haec late dominandi

cupiditas, ut quisque maxime potens est, ita eum maxime angit atque agitat.
Alexander non contentus deserta Libyae pedibus peragrasse, orientem ad
extremum usque Oceanum vicisse, domuisse septentrionem, inter tot
vulnera, tot casus, recusantibus iam, detestantibus[42] tam longinquas, tam
asperas expeditiones militibus, ipse sibi nihil effecisse videbatur, nisi et
occidentem, et omnes nationes aut vi, aut nominis sui auctoritate sibi
tributarias reddidisset. Parum dico: iam Oceanum transire et si quis alius
orbis esset explorare, ac suo subicere arbitrio destinaverat. In caelum[43]
tandem, ut opinor, tentasset ascendere. Talis fere est omnium regum
voluntas, etsi non omnium talis audacia. Taceo quanta scelera, quot
abominanda propter imperium assequendum ampliandumve admissa sunt,
ut nec fratres a fratrum, nec filii a parentum, nec parentes a filiorum
sanguine nefarias abstineant manus. Adeo nusquam magis, nusquam
atrocius grassari solet humana temeritas. Et quod mirari possis, non
segniores ad hoc videas animos senum quam iuvenum, orborum quam
parentum, regum quam tyrannorum.
Quod si tanto conatu peti dominatus solet, quanto maiore necesse est
conservetur! Neque enim tantopere miserum est non ampliare imperium
quam imminuere; neque tam deforme tibi alterius regnum non accedere tuo
quam tuum accedere alieno. Nam [See English page] quod ab rege aliquo aut
populo legimus nonnullos praepositos regno aut urbibus, id factum est non
de prima nec de maxima, sed de postrema quodammodo ac minima imperii
parte, atque ea ratione ut donantem qui donatus est quasi dominum et se
ministrum illius semper agnosceret.
Nunc quaeso, nonne abiecto animo et minime generoso videntur esse, qui
opinantur Constantinum meliorem a se imperii alienasse partem? Non dico
Romam, Italiamque et cetera, sed Gallias, ubi ipse proelia gesserat, ubi
solum diu dominatus fuerat, ubi suae gloria suique imperii rudimenta
posuerat. Hominem, qui cupiditate dominandi nationibus bella intulisset,
socios affinesque bello civili persecutus imperio privasset; cui nondum
perdomitae ac profligatae reliquiae essent alterius factionis, qui cum multis
nationibus bella gerere non modo soleret spe gloriae imperiique sed etiam
necesse haberet, utpote quotidie[44] a barbaris lacessitus; qui filiis, qui
coniunctis sanguine, qui amicitiis[45] abundaret; qui senatum populumque
Romanum huic facto repugnaturum nosset; qui expertus esset instabilitatem
victarum nationum, et ad omnem fere Romani principis mutationem

rebellantium; qui se meminisset more aliorum Caesarum, non electione
patrum consensuque plebis, sed exercitu, armis, bello dominatum
occupasse; quae tam vehemens causa et urgens aderat, ut ista negligeret et
tanta liberalitate uti vellet?
Aiunt, quia effectus erat Christianus. Ergone Imperii optima parte se
abdicaret? Credo scelus erat, flagitium, nefas iam regnare, nec cum
Christiana religione coniungi poterat regnum! Qui in adulterio sunt, qui
usuris rem auxerunt, qui aliena possident, ii[46] post baptismum alienam
uxorem, alienam pecuniam, aliena bona reddere solent. Hanc cogitationem
si habes, Constantine, restituere urbibus libertatem, non mutare dominum
debes. Sed non id in [See English page] causa fuit; tantum in honorem religionis
ut faceres adductus es. Quasi religiosum sit magis regnum deponere quam
pro tutela religionis illud administrare! Nam quod ad accipientes attinet,
neque honesta erit illis neque utilis ista donatio. Tu vero si Christianum te
ostendere, si pietatem indicare tuam, si consultum non dico Romanae
ecclesiae vis sed ecclesiae Dei, nunc praecipue, nunc principem agas, ut
pugnes pro iis[47] qui pugnare non possunt nec debent, ut eos tua auctoritate
tutos reddas qui insidiis iniuriisque obnoxii sunt. Nabuchodonosor, Cyro,
Assuero, multisque aliis principibus sacramentum veritatis Deus aperiri
voluit; a nullo tamen eorum exegit ut imperio cederet, ut partem regni
donaret, sed tantum libertatem Hebraeis[48] redderet eosque ab infestantibus
finitimis protegeret. Hoc satis fuit Iudaeis; hoc sat erit et Christianis. Factus
es, Constantine, Christianus? At indignissima res est Christianum te nunc
imperatorem minori[49] esse principatu quam fueras infidelis. Est enim
principatus praecipuum quoddam Dei munus, ad quem gentiles etiam
principes a Deo eligi existimantur.
At erat levatus a lepra. Ideo verisimile est referre gratiam voluisse, et
maiore mensura reddere quod acceperat. Itane? Naaman[50] ille Syrus ab
Heliseo curatus munera tantum offerre voluit, non dimidium bonorum.
Constantinus dimidium Imperii obtulisset? Piget me impudenti fabellae
tamquam indubitatae historiae respondere, sic enim haec fabula ex historia
Naaman et Helisei, ut altera[51] draconis ex fabuloso dracone Beli
adumbrata [See English page] est. Sed, ut ista concedam, numquid in hac
historia de donatione fit mentio? Minime. Verum de hoc commodius postea.
[52]

Levatus est a lepra? Cepit[53] ob id mentem Christianam Dei timore Dei
amore imbutus; illi honorem habere voluit. Non tamen persuaderi possum
eum tanta donare voluisse, quippe cum videam neminem, aut gentilem in
honorem deorum, aut fidelem in honorem Dei viventis, imperium
deposuisse sacerdotibusque donasse. Siquidem ex regibus Israel nemo
adduci potuit ut pristino more ad templum Ierusalem populos sacrificaturos
ire permitteret, eo videlicet timore ne forte ad regem Iudae a quo defecerant
redirent, sacro illo cultu religionis admoniti ac templi maiestate. Et quanto
maius est hoc quod fecisse dicitur Constantinus! Ac ne quid tibi propter
curationem leprae blandiaris, Ieroboam primus a Deo in regem Israel
electus est, et quidem ex infima condicione, quod mea sententia plus est
quam esse lepra levatum;[54] et tamen is non est ausus regnum suum Deo
credere. Et tu vis Constantinum regnum Deo donasse quod ab illo non
accepisset, qui praesertim (id quod in Ieroboam non cadebat) offenderet
filios, deprimeret amicos, negligeret suos, laederet patriam, maerore omnes
afficeret, suique oblivisceretur!
Qui si etiam talis fuisset, et quasi in alium hominem versus, certe non
defuissent qui eum admonerent, et imprimis filii, propinqui amici; quos quis
est qui non putet protinus Imperatorem fuisse adituros? Ponite igitur illos
ante oculos, mente Constantini audita, trepidos, festinantes cum gemitu
lacrimisque[55] ad genua principis procumbentes, et hoc voce utentes:

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

“Quid nos propinqui, quid nos amici, qui tecum totiens in acie
stetimus, qui fratres, parentes, filios hostili mucrone confossos
palpitantesque conspeximus, nec aliena morte territi sumus, et ipsi
pro te parati mortem oppetere, nunc abs te universi deserimur![59]
Qui Romae gerimus magistratus, qui urbibus Italiae, qui Galliis, qui
Hispaniis, qui ceteris provinciis[60] praesumus, aut praefuturi sumus,
[61]
omnesne revocamur! Omnes privati iubemur esse! An iacturam
hanc aliunde pensabis? Et quomodo pro merito ac pro dignitate
poteris, tanta orbis terrarum parte alteri tradita? Num qui praeerat
centum populis, eum tu, Caesar, uni praeficies? Quomodo tibi istud
in mentem venire potuit? Quomodo subita tuorum te cepit oblivio,
ut nihil te misereat amicorum, nihil proximorum, nihil filiorum?
Utinam nos, Caesar, salva tua dignitate atque victoria, in bello
contigisset occumbere potius quam ista cernamus!
“Et tu quidem de imperio tuo ad tuum arbitratum agere potes,
atque etiam de nobis, uno dumtaxat excepto, in quo[62] ad mortem
usque erimus contumaces; ne a cultu deorum immotalium
desistamus—magno etiam aliis exemplo, ut scias tua ista largitas
quid mereatur de religione Christiana. Nam si non largiris Silvestro
Imperium, tecum Christiani esse volumus, multis factum nostrum
imitaturis: sin largiris, non modo Christiani fieri non sustinebimus,
[See English page]
sed invisum, detestabile, exsecrandum nobis hoc
nomen efficies, talesque reddes ut tandem tu et vitae et mortis
nostrae miserearis, nec nos sed te ipsum duritiae accuses.”

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

“Caesar, si tu tuorum immemor es atque etiam tui, ut nec filiis
hereditatem, nec propinquis opes, nec amicis honores, nec tibi
Imperium esse integrum velis, non tamen senatus populusque

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

facilem aut Romanae legiones aut ipsae provinciae[69] spoliare
tentabunt, ut quem sperabunt vel non repugnaturum, vel poenas non
repetiturum? Credo, me hercule, ne unum quidem mensem illos in
officio mansuros, sed statim et ad primum profectionis tuae
nuntium[70] rebellaturos. Quid facies? Quid consilii capies, cum
duplici atque adeo multiplici bello urgebere? Nationes quas
subegimus continere vix possumus; quomodo illis accedente ex
liberis gentibus bello resistetur?
[See English page]

“Tu, Caesar, quid ad te spectet ipse videris. Nobis autem haec res
non minus quam tibi curae esse debet. Tu mortalis es: Imperium
populi Romani decet esse immortale, et quantum in nobis est erit,
neque Imperium modo, verum etiam pudor. Scilicet quorum
religionem contemnimus eorum accipiemus imperium, et, principes
orbis terrarum, huic contemptissimo homini serviemus! Urbe a
Gallis capta, Romani senes demulceri sibi barbam a victoribus passi
non sunt: nunc sibi tot senatorii ordinis, tot praetorii, tot tribunicii,
[71]
tot consulares, triumphalesque viri eos dominari patientur, quos
ipsi tamquam[72] servos malos omni contumeliarum genere
suppliciorumque affecerunt! Istine homines magistratus creabunt,
provincias regent, bella gerent, de nobis sententias capitis ferent?
Sub his nobilitas Romana stipendia faciet, honores sperabit, munera
assequetur? Et quod maius quodque altius penetret vulnus accipere
possumus? Non ita putes, Caesar, Romanum degenerasse sanguinem
ut istud passurus sit aequo animo et non quavis ratione devitandum
existimet: quod medius fidius neque mulieres nostrae[73] sustinerent,
sed magis se una cum dulcibus liberis sacrisque penatibus
concremarent, ut non Carthaginienses[74] feminae[75] fortiores
fuerint quam Romanae.
“Etenim, Caesar, si regem te delegissemus, haberes tu quidem
magnum de Imperio Romano agendi arbitrium, sed non ita ut vel
minimum de ipsius imminueres maiestate, alioquin qui te
fecissemus regem, eadem facultate abdicare te regno iuberemus—
nedum posses regnum dividere, nedum tot provincias[76] alienare,
nedum ipsum regni caput peregrino atque humillimo homini

addicere. Canem ovili praeficimus;[77] quem si lupi mavult officio
fungi, aut eicimus aut occidimus. Nunc tu, cum diu canis officio in
ovili Romano defendendo sis functus, ad extremum in lupum nullo
exemplo converteris?
“Atque, ut intelligas, quandoquidem nos pro iure nostro cogis[78]
asperius loqui, nullum tibi in populi Romani Imperio ius esse. [See
English page]
Caesar vi dominatum occupavit,[79] Augustus et in vitium
successit et adversariorum partium profligatione se dominum fecit,
Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius,
Vespasianus, ceterique aut eadem aut simili via libertatem nostram
praedati sunt, tu quoque, aliis expulsis aut interemptis, dominus
effectus es. Sileo quod ex matrimonio natus non sis.
“Quare, ut tibi nostram mentem testificemur, Caesar, si non libet
te[80] Romae principatum tenere, habes filios, quorum aliquem in
locum tuum, nobis quoque permittentibus ac rogantibus, naturae
lege substituas. Sin minus, nobis in animo est publicam
amplitudinem cum privata dignitate defendere. Neque enim minor
haec iniuria Quiritum quam olim fuit violata Lucretia, neque nobis
deerit Brutus qui contra Tarquinium[81] se ad libertatem
recuperandam huic populo praebeat ducem. Et in istos primum quos
nobis praeponis, deinde et in te ferrum stringemus, quod in multos
Imperatores et quidem leviores ob causas fecimus.”

Haec profecto Constantinum, nisi lapidem eum aut truncum existimamus,
permovissent. Quae si populus non dixisset, tamen dicere apud se et his
passim verbis fremere credibile erat. Eamus nunc et dicamus Constantinum
gratificari voluisse Silvestro, quem tot hominum odiis, tot gladiis subiceret
ut vix, quantum sentio, unum Silvester diem in vita futurus fuisset. Nam eo
paucisque aliis absumptis, videbatur[82] omnis sublatum iri de pectoribus
Romanorum tam dirae iniuriae contumeliaeque suspicio.[83]
Age porro, si fieri potest, concedamus neque preces, neque minas, neque
ullam rationem aliquid profecisse, perstareque adhuc Constantinum, nec
velle a suscepta semel persuasione recedere.[84] Quis non ad Silvestri

orationem, si res vera fuisset umquam,[85] commotum[86] assentiatur? Quae
talis haud dubie fuisset:
[See English page]

“Princeps optime ac fili, Caesar, pietatem quidem tuam tam
pronam tamque effusam non possum non amare atque amplecti,
verumtamen quod in offerendis Deo muneribus immolandisque
victimis nonnihil erres, minime demiror; quippe qui adhuc es in
Christiana militia tiro. Ut non decebat olim a sacerdote omnem
pecudem feramque et avem[87] sacrificari, ita non omne ab eodem
accipiendum est munus. Ego sacerdos sum ac pontifex, qui dispicere
debeo quid ad altare patiar offerri, ne forte, non dico immundum
animal offeratur, sed vipera aut serpens. Itaque sic habeas. Si foret
tui iuris, partem Imperii cum regina orbis, Roma, alteri tradere quam
filiis (quod minime sentio); si populus hic, si Italia, si ceterae
nationes sustinerent, ut quos oderunt et quorum religionem adhuc
respuunt, capti illecebris saeculi, eorum imperio obnoxii esse vellent
(quod impossibile est): tamen, si quid mihi credendum putas, fili
amantissime, ut tibi assentirer[88] ulla adduci ratione non possem,[89]
nisi vellem mihi ipsi esse dissimilis et condiconem meam oblivisci
ac propemodum dominum Iesum[90] abnegare. Tua enim munera,
sive, ut tu vis, tuae remunerationes et gloriam et innocentiam et
sanctimoniam meam atque omnium qui mihi successuri sunt
polluerent ac prorsus everterent, viamque iis qui ad cognitionem
veritatis venturi sunt intercluderent.
“An vero Heliseus,[91] Naaman Syro a lepra curato, mercedem
accipere noluit: ego te curato accipiam? Ille munera respuit; ego
regna mihi dari sinam? Ille personam prophetae maculare noluit;
ego personam Christi quam in me gero maculare potero? Cur autem
ille accipiendis muneribus personam prophetae maculari putavit?
Nempe quod videri poterat vendere sacra, faenerare donum Dei,
indigere praesidiis hominum, elevare atque imminuere beneficii
dignitatem. Maluit ergo sibi principes ac reges[92] beneficiarios
facere, quam ipse beneficiarius illorum esse; immo ne mutua
quidem beneficentia uti. ‘Beatius est enim multo,’ ut inquit

Dominus, [See English page] ‘dare quam accipere.’ Eadem mihi atque
adeo maior est causa, cui etiam a Domino praecipitur dicente,
‘Infirmos curate, mortuos suscitate, leprosos mundate, daemones
eicite; gratis accepistis, gratis date.’ Egone tantum flagitium
admittam, Caesar, ut Dei praecepta[93] non exsequar; ut gloriam
meam polluam? ‘Melius est,’ ut inquit Paulus, ‘mihi mori quam ut
gloriam meam quis evacuet.’ Gloria nostra est apud Deum
honorificare ministerium nostrum, ut idem inquit, ‘Vobis dico
gentibus; quamdiu ego quidem sum gentium apostolus, glorificabo
ministerium meum.’
“Ego, Caesar, aliis quoque sim et exemplum et causa delinquendi;
Christianus homo, sacerdos Dei, pontifex Romanus, vicarius
Christi? Iam vero innocentia sacerdotum quomodo incolumis erit
inter opes, inter magistratus, inter administrationem saecularium
negotiorum?[94] Ideone terrenis renuntiamus, ut eadem uberiora
assequamur; et privata abiecimus, ut aliena possideamus et publica?
Nostrae erunt urbes? nostra tributa? nostra vectigalia? Et cur
clericos, si hoc[95] fecerimus, nos vocari licebit? Pars nostra sive
sors, quae Graece dicitur κλῆρος,[96] est non terrena sed caelestis.
Levitae, qui iidem[97] clerici sunt, partem cum fratribus non fuere
sortiti: et tu nos iubes etiam fratrum sortiri portionem!
“Quo mihi divitas atque opes, qui Domini voce iubeor nec de
crastino esse sollicitus, et cui dictum est ab illo: ‘Nolite thesaurizare
super terram; nolite possidere aurum, neque argentum, neque
pecuniam in zonis vestris’; et, ‘Difficilius est divitem introire in
regnum caelorum, quam camelum per foramen acus transire?’
Ideoque pauperes sibi ministros elegit et qui omnia relinquerent[98]
et eum sequerentur; et paupertatis ipse fuit exemplum. Usque adeo
divitiarum pecuniarumque tractatio innocentiae inimica est, non
modo possessio illarum atque dominatus. Unus Iudas, qui loculos
[See English page]
habebat et portabat quae mittebantur, praevaricatus
est; et amore pecuniae, cui assueverat, Magistrum, Dominum, Deum
et reprehendit et prodidit. Itaque vereor, Caesar, ne me ex Petro
facias Iudam.

“Audi etiam quid Paulus dicat: ‘Nihil intulimus in hunc mundum:
haud dubium, quod nec auferre quid possumus. Habentes autem
alimenta, et quibus tegamur, his contenti simus. Nam qui volunt
divites fieri, incidunt in tentationem et in laqueum diaboli et
desideria multa et inutilia et nociva, quae mergunt homines in
interitum et perditionem. Radix enim omnium malorum est
cupiditas, quam quidam appetentes erraverunt a fide, et inseruerunt
se doloribus multis. Tu autem, homo Dei, haec fuge.’ Et tu me
accipere iubes, Caesar, quae velut venenum effugere debeo!
“Et quis praeterea, pro tua prudentia, Caesar, consideres, quis
inter haec divinis rebus faciendis locus? Apostoli, quibusdam
indignantibus quod viduae ipsorum in ministerio quotidiano
despicerentur, responderunt non esse aequum relinquere se verbum
Dei et ministrare mensis. Et tamen viduarum mensis ministrare,
quanto aliud est quam exigere vectigalia, curare aerarium,
stipendium numerare militibus, et mille aliis huiusmodi curis
implicari? ‘Nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis saecularibus,’
inquit Paulus. Numquid Aaron, cum ceteris Levitici generis, aliud
quam Domini tabernaculum procurabat? Cuius[99] filii, quia ignem
alienum in thuribula sumpserant, igni caelesti conflagraverunt. Et tu
iubes nos ignem saecularium divitiarum, vetitum ac profanum,[100]
in sacrata thuribula, id est in sacerdotalia opera sumere! Num
Eleazar, num Phinees, num ceteri pontifices ministrique aut
tabernaculi aut templi quicquam nisi quod ad rem divinam pertineret
administrabant? Administrabant dico? Immo administrare poterant,
si officio suo satisfacere volebant? Quod si nolint, audiant
exsecrationem Domini dicentis: ‘Maledicti, qui opus Domini [See
English page]
faciunt negligenter.’ Quae exsecratio, cum in omnes, tum
in pontifices maxime cadit.
“O quantum est pontificale munus! Quantum est caput esse
ecclesiae! Quantum est praeponi pastorem tanto ovili, e cuius manu
uniuscuiusque agni ovisque amissae sanguis exigitur; cui dictum
est: ‘Si amas me plusquam alii, ut fateris, pasce agnos meos.’
Iterum, ‘si amas me, ut fateris, pasce oves meas.’ Tertio, ‘si amas
me, ut fateris, pasce oves meas!’ Et tu me iubes, Caesar, capras
etiam pascere et porcos, qui nequeunt ab eodem pastore custodiri!

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

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

‘Ergo liberi sunt filii?’ Quod si omnes filii mei sunt, Caesar, ut certe
sunt, omnes liberi erunt; nihil quisquam solvet. Igitur non est opus
mihi tua donatione, qua nihil assecuturus sum praeter laborem
quem, ut minime debeo, ita minime possum ferre.
“Quid quod necesse haberem potestatem exercere sanguinis,
punire sontes, bella gerere, urbes diripere, regiones ferro ignique
vastare! Aliter non est quod sperem posse me tueri quae tradidisses.
Et si haec fecero, sacerdos, pontifex, Christi vicarius, sum? Ut illum
in me tonantem audiam atque dicentem: ‘Domus mea domus
orationis vocabitur omnibus gentibus, et tu fecisti eam speluncam
latronum.’ ‘Non veni in mundum,’ inquit Dominus, ‘ut iudicem
mundum, sed ut liberem eum.’ Et ego qui illi successi causa
mortium [See English page] ero, cui in persona Petri dictum est:
‘Converte gladium tuum in locum suum: omnes enim qui acceperint
gladium gladio peribunt?’ Ne defendere quidem nobis ferro nos
licet, siquidem defendere Dominum Petrus volebat cum auriculam
abscidit servo. Et tu divitiarum aut comparandarum aut tuendarum
causa uti ferro nos iubes?
“Nostra potestas est potestas clavium, dicente Domino, ‘Tibi dabo
claves regni caelorum. Quodcumque[107] ligaveris super terram erit
ligatum et in caelis, et quodcumque solveris super terram erit
solutum et in caelis. Et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eas.’
Nihil ad hanc potestatem, nihil ad hanc dignitatem,[108] nihil ad hoc
regnum adici potest. Quo qui contentus non est, aliud sibi quoddam
a diabolo postulat, qui etiam Domino dicere ausus est: ‘Tibi dabo
omnia regna mundi, si cadens in terram adoraveris me.’ Quare,
Caesar, cum pace tua dictum sit, noli mihi diabolus effici qui
Christum, id est me, regna mundi a te data accipere iubeas. Malo
enim illa spernere quam possidere.
“Et ut aliquid de infidelibus, sed, ut spero, futuris fidelibus,
loquar; noli me de angelo lucis reddere illis angelum tenebrarum,
quorum corda ad pietatem inducere volo, non ipsorum cervici
iugum imponere, et gladio quod est verbum Dei, non gladio ferreo,
[109]
mihi subicere; ne deteriores efficiantur, ne recalcitrent, ne cornu
feriant, ne nomen Dei meo irritati errore blasphement.[110] Filios

mihi carissimos[111] volo reddere, non servos; adoptare, non emere;
generare, non manu capere; animas eorum offerre sacrificium Deo,
non diabolo corpora. ‘Discite a me,’ inquit Dominus, ‘quia mitis
sum et humilis corde. Capite iugum meum, et invenietis requiem
animabus vestris. Iugum enim meum suave[112] et pondus meum
leve.’
“Cuius ad extremum, ut iam[113] finem faciam, illam de[114] hac re
[See English page]
sententiam accipe quam quasi inter me et te tulit.
‘Reddite quae sunt Caesaris Caesari; et quae sunt Dei Deo.’ Quo fit
ut nec tu, Caesar, tua relinquere, neque ego quae Caesaris sunt
accipere debeam; quae vel si millies offeras numquam accipiam.”

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

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

Silvestrum suspicari debemus, sed tacite etiam indicasse nec illum dare
iure[117] nec se iure accipere posse.
Sed o caecam semper inconsultamque avaritiam![118] Demus ut tabulas
quoque de assensu Silvestri proferre possitis veras, incorruptas, sinceras:
num protinus donata sunt quae in talibus[119] continentur? Ubi possessio?
Ubi in manus traditio? Nam si chartam modo Constantinus dat, non
gratificari Silvestro voluit, sed illudere. Verisimile est, dicitis, qui donat
quippiam eum et possessionem tradere. Videte quid loquamini! cum
possessionem non esse datam constet, et an datum sit ius ambigatur.
Verisimile est qui possessionem non dedit, eum ne ius quidem dare
voluisse.
An non constat possessionem numquam fuisse traditam? Quod negare
impudentissimum est. Numquid Silvestrum Constantinus in Capitolium
quasi triumphantem inter frequentium Quiritum, sed infidelium, plausum
duxit? In sella aurea adsistente universo senatu collocavit? Magistratus pro
sua quemque dignitate regem salutare et adorare iussit? Hoc[120] erga novos
principes fieri solet, non tantum aliquod palatium velut Lateranense tradi.
Num postea per universam Italiam circumduxit?[121] Adiit cum illo Gallias;
adiit Hispanos;[122] adiit Germanos, ceterumque occidentem? Aut si
gravabantur[123] ambo tantum obire terrarum, quibusnam tam ingens
officium delegarunt, qui et Caesaris vice traderent possessionem et Silvestri
acciperent? Magni ii[124] viri atque eximiae auctoritatis esse debuerunt: et
tamen qui fuerint ignoramus. Et quantum in his duobus verbis, tradere et
accipere, subest pondus![125] Nostra memoria, ut exempla vetusta omittam,
numquam aliter facitatum vidimus, cum quis aut urbis aut regionis aut
provinciae dominus factus est; ita demum traditam existimari possessionem,
si magistratus [See English page] pristini summoveantur novique subrogentur.
Hoc si tunc Silvester fieri non postulasset, tamen magnificentiae
Constantini intererat, ut declararet non verbo se, sed re possessionem
tradere, suos praesides amovere aliosque ab illo substitui iubere. Non
traditur possessio quae penes eosdem remanet qui possidebant, et novus
dominus illos summovere non audet.
Sed fac istud quoque non obstare, et nihilominus putari Silvestrum
possedisse, atque omnia praeter morem praeterque naturam tunc esse
dicamus administrata. Postquam ille abiit, quos provinciis urbibusque

rectores Silvester praeposuit; quae bella gessit; quas nationes ad arma
spectantes oppressit; per quos haec administravit? Nihil horum scimus,
respondetis. Ita puto, nocturno tempore haec omnia gesta sunt, et ideo nemo
vidit.
Age, fuit in possessione Silvester? Quis eum de possessione deiecit?
Nam perpetuo in possessione non fuit, neque successorum aliquis saltem
usque ad Gregorium Magnum, qui et ipse caruit possessione. Qui extra
possessionem est, nec se ab ea deiectum probare potest, is profecto
numquam possedit; et si se possedisse dicat, insanit. Vides ut te insanum
etiam probo! Alioquin, dic quis papam deiecit? Ipsene Constantinus, an eius
filii, an Iulianus, an quis[126] alius Caesar? Profer nomen expulsoris, profer
tempus, unde primum, unde secundo, ac deinceps expulsus est. Num per
seditionem[127] et caedes, an sine his? Coniurarunt in eum pariter nationes,
an quae prima? Quid! Nemo omnium auxilio fuit: ne illorum quidem qui
per Silvestrum aliumve papam praepositi urbibus ac provinciis erant? Uno
die universa amisit; an paulatim et per partes? Restitit ipse suique
magistratus; an ad primum se tumultum abdicarunt? Quid! Ipsi victores non
in eam faecem[128] hominum, quam indignam imperio ducebant, ferro
grassati sunt, in ultionem[129] contumeliae, in tutelam occupatae
dominationis, in [See English page] contemptum religionis nostrae, in ipsum
etiam posteritatis exemplum? Omnino eorum qui victi sunt nemo fugam
cepit? nemo latuit? nemo timuit? O admirabilem casum! Imperium
Romanum tantis laboribus, tanto cruore partum, tam placide, tam quiete a
Christianis sacerdotibus vel partum est, vel amissum, ut nullus cruor,
nullum bellum, nulla querela intercesserit; et quod non minus admirari
debeas, per quos hoc gestum sit, quo tempore, quomodo, quamdiu, prorsus
ignotum. Putes in silvis inter arbores regnasse Silvestrum, non Romae, et
inter homines; et ab hibernis[130] imbribus frigoribusque, non ab hominibus
eiectum.
Quis non habet cognitum, qui paulo plura lectitarit, quot reges Romae,
quot consules, quot dictatores, quot tribuni plebis, quot censores, quot
aediles[131] creati fuerint? Nemoque ex tanta hominum copia, ex tanta
vetustate nos fugit. Scimus item quot Atheniensium duces, quot
Thebanorum, quot Lacedaemoniorum exstiterint; pugnas eorum terrestres
navalesque universas tenemus. Non ignoramus qui reges Persarum,

Medorum,[132] Chaldaeorum, Hebraeorum fuerint, aliorumque plurimorum;
et quomodo horum quisque aut acceperit regnum, aut tenuerit, aut
perdiderit, aut recuperaverit. Romanum autem, sive Silvestrianum,
Imperium, qua ratione inceperit, aut qua desierit, quando, per quos, in ipsa
quoque urbe nescitur. Interrogo num[133] quos harum rerum testes
auctoresque proferre possitis. Nullos, respondetis. Et non pudet vos, non
tam homines, quam pecudes dicere verisimile esse possedisse Silvestrum!
Quod quia vos non potestis, ego e contrario docebo, ad ultimum usque
diem vitae Constantinum, et gradatim deinceps omnes Caesares possedisse,
ut ne quid habeatis quod hiscere possitis. At perdifficile est et magni, ut
opinor, operis hoc docere! Evolvantur omnes Latinae Graecaeque historiae;
citentur ceteri auctores qui de illis meminere temporibus: ac[134] neminem
reperies in hac re ab alio discrepare. Unum ex mille testimoniis sufficiat.
[135]
Eutropius, qui Constantinum, qui tres Constantini filios a patre relictos
[See English page]
dominos orbis terrarum vidit, qui de Iuliano filio fratris
Constantini ita scribit: “Hic Iulianus, qui fuit subdiaconus[136] in Romana
ecclesia, Imperator[137] effectus apostatavit in idolorum cultu,[138] rerum
potitus est, ingentique apparatu Parthis intulit bellum, cui expeditioni ego
quoque interfui.” Nec de donatione Imperii occidentis tacuisset; nec paulo
post de Ioviano, qui successit Iuliano, ita dixisset: “Pacem cum Sapore
necessariam quidem sed ignobilem fecit, mutatis finibus ac nonnulla
Imperii Romani parte tradita. Quod ante, ex quo Romanum Imperium
conditum erat, numquam accidit. Quin etiam legiones nostrae apud
Caudium per Pontium Telesinum[139] et in Hispania apud Numantiam et in
Numidia sub iugo missae sunt, ut nihil tamen finium traderetur.”
Hoc loco libet vos,[140] nuperrime licet[141] defuncti estis, convenire,
pontifices Romani, et te, Eugeni, qui vivis cum Felicis[142] tamen venia. Cur
donationem Constantini magno ore iactitatis, frequenterque vos ultores
erepti Imperii quibusdam regibus principibusque minamini, et
confessionem quandam servitutis a Caesare dum coronandus est et a
nonnullis aliis principibus extorquetis, veluti ab rege Neapolitano atque
Siciliae; id quod numquam aliquis veterum Romanorum pontificum fecit,
non Damasus apud Theodosium, non Syricius apud Arcadium,[143] non
Anastasius apud Honorium, non Ioannes apud Iustinianum, non alii apud
alios sanctissimi papae apud optimos Caesares, sed semper illorum Romam

Italiamque, cum provinciis quas nominavi, fuisse professi sunt? Eoque
numismata aurea, ut de aliis monumentis sileam templisque urbis Romanae,
circumferuntur, non Graecis sed Latinis litteris inscripta, Constantini iam
Christiani et deinceps [See English page] cunctorum ferme Imperatorum,
quorum multa penes me sunt cum hac plerumque subscriptione subter
imaginem crucis, “Concordia orbis.” Qualia infinita reperirentur summorum
pontificum, si umquam Romae imperassetis! Quae nulla reperiuntur, neque
aurea, neque argentea, neque ab aliquo visa memorantur. Et tamen necesse
erat illo tempore proprium habere numisma quisquis imperium Romae
teneret; saltem sub imagine Salvatoris aut Petri.
Pro[144] imperitiam hominum! Non cernitis, si donatio Constantini vera
est, Caesari—de Latino loquor—nihil relinqui. En qualis Imperator, qualis
rex Romanus erit, cuius regnum si quis habeat, nec aliud habeat, omnino nil
habet! Quod si itaque palam est Silvestrum non possedisse; hoc est,
Constantinum non tradidisse possessionem, haud dubium erit ne ius
quidem, ut dixi, dedisse possidendi: nisi dicitis ius quidem datum, sed
aliqua causa possessionem non traditam; ita plane dabat quod minime
futurum intelligebat; dabat quod tradere non poterat; dabat quod non prius
venire in manus eius cui dabatur possibile erat quam esset extinctum; dabat
donum quod ante quingentos annos aut numquam valiturum foret. Verum
hoc loqui aut sentire insanum est.

Sed iam tempus est, ne longior fiam, causae adversariorum iam concisae
atque laceratae letale[145] vulnus imprimere et uno eam iugulare ictu. Omnis
fere historia, quae nomen historiae meretur, Constantinum a puero cum
patre Constantio[146] Christianum refert multo etiam ante pontificatum
Silvestri; ut Eusebius ecclesiasticae scriptor historiae, quem Rufinus,[147]
non in postremis doctus, in Latinum interpretatus duo volumina de aevo suo
adiecit, quorum [See English page] uterque paene[148] Constantini temporibus
fuit. Adde huc testimonium etiam Romani pontificis qui his rebus gerendis
non interfuit sed praefuit, non testis sed auctor, non alieni negotii sed sui
narrator. Is est Melchiades papa, qui proximus fuit ante Silvestrum, qui ita
ait: “Ecclesia ad hoc usque pervenit, ut non solum gentes sed etiam Romani
principes, qui totius orbis monarchiam tenebant, ad fidem Christi et[149]
fidei sacramenta concurrerent. E quibus vir religiosissimus Constantinus,

primus fidem veritatis patenter adeptus, licentiam dedit per universum
orbem[150] suo degentibus imperio non solum fieri Christianos, sed etiam
fabricandi ecclesias, et praedia constituit tribuenda. Denique idem praefatus
princeps donaria immensa contulit, et fabricam templi primae sedis beati
Petri instituit; adeo ut sedem imperialem relinqueret et beato Petro suisque
successoribus profuturam concederet.” En nihil Melchiades a Constantino
datum ait, nisi palatium Lateranense, et praedia, de quibus Gregorius in
registro facit saepissime mentionem. Ubi sunt qui nos[151] in dubium vocare
non sinunt donatio Constantini valeat necne, cum illa donatio fuerit et ante
Silvestrum et rerum tantummodo privatarum?
[See English page]

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

Sed ipse, dicitis, Palea auctorem profert, fontem historiae ostendit, [See
English page]
et Gelasium[158] papam cum multis episcopis in testimonium
citat. “Ex Gestis,” inquit, “Silvestri, quae beatus Gelasius in concilio
septuaginta episcoporum a catholicis legi commemorat, et pro antiquo usu
multas hoc dicit ecclesias imitari; in quibus legitur, Constantinus et cetera.”
Multo superius, ubi de libris legendis et non legendis agitur, etiam dixerat,
“Actus beati Silvestri praesulis, licet eius qui scripsit nomen ignoremus, a
multis tamen ab urbe Roma catholicis legi cognovimus, et pro antiquo usu
hoc imitantur ecclesiae.” Mira haec auctoritas, mirum testimonium,
inexpugnabilis probatio! Dono vobis hoc, Gelasium dum de concilio
septuaginta episcoporum loquitur id dixisse. Num id dixit, paginam
privilegii in beatissimi Silvestri Gestis legi? Is vero tantum ait Gesta
Silvestri legi[159] et hoc Romae, cuius ecclesiae auctoritatem multae aliae
sequuntur,[160] quod ego non nego; concedo, fateor; me quoque una cum
Gelasio testem exhibeo. Verum quid vobis ista res prodest, nisi ut in
adducendis testibus mentiri voluisse videamini? Ignoratur nomen eius qui
hoc in Decretis ascripsit, et solus hoc dicit. Ignoratur nomen eius qui
scripsit historiam, et solus is et falso testis affertur. Et vos, boni viri atque
prudentes, hoc satis superque esse ad tantae rei testimonium existimatis? At
videte, quantum inter meum intersit vestrumque iudicium. Ego ne si hoc
quidem apud Gesta Silvestri privilegium contineretur, pro vero habendum
putarem, cum historia illa non historia sit, sed poetica et impudentissima
fabula, ut posterius ostendam; nec quisquam alius alicuius dumtaxat[161]
auctoritatis de hoc privilegio [See English page] habeat mentionem. Et Iacobus
Voraginensis, propensus in amorem clericorum ut archiepiscopus, tamen in
Gestis sanctorum de donatione Constantini, ut fabulosa nec digna quae inter
Gesta Silvestri poneretur, silentium egit; lata quodammodo sententia contra
eos, si qui haec litteris mandavissent.
Sed ipsum falsarium ac vere “paleam,” non triticum, obtorto collo in
iudicium trahere volo. Quid ais, falsarie? Unde fit quod istud privilegium
inter Silvestri Gesta non legimus? Credo hic liber rarus est, difficilis
inventu, nec vulgo habetur, sed tamquam fasti olim a pontificibus, aut libri
Sibyllini[162] a decemviris custoditur! Lingua Graeca aut Syriaca aut
Chaldaica scriptus est! Testatur Gelasius a multis catholicis legi;
Voraginensis de eo meminit; nos quoque mille et antique scripta exemplaria
vidimus; et in omni fere cathedrali ecclesia, cum adest Silvestri natalis dies,

lectitantur: et tamen nemo se illic legisse istud ait quod tu affingis, nemo
audisse, nemo somniasse. An alia quaedam fortassis historia est? Et
quaenam ista erit? Ego aliam nescio, nec abs te aliam dici interpretor,
quippe de ea tu loqueris quam Gelasius apud multas ecclesias lectitari
refert. In hac autem tuum privilegium non invenimus. Quod si istud in Vita
Silvestri non legitur, quid tu ita legi tradidisti? Quid in tanta re iocari ausus
es, et levium hominum cupiditatem eludere?
Sed stultus sum qui illius potius insector audacium, quam istorum
dementiam qui crediderunt. Si quis apud Graecos, apud Hebraeos, apud
barbaros diceret hoc esse memoriae proditum, nonne iuberetis nominari
auctorem, proferri codicem, et locum ab interprete fideli exponi antequam
crederetis? Nunc de lingua [See English page] vestra, de notissimo codice fit
mentio, et vos tam incredibile factum aut non inquiritis, aut, cum scriptum
non reperiatis, tam prona estis credulitate ut pro scripto habeatis atque pro
vero. Et hoc titulo contenti, terras miscetis et maria, et, quasi nullum subsit
dubium, eos qui vobis non credunt, terrore bellorum aliisque minis
prosequimini. Bone Iesu, quanta vis, quanta divinitas est veritatis, quae per
sese sine magno conatu ab omnibus dolis ac fallaciis se ipsa defendit, ut
non immerito, cum esset apud Darium regem exorta contentio quid foret
maxime validum et alius aliud diceret, tributa sit palma veritati!
Quia cum sacerdotibus, non cum saecularibus, mihi res est, ecclesiastica
magis quam saecularia sunt exempla repetenda. Iudas Machabaeus, cum
dimissis Romam legatis foedus amicitiamque a senatu impetrasset, curavit
verba foederis in aes incidenda Ierosolimamque portanda. Taceo de lapideis
decalogi tabulis, quas Deus Moysi dedit. Ista vero tam magnifica
Constantini et tam inaudita donatio nullis neque in auro, neque in argento,
neque in aere, neque in marmore, neque postremo in libris, probari
documentis potest; sed tantum, si isti credimus, in charta, sive membrana.
Iobal primus musices auctor, ut est apud Iosephum, cum esset a maioribus
per manus tradita opinio res humanas semel aqua iterum igni delendas,
doctrinam suam duabus columnis[163] inscripsit, lateritia contra ignem,
lapidea contra aquas; quae ad Iosephi aevum, ut idem scribit, permansit; ut
suum in homines beneficium semper exstaret. Et apud Romanos
rusticanos[164] adhuc et agrestes, cum parvae et rarae litterae essent, tamen
leges duodecim tabularum in aes fuere incisae, quae vi[165] capta atque
incensa a Gallis urbe incolumes postea sunt repertae. Adeo duo maxima in

rebus humanis, diuturnitatem temporis et fortunae violentiam, vincit [See
English page]
circumspecta providentia. Constantinus vero orbis terrarum
donationem papyro[166] tantum et atramento signavit, cum praesertim
machinator fabulae, quisquis ille fuit, faciat Constantinum dicentem se
credere non defore qui donationem hanc impia aviditate rescinderent! Hoc
times, Constantine, et non caves ne ii qui Romam Silvestro eriperent
chartulam quoque surriperent?
Quid ipse Silvester pro se nihil agit? Ita omnia Constantino remittit? Ita
securus ac segnis est in tanto negotio? Nihil sibi, nihil ecclesiae suae, nihil
posteritati prospicit? En, cui Imperium Romanum administrandum
committas,[167] qui tam magnae rei tantoque aut lucro aut periculo indormit!
Si quidem sublata chartula, privilegii donationem utique aetate procedente
probare non poterit.

“Paginam privilegii” appellat homo vesanus. Privilegiumne tu (libet velut
praesentem insectari) vocas donationem orbis terrarum; et hoc in pagina vis
esse scriptum; et isto genere orationis usum esse Constantinum? Si titulus
absurdus est, qualia cetera existimemus?
“Constantinus Imperator quarto die sui baptismatis privilegium Romanae
ecclesiae pontifici contulit, ut in toto orbe Romano[168] sacerdotes ita hunc
caput habeant, sicut iudices regem.” Hoc in ipsa Silvestri historia
continetur; ex quo dubitari non potest ubinam scriptum significetur
“privilegium.” Sed, more eorum qui mendacia machinantur, a vero
incoepit[169] ut sequentibus, quae falsa sunt, conciliet fidem, ut Sinon apud
Virgilium:
[See English page]

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

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

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

O scelerate atque malefice! Eadem quam affers in testimonium refert
historia, longo tempore neminem senatorii ordinis voluisse accipere
religionem Christianam, et Constantinum pauperes sollicitasse pretio ad
baptismum. Et tu ais intra primos statim dies senatum, optimates, satrapes,
[170]
quasi iam Christianos, de honestanda ecclesia Romana cum Caesare
decrevisse! Quid! Quod vis interfuisse satrapes? O cautes, O stipes! Sic
loquuntur Caesares? Sic concipi solent decreta Romana? Quis umquam
satrapes in consiliis Romanorum nominari audivit? Non teneo memoria
umquam legisse me ullum, non modo Romanum, sed ne in Romanorum
quidem provinciis satrapem nominatum. At hic Imperatoris [See English page]
satrapes vocat, eosque senatui praeponit, cum omnes honores, etiam qui
principi deferuntur, tantum a senatu decernantur, aut iuncto[171] “populoque
Romano.” Hinc est quod in lapidibus vetustis aut tabulis aereis aut
numismatis duas litteras videmus scriptas: S. C.; id est, “Senatus consulto,”
vel quattuor:[172] S. P. Q. R., hoc est, “Senatus populusque Romanus.” Et, ut
Tertullianus meminit, cum Pontius Pilatus de admirandis Christi actionibus
ad Tiberium Caesarem, non ad senatum, scripsisset, siquidem ad senatum
scribere de magnis rebus magistratus consueverant, senatus hanc rem
indigne tulit, Tiberioque praerogativam ferenti ut Iesus pro deo coleretur
repugnavit, ob tacitam tantummodo indignationem offensae senatoriae
dignitatis. Et ut scias quantum senatus valeat auctoritas, ne pro deo
coleretur obtinuit.
Quid! Quod ais optimates? Quos aut primarios in republica viros
intelligimus, qui cur nominentur[173] cum de ceteris magistratibus silentium
sit? aut eos qui populares non sunt, benevolentiam populi aucupantes, sed
optimi cuiusque et bonarum partium studiosi ac defensores, ut Cicero
quadam oratione demonstrat? Ideoque Caesarem ante oppressam

rempublicam popularem fuisse dicimus, Catonem ex optimatibus, quorum
differentiam Sallustius explicavit. Neque hi optimates magisquam populares
aut ceteri boni viri dicuntur in consilio adhiberi.
Sed quid mirum si adhibentur optimates, ubi cunctus populus, si homini
credimus, cum senatu et Caesare iudicavit, et is quidem Romanae ecclesiae
subiacens! Et quis iste est populus? Romanusne? [See English page] At cur non
dicitur populus Romanus potiusquam populus subiacens? Quae nova ista
contumelia est in Quirites, de quibus optimi poetae elogium est:

“Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento?”

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

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

Revivisce paulisper, Firmiane[180] Lactanti, resisteque huic asino tam
vaste immaniterque rudenti. Ita verborum turgentium strepitu delectatur, ut
eadem repetat et inculcet quae modo dixerat. [See English page] Huncne in

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

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

Omitto hic barbariem sermonis, quod “princeps sacerdotibus” pro
“sacerdotum” dixit, et quod in eodem loco posuit “extiterit” et “existat,” et,

cum dixerit “in universo orbe terrarum,” iterum addit “totius mundi,” quasi
quiddam diversum, aut caelum, quae mundi pars est, complecti velit, cum
bona pars orbis terrarum sub Roma non esset, et quod “fidem
Christianorum,” “vel stabilitatem procurandam,” tamquam non possent
simul esse, distinxit, et quod “decernere” et “sancire” miscuit, et veluti
prius cum ceteris Constantinus non iudicasset, decernere eum et, tamquam
poenam proponat, sancire, et quidem una cum populo sancire facit. Quis
hoc Christianus pati queat, et non papam, qui hoc patitur ac libens audit et
recitat, censorie severeque castiget, quod, cum a Christo primatum acceperit
Romana sedes et id, Gratiano testante multisque Graecorum, octava
synodus declararit, accepisse dicatur [See English page] a Constantino vix dum
Christiano tamquam a Christo? Hoc ille modestissimus princeps dicere, hoc
piissimus pontifex audire voluisset? Absit tam grave ab utroque illorum
nefas!
Quid, quod multo est absurdius, capitne rerum natura, ut quis de
Constantinopoli loqueretur tamquam una patriarchalium sedium, quae
nondum esset nec patriarchalis, nec sedes, nec urbs Christiana, nec sic
nominata, nec condita, nec ad condendum destinata? Quippe privilegium
concessum est triduo quod Constantinus esset effectus Christianus, cum
Byzantium[185] adhuc erat, non Constantinopolis. Mentior nisi hoc quoque
confiteatur[186] hic stolidus. Scribit enim prope calcem privilegii:

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

Si ille transferre volebat alio imperium, nondum transtulerat. Si illic
volebat constituere imperium, nondum constituerat. Si sic volebat aedificare
urbem, nondum aedificaverat. Non ergo fecisset mentionem de patriarchali,
de una quattuor sedium, de Christiana, de sic nominata, de condita; de qua
condenda, ut historiae placet quam Palea in testimonium affert, ne cogitarat
quidem. A qua[187] non videt haec belua, sive is Palea sit, sive alius quem
Palea sequitur, se dissentire, ubi Constantinus, non sua sponte, sed inter
quietem admonitu Dei, non Romae, sed Byzantii, non intra paucos dies, sed
post aliquot annos, dicitur decrevisse de urbe condenda, nomenque quod in

somnis edoctus fuerat indidisse. Quis ergo non [See English page] videt, qui
privilegium composuit, eum diu post tempora Constantini fuisse, et, cum
vellet adornare mendacium, excidisse sibi quod ante dixisset haec gesta esse
Romae tertio die quam ille fuisset baptizatus: ut in eum decentissime cadat
tritum vetustate proverbium, “Mendaces memores esse oportere”?
Quid, quod Byzantiam provinciam vocat quod erat oppidum nomine[188]
Byzantium? Locus haudquaquam capax tantae urbis condendae: namque
muris complexa est Constantinopolis vetus Byzantium! Et hic in eius
optimo loco ait urbem esse condendam! Quid, quod Thraciam,[189] ubi
positum erat Byzantium, vult esse in oriente, quae vergit ad Aquilonem!
Opinor ignorabat Constantinus locum quem condendae urbi delegerat, sub
quo caelo esset, urbsque an provincia, quanta eius mensura foret!

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

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

Quid ais tu, qui facis Constantinum dicentem Petrum et Paulum beatos,
Silvestrum vero cum adhuc vivit beatissimum, et suam qui paulo ante
fuisset ethnicus iussionem sacram? Tantane conferenda sunt pro
luminaribus continuandis, ut totus orbis terrarum fatigetur? At quae ista
praedia sunt, praesertim “possessionum”? Praediorum possessiones dicere

solemus, non “possessionum praedia.” Das praedia, nec quae praedia
explicas. Ditasti diversis rebus, nec quando, nec quibus rebus ostendis. Vis
plagas orbis a Silvestro disponi, nec pandis quo genere disponendi.
Concessisti haec antea? Cur te hodie incoepisse significas honorare
ecclesiam Romanam et ei privilegium concedere? Hodie concedis; hodie
ditas? Cur dicis “concessimus” et “ditavimus”? Quid loqueris, aut quid
sentis, bestia? Cum fabulae machinatore mihi sermo est, non cum optimo
principe Constantino.
Sed quid in te ullam prudentiam, ullam doctrinam requiro, qui nullo
ingenio, nulla litteratura es praeditus; qui ais “luminariorum” pro
luminarium, et “orientalibus transferri regionibus” pro eo quod est ad
orientales transferri regiones? Quid porro? Istaene sunt quattuor plagae?
Quam orientalem numeras? Thraciamne? At, ut dixi, vergit ad
septentrionem. An Iudaeam? At magis ad meridiem spectat, utpote vicina
Aegypto. Quam item occidentalem? Italiamne? At haec in Italia gerebantur,
quam nemo illic agens occidentalem vocat; cum Hispanias dicamus esse in
occidente; et Italia hinc ad meridiem illinc ad arcton magisquam ad
occidentem vergit. Quam septentrionalem? An Thraciam? At ipse ad
orientem esse vis. An Asiam? At haec sola totum possidet orientem,
septentrionem vero communem[191] cum Europa. Quam meridionalem?
Certe Africam. At cur non aliquam nominatim provinciam proferebas? Nisi
forte Aethiopes Romano imperio [See English page] suberant. Et nihilominus
non habent locum Asia et Africa cum orbem terrarum in quattuor dividimus
partes et nominatim regiones singularum referimus, sed cum in tres, Asiam,
Africam, Europam; nisi Asiam pro Asiatica provincia, Africam pro ea
provincia quae prope Gaetulos[192] est, appellas, quae non video cur
praecipue nominentur.[193]
Sicine[194] locutus esset Constantinus, cum quattuor orbis plagas
exsequitur,[195] ut has regiones nominaret, ceteras non nominaret; et a
Iudaea inciperet, quae pars Syriae numeratur et quae amplius Iudaea non
erat, eversa Hierosolima, fugatis et prope exstinctis[196] Iudaeis, ita ut
credam vix aliquem in sua tunc patria remansisse, sed alias habitasse
nationes? Ubi tandem erat Iudaea, quae nec Iudaea amplius vocabatur, ut
hodie videmus illud terrae nomen exstinctum? Et sicut exterminatis
Chananeis Chananea regio desiit appellari, commutato nomine in Iudaeam a

novis incolis, ita exterminatis Iudaeis et convenis gentibus eam incolentibus
desierat Iudaea nominari.
Nuncupas Iudaeam, Thraciam, insulas; Hispanias vero, Gallias,
Germanos non putas nuncupandos, et cum de aliis linguis loquaris,
Hebraea, Graeca, barbara, de ulla provinciarum Latino sermone utentium
non loqueris. Video: has tu ideo[197] omisisti, ut postea in donatione
complectereris. Et quid non tanti erant tot provinciae occidentis, ut
continuandis luminaribus suppeditarent sumptus, nisi reliquus orbis
adiuvaret?
Transeo quod haec concedi ais per largitatem; non ergo, ut isti aiunt, ob
leprae curationem. Alioquin insolens sit, quisquis renumerationem loco
munerum ponit.

“Beato Silvestro eius vicario de praesenti tradimus palatium
imperii nostri Lateranense, deinde diadema, videlicet coronam
capitis nostri, simulque phrygium, nec non et superhumerale,
videlicet lorum quod imperiale circumdare[198] solet collum, verum
etiam [See English page] chlamydem[199] purpuream, atque tunicam
coccineam, et omnia imperialia indumenta, seu etiam dignitatem
imperialium praesidentium equitum; conferentes etiam ei imperialia
sceptra, simulque cuncta signa atque banna et diversa ornamenta
imperialia, et omnem processionem imperialis culminis, et gloriam
potestatis nostrae.
“Viris etiam diversi ordinis reverendissimis[200] clericis sanctae
Romanae ecclesiae servientibus, illud culmen singularis potentiae et
praecellentiae habere sancimus, cuius amplissimus noster senatus
videtur gloria adornari, id est patricios,[201] consules effici. Nec non
in ceteris dignitatibus imperialibus eos promulgavimus decorari. Et
sicut imperialis extat decorata militia, ita clerum sanctae Romanae
ecclesiae adornari decrevimus. Et quemadmodum imperialis
potentia diversis officiis, cubiculariorum nempe et ostiariorum[202]
atque omnium concubitorum ordinatur,[203] ita et sanctam Romanam
ecclesiam decorari volumus. Et ut amplissime pontificale decus
praefulgeat, decernimus[204] et ut clerici sancti eiusdem sanctae
Romanae ecclesiae mappulis et linteaminibus, id est candidissimo

colore decoratos equos equitent, et sicut noster senatus calciamentis
utitur cum udonibus, id est candido linteamine illustrentur, et ita
caelestia sicut terrena ad laudem Dei decorentur.”

O sancte Iesu! Ad hunc sententias volventem sermonibus imperitis non
respondebis de turbine? Non tonabis? Non in tantam blasphemiam[205]
ultricia fulmina iaculabere? Tantumne probrum in tua familia sustines? Hoc
audire, hoc videre, hoc tamdiu conniventibus oculis praeterire potes? Sed
patiens[206] es, et multae misericordiae. Vereor tamen ne patientia haec tua
sit potius ira et condemnatio, qualis in illos fuit, de quibus dixisti: “Et
dimisi eos secundum desiderium cordis eorum, ibunt in adinventionibus
suis,” [See English page] et alibi: “Tradidi eos in reprobum sensum, ut faciant
quae non conveniunt, quia non probaverunt se habere notitiam mei.” Iube
me, quaeso, Domine, ut exclamem adversus eos, et forte convertantur.[207]
O Romani pontifices, exemplum facinorum omnium ceteris pontificibus!
O improbissimi scribae et Pharisaei,[208] qui sedetis super cathedram Moysi,
et opera Dathan et Abiron facitis! Itane vestimenta, apparatus, pompa,
equitatus, omnis denique vita Caesaris vicarium Christi decebit? Quae
communicatio sacerdotis ad Caesarem? Istane Silvester vestimenta sibi
induit? Eo apparatu incessit? Ea celebritate ministrantium domi vixit atque
regnavit? Sceleratissimi homines non intelligunt Silvestro magis vestes
Aaron, qui summus Dei sacerdos fuerat, quam gentilis principis fuisse
sumendas.
Sed haec alias erunt exagitanda vehementius. Impraesentiarum autem de
barbarismo cum[209] hoc sycophanta loquamur, cuius ex stultiloquio
impudentissimum eius patescit[210] sua sponte mendacium.
“Tradimus,” inquit, “palatium imperii nostri Lateranense”; quasi male
hoc loco inter ornamenta donum palatii posuisset, iterum postea ubi de
donis agitur replicavit. “Deinde diadema”; et quasi illi non videant qui
adsunt, interpretatur; “videlicet coronam.” Verum hic non addidit “ex auro,”
sed posterius easdem res inculcans inquit; “ex auro purissimo et gemmis
preciosis.” Ignoravit homo imperitus diadema e panno esse aut fortassis ex
serico; unde sapiens illud regis dictum celebrari solet, quem ferunt traditum
sibi diadema priusquam capiti imponeret retentum diu considerasse ac
dixisse: “O nobilem magisquam felicem pannum! Quem si quis penitus

agnosceret,[211] quam multis sollicitudinibus[212] periculisque et miseriis sis
refertus, ne humi quidem iacentem [See English page] vellet tollere.” Iste non
putat illud nisi ex auro esse, cui circulus aureus nunc cum gemmis apponi a
regibus solet. Verum non erat rex Constantinus, nec regem appellare, nec
regio se ritu ornare fuisset ausus. Imperator Romanorum erat, non rex. Ubi
rex est, ibi respublica non est. At in republica multi fuerunt etiam uno
tempore imperatores; nam Cicero frequenter ita scribit: M. Cicero imperator
illi vel illi imperatori salutem: licet postea peculiari nomine Romanus
princeps, ut summus omnium, imperator appelletur.
“Simulque phrygium, nec non superhumerale, videlicet lorum quod
imperiale circumdare solet collum.” Quis umquam phrygium Latine dici
audivit? Tu mihi dum barbare loqueris videri vis Constantini aut Lactantii
esse sermonem. Plautus in Menaechmis[213] phrygionem[214] pro
concinnatore vestium posuit. Plinius phrygionas[215] appellat vestes acu
pictas, quod earum Phryges fuerint[216] inventores. Phrygium vero quid
significat?[217] Hoc non exponis, quod obscurum; exponis quod est clarius.
Superhumerale ais esse lorum, nec quid sit lorum tenes; non enim cingulum
ex corio factum, quod dicitur lorum, sentis circumdari pro ornamento
Caesaris collo: hinc est quod habenas et verbera vocamus lora; quod si
quando dicantur lora aurea, non nisi de habenis quae auratae collo equi aut
alterius pecudis circumdari assolent intelligi potest. Quae te res, ut mea fert
opinio, fefellit, et cum lorum circumdare collo[218] Caesaris atque Silvestri
vis, de homine, de imperatore, de summo pontifice, equum aut asinum[219]
facis.
“Verum et chlamydem[220] purpuream, atque tunicam coccineam.” Quia
Matthaeus ait chlamydem coccineam, et Ioannes vestem purpuream,
utrumque voluit hic eodem loco coniungere. Quod si idem color est, ut
Evangelistae significant, quid tu non fuisti contentus alterum nominasse, ut
illi contenti fuerunt: nisi accipis purpuram, ut nunc imperiti loquuntur,
genus panni serici colore [See English page] albo? Est autem purpura piscis,
cuius sanguine lana tingitur, ideoque a tinctura datum est nomen panno,
cuius color pro rubro accipi potest, licet sit magis nigricans et proximus
colori sanguinis concreti, et quasi violaceus. Inde ab Homero atque Virgilio
purpureus dicitur sanguis et marmor porphyritum,[221] cuius color est
simillimus amethysto;[222] Graeci enim purpuram porphyram vocant.

Coccineum pro rubro accipi forte non ignoras; sed cur faciat coccineum
cum nos dicamus coccum, et chlamys quod genus sit vestimenti, iurarem te
plane nescire.
Atque ut ne se[223] longius persequendo singulas vestes mendacem
proderet, uno semel verbo complexus est, dicens; “omnia imperialia
indumenta.” Quid! Etiamne illa quibus in bello, quibus in venatione, quibus
in conviviis, quibus in ludis amiciri solet? Quid stultius quam omnia
Caesaris indumenta dicere convenire pontifici?
Sed quam lepide addit; “Seu etiam dignitatem imperialium praesidentium
equitum”! “Seu” inquit. Distinguere duo haec invicem voluit, quasi multum
inter se habeant similitudinis, et de imperatorio habitu ad equestrem
dignitatem delabitur,[224] nescio quid loquens. Mira quaedam effari vult, sed
deprehendi in mendacio[225] timet, eoque inflatis buccis et turgido gutture
dat sine mente sonum.
“Conferentes ei etiam imperialia sceptra.” Quae structura orationis! Qui
nitor! Qui ordo! Quaenam sunt sceptra ista imperialia? Unum est sceptrum,
non plura; si modo sceptrum gerebat imperator. Num et pontifex sceptrum
manu gestabit? Cur non ei dabimus et ensem et galeam et iaculum?
“Simulque cuncta signa atque banna.” Quid tu “signa” accipis? Signa
sunt aut statuae, unde frequenter legimus signa et tabulas [See English page] pro
sculpturis ac picturis,—prisci enim non in parietibus pingebant, sed in
tabulis,—aut vexilla, unde illud; “Signa, pares aquilas.” A priore significato
sigilla dicuntur parvae statuae atque sculpturae. Num ergo statuas aut
aquilas suas Silvestro dabat Constantinus? Quid hoc absurdius? At “banna”
quid sibi velit, non invenio. Deus te perdat, improbissime mortalium, qui
sermonem barbarum attribuis saeculo erudito!
“Et diversa ornamenta imperialia.” Quia dixit “banna,” satis putavit
significatum esse, et ideo cetera sub verbum universale conclusit. Et quam
frequenter inculcat “imperalia”; quasi propria quaedam sint ornamenta
imperatoris magis quam consulis, quam dictatoris, quam Caesaris!

“Et omnem processionem imperialis culminis, et gloriam
potestatis nostrae.”
“Proicit ampullas et sesquipedalia verba,”

“Rex regum Darius, consanguineusque deorum,”

numquam nisi numero plurali loquens.[226] Quae est ista processio
imperialis; cucumeris per herbam torti, et crescentis[227] in ventrem?
Triumphasse existimas Caesarem quotiens domo prodibat, ut nunc solet
papa, praecedentibus albis equis, quos stratos ornatosque famuli dextrant;
quo, ut taceam alias ineptias, nihil est vanius, nihilque a pontifice Romano
alienius? Quae etiam ista gloria est? Gloriamne, ut Hebraeae linguae mos
est, pompam et apparatus illum splendorem homo Latinus appellasset? Ut
illud quoque militiam pro milites, quod ab Hebraeis sumus mutuati, quorum
libros Constantinus aut ipsius scribae numquam aspexerant?
Verum quanta est munificentia tua, Imperator, qui non satis habes
ornasse[228] pontificem, nisi ornes et omnem clerum! “Culmen [See English
page]
singularis potentiae et praecellentiae,” ais, “effici patricios, consules.”
Quis audivit senatores aliosve homines effici patricios? Consules
efficiuntur, non patricii;[229] ex domo vel patricia, quae eadem senatoria
dicitur, siquidem senatores patres conscripti sunt, vel ex equestri, vel ex
plebeia; plusque est senatorem esse quam patricium, nam senator est unus e
delectis consiliariis reipublicae, patricius[230] vero qui e domo senatoria
ortum ducit. Ita qui senator aut ex patribus conscriptis non protinus et
patricius[230] est. Ridiculeque Romani mei hoc tempore faciunt, qui
praetorem suum senatorem vocant, cum neque senatus ex uno homine
constare possit, necesseque sit senatorem habere collegas; et is[231] qui nunc
senator dicitur fungatur officio praetoris. At dignitas patriciatus in multis
libris invenitur, inquies. Audio: sed in his qui de temporibus post
Constantinum loquuntur. Ergo post Constantinum privilegium confectum
est.
Sed numquid clerici fieri consules possunt? Coniugio sibi interdixere
Latini clerici: et consules fient, habitoque delectu militum cum legionibus et
auxiliis in provincias, quas fuerint sortiti, se conferent? Ministrine et servi
consules fient?[232] Nec bini, ut solebat, sed centeni ac milleni ministri qui
Romanae ecclesiae servient, dignitate afficientur imperatoria? Et ego
stolidus mirabar quod papa effici diceretur! Ministri imperatores erunt;
clerici vero milites. Militesne clerici fient, aut militaria ornamenta
gestabunt, nisi imperialia ornamenta universis clericis impertis? Nam nescio

quid dicas. Et quis non videt hanc fabulam ab iis excogitatam esse, qui sibi
omnem vestiendi licentiam esse voluerunt? Ut existimem, [See English page] si
qua inter daemones qui aerem incolunt ludorum genera exercentur, eos
exprimendo clericorum cultu, fastu, luxu, exerceri, et hoc scaenici[233] lusus
genere maxime delectari.
Utrum magis insequar, sententiarum an verborum stoliditatem?
Sententiarum audistis. Verborum haec est; ut dicat senatum videri adornari,
quasi non utique adornetur, et quidem adornari gloria; et quod fit, factum
esse velit, ut “promulgavimus” pro promulgamus, illo enim modo sonat
iucundius oratio; et eandem rem per praesens et per praeteritum enuntiet,
velut “decernimus” et “decrevimus”; et omnia sint referta his vocibus,
“decernimus,” “decoramus,” “imperialis,” “imperatoria,” “potentia,”
“gloria”; et “exstat” pro est posuerit, cum “extare” sit supereminere, vel
superesse; et “nempe” pro scilicet; et “concubitores” pro contubernales.
“Concubitores” sunt qui concumbunt, et coeunt; nimirum scorta
intelligenda sunt. Addit, cum quibus dormiat, ne timeat, opinor, nocturna
phantasmata: addit cubicularios: addit hostiarios.
Non otiosum[234] est, quare haec ab eo minuta referuntur. Pupillum
instituit aut adolescentem filium, non senem; cui omnia quibus necesse
habet tenera aetas ipse velut amantissimus pater praeparat, ut David
Salomoni[235] fecit. Atque ut per omnes numeros fabula impleatur, dantur
clericis equi, ne asinario illo Christi more super asellos sedeant; et dantur
non operti sive instrati operimentis coloris albi, sed decorati colore albo. At
quibus operimentis! Non stragulis, non Babylonicis, aut quo alio genere,
sed “mappulis [See English page] et linteaminibus”! Mappae ad mensam
pertinent, linteamina ad lectulos. Et quasi dubium sit cuius sint haec coloris,
interpretatur; “id est candidissimo colore.” Dignus Constantino sermo,
digna Lactantio facundia, cum in ceteris, tum vero in illo “equos equitent”!
Et cum de vestitu senatorum nihil dixerit, non de laticlavo, non de
purpura, non de ceteris, de calceamentis sibi loquendum putavit; nec
lunulas appellavit, sed udones, sive “cum udonibus,” quos ut solet homo
ineptus exponit, “id est candido linteamine,” quasi udones linteamen sint!
Non occurrit impraesentiarum,[236] ubi repererim “udones,” nisi apud
Martialem Valerium, cuius disticon quod inscribitur “Udones Cilicii”[237]
hoc est:

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

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

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

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

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

Iterum interpretatur diadema; cum barbaris enim et obliviosis loquebatur;
et adicit “de auro purissimo,” ne forte aliquid aeris aut scoriae crederes
admixtum.[244] Et gemmas cum dixit, addit “pretiosas” eodem timore ne
viles forsitan suspicareris. Cur tamen non “pretiosissimas,” quemadmodum
“aurum purissimum”? Plus namque[245] interest inter gemmam et gemmam,
quam inter aurum et aurum. Et cum dicere debuisset distinctum gemmis,
dixit “ex gemmis.” Quis non vidit ex eo loco sumptum, quem princeps
gentilis non legerat; “Posuisti in capite eius coronam de lapide pretioso”?
Sic locutus[246] est Caesar vanitate quadam coronae suae iactandae, si modo
Caesares coronabantur, in se ipsum contumeliousus, [See English page] qui
vereretur ne homines opinarentur eum non gestare coronam ex auro
purissimo cum gemmis pretiosis, nisi indicasset?
Accipe causam cur sic loquatur; “pro honore beati Petri.” Quasi Christus
non sit summus angularis lapis, in quo templum ecclesiae constructum est,
sed Petrus; quod iterum postea facit. Quem si tantopere venerari volebat,
cur non templum episcopale illi potius quam Ioanni Baptistae Romae
dicavit?
Quid? Illa loquendi barbaries nonne testatur non saeculo Constantini, sed
posteriori, cantilenam hanc esse confictam? “Decernimus quod ... uti
debeant,”[247] pro eo quod est decernimus[248] ut utantur: sic nunc barbari
homines vulgo loquuntur et scribunt, “Iussi quod deberes venire,” pro eo
quod est, “Iussi ut venires”: et “decrevimus” et “concessimus,” quasi non
tunc fiant illa, sed alio quodam tempore facta sint.

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

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

[See English page]

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

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

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

constitutum decrevimus disponendas atque iuri sanctae Romanae
ecclesiae permanendas.”

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

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

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

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

[See English page]

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

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

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

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

Quam aequa, quam religiosa adiuratio! Non secus ac si lupus per
innocentiam et fidem obtestetur ceteros lupos atque pastores, ne oves, quas
sustulit interque filios et amicos partitus est, aut illi adimere, aut hi repetere
tentent. Quid tantopere extimescis, Constantine? Si opus tuum ex Deo non
est, dissolvetur: sin ex Deo, dissolvi non poterit. Sed video! Voluisti imitari
Apocalypsim ubi dicitur: “Contestor autem audienti omnia verba prophetiae

libri huius; si quis apposuerit ad haec, apponet Deus super illum plagas
scriptas in libro isto. Et si quis diminuerit de verbis libri prophetiae huius,
auferet Deus partem eius de libro vitae et de civitate sancta.” At tu
numquam legeras Apocalypsim, ergo non sunt haec verba tua.

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

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

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

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

O rem inauditam et incredibilem! Cum essem adolescentulus,
interrogasse me quendam[283] memini, quis librum Iob scripsisset; cumque
ille respondisset, “Ipse Iob,” tunc me subiunxisse, “Quo pacto igitur de sua
ipsius morte faceret mentionem?” Quod de multis aliis libris dici potest,
quorum ratio huic loco non convenit. Nam quomodo vere narrari potest id
quod nondum esset administratum, et in tabulis contineri id quod post
tabularum, ut sic [See English page] dicam, sepulturam factum esse ipse
fateatur? Hoc nihil aliud est quam paginam privilegii ante fuisse mortuam
sepultamque quam natam, nec tamen umquam a morte atque sepultura
reversam; praesertim antequam conscripta esset roboratam, nec id una
tantum sed utraque Caesaris manu. Et quid istud est roborare illam?
Chirographone Caesaris, aut anulo signatorio? Magnum nimirum robur,
maiusque multo quam si tabulis aereis mandavisset! Sed non est opus
scriptura aerea, cum super corpus beati Petri charta reponatur. Cur hic
Paulum retices, qui simul iacet cum Petro, et magis custodire possent ambo
quam si afforet tantummodo corpus unius?
Videtis artes malitiamque[284] nequissimi Sinonis. Quia donatio
Constantini doceri non potest, ideo non in tabulis aereis sed charteis
privilegium esse, ideo latere illud cum corpore sanctissimi apostoli dixit, ne
aut auderemus e venerabili sepulcro[285] inquirere, aut, si inquireremus,
carie absumptum putaremus. Sed ubi tunc erat corpus beati Petri? Certe
nondum in templo ubi nunc est, non in loco sane munito ac tuto. Ergo non
illic Caesar paginam collocasset. An beatissimo Silvestro paginam non
credebat, ut parum sancto, parum cauto, parum diligenti? O Petre, O
Silvester, O sancti[286] Romanae ecclesiae pontifices, quibus oves Domini
commissae sunt, cur vobis commissam paginam non custodistis?[287] Cur a
tineis illam rodi, cur situ tabescere passi estis? Opinor quia corpora quoque
vestra contabuerunt. Stulte igitur fecit Constantinus. En redacta in pulverem
pagina, ius simul privilegii in pulverem abiit!
Atqui, ut videmus, paginae exemplar ostenditur. Quis ergo illam de sinu
sanctissimi apostoli temerarius accepit? Nemo, ut reor, hoc fecit. Unde
porro exemplar?[288] Nimirum aliquis antiquorum [See English page] scriptorum
debet afferri, nec posterior Constantini temporibus. At is nullus affertur, sed
fortasse aliquis recens. Unde hic habuit? Quisquis enim de superiore aetate
historiam texit, aut Spiritu Sancto dictante loquitur, aut veterum scriptorum

et eorum quidem qui de sua aetate scripserunt sequitur auctoritatem. Quare
quicumque veteres non sequitur, is de illorum numero erit quibus ipsa
vetustas praebet audaciam mentiendi. Quod si quo in loco ista res legitur,
non aliter cum antiquitate consentit quam illa glossatoris[289] Accursii de
legatis Romanis ad leges accipiendas dimissis in Graeciam plusquam stulta
narratio cum Tito Livio aliisque praestantissimis scriptoribus convenit.

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

Diem posuit penultimum Martii ut sentiremus hoc factum esse sub
tempus sanctorum dierum, qui illo plerumque tempore solent esse. Et
Constantino quartum consule, et Gallicano quartum consule! Mirum si
uterque ter fuerat consul et in quarto consulatu forent collegae! Sed
mirandum magis Augustum leprosum elephantia, qui morbus inter ceteros
ut elephas inter beluas eminet, velle etiam accipere consulatum, cum rex
Azarias simul ac lepra tactus est in privato se continuerit, procuratione regni
ad Ionatam[291] filium relegata, ut fere omnes leprosi fecerunt! Quo uno
argumento totum prorsus privilegium confutatur, profligatur, evertitur. Ac
ne quis ambigat ante leprosum esse debuisse quam consulem, sciat et ex
medicina paulatim hunc morbum succrescere, et ex notitia [See English page]
antiquitatis consulatum iniri Ianuario mense magistratumque esse annuum,
et haec Martio proximo gesta referuntur.
Ubi neque hoc[292] silebo; in epistolis scribi solere “datum,” non autem in
ceteris, nisi apud indoctos. Dicuntur enim epistolae dari vel illi, vel ad
illum; illi quidem qui perfert ut puta tabellario, ut reddat et in manum
porrigat homini cui mittuntur; ad illum vero ut ei a perferente reddantur, hic
est is cui mittuntur.[293] Privilegium autem, ut aiunt, Constantini, quod reddi
alicui non debebat, nec dari debuit dici: ut appareat eum qui sic locutus est
mentitum esse, nec[294] scisse fingere quod Constantinum dixisse ac fecisse
verisimile esset. Cuius stultitiae atque vesaniae affines se ac socios faciunt
quicumque hunc vera dixisse existimant atque defendunt; licet nihil iam
habeant quo opinionem suam, non dico defendere, sed honeste excusare,
possint.

An honesta erroris excusatio est, cum patefactam videas veritatem, nolle
illi acquiescere quia nonnulli magni homines aliter senserint?[295] Magni,
inquam, dignitate, non sapientia nec virtute. Unde tantum[296] scis an illi
quos tu sequeris, si eadem audissent quae tu, mansuri in sententia fuerint, an
a sententia recessuri? Et nihilominus indignissimum est plus homini velle
tribuere quam veritati, id est Deo. Ita enim quidam omnibus defecti
rationibus solent mihi[297] respondere: Cur tot summi pontifices donationem
hanc veram esse crediderunt? Testificor vos, me vocatis quo nolo, et
invitum me maledicere summis pontificibus cogitis, quos magis in delictis
suis operire vellem. Sed pergamus ingenue loqui, quandoquidem aliter agi
nequit haec causa.
Ut fatear eos ita credidisse, et non malitia[298] fecisse; quid mirum [See
English page]
si ista crediderunt, ubi tantum lucri blanditur, cum plurima, ubi
nullum lucrum ostenditur, per insignem imperitiam credant? Nonne apud
Aram Coeli, in tam eximio templo et in loco maxime augusto,[299] cernimus
pictam fabulam Sibyllae et Octaviani, ut ferunt ex auctoritate Innocentii
tertii haec scribentis, qui etiam de ruina templi Pacis sub natale Salvatoris,
hoc est in partu Virginis, scriptum reliquit? Quae ad evertendam magis
fidem quia falsa, quam ad stabiliendam quia miranda sunt, pertinent.
Mentirine ob speciem[300] pietatis audet vicarius veritatis, et se scientem
hoc piaculo obstringere? An non mentitur? Immo vero a sanctissimis viris
se, cum hoc facit, dissentire non videt? Tacebo alios: Hieronymus Varronis
testimonio utitur, decem Sibyllas fuisse; quod opus Varro ante Augustum
condidit. Idem de templo Pacis ita scribit: “Vespasianus et Titus Romae
templo Pacis aedificato, vasa templi et universa donaria in delubro illius
consecrarunt, quae Graeca et Romana narrat historia.” Et hic unus indoctus
plus vult libello suo etiam barbare scripto credi quam fidelissimis veterum,
prudentissimorum hominum historiis!
Quia Hieronymum attigi, non patiar hanc contumeliam ipsius tacito[301]
praeteriri. Romae ex auctoritate papae ostenditur codex Bibliae,[302]
tamquam reliquiae sanctorum luminibus[303] semper accensis, quod
dicunt[304] scriptum chirographo Hieronymi. Quaeris argumentum? Quia
multum, ut inquit Virgilius, est pictai vestis et auri: res quae magis
Hieronymi manu indicat scriptum non esse. [See English page] Illum ego

diligentius inspectum comperi scriptum esse iussu regis, ut opinor, Roberti
chirographo hominis imperiti.
Huic simile est, quamquam decem millia huiusmodi Romae sunt, quod
inter religiosa demonstratur in tabella effigies Petri et Pauli, quam Silvester
Constantino ab eisdem apostolis in somnis admonito in confirmationem
visionis exhibuit. Non hoc dico quia negem effigies illas esse apostolorum
(utinamque tam vera esset epistola nomine Lentuli missa de effigie Christi,
quae non minus improbe ementita est quam privilegium quod
confutavimus!) sed quia tabella illa a Sylvestro non fuerit exhibita
Constantino; in quo non sustineo animi mei admirationem continere.
Disputabo enim aliquid de fabula Silvestri, quia et omnis in hoc quaestio
versatur, et mihi cum sermo sit cum pontificibus Romanis, de pontifice
Romano potissimum loqui decebit, ut ex uno exemplo facile aliorum
coniectura capiatur. Et ex multis ineptiis quae ibi narrantur unam tantum de
dracone attingam, ut doceam Constantinum non fuisse leprosum. Etenim
Gesta Silvestri ab Eusebio quodam Graeco homine, ut interpres testatur,
composita sunt,[305] quae natio ad mendacia semper promptissima[306] est,
ut Iuvenalis satirica[307] censura ait:

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

Unde draco ille venerat? Romae dracones non gignuntur. Unde etiam illi
venenum? In Africa tantum pestiferi dracones ob ardorem regionis esse
dicuntur. Unde praeterea tantum veneni [See English page] ut tam spatiosam
civitatem peste corrumperet, praesertim cum in tam alto specu demersus
esset, ad quem centum quinquaginta gradibus descenderetur? Serpentes,
excepto forsitan basilisco, non afflatu, sed morsu virus inspirant atque
interimunt. Nec Cato Caesarem fugiens cum tanta hominum manu per
medias Africae harenas, dum iter faceret ac dormiret, ullum suorum
comitum[308] serpentis afflatu vidit exstinctum; neque illi populi ob id
aerem sentiunt pestilentem. Et si quid fabulis credimus, et Chimaera et
Hydra et Cerberus sine noxa vulgo conspecti sunt ac tacti.
Adhuc quin eum Romani potius occidissent? Non poterant, inquis? At
multo grandiorem serpentem in Africa ad ripam Bagradae[309] Regulus

occidit. Hunc vero vel obstructo ore specus facile erat interimere. An
nolebant? Ita, opinor, pro deo colebant, ut Babylonii fecerunt. Cur ergo,
ut[310] Daniel illum dicitur occidisse, non et Silvester hunc potius occidisset,
quem[311] canabaceo filo alligasset, et domum illam in aeternum
perdidisset? Ideo commentator fabulae noluit draconem interimi, ne plane
Danielis narratio referri videretur. Quod si Hieronymus, vir doctissimus ac
fidelissimus interpres, Apollinarisque et Origenes atque Eusebius et
nonnulli alii narrationem Beli fictam esse affirmant, si eam Iudaei in Veteris
Instrumenti archetypo non agnoscunt; id est, si doctissimi quique
Latinorum, plerique Graecorum, singuli Hebraeorum illam ut fabulam
damnant, ego non hanc adumbratam ex illa damnabo, quae nullius scriptoris
auctoritate fulcitur, et quae magistram multo superat stultitia?
Nam quis beluae subterraneam domum aedificaverat? Quis illic eam
collocaverat, et ne prodiret atque avolaret (volant enim dracones, ut quidam
aiunt, etsi alii negant) imperaverat? Quis genus illud cibi excogitaverat?[312]
Quis feminas,[313] easque virgines ac [See English page] sanctimoniales,
descendere praeceperat, nec nisi Kalendis? An tenebat draco quis esset dies
Kalendarum? Et tam parco raroque erat cibo contentus? Nec virgines tam
altum specum, tam immanem et esurientem beluam exhorrebant? Credo,
blandiebatur eis draco, ut feminis, ut virginibus, ut cibaria afferentibus.
Credo, etiam cum illis fabulabatur. Quid ni, honore dicto, etiam coibat?
Nam et Alexander et Scipio ex draconis serpentisve cum matre concubitu
geniti dicuntur. Quid, denegato postea victu, non potius aut prodisset,[314]
aut fuisset exstinctus?
O miram hominum dementiam, qui his anilibus deliramentis fidem
habent! Iam vero quamdiu hoc factitatum est? Quando fieri[315] coeptum?
Ante adventum Salvatoris, an postea? Nihil horum scitur. Pudeat nos,
pudeat harum neniarum et levitatis plusquam inimicae.[316] Erubescat
Christianus homo, qui veritatis se ac lucis filium nominat, proloqui quae
non modo vera non sunt, sed nec verisimilia.
At enim inquiunt, hanc daemones potestatem in gentibus obtinebant, ut
eas diis servientes illuderent. Silete, imperitissimi[317] homines, ne dicam
sceleratissimos, qui fabulis vestris tale semper velamentum obtenditis! Non
desiderat sinceritas Christiana patrocinium falsitatis; satis per se, superque
sua ipsius luce ac veritate defenditur, sine istis commenticiis ac praestigiosis

fabellis, in Deum, in Christum, in Spiritum Sanctum contumeliosissimis.
Siccine Deus arbitrio daemonum[318] tradiderat genus humanum, ut tam
manifestis, tam imperiosis miraculis seducerentur;[319] ut propemodum
posset iniustitiae[320] accusari, qui oves lupis commisisset, et homines
magnam errorum suorum haberent excusationem? Quod si tantum olim
licebat daemonibus, et nunc apud infideles vel magis liceret; quod minime
videmus, nec ullae ab eis huiusmodi fabulae proferuntur.
Tacebo de aliis populis; dicam de Romanis, apud quos paucissima
miracula feruntur, eaque vetusta atque incerta. Valerius [See English page]
Maximus ait hiatum illum terrae in medio foro, cum se in eum Curtius
armatum adacto equo immisisset, iterum coisse inque pristinam formam
continuo revertisse. Item Iunonem Monetam, cum a quodam milite Romano
captis Veiis per iocum interrogata esset, an Romam migrare vellet,
respondisse velle.
Quorum neutrum Titus Livius sentit et prior auctor et gravior. Nam et
hiatum permansisse vult, nec tam fuisse subitum quam vetustum, etiam ante
conditam urbem, appellatumque Curtium lacum quod in eo delituisset
Curtius Mettius Sabinus Romanorum fugiens impressionem; et Iunonem
annuisse, non respondisse, adiectumque fabulae postea vocem reddidisse.
Atque de nutu quoque palam est illos esse mentitos, vel quod motum
simulacri, avellebant autem illud, interpretati sunt sua sponte esse factum,
vel qua lascivia hostilem et victam et lapideam deam interrogabant, eadem
lascivia annuisse finxerunt. Tametsi Livius[321] inquit non annuisse, sed
milites quod annuisset exclamasse. Quae tamen boni scriptores non
defendunt facta, sed dicta excusant. Nam prout idem Livius ait; “Datur
haec[322] venia antiquitati, ut miscendo humana divinis primordia urbium
augustiora faciat.” Et alibi: “Sed in rebus tam antiquis si qua similia veri
sunt pro veris accipiantur, satis habeam. Haec[323] ad ostentationem scenae
gaudentis miraculis aptiora quam ad fidem; neque affirmare neque refellere
est operae pretium.”[324]
Terentius Varro, his duobus et prior et doctior et, ut sentio, gravior auctor,
ait triplicem historiam de lacu Curtio a totidem auctoribus proditam; unam a
Proculo, quod is lacus ita sit appellatus [See English page] a Curtio, qui se in
eum deiecit; alteram a Pisone, quod a Mettio Sabino; tertiam a Cornelio,

cuius rei socium addit Luctatium, quod a Curtio consule, cui collega fuit M.
Genutius.[325]
Neque vero dissimulaverim Valerium non plane posse reprehendi quod
ita loquatur, cum paulo post graviter et severe subiciat: “Nec me praeterit de
motu et voce deorum immortalium humanis oculis auribusque percepto,
quam in ancipiti opinione aestimatio versetur. Sed quia non nova dicuntur,
sed tradita repetuntur, fidem auctores vendicent.” De voce deorum dixit
propter Iunonem Monetam et propter simulacrum Fortunae, quod bis
locutum fingitur his verbis: “Rite me, matronae, vidistis,[326] rite
dedicastis.”
At vero nostri fabulatores passim inducunt idola loquentia, quod ipsi
gentiles et idolorum cultores non dicunt et sincerius negant quam Christiani
affirmant. Apud illos[327] paucissima miracula non fide auctorum, sed veluti
sacra quadam ac religiosa vetustatis commendatione nituntur; apud istos
recentiora quaedam narrantur, quae illorum homines temporum nescierunt.
[328]

Neque ego admirationi sanctorum derogo, nec ipsorum divina opera
abnuo,[329] cum sciam tantum fidei quantum est granum sinapis[330] montes
etiam posse transferre. Immo defendo illa ac tueor, sed misceri cum fabulis
non sino. Nec persuaderi possum hos[331] scriptores alios fuisse quam aut
infideles, qui hoc agerent in derisum Christianorum, si haec figmenta per
dolosos homines in [See English page] manus imperitorum delata acciperentur
pro veris, aut fideles habentes quidem aemulationem Dei, sed non
secundum scientiam,[332] qui non modo de gestis sanctorum, verum etiam
Dei genetricis atque adeo Christi improba quaedam et[333] pseudevangelia
scribere non reformidarunt. Et summus pontifex hos libros appellat
apocryphos, quasi nihil vitii sit[334] quod eorum ignoratur auctor, quasi
credibilia sint quae narrantur, quasi sancta et ad confirmationem religionis
pertinentia; ut iam non minus culpae sit penes hunc qui mala probat quam
penes illum qui mala excogitavit. Nummos reprobos discernimus,
separamus, abicimus;[335] doctrinam reprobam non discernemus, sed
retinebimus, sed cum bona miscebimus, sed pro bona defendemus?
Ego vero, ut ingenue[336] feram sententiam, Gesta Silvestri nego esse
apocrypha, quia, ut dixi, Eusebius quidam fertur auctor; sed falsa atque

indigna quae legantur existimo cum in aliis tum vero in alio[337] quod
narratur de dracone, de tauro, de lepra, propter quam refutandam tanta
repetii. Neque enim si Naaman leprosus fuit, continuo et Constantinum
leprosum fuisse dicemus? De illo multi auctores meminerunt, de hoc
principe orbis terrarum nemo ne suorum quidem civium scripsit, nisi nescio
quis alienigena, cui non aliter habenda est fides quam alteri cuidam de
vespis intra nares Vespasiani nidificantibus, et de rana partu a Nerone
emissa, unde Lateranum vocitatum locum dicunt, quod ibi rana lateat in
sepulcro: quod nec vespae ipsae nec ranae, si loqui possent, [See English page]
dixissent;[338] nisi ad deos Capitolinos hoc referunt, quasi illi loqui
consuessent et hoc fieri iussissent.[339]
Sed quid mirer haec non intelligere pontifices, cum nomen ignorent
suum! Cephas enim dicunt vocari Petrum quia caput apostolorum esset,
tamquam hoc vocabulum sit Graecum ἀπὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς,[340] et non
Hebraicum, seu[341] potius Syriacum, quod Graeci κηφᾶς[342] scribunt, quod
apud eos interpretatur Petrus, non caput. Est enim “petrus,” et “petra,”
Graecum vocabulum, stulteque per etymologiam Latinam exponitur petra,
quasi pede trita. Et metropolitanum ab archiepiscopo distinguunt[343]
voluntque illum a mensura civitatis dictum, cum Graece dicatur non
μετρόπολις sed μητρόπολις,[344] id est mater-civitas sive urbs;[345] et
patriarcham quasi patrem patrum; et papam ab interiectione pape dictum; et
fidem orthodoxam quasi rectae gloriae; et Simonem media correpta, cum
legendum sit media longa, ut Platonem et Catonem;[346] et multa similia
quae transeo, ne culpa aliquorum omnes summos pontifices videar insectari.
Haec dicta sint, ut nemo miretur si donationem Constantini
commenticiam[347] fuisse papae multi non potuerunt deprehendere, tametsi
ab aliquo eorum ortam esse hanc fallaciam reor.

At dicitis, cur Imperatores, quorum detrimento res ista cedebat,
donationem Constantini non negant, sed fatentur, affirmant, conservant? [See
English page]
Ingens argumentum; mirifica defensio! Nam de quo tu loqueris
Imperatore? Si de Graeco, qui verus fuit Imperator, negabo confessionem:
si de Latino, libenter etiam confitebor. Etenim quis nescit Imperatorem
Latinum gratis factum esse a summo pontifice, ut opinor Stephano, qui
Graecum Imperatorem, quod auxilium non ferret Italiae, privavit,

Latinumque fecit; ita ut plura Imperator a papa quam papa ab Imperatore
acciperet? Sane Troianas opes quibusdam pactionibus soli Achilles et
Patroclus inter se partiti sunt! Quod etiam mihi videntur indicare
Ludovici[348] verba, cum ait; “Ego Ludovicus, Imperator Romanus
Augustus, statuo et concedo per hoc pactum confirmationis nostrae tibi
beato Petro, principi apostolorum, et per te vicario tuo domino Paschali[349]
summo pontifici et successoribus eius in perpetuum,[350] sicut a
praedecessoribus[351] nostris usque nunc in vestra potestate et dicione[352]
tenuistis, Romanam civitatem cum ducatu suo et suburbanis atque viculis
omnibus et territoriis eius montanis atque maritimis litoribus et portubus,
seu cunctis civitatibus, castellis, oppidis ac villis in Tusciae partibus.”[353]
Tune, Ludovice, cum Paschale pacisceris? Si tua, id est Imperii Romani,
sunt ista, cur alteri concedis? Si ipsius et ab eo[354] possidentur, quid attinet
te illa confirmare? Quantulum etiam ex Imperio Romano tuum erit, si caput
ipsum Imperii amisisti? A Roma dicitur Romanus Imperator. Quid, cetera
quae possides tuane an Paschalis sunt? Credo tua dices. Nihil ergo valet
donatio Constantini, si ab eo pontifici donata tu possides. Si valet, quo iure
Paschalis tibi cetera remittit, retentis tantum sibi quae possidet? Quid sibi
vult tanta, aut tua in illum, aut illius in te de Imperio Romano largitio?
Merito igitur pactum appellas, quasi quandam collusionem.
[See English page]

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

quae nec teneo nec habiturum esse me spero. De iure papae
inquirere non ad me pertinet, sed ad Constantinopolitanum illum[359]
Augustum.”

Iam apud me excusatus es, Ludovice, et quisquis alius princeps[360] es
Ludovici similis. Quid de aliorum Imperatorum cum summis pontificibus
pactione suspicandum est, cum sciamus quid Sigismundus fecerit, princeps
alioqui[361] optimus ac fortissimus, sed iam affecta aetate minus fortis,
quem per Italiam paucis stipatoribus saeptum in diem vivere vidimus
Romae etiam fame periturum, nisi eum, sed non gratis—extorsit enim
donationem—Eugenius pavisset! Is cum Romam venisset ut pro Imperatore
Romanorum coronaretur, non aliter a papa coronari potuit, quam[362]
Constantini donationem ratam haberet eademque omnia de integro donaret.
Quid magis contrarium quam pro Imperatore Romano[363] coronari qui
Romae ipsi renuntiasset, et coronari ab illo quem et confiteatur et, quantum
in se est, dominum Romani Imperii faciat, ac ratam [See English page] habere
donationem, quae vera si sit, nihil Imperatori de Imperio reliqui fiat? Quod,
ut arbitror, nec pueri fecissent. Quominus mirum si papa sibi arrogat
Caesaris coronationem, quae populi Romani esse deberet.
Si tu, papa, et potes Graecum Imperatorem privare Italia
provinciisque[364] occidentis, et Latinum Imperatorem facis, cur pactionibus
uteris; cur bona Caesaris partiris; cur in te Imperium[365] transfers?
Quare sciat, quisquis est qui dicitur[366] Imperator Romanorum, me
iudice se non esse nec Augustum, nec Caesarem, nec Imperatorem, nisi
Romae imperium teneat; et nisi operam det ut urbem Romam recuperet,
plane esse periurum. Nam Caesares illi priores, quorum fuit primus
Constantinus, non adigebantur iusiurandum interponere quo nunc Caesares
obstringuntur, sed quantum humana ope praestari potest, nihil imminuturos
esse de amplitudine Imperii Romani, eamque sedulo adaucturos.
Non ea re tamen vocati[367] Augusti, quod Imperium augere deberent, ut
aliqui sentiunt Latinae linguae imperiti, est enim Augustus quasi sacer ab
avium gustu dictus, quae in auspiciis adhiberi solebant, Graecorum quoque
testante lingua, apud quos Augustus σεβαστός[368] dicitur, unde Sebastia
vocata. Melius summus pontifex ab augendo Augustus diceretur, nisi quod

dum temporalia auget, spiritualia minuit. Itaque videas ut quisque pessimus
est summorum pontificum, ita maxime defendendae huic donationi
incumbere; qualis Bonifacius octavus, qui Caelestinum tubis parieti insertis
decepit. Hic et de donatione Constantini scribit et regem Franciae[369]
privavit, regnumque ipsum, quasi donationem Constantini [See English page]
exsequi vellet, ecclesiae Romanae fuisse et esse subiectum iudicavit; quod
statim successores eius, Benedictus et Clemens, ut improbum iniustumque
revocarunt.
Verum quid sibi vult ista vestra, pontifices Romani, sollicitudo quod a
singulis Imperatoribus donationem Constantini exigitis confirmari, nisi
quod iuri diffiditis vestro? Sed laterem lavatis, ut dicitur; nam neque illa
umquam fuit, et quod non est confirmari non potest; et quicquid donant
Caesares, decepti exemplo Constantini faciunt, et donare Imperium
nequeunt.

Age vero, demus Constantinum donasse Silvestrumque aliquando
possedisse, sed postea vel ipsum, vel aliquem ipsorum[370] a possessione
deiectum. (Loquor nunc de his quae papa non possidet; postea loquar de his
quae possidet.) Quid possum vobis magis dare quam ut ea quae nec fuerunt
nec esse potuerunt fuisse concedam? Tamen[371] dico vos nec iure divino
nec iure humano ad recuperationem agere posse. In lege veteri Hebraeus
supra sextum annum Hebraeo servire vetabatur, et quinquagesimo[372]
quoque anno omnia redibant ad pristinum dominum. Tempore gratiae
Christianus a vicario Christi, redemptoris nostrae servitutis, premetur
servitio aeterno? Quid dicam! Revocabitur ad servitutem postquam liber
factus est diuque potitus libertate?
Sileo quam saevus, quam vehemens, quam barbarus dominatus
frequenter est sacerdotum; quod si antea ignorabatur, nuper est cognitum ex
monstro illo atque portento, Ioanne Vitellesco, cardinale et patriarcha, qui
gladium Petri quo auriculam Malcho abscidit in Christianorum sanguine
lassavit; quo gladio et ipse [See English page] periit. An vero populis Israel a
domo David et Salomonis, quos prophetae a Deo missi unxerant, tamen
propter graviora onera desciscere licuit, factumque eorum Deus probavit;
nobis ob tantam tyrannidem desciscere non licebit, ab his praesertim qui

nec sunt reges, nec esse possunt, et qui de pastoribus ovium, id est
animarum, facti sunt fures ac latrones?
Et, ut ad ius humanum veniam, quis ignorat nullum ius esse bellorum; aut
si quod est, tamdiu valere quamdiu possideas quae bello parasti? Nam cum
possessionem perdis, et ius perdidisti; ideoque captivos, si fugerint, nemo
ad iudicem repetere solet; etiam nec praedas,[373] si eas priores domini
receperint. Apes et quaedam alia volucrum genera, si e privato meo longius
evolaverint et in alieno desederint, repeti non queunt. Tu homines, non
modo liberum animal, sed dominum ceterorum, si se in libertatem manu et
armis asserant, non manu et armis repetes, sed iure, quasi tu homo sis, illi
pecudes.
Neque est quod dicas: Romani iuste bella nationibus intulerunt, iusteque
libertate illas exuerunt. Noli me ad istam vocare quaestionem,[374] ne quid
in Romanos meos cogar dicere; quamquam nullum crimen tam grave esse
potuit ut aeternam mererentur populi servitutem; cum eo quod saepe culpa
principis, magnive alicuius in republica civis, bella gesserunt, et victi
immerita servitutis poena affecti sunt; quorum exemplis plena sunt omnia.
Neque vero lege naturae comparatum est, ut populus sibi populum
subigat. Praecipere aliis eosque exhortari possumus; imperare illis ac vim
afferre non possumus, nisi relicta humanitate velimus ferociores beluas
imitari, quae sanguinarium in infirmiores imperium exercent, ut leo in
quadrupedes, aquila in volucres, delphinus in pisces. Verumtamen hae
beluae non in suum genus [See English page] sibi ius vindicant,[375] sed in
inferius. Quod quanto magis faciendum nobis est, et homo homini religioni
habendus, cum, ut M. Fabius inquit, nulla supra terras adeo rabiosa belua,
cui non imago sua sancta sit.
Itaque quattuor fere causae sunt ob quas bella inferuntur: aut ob
ulciscendam iniuriam defendendosque amicos; aut timore accipiendae
postea calamitatis, si vires aliorum augeri sinantur; aut spe praedae; aut
gloriae cupiditate; quarum prima nonnihil honesta, secunda parum, duae
posteriores nequaquam honestae sunt. Et Romanis quidem illata fuere bella
frequenter, sed postquam se defenderant, et illis et aliis ipsi intulerunt; nec
ulla gens est quae dicioni eorum cesserit, nisi bello victa et domita, quam
recte aut qua causa, ipsi viderint. Eos ego nolim nec damnare, tamquam
iniuste pugnaverint, nec absolvere tamquam iuste; tantum dicam eadem

ratione Romanos ceteris bella intulisse qua reliqui populi regesque, atque
ipsis qui hello lacessiti victique sunt licuisse deficere a Romanis, ut ab aliis
dominis defecerunt; ne forte, quod nemo diceret, imperia omnia ad
vetustissimos illos, qui primi domini fuere, id est, qui primi praeripuere
aliena, referantur.
Et tamen melius in victis bello nationibus populo Romano quam
Caesaribus rempublicam opprimentibus ius est. Quocirca si fas erat
gentibus a Constantino, et quod multo plus est a populo Romano desciscere,
profecto et ab eo ius erit cuicumque cesserit ille ius suum. Atque, ut
audacius agam, si Romanis licebat Constantinum aut exigere ut Tarquinium,
aut occidere ut Iulium Caesarem, multo magis eum vel Romanis vel
provinciis licebit occidere qui in locum Constantini utcumque successit.
Hoc etsi verum, tamen ultra causam meam est, et idcirco[376] me reprimere
volo nec aliud ex his colligere quae dixi, nisi ineptum esse, ubi [See English
page]
armorum vis est, ibi ius quemque afferre verborum; quia quod armis
acquiritur, idem rursus armis amittitur.
Eo quidem magis, quod aliae novae gentes, ut de Gothis accepimus, quae
numquam sub imperio Romano fuerunt, fugatis veteribus incolis, Italiam et
multas provincias occuparunt, quas in servitutem revocari in qua numquam
fuerunt, quae tandem aequitas est, praesertim victrices, et fortasse a victis?
Quo tempore, si quae urbes ac nationes, ut factum fuisse scimus, ab
Imperatore desertae ad barbarorum adventum necesse habuerunt deligere
sibi regem, sub cuius auspiciis victoriam reportarunt, numquid hunc postea
a principatu deponerent; aut eius filios, tum commendatione patris, tum
propria virtute favorabiles iuberent esse privatos, ut iterum sub Romano
principe essent, maxime cum eorum opera assidue indigerent, et nullum
aliunde auxilium sperarent? Hos[377] si Caesar ipse, aut Constantinus ad
vitam reversus, aut etiam senatus populusque Romanus ad commune
iudicium, quale in Graecia Amphictyonum[378] fuit, vocaret, prima statim
actione repelleretur, quod a se olim custode desertos, quod tamdiu[379] sub
alio principe degentes, quod numquam alienigenae regi subditos, quod
denique homines libertati natos et in libertatem robore animi corporisque
assertos, ad famulatum servitiumque reposceret. Ut appareat, si Caesar, si
populus Romanus a repetendo exclusus est, multo vehementius papam esse
exclusum! Et si licet aliis nationibus quae sub Roma fuerunt, aut regem sibi

creare, aut rempublicam tenere, multo magis id licere populo Romano,
praecipue adversus novam papae tyrannidem.

Exclusi a defendenda donatione adversarii, quod nec umquam fuit et si
qua fuisset iam temporum conditione intercidisset, confugiunt ad alterum
genus defensionis, et velut relicta urbe in [See English page] arcem se recipiunt,
quam statim deficientibus cibariis dedere cogentur. Praescripsit, inquiunt,
Romana ecclesia in iis[380] quae possidet. Cur ergo, quae maior pars est, ea
reposcit, in quibus non praescripsit, et in quibus alii praescripserunt? Nisi id
non licet aliis in hanc, quod huic licet in alios.
Praescripsit Romana ecclesia! Cur ergo ab Imperatoribus totiens curat
sibi ius confirmandum? Cur donationem confirmationemque Caesarum
iactat? Si hoc unum satis est, iniuriam ei facis si de altero quoque iure non
sileas. Cur igitur de altero non siles? Nempe quia hoc sibi non sufficit.
Praescripsit Romana ecclesia! Et quomodo potest praescripsisse ubi de
nullo titulo sed de malefidei[381] possessione constat; aut, si malefidei
possessionem neges, profecto stultae fidei negare non possis? An in tanta re
tamque aperta excusata debet esse et iuris et facti ignorantia? Facti quidem,
quod Romam provinciasque non dedit Constantinus, quod ignorare idiotae
hominis est, non summi pontificis; iuris autem, quod illa nec donari potuere
nec accipi, quod nescire vix Christiani est. Itane stulta credulitas dabit tibi
ius in his quae, si prudentior fores, tua numquam fuissent? Quid! Nonne
nunc saltem, postquam te per ignorantiam atque stultitiam possedisse docui,
ius istud, si quod erat, amittes, et quod inscitia male contulerat tibi, nonne id
rursum cognitio bene adimet, mancipiumque ab iniusto ad iustum dominum
revertetur, fortassis etiam cum usufructu? Quod si adhuc possidere pergis,
iam inscitia in malitiam[382] fraudemque conversa est, planeque effectus
es[383] malefidei possessor.
Praescripsit Romana ecclesia! O imperiti, O divini iuris ignari! [See English
page]
Nullus quantusvis[384] annorum numerus verum abolere titulum potest.
An vero captus ego a barbaris, creditusque perisse,[385] post centum annos
quibus captivus fui, postliminio reversus paternae hereditatis repetitor
excludar? Quid hac re inhumanius? Atque, ut aliquod afferam exemplum,
num Jephte, dux Israel, reposcentibus filiis Ammon terram “a finibus Arnon

usque in Iaboc atque in Iordanem” respondit, “Praescripsit Israel iam per
trecentos annos?” An quod numquam illorum, sed Amorreorum fuisset terra
quam reposcerent ostendit; et hoc argumentum esse, ad Ammonitas[386]
illam non pertinere, quod numquam intra tot annorum curriculum
repoposcissent?
Praescripsit Romana ecclesia! Tace, nefaria lingua! Praescriptionem,
quae fit de rebus mutis et irrationabilibus, ad hominem transfers, cuius quo
diuturnior in servitute possessio eo est detestabilior? Aves ac ferae in se
praescribi nolunt, sed quantolibet tempore possessae, cum libuerit et oblata
fuerit occasio, abeunt: homini ab homine possesso abire non licebit?[387]
Accipe unde magis fraus dolusque quam ignorantia Romanorum
pontificum appareat utentium iudice bello non iure; cui simile quiddam
primos pontifices in occupanda urbe ceterisque oppidis credo fecisse.
Parum ante me natum, testor eorum memoriam qui interfuerunt, per
inauditum genus fraudis Roma papale accepit imperium seu tyrannidem
potius, cum diu libera fuisset. Is fuit Bonifacius nonus, octavo in fraude
ut[388] in nomine par, si modo Bonifacii[389] dicendi sunt qui pessime
faciunt. Et cum Romani deprehenso dolo apud se indignarentur, bonus[390]
papa in morem Tarquinii summa quaeque papavera virga decussit. Quod
cum postea, qui ei successit, Innocentius imitari vellet, urbe fugatus [See
English page]
est. De aliis pontificibus nolo dicere, qui Romam vi semper
oppressam armisque tenuerunt; licet, quotiens potuit, rebellavit; ut sexto
abhinc anno, cum pacem ab Eugenio obtinere non posset, nec par[391] esset
hostibus qui earn obsidebant, et ipsa papam intra aedes obsedit, non
permissura illum abire priusquam aut pacem cum hostibus faceret aut
administrationem civitatis relegaret ad cives. At ille maluit urbem deserere
dissimulato habitu uno fugae comite, quam civibus gratificari iusta et aequa
petentibus. Quibus si des electionem, quis ignorat libertatem magis quam
servitium electuros?
Idem suspicari libet de ceteris urbibus quae a summo pontifice in
servitute retinentur, per quem a servitute liberari debuissent. Longum esset
recensere quot urbes ex hostibus captas populus Romanus olim liberas fecit,
adeo ut Titus Flaminius omnem Graeciam, quae sub Antiocho fuisset,
liberam esse et suis uti legibus iuberet. At papa, ut videre licet, insidiatur
sedulo libertati populorum; ideoque vicissim illi quotidie oblata facultate

(ad Bononiam modo respice) rebellant. Qui si quando sponte, quod evenire
potest aliquo aliunde periculo urgente, in papale imperium concenserunt,
non ita accipiendum est concensisse, ut servos se facerent; ut numquam
subtrahere a iugo colla possent; ut postea nati non et ipsi arbitrium sui
habeant; nam hoc iniquissimum foret.

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

Sed quid plura opus est in re apertissima dicere? Ego non modo
Constantinum non donasse tanta, non modo non potuisse Romanum
pontificem in eisdem praescribere, sed etiam si utrumque esset, tamen
utrumque ius sceleribus possessorum exstinctum esse contendo, cum

videamus totius Italiae multarumque provinciarum cladem ac vastitatem[396]
ex hoc uno fonte fluxisse. Si fons [See English page] amarus est, et rivus; si
radix immunda, et rami; si delibatio sancta non est, nec massa. Ita e diverso,
si rivus amarus, fons obstruendus est; si rami immundi, e radice vitium
venit; si massa sancta non est, delibatio quoque abominanda[397] est. An
possumus principium potentiae papalis pro iure proferre, quod tantorum
scelerum tantorumque omnis generis malorum cernimus esse causam?
Quamobrem dico, et exclamo, neque enim timebo homines, Deo fretus;
neminem mea aetate in summo pontificatu fuisse aut fidelem dispensatorem
aut prudentem; qui tantum abest ut dederit familiae Dei cibum, ut devorarit
illam velut cibum et escam panis.[398] Papa et ipse bella pacatis populis
infert, et inter civitates principesque discordias ferit. Papa et alienas sitit
opes, et suas exsorbet,[399] ut Achilles in Agamemnonem, Δημοβόρος
βασιλεύς,[400] id est populi vexator rex.[401] Papa non modo rempublicam,
quod non Verres, non Catilina, non quispiam peculator auderet, sed etiam
rem ecclesiasticam et Spiritum Sanctum quaestui[402] habet, quod Simon
ille Magus etiam detestaretur. Et cum horum admonetur, et a quibusdam
bonis viris reprehenditur, non negat, sed palam fatetur, atque gloriatur licere
enim[403] quavis ratione patrimonium ecclesiae a Constantino donatum ab
occupantibus extorquere; quasi eo recuperato religio Christiana futura sit
beata,—et non magis omnibus flagitiis, luxuriis libidinibusque oppressa, si
modo opprimi magis potest, et ullus est sceleri ulterior locus!
Ut igitur recuperet cetera membra donationis, male ereptas a bonis viris
pecunias peius effundit, militumque equestres pedestresque copias, quibus
omnia infestantur, alit, cum Christus in tot millibus pauperum fame ac
nuditate moriatur. Nec intelligit, O [See English page] indignum facinus! cum
ipse saecularibus auferre[404] quae ipsorum sunt laborat, illos vicissim sive
pessimo exemplo induci, sive necessitate cogi, licet non est vera necessitas,
ad auferenda quae sunt ecclesiasticorum. Nulla itaque usquam religio, nulla
sanctitas, nullus Dei timor; et quod referens quoque horresco, omnium
scelerum impii homines a papa sumunt excusationem. In illo enim
comitibusque eius est[405] omnis facinoris exemplum, ut cum Esaia et
Paulo, in papam et papae proximos dicere possumus: “Nomen Dei per vos
blasphematur inter gentes. Qui alios docetis, vos ipsos non docetis; qui
praedicatis non furandum, latrocinamini; qui abominamini idola,

sacrilegium facitis; qui in lege et in pontificatu gloriamini, per
praevaricationem legis Deum verum pontificem inhonoratis.”
Quod si populus Romanus ob nimias opes veram illam Romanitatem
perdidit, si Salomon ob eandem causam in idolatriam amore feminarum
lapsus est, nonne idem putamus fieri in summo pontifice ac reliquis
clericis? Et postea putamus Deum fuisse permissurum ut materiam peccandi
Silvester acciperet? Non patiar hanc iniuriam fieri sanctissimo viro; non
feram hanc contumeliam fieri[406] pontifici optimo, ut dicatur imperia,
regna, provincias accepisse, quibus renuntiare[407] etiam solent qui clerici
fieri volunt. Pauca possedit Silvester, pauca ceterique sancti pontifices,
quorum aspectus apud hostes quoque erat sacrosanctus; veluti illius Leonis,
qui trucem barbari regis animum terruit ac fregit, quem Romanae vires
nec[408] frangere nec terrere potuerant. Recentes vero summi pontifices, id
est divitiis ac deliciis[409] affluentes, id videntur laborare, ut quantum prisci
fuere sapientes et sancti, tantum ipsi et impii sint et stulti, et illorum
egregias laudes omnibus probris [See English page] vincant. Haec quis
Christiani nominis queat aequo animo ferre?
Verum ego in hac prima nostra oratione nolo exhortari principes ac
populos, ut papam effrenato cursu volitantem inhibeant eumque intra suos
fines consistere compellant, sed tantum admoneant, qui forsitan iam edoctus
veritatem, sua sponte ab aliena domo in suam, et ab insanis fluctibus
saevisque tempestatibus in portum se recipiet. Sin recuset, tunc ad alteram
orationem multo truculentiorem accingemur. Utinam, utinam aliquando
videam, nec enim mihi quicquam est longius quam hoc videre, et praesertim
meo consilio effectum, ut papa tantum vicarius Christi sit, et non etiam
Caesaris; nec amplius horrenda vox audiatur: “Partes ecclesiae,” “Partes
contra ecclesiam,” “Ecclesia contra Perusinos pugnat,” “contra
Bononienses!” Non contra Christianos pugnat ecclesia, sed papa; illa
pugnat contra spiritualia nequitiae in caelestibus. Tunc papa et dicetur et erit
Pater Sanctus, pater omnium, pater ecclesiae; nec bella inter Christianos
excitabit, sed ab aliis excitata censura apostolica et papali maiestate sedabit.
[410]

FOOTNOTES

[8] Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Aemilius Friedberg, Leipsic, 1879, vol. I, p.
342.
[9] The subject of cc. xi and xii is; Imperatores debent Pontificibus subesse,
non preesse. [Ed.]
[10] De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione is the title Valla gave
his work; cf. letter to Guarini from Naples in November, 1443; Epistolae
principum (Venice, 1574), p. 356; also Barozzi e Sabbadini, Studii sul Panormita
e sul Valla (Florence, 1891), p. 93. In L. Valla Opera (Basle, 1543), p. 762, the
title runs, Contra Donationis, quae Constantini dicitur, privilegia, ut falso
creditum declamatio.
No title appears with the text of Codex Vaticanus Lat. 5314. The title in Ulrich
von Hutten’s edition inserts patricii Romani after Vallensis. The treatise is also
frequently entitled libellus or oratio instead of declamatio.
[11] principum; Cod. Vat. Urb. 337 (containing a few fragments of this
treatise). Hutten.
[12] execratione; Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314, so throughout.
[13] Cod. Vat. Urb. 337. relinquit; Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314. reliquerit; Hutten.
[14] sacerdotem; Cod. Vat. Urb. 337, Hutten.
[15] caeteri; Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314 (hereafter referred to as MS.), so throughout.
[16] obverberari (instead of os verberari); Hutten.
[17] quippiam; Hutten.
[18] coelestem; MS., so throughout.
[19] Hutten. sit; MS.
[20] Omit eum; Hutten.
[21] heretico; MS.
[22] quempiam; Hutten.
[23] nunquis; MS., so throughout.
[24] expectare; MS., Hutten, so throughout.
[25] quodnam ... crimen; Hutten.
[26] vero; Hutten.
[27] commentitiam; MS.
[28] minis; Hutten.
[29] Hyspanias; MS., so throughout.
[30] accaepturus; MS., so throughout.
[31] Pontifici a quo baptismum; Bonneau.
[32] Hutten. MS. omits in.
[33] quorumdam; MS., so throughout.
[34] posse; Hutten.

[35] in in; MS. error.
[36] Hutten. concione; MS., so throughout.
[37] nunquid; MS., so throughout.
[38] Omit duobus; Hutten.
[39] iocundius; MS., so throughout.
[40] diesque; Hutten.
[41] charissima; MS., so throughout.
[42] detestantibusque; Hutten.
[43] coelum; MS., so throughout.
[44] quottidie; MS.
[45] amicis; Hutten.
[46] hi; Hutten.
[47] his; Hutten.
[48] Hebreis; MS., so throughout.
[49] minorem; Hutten.
[50] Neeman; MS., so throughout.
[51] altero; MS. error.
[52] Insert loquar; Bonneau.
[53] coepit; MS.
[54] lavatum; Hutten.
[55] lachrimisque; MS., so throughout.
[56] exhaeredas; MS.
[57] relegamur; MS.
[58] phana; MS.
[59] destituimur; Hutten.
[60] provintiis; MS.
[61] praefuturi fuimus; Hutten. praefecturi sumus; Bonneau. praefecturi
fuimus; Schard.
[62] insert vel; Hutten.
[63] extirpatam; MS., so throughout.
[64] partum; Hutten.
[65] qui; Hutten.
[66] es; Hutten.
[67] praesidiis; Hutten.
[68] comunes; MS., so throughout.

[69] provintiae; MS.
[70] initium; Hutten.
[71] tribunitii; MS.
[72] tanquam; MS., so throughout.
[73] Omit nostrae; Hutten.
[74] Carthaginenses; MS.
[75] foeminae; MS.
[76] provintias; MS.
[77] Bonneau. praefecimus; MS., Hutten.
[78] coges; Hutten.
[79] Insert occupavit; Hutten. Insert occupanti; Bonneau.
[80] tibi; Hutten.
[81] Tarquinum; MS.
[82] videtur; Hutten.
[83] suspitio; MS.
[84] discedere; Hutten.
[85] unquam; MS., so throughout.
[86] Apparently se was omitted, or it has dropped out of the text.
[87] ovem; Hutten, Bonneau.
[88] assentiar; Hutten.
[89] possum; Hutten.
[90] Ihesum; MS., so throughout.
[91] Insert a; Hutten.
[92] Omit reges; MS., an error.
[93] praecaepta; MS., so throughout.
[94] negociorum; MS., so throughout.
[95] haec; Hutten.
[96] Blank space for the Greek word, followed apparently by its transcription,
clerus; MS. Hutten reads dominatus for clerus, and terrenus for terrena in the
following line. Bonneau has divina after the Greek word.
[97] idem; Hutten.
[98] reliquerunt; MS.
[99] Eius; Hutten.
[100] prophanum; MS., so throughout.
[101] frequenter; Hutten.
[102] haec; Hutten.

[103] ipsius; Hutten. suum; Bonneau.
[104] Omit in; Hutten.
[105] duriciam; MS.
[106] de rebus controversis; Hutten.
[107] quodcunque; MS., so throughout.
[108] dignationem; Hutten.
[109] ferri; Hutten.
[110] blasfement; MS., so throughout.
[111] charissimos; MS.
[112] Insert est; Bonneau (as in Vulgate).
[113] Omit ut iam; Hutten. in hoc, instead of ut iam; Bonneau.
[114] in; Hutten.
[115] acceptatam; Hutten.
[116] Bonneau omits acceptatum ... non fuisse.
[117] iuste; Hutten.
[118] avariciam; MS.
[119] tabulis; Hutten.
[120] haec ... solent; Hutten.
[121] circunduxit; MS.
[122] Hispanias; Hutten.
[123] Hutten. gratulabantur; MS.
[124] hi; Hutten.
[125] This sentence is omitted by Hutten.
[126] aliquis; Hutten.
[127] sedicionem; MS.
[128] fecem; MS.
[129] ulcionem; MS.
[130] hybernis; MS.
[131] ediles; MS.
[132] Moedorum; MS.
[133] enim; Hutten.
[134] at; Hutten.
[135] Hutten. sufficiet; MS.
[136] diaconus; Hutten.
[137] imperatorque; Hutten.

[138] The clauses, qui fuit ... idolorum cultu, are not in the original text of
Eutropius.
[139] Eutropius, Bonneau. Claudium propontum, thelesium; MS. Claudium
propontum Telestinum; Hutten. Caudium Propontum Telesinum; Schard. Valla
makes omissions in this and in the preceding sentence from Eutropius.
[140] Insert qui; Hutten.
[141] Omit licet; Hutten.
[142] Faelicis; MS.
[143] Archadium; MS.
[144] Proho; MS. Proh; Hutten.
[145] laetale; MS., Hutten.
[146] Hutten. Constantino; MS. error.
[147] Ruffinus; MS.
[148] pene; MS., Hutten.
[149] insert ad; Hutten.
[150] Insert sub; Hutten.
[151] Bonneau. non; MS. qui non in dubium vocari; Hutten. qui in dubium
vocari; Schard.
[152] codicibus; Hutten.
[153] Lodoici; MS.
[154] ad; Hutten.
[155] ut; Hutten.
[156] nauci; Hutten, Bonneau.
[157] utimini; Hutten.
[158] Gelatium; MS., so throughout.
[159] Omit Is ... legi; Hutten, evidently copyist’s error.
[160] secuntur; MS.
[161] duntaxat; MS.
[162] Sybillini; MS.
[163] collumnis; MS.
[164] Hutten. christianos; MS.
[165] in; Hutten, Bonneau.
[166] papiro; MS.
[167] committis; Hutten.
[168] in urbe Roma; Hutten. in tota urbe Romana; Bonneau.
[169] incipit; Bonneau.

[170] satrapas; Hutten, so throughout.
[171] adiuncto (instead of aut iuncto); Hutten, Bonneau.
[172] quatuor; MS., so throughout.
[173] nominantur; Hutten.
[174] Bonneau omits Romane ... populos.
[175] pontifex; Hutten, Bonneau.
[176] non; Hutten, Bonneau.
[177] hi; Hutten, Bonneau.
[178] infaelix; MS., so throughout.
[179] exaltare; Hutten.
[180] Formiane; MS.
[181] elegis; Hutten, Bonneau.
[182] exaltare; Hutten.
[183] dignitatem; Hutten.
[184] Hutten, Bonneau. disponatur; MS. error.
[185] Bizantium; MS., so in many places.
[186] Hutten, Bonneau. confitentur; MS. error.
[187] Atqui; Hutten. Atque; Bonneau.
[188] Hutten omits Byzantiam ... nomine.
[189] Trachia; MS., so throughout.
[190] extruxerat; MS.
[191] comunem; MS.
[192] Getulos; MS.
[193] Hutten. nominetur; MS.
[194] Siccine; MS.
[195] exequitur; MS., so throughout.
[196] extinctis; MS., so throughout.
[197] igitur, instead of tu ideo; Hutten. te omnino omisisse; Bonneau.
[198] circundare; MS.
[199] Hutten. clamydem; MS.
[200] revendissimis; MS., an error.
[201] patritios; MS.
[202] Hutten. hostiariorum; MS.
[203] adornatur; Hutten.
[204] decrevimus; Hutten.

[205] blasfemiam; MS.
[206] paciens; MS., so throughout.
[207] convertentur; Hutten, Bonneau.
[208] Pharisei; MS.
[209] Hutten, Bonneau. Omit cum; MS.
[210] patescet; MS.
[211] cognosceret; Hutten, Bonneau.
[212] solicitudinibus; MS.
[213] Menechinis; MS.
[214] Hutten. frygionem; MS.
[215] Correct form is phrygionias. Bonneau omits this whole sentence.
[216] fuerunt; Hutten.
[217] significet; Hutten.
[218] loro circumdari collum; Bonneau.
[219] Insert aut canem; Hutten, Bonneau.
[220] chlamidem; MS., so below.
[221] porphiritum; MS.
[222] amethisto; MS.
[223] si; Hutten.
[224] dilabitur; Hutten, Bonneau.
[225] mendatio; MS.
[226] loqueris; Hutten, Bonneau.
[227] cresentis; MS.
[228] Insert summum; Hutten.
[229] patritii; MS.
[230] patritius; MS.
[231] Hutten, Bonneau. iis; MS.
[232] fiant; Hutten. faciunt; Bonneau. Add aut militaria ornamenta; Hutten,
Bonneau.
[233] scenici; MS.
[234] ociosum; MS.
[235] Hutten, Bonneau. Salomon; MS.
[236] inpraesentiarum; MS.
[237] Bonneau. Cilicini; MS., Hutten.
[238] Bonneau. Cyniphio; MS., Hutten.

[239] terrestria; Hutten, Bonneau. The quotation, to correspond with Valla’s
earlier citation, should be “ita caelestia sicut terrena ad laudem Dei decorentur.”
[240] deficiet; Hutten, Bonneau. Insert alias deficient; Bonneau.
[241] prae; Hutten, Bonneau.
[242] concessimus; Bonneau, Zeumer’s text of the Constitutum Constantini.
[243] preciosis; MS., so below.
[244] Hutten. admistum; MS.
[245] nanque; MS.
[246] loqutus; MS., so throughout.
[247] Decrevimus hoc ut ... uti debeant, is the correct quotation from the
Constitutum Constantini. Decrevimus quod uti debeant; Hutten.
[248] decrevimus; MS., Hutten.
[249] eodo; MS.
[250] representari; MS.
[251] Hutten. misteria; MS. ministeria; Bonneau.
[252] libris; Bonneau.
[253] qui; Bonneau.
[254] Moysem; MS.
[255] Omit ut; Hutten, Zeumer’s text of the Constitutum Constantini.
[256] provintias; MS.
[257] calceo; MS., an error.
[258] Insert ornamenta; Hutten.
[259] provintias; MS., so below.
[260] Omit non; Bonneau.
[261] Omit Nam ... erant; Bonneau.
[262] numero; MS., an error.
[263] cathalogo; MS.
[264] descirptos; MS.
[265] permanendas in the passage as quoted above by Valla. The form used
varies in different texts of the Donation; permansurum, permanenda,
permanendam, permanendas.
[266] Bonneau includes as part of this quotation the next quoted passage
below, quoniam ... potestatem. He repeats it in its proper place without quotation
marks.
[267] Schard. Italiam; MS., Hutten.
[268] urbis; Hutten, Bonneau.
[269] desisti; MS.

[270] Insert scripturam; Hutten, Bonneau.
[271] firmavimus; Hutten. confirmamus; Bonneau. confirmavimus; Zeumer’s
text of the Constitutum Constantini.
[272] et; MS.
[273] coeno; MS.
[274] peribit; Hutten.
[275] quod tu summo Deo; Hutten. quod tu Summo Pontifici; Bonneau.
[276] Hutten, Bonneau. praecipit; MS.
[277] Omit obtestamur; MS., an error.
[278] nunc instead of nec non; Bonneau, Zeumer’s text of the Constitutum
Constantini.
[279] imposterum; MS.
[280] Hutten, Bonneau, Zeumer’s text of the Constitutum Constantini. Omit
non; MS.
[281] insert Caesaris aut; Hutten, Bonneau.
[282] existimat; Hutten.
[283] quemdam; MS.
[284] maliciamque; MS.
[285] sepulchro; MS.
[286] sanctae; Hutten, Bonneau.
[287] custoditis; Hutten, Bonneau.
[288] Hutten’s text omits two sentences, “Nemo ... exemplar.”
[289] glosatoris; MS.
[290] Kalendarum; Bonneau. Kalendarum Apriliarum; Zeumer’s text of the
Constitutum Constantini.
[291] Joathan; Bonneau.
[292] Omit hoc; Hutten, Bonneau.
[293] Omit ad illum vero ... is cui mittuntur; Hutten, Bonneau.
[294] ne; MS.
[295] senserunt; Hutten.
[296] tamen; Hutten.
[297] Omit mihi; Hutten.
[298] malicia; MS.
[299] Hutten. angusto; MS.
[300] Insert veritatis; Hutten.
[301] tacite; Hutten.

[302] bybliae; MS.
[303] luminaribus; Hutten.
[304] Hutten, Bonneau. dicant; MS.
[305] Hutten, Bonneau. est; MS.
[306] prumptissima; MS.
[307] satyrica; MS.
[308] ullum sociorum ac comitum suorum; Hutten.
[309] Bonneau. Bragadae; MS., Hutten.
[310] Insert olim and omit illum; Hutten, Bonneau.
[311] quin; Hutten, Bonneau.
[312] Instead of the two preceding sentences, Bonneau has; Volant enim
dracones; imperite eum cuius genus illud sit excogitaverat.
[313] foeminas; MS., so throughout.
[314] prodiisset; MS.
[315] fuit; Hutten.
[316] mimicae; Bonneau.
[317] impudentissimi; Hutten.
[318] demonum; MS.
[319] seduceretur; Hutten, Bonneau.
[320] iniusticiae; MS.
[321] Hutten, Bonneau. illius; MS.
[322] Omit haec; Hutten.
[323] hec; MS.
[324] opereprecium; MS. operepretium; Hutten.
[325] Hutten. Genuitius; MS. Bonneau omits this sentence Terentius Varro ...
M. Genutius.
[326] dedistis; Valerius Maximus, factorum et dictorum memorabilium, lib. i,
viii, 4.
[327] Bonneau. istos; MS., Hutten.
[328] nescirent; Bonneau.
[329] inficior; Bonneau.
[330] synapis; MS.
[331] horum; Bonneau.
[332] aemulationem si non scientiam; Bonneau.
[333] Omit improba quaedam et; Bonneau.
[334] Insert nisi; Bonneau.

[335] abiicimus; MS.
[336] Omit ut; Hutten. ingenuam; Hutten, Bonneau.
[337] illo; Hutten. eo; Bonneau.
[338] Bonneau inserts Transeo quod cruorem puerorum ad curationem leprae
facere dicunt, quod medicina non confitetur.
[339] iusissent; MS.
[340] Hutten, Bonneau. απὸ τοῦ κεφαλι; MS.
[341] sed; Hutten, Bonneau.
[342] κηφας; MS. κηφύς; Hutten. Κεφάς; Bonneau.
[343] Hutten, Bonneau. distingunt; MS.
[344] Bonneau. Metropolis sed Mitropolis; MS. metropolis, sed μητροπόλις;
Hutten.
[345] civitatis sive urbis; Hutten, Bonneau.
[346] Insert ita legendum Simonem; Hutten.
[347] commentitiam; MS.
[348] Lodoici; MS., so throughout.
[349] Pascali; MS., so throughout.
[350] imperpetuum; MS.
[351] predecessoribus; MS.
[352] ditione; MS.
[353] Insert et cetera; Hutten.
[354] ipso; Hutten.
[355] voluerit; Hutten, Bonneau.
[356] tamen; Hutten, Bonneau.
[357] aut; Hutten, Bonneau.
[358] false; MS.
[359] Omit illum; Hutten, Bonneau.
[360] Omit princeps; Hutten.
[361] alioquin; MS.
[362] Insert ut; Hutten, Bonneau.
[363] Omit Romano; Hutten.
[364] provintiisque; MS.
[365] Insert non; Bonneau.
[366] Omit qui dicitur; Hutten.
[367] vocantur; Bonneau.
[368] MS. leaves blank. σεβασός; Hutten.

[369] Insert regno; Bonneau.
[370] ipsius successorum; Bonneau.
[371] tantum; MS.
[372] quinquagessimo; MS.
[373] predas; MS., so throughout.
[374] questionem; MS.
[375] vendicant; MS.
[376] iccirco; MS.
[377] hoc; Hutten, Bonneau.
[378] Amphitrionum; MS., Hutten.
[379] tandiu; MS., Hutten.
[380] his; Hutten, Bonneau.
[381] malae fidei; Hutten, Bonneau, so below.
[382] maliciam; MS.
[383] est; MS.
[384] quantumvis; Hutten, Bonneau, so throughout.
[385] periisse; Hutten, Bonneau, so throughout.
[386] Amonitas; MS.
[387] licet; Hutten.
[388] et, instead of ut in; Hutten, Bonneau.
[389] bonifatii; MS.
[390] Bonifacius; Hutten, Bonneau.
[391] pax; Hutten, Bonneau.
[392] illa; Hutten, Bonneau.
[393] exhauristi; MS.
[394] non must have dropt out of the text.
[395] Hutten, Bonneau. tonantem; MS.
[396] vastitate; MS.
[397] abhominanda; MS., so throughout.
[398] ut dederit familiae cibum, et escam panis; Hutten. donaret, instead of
devorarit; Bonneau.
[399] exorbet; MS.
[400] MS. leaves blank space for the Greek words.
[401] Omit id est populi vexator rex; Hutten. populi vorator, omitting id est
and rex; Bonneau.
[402] questui; MS.

[403] ei; Bonneau.
[404] aufferre; MS.
[405] esse; MS.
[406] Bonneau omits sanctissimo ... fieri.
[407] renunciare; MS.
[408] Hutten, Bonneau. Omit nec; MS.
[409] delitiis; MS.
[410] MS. bears postscript; Finis septimo Idus Decembris, Mccccli. Laus Deo.

[See Latin page]

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

PART ONE. DIVISION XCVI.

[PALEA[411]

CHAPTER XIII. CONCERNING THE SAME.[412]

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

[PALEA.

C. XIV. CONCERNING THE SAME.

The Emperor Constantine the fourth day after his baptism conferred this
privilege on the Pontiff of the Roman church, that in the whole Roman
world priests should regard him as [See Latin page] their head, as judges do the
king. In this privilege among other things is this: “We—together with all
our satraps, and the whole senate and my nobles, and also all the people
subject to the government of glorious Rome—considered it advisable, that
as the Blessed Peter is seen to have been constituted vicar of the Son of God
on the earth, so the Pontiffs who are the representatives of that same chief
of the apostles, should obtain from us and our empire the power of a

supremacy greater than the clemency of our earthly imperial serenity is seen
to have conceded to it, choosing that same chief of the apostles and his
vicars to be our constant intercessors with God. And to the extent of our
earthly imperial power, we have decreed that his holy Roman church shall
be honored with veneration, and that more than our empire and earthly
throne the most sacred seat of the Blessed Peter shall be gloriously exalted,
we giving to it power, and dignity of glory, and vigor, and honor imperial.
And we ordain and decree that he shall have the supremacy as well over the
four principal seats, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, as
also over all the churches of God in the whole earth. And the Pontiff, who at
the time shall be at the head of the holy Roman church itself, shall be more
exalted than, and chief over, all the priests of the whole world, and
according to his judgment everything which is provided for the service of
God and for the stability of the faith of Christians is to be administered. And
below: §. 1. On the churches of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, for the
providing of the lights, we have conferred landed estates of possessions,
and have enriched them with different objects, and through our sacred
imperial mandate we have granted him of our property in the east as well as
in the west, and even in the northern and the southern quarter; namely, in
Judea, Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa, and Italy and the various islands; under
this condition indeed, that all shall be administered by the hand of our most
blessed father the supreme Pontiff, Sylvester, and his successors. And
below: §. 2. And to our Father, the Blessed Sylvester, supreme Pontiff and
Pope universal, of the city of Rome, and to all the Pontiffs, his successors,
who shall sit [See Latin page] in the seat of the Blessed Peter even unto the end
of the world, we by this present do give our imperial Lateran palace, then
the diadem, that is, the crown of our head, and at the same time the tiara and
also the shoulder-band,—that is, the strap that usually surrounds our
imperial neck; and also the purple mantle and scarlet tunic, and all the
imperial raiment; and also the same rank as those presiding over the
imperial cavalry, conferring also even the imperial scepters, and at the same
time all the standards, and banners, and the different ornaments, and all the
pomp of our imperial eminence, and the glory of our power. §. 3. We decree
moreover, as to the most reverend men, the clergy of different orders who
serve that same holy Roman church, that they have that same eminence,
distinction, power and excellence, by the glory of which it seems proper for
our most illustrious senate to be adorned; that is, that they be made

patricians and consuls, and also we have proclaimed that they be decorated
with the other imperial dignities. And even as the imperial militia is
adorned, so also we decree that the clergy of the holy Roman church be
adorned. And even as the imperial power is adorned with different offices,
of chamberlains, indeed, and door-keepers, and all the guards, so we wish
the holy Roman church also to be decorated. And in order that the pontifical
glory may shine forth most fully, we decree this also; that the horses of the
clergy of this same holy Roman church be decorated with saddle-cloths and
linens, that is, of the whitest color, and that they are to so ride. And even as
our senate uses shoes with felt socks, that is, distinguished by white linen,
so the clergy also should use them, so that, even as the celestial orders, so
also the terrestrial may be adorned to the glory of God. §. 4. Above all
things, moreover, we give permission to that same most holy one our Father
Sylvester and to his successors, from our edict, that he may make priest
whomever he wishes, according to his own pleasure and counsel, and enroll
him in the number of the religious clergy [i.e., regular, or monastic, clergy;
or, perhaps, the cardinals], let no one whomsoever presume to act in a
domineering way in this. §. 5. We also therefore decreed this, that he
himself and his successors [See Latin page] might use and bear upon their heads
—to the praise of God for the honor of the Blessed Peter—the diadem, that
is, the crown which we have granted him from our own head, of purest gold
and precious gems. But since he himself, the most blessed Pope, did not at
all allow that crown of gold to be used over the clerical crown which he
wears to the glory of the Blessed Peter, we placed upon his most holy head,
with our own hands, a glittering tiara of dazzling white representing the
Lord’s resurrection, and holding the bridle of his horse, out of reverence for
the Blessed Peter, we performed for him the duty of groom, decreeing that
all his successors, and they alone, use this same tiara in processions in
imitation of our power. §. 6. Wherefore, in order that the supreme
pontificate may not deteriorate, but may rather be adorned with glory and
power even more than is the dignity of an earthly rule; behold, we give over
and relinquish to the aforesaid our most blessed Pontiff, Sylvester, the
universal Pope, as well our palace, as has been said, as also the city of
Rome, and all the provinces, places and cities of Italy and the western
regions, and we decree by this our godlike and pragmatic sanction that they
are to be controlled by him and by his successors, and we grant that they
shall remain under the law of the holy Roman church. §. 7. Wherefore we

have perceived it to be fitting that our empire and the power of our kingdom
should be transferred in the regions of the East, and that in the province of
Byzantia, in the most fitting place, a city should be built in our name, and
that our empire should there be established, for where the supremacy of
priests and the head of the Christian religion has been established by the
heavenly Emperor, it is not right that there an earthly emperor should have
jurisdiction. §. 8. We decree, moreover, that all these things, which through
this our sacred imperial [charter] and through other godlike decrees we have
established and confirmed, remain inviolate and unshaken unto the end of
the world. Wherefore, before the living God who commanded us to reign,
and in the face of his terrible judgment, we entreat, through this our
imperial sanction, all the emperors our successors, and all the nobles, the
satraps also, the most glorious senate, and all the [See Latin page] people in the
whole world, now and in all times still[413] to come subject to our rule, that
no one of them in any way be allowed either to break these [decrees], or in
any way overthrow them. If any one, moreover,—which we do not believe
—prove a scorner or despiser in this matter, he shall be subject and bound
over to eternal damnation, and shall feel the holy ones of God, the chief of
the apostles, Peter and Paul, opposed to him in the present and in the future
life, and he shall be burned in the lower hell and shall perish with the devil
and all the impious. The page, moreover, of this our imperial decree, we,
confirming it with our own hands, did place above the venerable body of
the Blessed Peter, chief of the apostles. Given at Rome on the third day
before the Kalends of April, our master the august Flavius Constantine, for
the fourth time, and Gallicanus, most illustrious men, being consuls.”]

[See Latin page]

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

But there is no reason why this awful, twofold peril should trouble me
and turn me from my purpose; for the supreme pontiff may not bind nor
loose any one contrary to law and justice. And to give one’s life in defense
of truth and justice is the path of the highest virtue, the highest honor, the
highest reward. Have not many undergone the hazard of death for the
defense of their terrestrial fatherland? In the attainment of the celestial
fatherland (they attain it who please God, not men), shall I be deterred by
the hazard of death? Away then with trepidation, let fears far remove, let
doubts pass away. With a brave soul, with utter fidelity, with good hope, the
cause of truth must be defended, the cause of justice, the cause of God.
Nor is he to be esteemed a true orator who knows how to speak well,
unless he also has the courage to speak. So let us have the courage to accuse
him, whoever he is, that commits crimes calling for accusation. And let him
who sins against all be called to account by the voice of one speaking for
all. Yet perhaps I ought not to reprove my brother in public, but by himself.
Rather, “Them that sin” and do not accept private admonition “rebuke
before all, that others also may fear.”[415] Or did not Paul, whose [See Latin
page]
words I have just used, reprove Peter to his face in the presence of the
church because he needed reproof? And he left this written for our
instruction. But perhaps I am not a Paul that I should reprove a Peter. Yea, I
am a Paul because I imitate Paul. Just as, and this is far greater, I become
one in spirit with God when I diligently observe his commandments. Nor is
any one made immune from chiding by an eminence which did not make
Peter immune, and many others possessed of the same rank; for instance,
Marcellus,[416] who offered a libation to the gods, and Celestine [I] who
entertained the Nestorian heresy, and certain even within our own memory
whom we know were reproved, to say nothing of those condemned, by their
inferiors, for who is not inferior to the Pope?[417]
It is not my aim to inveigh against any one and write so-called Philippics
against him—be that villainy far from me—but to root out error from men’s
minds, to free them from vices and crimes by either admonition or reproof.
I would not dare to say [that my aim is] that others, taught by me, should
prune with steel the papal see, which is Christ’s vineyard, rank with
overabundant shoots, and compel it to bear rich grapes instead of meager
wildings. When I do that, is there any one who will want to close either my
mouth or his own ears, much less propose punishment and death? If one

should do so, even if it were the Pope, what should I call him, a good
shepherd, or a deaf viper which would not choose to heed the voice of the
charmer, but to strike his limbs with its poisonous bite?
I know that for a long time now men’s ears are waiting to hear the
offense with which I charge the Roman pontiffs. It is, indeed, an enormous
one, due either to supine ignorance, or to gross avarice which is the slave of
idols, or to pride of empire of which cruelty is ever the companion. For
during some centuries now, either they have not known that the Donation of
Constantine is spurious and forged, or else they themselves forged it, and
their successors walking in the same way of deceit as their elders [See Latin
page]
have defended as true what they knew to be false, dishonoring the
majesty of the pontificate, dishonoring the memory of ancient pontiffs,
dishonoring the Christian religion, confounding everything with murders,
disasters and crimes. They say the city of Rome is theirs, theirs the kingdom
of Sicily and of Naples,[418] the whole of Italy, the Gauls, the Spains, the
Germans, the Britons, indeed the whole West; for all these are contained in
the instrument of the Donation itself.[419] So all these are yours, supreme
pontiff? And it is your purpose to recover them all? To despoil all kings and
princes of the West of their cities or compel them to pay you a yearly
tribute, is that your plan?
I, on the contrary, think it fairer to let the princes despoil you of all the
empire you hold. For, as I shall show, that Donation whence the supreme
pontiffs will have their right derived was unknown equally to Sylvester and
to Constantine.
But before I come to the refutation of the instrument of the Donation,
which is their one defense, not only false but even stupid, the right order
demands that I go further back. And first, I shall show that Constantine and
Sylvester were not such men that the former would choose to give, would
have the legal right to give, or would have it in his power to give those
lands to another, or that the latter would be willing to accept them or could
legally have done so. In the second place, if this were not so, though it is
absolutely true and obvious, [I shall show that in fact] the latter did not
receive nor the former give possession of what is said to have been granted,
but that it always remained under the sway and empire of the Caesars. In
the third place, [I shall show that] nothing was given to Sylvester by

Constantine, but to an earlier Pope (and Constantine had received baptism
even before that pontificate), and that the grants were inconsiderable, [See
Latin page]
for the mere subsistence of the Pope. Fourth, that it is not true
either that a copy of the Donation is found in the Decretum [of Gratian], or
that it was taken from the History of Sylvester; for it is not found in it or in
any history, and it is comprised of contradictions, impossibilities,
stupidities, barbarisms and absurdities. Further, I shall speak of the
pretended or mock donation of certain other Caesars. Then by way of
redundance I shall add that even had Sylvester taken possession,
nevertheless, he or some other pontiff having been dispossessed, possession
could not be resumed after such a long interval under either divine or
human law. Last [I shall show] that the possessions which are now held by
the supreme pontiff could not, in any length of time, be validated by
prescription.
And so to take up the first point, let us speak first of Constantine, then of
Sylvester.

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

kingdoms, and to extend your authority as far and wide as possible? In this,
as it seems to me, all your care, all your thought, all your labor, night and
day is expended. From this comes your chief hope of glory, for this you
renounce pleasures; for this you subject yourselves to a thousand dangers;
for this your dearest pledges, for this your own flesh you sacrifice with
serenity. Indeed, I have neither heard nor read of any of you having been
deterred from an attempt to extend his empire by loss of an eye, a hand, a
leg, or any other member. Nay, this very ardor and this thirst for wide
dominion is such that whoever is most powerful, him it thus torments and
stirs the most. Alexander, not content to have traversed on foot the deserts
of Libya, to have conquered the Orient to the farthest ocean, to have
mastered the North, amid so much bloodshed, so many perils, his soldiers
already mutinous and crying out against such long, such hard campaigns,
seemed to himself to have accomplished nothing unless either by force or
by the power of his name he should have made the West also, and all
nations, tributary to him. I put it too mildly; he had already determined to
cross the ocean, and if there was any other world, to explore it and subject it
to his will. He would have tried, I think, last of all to ascend the heavens.
Some such wish all kings have, even though not all are so bold. I pass over
the thought how many crimes, how many horrors have been committed to
attain and extend power, for brothers do not restrain their wicked hands
from the stain of brothers’ blood, nor sons from the blood of parents, nor
parents from the blood of sons. Indeed, nowhere is man’s recklessness apt
to run riot further nor more viciously. And to your astonishment, you see the
minds of old men no less eager in this than the minds of young men,
childless men no less eager than parents, kings than usurpers.
But if domination is usually sought with such great resolution, how much
greater must be the resolution to preserve it! For it is by no means so
discreditable not to increase an empire as to impair it, nor is it so shameful
not to annex another’s kingdom to your own as for your own to be annexed
to another’s. And when [See Latin page] we read of men being put in charge of
a kingdom or of cities by some king or by the people, this is not done in the
case of the chief or the greatest portion of the empire, but in the case of the
last and least, as it were, and that with the understanding that the recipient
should always recognize the donor as his sovereign and himself as an agent.

Now I ask, do they not seem of a base and most ignoble mind who
suppose that Constantine gave away the better part of his empire? I say
nothing of Rome, Italy, and the rest, but the Gauls where he had waged war
in person, where for a long time he had been sole master, where he had laid
the foundations of his glory and his empire! A man who through thirst for
dominion had waged war against nations, and attacking friends and
relatives in civil strife had taken the government from them, who had to
deal with remnants of an opposing faction not yet completely mastered and
overthrown; who waged war with many nations not only by inclination and
in the hope of fame and empire but by very necessity, for he was harassed
every day by the barbarians; who had many sons, relatives and associates;
who knew that the Senate and the Roman people would oppose this act;
who had experienced the instability of conquered nations and their
rebellions at nearly every change of ruler at Rome; who remembered that
after the manner of other Caesars he had come into power, not by the choice
of the Senate and the consent of the populace, but by armed warfare; what
incentive could there be so strong and urgent that he would ignore all this
and choose to display such prodigality?
They say, it was because he had become a Christian. Would he therefore
renounce the best part of his empire? I suppose it was a crime, an outrage, a
felony, to reign after that, and that a kingdom was incompatible with the
Christian religion! Those who live in adultery, those who have grown rich
by usury, those who possess goods which belong to another, they after
baptism are wont to restore the stolen wife, the stolen money, the stolen
goods. If this be your idea, Constantine, you must restore your cities to
liberty, not change their master. But that did not enter into the [See Latin page]
case; you were led to do as you did solely for the glory of your religion. As
though it were more religious to lay down a kingdom than to administer it
for the maintenance of religion! For so far as it concerns the recipients, that
Donation will be neither honorable nor useful to them. But if you want to
show yourself a Christian, to display your piety, to further the cause, I do
not say of the Roman church, but of the Church of God, now of all times act
the prince, so that you may fight for those who cannot and ought not to
fight, so that by your authority you may safeguard those who are exposed to
plots and injuries. To Nebuchadnezzar, to Cyrus, to Ahasuerus, and to many
other princes, by the will of God, the mystery of the truth was revealed; but
of none of them did God demand that he should resign his government, that

he should give away part of his kingdom, but only that he should give the
Hebrews their liberty and protect them from their aggressive neighbors.
This was enough for the Jews; it will be enough for the Christians also. You
have become a Christian, Constantine? Then it is most unseemly for you
now as a Christian emperor to have less sovereignty than you had as an
infidel. For sovereignty is an especial gift of God, to which even the gentile
sovereigns are supposed to be chosen by God.
But he was cured of leprosy! Probably, therefore, he would have wished
to show his gratitude and give back a larger measure than he had received.
Indeed! Naaman the Syrian, cured by Elisha, wished merely to present gifts,
not the half of his goods, and would Constantine have presented the half of
his empire? I regret to reply to this shameless story as though it were
undoubted and historical, for it is a reflection of the story of Naaman and
Elisha; just as that other story about the dragon is a reflection of the
fabulous dragon of Bel.[420] But yielding this point, is [See Latin page] there in
this story any mention made of a “donation”? Not at all. But of this, more
later.
He was cured of leprosy? He took on therefore a Christian spirit; he was
imbued with the fear of God, with the love of God; he wished to honor him.
Nevertheless I cannot be persuaded that he wished to give away so much;
for, so far as I see, no one, either pagan, in honor of the gods, or believer, in
honor of the living God, has resigned his empire and given it to priests. In
sooth, of the kings of Israel none could be brought to permit his people to
go, according to the former custom, to sacrifice at the temple in Jerusalem;
for fear lest, moved by that solemn religious ceremony and by the majesty
of the temple, they should return to the king of Judah from whom they had
revolted. And how much more is Constantine represented to have done!
And that you may not flatter yourself with the cure of leprosy, [let me say
that] Jeroboam was the first one chosen by God to be king of Israel and
indeed from a very low estate, which to my mind is more than being healed
of leprosy; nevertheless he did not presume to entrust his kingdom to God.
And will you have Constantine give to God a kingdom which he had not
received from him, and that, too, when he would offend his sons (which
was not the case with Jeroboam), humiliate his friends, ignore his relatives,
injure his country, plunge everybody into grief, and forget his own interests!

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

“Is it thus that you, a father hitherto most affectionate toward
your sons, despoil your sons, disinherit them, disown them? We do
not complain of the fact that you choose to divest yourself of the
best and largest part of the empire so much as we wonder at [See Latin
page]
it. But we do complain that you give it to others to our loss and
shame. Why do you defraud your children of their expected
succession to the empire, you who yourself reigned in partnership
with your father? What have we done to you? By what disloyalty to
you, to our country, to the Roman name or the majesty of the
empire, are we deemed to deserve to be deprived of the chiefest and
best part of our principality; that we should be banished from our
paternal home, from the sight of our native land, from the air we are
used to, from our ancient ties! Shall we leave our household gods,
our shrines, our tombs, exiles, to live we know not where, nor in
what part of the earth?
“And we, your kindred, your friends, who have stood so often
with you in line of battle, who have seen brothers, fathers, sons,
pierced and writhing under hostile sword, and have not been
dismayed at the death of others, but were ourselves ready to seek
death for your sake, why are we now deserted one and all by you!
We who hold the public offices of Rome, who govern or are
destined to govern the cities of Italy, the Gauls, the Spains, and the
other provinces, are all of us to be deposed? Are all of us to be
ordered into private life? Or will you compensate us elsewhere for
this loss? And how can you, when such a large part of the world has
been given to another? Will your majesty put the man who had
charge of a hundred peoples over one? How could you have
conceived such a plan? How is it that you have suddenly become

oblivious of your subjects, so that you have no consideration for
your friends, nor your kindred, nor your sons? Would that it had
been our lot, your Majesty, while your honor and your victory were
unimpaired, to fall in battle, rather than to see this!
“You have the power, indeed, to do with your empire what you
will, and even with us, one thing however excepted, which we will
resist to the death; we will not give up the worship of the immortal
gods,—just for the sake of a conspicuous example to others, that
you may know how much that bounty of yours will be worth to the
Christian religion. For if you do not give your empire to Sylvester,
we are willing to be Christians with you, and many will imitate us.
But if you do give it, not only will we not [See Latin page] endure to
become Christians, but you will make the name hateful, detestable,
execrable to us, and you will put us in such a position that at last
you will pity our life and our death, nor will you accuse us, but only
yourself, of obstinacy.”

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

“Your Majesty, if you are heedless of your subjects and of
yourself, nor care to give your sons an inheritance, nor your kindred
riches, nor your friends honors, nor to keep your empire intact, the
Senate and the Roman people at least cannot be heedless of its
rights and its dignity. How come you to take such liberties with the
Roman Empire, which has been built up, not from your blood, but
from ours! Will you cut one body into two parts, and out of one
kingdom make two kingdoms, two heads, two wills, and, as it were,
reach out to two brothers swords with which to fight over their
inheritance! We give to states which have deserved well of this city

the rights of citizenship, so that they may be Roman citizens; you
take away from us the half of the empire, so that they will not know
this city as their mother. In beehives, if two kings are born, we kill
the weaker one; but in the hive of the Roman Empire, where there is
one prince, and that the best, you think that another must be
introduced, and that the weakest one, not a bee, but a drone.[421]
“We see a sore lack of prudence on your part, your Majesty. For
what will happen, if either during your life or after your death, war
should be waged by barbarian tribes against the part of the empire
which you are alienating, or against the other, [See Latin page] which
you leave for yourself? With what military force, with what
resources can we go to meet them? Even now with the troops of the
whole empire we have scarcely enough power; shall we have
enough then? Or will this part be forever at peace with that? In my
opinion it cannot be, for Rome will want to rule and the other part
will not want to be subject. Nay, even in your lifetime, shortly, when
the old officials are removed and new ones put in their places, when
you withdraw to your kingdom and fare far forth and another is
ruling here, will not all interests be different, that is, diverse and
contrary? Usually when a kingdom is divided between two brothers,
at once the hearts of the people also are divided, and war arises from
within sooner than from foreign enemies. That that will happen in
this empire, who does not see it? Or do you not know that it was
chiefly on this ground that the patricians once said that they would
rather die before the eyes of the Roman people than allow the
motion to be carried that part of the Senate and part of the plebeians
should be sent to live at Veii and that the Roman people should have
two cities in common; for if in one city there were so many
dissensions, how would it be in two cities? So in our time, if there
are so many disorders in one empire, your own knowledge and your
labors are a witness, how will it be in two empires!
“Come now, do you think that when you are engaged in wars,
there will be men here willing or able to bear you aid? Those who
will be in command of our soldiers and cities will always shrink
from arms and warfare, as will he who appoints them. Indeed, will
not either the Roman legions or the provinces themselves try to

despoil this man, so inexperienced in ruling and so inviting to
violence, hoping that he will neither fight back nor seek revenge?
By Hercules! I believe they will not remain in allegiance a single
month, but immediately, at the first news of your departure they will
rebel. What will you do? What plan will you follow when you are
pressed with a twofold and even a manifold war? The nations which
we have conquered we can scarcely hold; how can we withstand
them if in addition we have war with free peoples?
[See Latin page]

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

the capital of the kingdom over to a man who is a stranger and
altogether base. We put a watch-dog over the sheepfold, but if he
tries rather to act like a wolf, we either drive him out or kill him.
Now will you, who have long been the watch-dog of the Roman
fold and defended it, at the last in unprecedented manner turn into a
wolf?
“But you must know, since you compel us to speak harshly in
defense of our rights, that you have no right over the Empire of [See
Latin page]
the Roman people, for Caesar seized the supreme power by
force; Augustus was the heir of his wrongdoing and made himself
master by the ruin of the opposing factions; Tiberius, Gaius,
Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, and the rest, in
the same way or nearly so, made spoil of our liberty; and you also
became ruler by expelling or killing others. I say nothing of your
being born out of wedlock.
“Wherefore, to speak our mind, your Majesty; if you do not care
to keep the government of Rome, you have sons, and by the law of
nature, with our permission, also, and on our motion, you may
substitute one of them in your place. If not, it is our purpose to
defend the public honor and our personal dignity. For this is no less
an act of violence against the Quirites than was once the rape of
Lucretia, nor will there fail us a Brutus to offer himself to this
people as a leader against Tarquinius for the recovery of liberty. We
will draw our swords first upon those whom you are putting over us,
and then upon you, as we have done against many emperors, and for
lighter reasons.”

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

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

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

did he think that the prophetic office would be obscured by his
receiving gifts? Doubtless because he might seem to sell sacred
things, to put the gift of God out at usury, to want the patronage of
men, to lower and lessen the worth of his benefaction. He preferred,
therefore, to make princes and kings his beneficiaries rather than to
be himself their beneficiary, or even to allow mutual benefactions.
For, as says the Lord, ‘It is more [See Latin page] blessed to give than to
receive.’[422] I am in the same case, only more so, whom the Lord
taught, saying, ‘Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast
out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.’[423] Shall I commit
such a disgrace, your Majesty, as not to follow the precepts of God;
as to tarnish my glory? ‘It were better,’ says Paul, ‘for me to die
than that any man should make my glorying void.’[424] Our glory is
to honor our ministry in the sight of God, as Paul also said; ‘I speak
to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I
magnify mine office.’[425]
“Your Majesty, should even I be both an example and a cause for
the apostasy of others, I, a Christian, a priest of God, pontiff of
Rome, vicar of Christ? For how, indeed, will the blamelessness of
priests remain untouched amid riches, magistracies, and the
management of secular business? Do we renounce earthly
possessions in order to attain them more richly, and have we given
up our own property in order to possess another’s and the public’s?
Shall we have cities, tributes, tolls? How then can you call us
‘clergy’ if we do this? Our portion, or our lot, which in Greek is
called kleros, is not earthly, but celestial. The Levites, also clergy,
were not allotted a portion with their brethren, and do you command
us to take even our brothers’ portion!
“What are riches and dominions to me who am commanded by
the voice of the Lord not to be anxious for the morrow, and to whom
he said; ‘Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, possess not
gold nor silver nor money in your purses,’[426] and ‘It is harder for a
rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven, than for a camel to go
through the eye of a needle.’[427] Therefore he chose poor men as
his ministers, and those who left all to follow him, and was himself

an example of poverty. Even so is the handling of riches and of
money, not merely their possession and ownership, the enemy of
uprightness. Judas alone, he that had the [See Latin page] purses and
carried the alms, was a liar, and for the love of money, to which he
had become accustomed, chided and betrayed his Master, his Lord,
his God. So I fear, your Majesty, lest you change me from a Peter
into a Judas.
“Hear also what Paul says: ‘We brought nothing into this world,
and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and
raiment, let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall
into temptation and a snare of the devil, and into many foolish and
hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the
love of money is the root of all evil, which while some coveted
after, they erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with
many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things.’[428] And
you command me, your Majesty, to accept what I ought to shun as
poison!
“And consider besides, for prudence’ sake, your Majesty, what
chance would there be in all this for divine service? To certain who
complained that their destitute were neglected in the daily
distribution, the apostles answered that it was not reason that they
should leave the word of God, and serve tables.[429] Yet to feed
widows, how different is that from exacting tolls, running the
treasury, hiring soldiers, and engaging in a thousand other cares of
this sort! ‘No man that warreth for God entangleth himself with the
affairs of this life,’[430] says Paul. Did Aaron and others of the tribe
of Levi take care of anything except the tabernacle of the Lord? And
his sons, because they had put strange fire in their censers, were
consumed by fire from heaven. And you order us to put the fire of
worldly riches, forbidden and profane, in our sacred censers, that is,
our priestly duties! Did Eleazar, did Phinehas, did the other priests
and ministers, either of the tabernacle or of the temple, administer
anything except what pertained to the divine service? I say did they
administer, nay, could they have administered anything, if they
wished to fulfil their own duty? And if they did not wish to, they
would hear the curse of the Lord, saying, ‘Cursed be they that do the

work of the Lord [See Latin page] deceitfully.’[431] And this curse,
though it impends over all, yet most of all it impends over the
pontiffs.
“Oh what a responsibility is the pontifical office! What a
responsibility it is to be head of the church! What a responsibility to
be appointed over such a great flock as a shepherd at whose hand is
required the blood of every single lamb and sheep lost; to whom it is
said, ‘If thou lovest me more than these, as thou sayest, feed my
lambs.’ Again, ‘If thou lovest me, as thou sayest, feed my sheep.’
And a third time, ‘If thou lovest me, as thou sayest, feed my
sheep.’[432] And you order me, your Majesty, to shepherd also goats
and swine, which cannot be herded by the same shepherd!
“What! you want to make me king, or rather Caesar, that is ruler
of kings! When the Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, king and
priest, affirmed himself king, hear of what kingdom he spoke: ‘My
kingdom,’ he said, ‘is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this
world, then would my servants fight.’[433] And what was his first
utterance and the oft-repeated burden of his preaching, but this:
‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’[434] ‘The kingdom
of God is at hand for him for whom the kingdom of heaven is
prepared.’ When he said this, did he not make clear that he had
nothing to do with secular sovereignty? And not only did he not
seek a kingdom of this sort, but when it was offered him, he would
not accept it. For once when he learned that the people planned to
take him and make him king, he fled to the solitude of the
mountains. He not only gave this to us who occupy his place as an
example to be imitated, but he taught us by precept: ‘The princes of
the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great
exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you; but
whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and
whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant; even
as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister,
and to give his life a ransom for many.’[435]
[See Latin page]

“Know this, your Majesty; God formerly established judges over
Israel, not kings; and he hated the people for demanding a king for
themselves. And he gave them a king on account of the hardness of
their hearts, but only because he permitted their rejection, which he
revoked in the new law. And should I accept a kingdom, who am
scarcely permitted to be a judge? ‘Or do ye not know,’ says Paul,
‘that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be
judged by you, you are not the ones to judge the smallest matters.
Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more things
that pertain to this life! If then ye have judgments of things
pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least in the
church.’[436] But judges merely gave judgment concerning matters
in controversy, they did not levy tribute also. Should I do it, with the
knowledge that when Peter was asked by the Lord, ‘Of whom do the
kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children or of
strangers?’ and answered ‘Of strangers,’ the Lord said, ‘Then are the
children free.’[437] But if all men are my children, your Majesty, as
they certainly are, then will all be free; nobody will pay anything.
Therefore your Donation will be no good to me, and I shall get
nothing out of it but labor which I am least able to do, as also I am
least justified in doing it.
“Nay more, I should have to use my authority to shed blood in
punishing offenders, in waging wars, in sacking cities, in
devastating countries with fire and sword. Otherwise I could not
possibly keep what you have given me. And if I do this am I a
priest, a pontiff, a vicar of Christ? Rather I should hear him thunder
out against me, saying, ‘My house shall be called of all nations the
house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves.’[438] ‘I am not
come into the world,’ said the Lord, ‘to judge the world, but to save
it.’[439] And shall I who have succeeded him be the cause of [See Latin
page]
men’s death, I to whom in the person of Peter it was said, ‘Put
up again thy sword into his place, for all they that take the sword
shall perish with the sword’?[440] It is not permitted us even to
defend ourselves with the sword, for Peter wished only to defend his
Lord, when he cut off the servant’s ear. And do you command us to
use the sword for the sake of either getting or keeping riches?

“Our authority is the authority of the keys, as the Lord said, ‘I
will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’[441]
‘And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’[442] Nothing can
be added to this authority, nor to this dignity, nor to this kingdom.
He who is not contented therewith, seeks something more from the
devil, who dared even to say to the Lord, ‘I will give thee all the
kingdoms of the world, if thou wilt fall to the earth and worship
me.’[443] Wherefore, your Majesty, by your leave let me say it, do
not play the part of the devil to me by ordering Christ, that is, me, to
accept the kingdoms of the world at your hand. For I prefer rather to
scorn than to possess them.
“And, to speak of the unbelievers, future believers though, I hope,
do not transform me for them from an angel of light into an angel of
darkness. I want to win their hearts to piety, not impose a yoke upon
their necks; to subject them to me with the sword of the word of
God, not with a sword of iron, that they should not be made worse
than they are, nor kick, nor gore me, nor, angered by my mistake,
blaspheme the name of God. I want to make them my most beloved
sons, not my slaves; to adopt them, not cast them out; to have them
born again, not to seize them out of hand; to offer their souls a
sacrifice to God, not their bodies a sacrifice to the devil. ‘Come unto
me,’ says the Lord, ‘for I am meek and lowly in heart. Take my yoke
upon you, and ye shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy
and my burden is light.’[444]
“Finally, to come to an end at last, in this matter accept that [See
Latin page]
sentence of his, which he spoke as though to me and to
you; ‘Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto
God, the things that are God’s.’[445] Accordingly, therefore, your
Majesty, you must not surrender the things that are yours, and I
must not accept the things that are Caesar’s; nor will I ever accept
them, though you offer them a thousand times.”

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

Proceed to the next point; to make us believe in this “donation” which
your document recites, something ought still to be extant concerning
Sylvester’s acceptance of it. There is nothing concerning it extant. But it is
believable, you say, that he recognized this “donation.” I believe so, too;
that [if it was given] he not only recognized it, but sought it, asked for it,
extorted it with his prayers; that is believable. But why do you reverse the
natural conjecture and then say it is believable? For the fact that there is
mention of the donation in the document of the deed is no reason for
inferring that it was accepted; but on the contrary, the fact that there is no
mention [anywhere] of an acceptance is reason for saying that there was no
donation. So you have stronger proof [See Latin page] that Sylvester refused the
gift than that Constantine wished to give it, and a benefaction is not
conferred upon a man against his will. Indeed, we must suspect not so much
that Sylvester refused the grants as that he tacitly disclosed that neither
could Constantine legally make them nor could he himself legally accept.
O avarice, ever blind and ill-advised! Let us suppose that you may be
able to adduce even genuine documents for the assent of Sylvester, not
tampered with, authentic: even so, were the grants actually made which are
found in such documents? Where is any taking possession, any delivery?
For if Constantine gave a charter only, he did not want to befriend
Sylvester, but to mock him. It is likely, you say, that any one who makes a
grant, gives possession of it, also. See what you are saying; for it is certain

that possession was not given, and the question is whether the title was
given! It is likely that one who did not give possession did not want to give
the title either.
Or is it not certain that possession was never given? To deny it is the
sheerest impudence. Did Constantine ever lead Sylvester in state to the
Capitol amid the shouts of the assembled Quirites, heathen as they were?
Did he place him on a golden throne in the presence of the whole Senate?
Did he command the magistrates, each in the order of his rank, to salute
their king and prostrate themselves before him? This, rather than the giving
of some palace such as the Lateran, is customary in the creation of new
rulers. Did he afterwards escort him through all Italy? Did he go with him
to the Gauls? Did he go to the Spains? Did he go to the Germans, and the
rest of the West? Or if they both thought it too onerous to traverse so many
lands, to whom did they delegate such an important function, to represent
Caesar in transferring possession and Sylvester in receiving it?
Distinguished men, and men of eminent authority, they must have been: and
nevertheless we do not know who they were. And how much weight there is
here in these two words, give and receive! To pass by ancient instances, I do
not remember to have seen any other procedure when any one was made
lord of a city, a country, or a province; for we do not count possession as
given [See Latin page] until the old magistrates are removed and the new ones
substituted. If then Sylvester had not demanded that this be done,
nevertheless the dignity of Constantine required that he show that he gave
possession not in words but in fact, that he ordered his officers to retire and
others to be substituted by Sylvester. Possession is not transferred when it
remains in the hands of those who had it before, and the new master dares
not remove them.
But grant that this also does not stand in the way, that, notwithstanding,
we assume Sylvester to have been in possession, and let us say that the
whole transaction took place though not in the customary and natural way.
After Constantine went away, what governors did Sylvester place over his
provinces and cities, what wars did he wage, what nations that took up arms
did he subdue, through whom did he carry on this government? We know
none of these circumstances, you answer. So! I think all this was done in the
nighttime, and no one saw it at all!

Come now! Was Sylvester ever in possession? Who dispossessed him?
For he did not have possession permanently, nor did any of his successors,
at least till Gregory the Great, and even he did not have possession. One
who is not in possession and cannot prove that he has been disseized
certainly never did have possession, and if he says he did, he is crazy. You
see, I even prove that you are crazy! Otherwise, tell who dislodged the
Pope? Did Constantine himself, or his sons, or Julian, or some other
Caesar? Give the name of the expeller, give the date, from what place was
the Pope expelled first, where next, and so in order. Was it by sedition and
murder, or without these? Did the nations conspire together against him, or
which first? What! Did not one of them give him aid, not one of those who
had been put over cities or provinces by Sylvester or another Pope? Did he
lose everything in a single day, or gradually and by districts? Did he and his
magistrates offer resistance, or did they abdicate at the first disturbance?
What! Did not the victors use the sword on those dregs of humanity, whom
they thought unworthy of the Empire, to revenge their outrage, to make sure
of the newly won mastery, to [See Latin page] show contempt for our religion,
not even to make an example for posterity? Did not one of those who were
conquered take to flight at all? Did no one hide? Was no one afraid? O
marvellous event! The Roman Empire, acquired by so many labors, so
much bloodshed, was so calmly, so quietly both won and lost by Christian
priests that no bloodshed, no war, no uproar took place; and not less
marvellous, it is not known at all by whom this was done, nor when, nor
how, nor how long it lasted! You would think that Sylvester reigned in
sylvan shades, among the trees, not at Rome nor among men, and that he
was driven out by winter rains and cold, not by men!
Who that is at all widely read, does not know what Roman kings, what
consuls, what dictators, what tribunes of the people, what censors, what
aediles were chosen? Of such a large number of men in times so long past,
none escapes us. We know also what Athenian commanders there were, and
Theban, and Lacedemonian; we know all their battles on land and sea. Nor
are the kings of the Persians unknown to us; of the Medes; of the
Chaldeans; of the Hebrews; and of very many others; nor how each of these
received his kingdom, or held it, or lost it, or recovered it. But how the
Roman Empire, or rather the Sylvestrian, began, how it ended, when,
through whom, is not known even in the city of Rome itself. I ask whether
you can adduce any witnesses of these events, any writers. None, you

answer. And are you not ashamed to say that it is likely that Sylvester
possessed—even cattle, to say nothing of men!
But since you cannot [prove anything], I for my part will show that
Constantine, to the very last day of his life, and thereafter all the Caesars in
turn, did have possession [of the Roman Empire], so that you will have
nothing left even to mutter. But it is a very difficult, and, I suppose, a very
laborious task, forsooth, to do this! Let all the Latin and the Greek histories
be unrolled, let the other authors who mention those times be brought in,
and you will not find a single discrepancy among them on this point. Of a
thousand witnesses, one may suffice; Eutropius, who saw Constantine, who
saw the three sons of Constantine who were left [See Latin page] masters of the
world by their father, and who wrote thus in connection with Julian, the son
of Constantine’s brother: “This Julian, who was subdeacon in the Roman
church and when he became Emperor returned to the worship of the gods,
seized the government, and after elaborate preparations made war against
the Parthians; in which expedition I also took part.”[446] He would not have
kept silent about the donation of the Western Empire [had it been made],
nor would he have spoken as he did a little later about Jovian, who
succeeded Julian: “He made with Sapor a peace which was necessary,
indeed, but dishonorable, the boundaries being changed and a part of the
Roman Empire being given up, a thing which had never before happened
since the Roman state was founded; no, not even though our legions, at the
Caudine [Forks] by Pontius Telesinus, and in Spain at Numantia, and in
Numidia, were sent under the yoke, were any of the frontiers given up.”[447]
Here I would like to interrogate you, most recent, though deceased,
Popes, and you, Eugenius, who live, thanks only to Felix.[448] Why do you
parade the Donation of Constantine with a great noise; and all the time, as
though avengers of a stolen Empire, threaten certain kings and princes; and
extort some servile confession or other from the Emperor when he is
crowned, and from some other princes, such as the king of Naples and
Sicily? None of the early Roman pontiffs ever did this, Damasus in the case
of Theodosius, nor Syricius in the case of Arcadius, nor Anastasius in the
case of Honorius, nor John in the case of Justinian, nor the other most holy
Popes respectively in the case of the other most excellent Emperors: rather
they always regarded Rome and Italy and the provinces I have named as
belonging to the Emperors. And so, to say nothing of other monuments and

temples in the city of Rome, there are extant gold coins of Constantine’s
after he became a Christian, with inscriptions, [See Latin page] not in Greek,
but in Latin letters, and of almost all the Emperors in succession. There are
many of them in my possession with this inscription for the most part,
under the image of the cross, “Concordia orbis [The Peace of the World].”
What an infinite number of coins of the supreme pontiffs would be found if
you ever had ruled Rome! But none such are found, neither gold nor silver,
nor are any mentioned as having been seen by any one. And yet whoever
held the government at Rome at that time had to have his own coinage:
doubtless the Pope’s would have borne the image of the Savior or of Peter.
Alas for man’s ignorance! You do not see that if the Donation of
Constantine is authentic nothing is left to the Emperor, the Latin Emperor, I
mean. Ah, what an Emperor, what a Roman king, he would be, when if any
one had his kingdom and had no other, he would have nothing at all! But if
it is thus manifest that Sylvester did not have possession, that is, that
Constantine did not give over possession, then there will be no doubt that
he [Constantine], as I have said, did not give even the right to possess. That
is, unless you say that the right was given, but that for some reason
possession was not transferred. In that case he manifestly gave what he
knew would never in the least exist; he gave what he could not transfer; he
gave what could not come into the possession of the recipient until after it
was nonexistent; he gave a gift which would not be valid for five hundred
years, or never would be valid. But to say or to think this is insanity.

But it is high time, if I am not to be too prolix, to give the adversaries’
cause, already struck down and mangled, the mortal blow and to cut its
throat with a single stroke. Almost every history worthy of the name speaks
of Constantine as a Christian from boyhood, with his father Constantius,
long before the pontificate of Sylvester; as, for instance, Eusebius, author of
the Church History, which Rufinus, himself a great scholar, translated into
Latin, adding two books on his own times.[449] Both of these [See Latin page]
men were nearly contemporary with Constantine. Add to this also the
testimony of the Roman pontiff who not only took part, but the leading part
in these events, who was not merely a witness but the prime mover, who
narrates, not another’s doings, but his own. I refer to Pope Melchiades,
Sylvester’s immediate predecessor. He says: “The church reached the point

where not only the nations, but even the Roman rulers who held sway over
the whole world, came together into the faith of Christ and the sacraments
of the faith. One of their number, a most devout man, Constantine, the first
openly to come to belief in the Truth, gave permission to those living under
his government, throughout the whole world, not only to become
Christians, but even to build churches, and he decreed that landed estates be
distributed among these. Finally also the said ruler bestowed immense
offerings, and began the building of the temple which was the first seat of
the blessed Peter, going so far as to leave his imperial residence and give it
over for the use of the blessed Peter and his successors.”[450] You see,
incidentally, that Melchiades does not say that anything was given by
Constantine except the Lateran palace, and landed estates, which Gregory
mentions very frequently in his register. Where are those who do not permit
us to call into question whether the Donation of Constantine is valid, when
the “donation” both antedated Sylvester and conferred private possessions
alone?
[See Latin page]

But though it is all obvious and clear, yet the deed of gift itself, which
those fools always put forward, must be discussed.
And first, not only must I convict of dishonesty him who tried to play
Gratian and added sections to the work of Gratian, but also must convict of
ignorance those who think a copy of the deed of gift is contained in Gratian;
for the well-informed have never thought so, nor is it found in any of the
oldest copies of the Decretum. And if Gratian had mentioned it anywhere,
he would have done so, not where they put it, breaking the thread of the
narrative, but where he treats of the agreement of Louis [the Pious].
Besides, there are two thousand passages in the Decretum which forbid the
acceptance of this passage; for example, that where the words of
Melchiades, which I have cited above, are given. Some say that he who
added this chapter [the Donation of Constantine] was called Palea,[451]
either because that was his real name or because what he added of his own,
compared with Gratian, is as straw [palea] beside grain. However that may
be, it is monstrous to believe that the compiler of the Decretum either did
not know what was interpolated by this man, or esteemed it highly and held
it for genuine. Good! It is enough! We have won! First, because Gratian

does not say what they lyingly quote; and more especially because on the
contrary, as can be seen in innumerable passages, he denies and disproves
it; and last, because they bring forward only a single unknown individual,
of not the least authority, so very stupid as to affix to Gratian what cannot
be harmonized with his other statements. This then is the author you bring
forward? On his sole testimony you rely? His charter, in a matter of such
importance, you recite as confirmation against hundreds of kinds of proof?
But I should have expected you to show gold seals, marble inscriptions, a
thousand authors.
But, you say, Palea himself adduces his author, shows the [See Latin page]
source of his narrative, and cites Pope Gelasius and many bishops as
witnesses; it is, he says, “from the Acts of Sylvester (which the blessed
Pope Gelasius in the Council of the Seventy Bishops recounts as read by the
catholic, and in accordance with ancient usage many churches he says
follow this example) which reads: ‘Constantine ..., etc.’”[452] Considerably
earlier, where books to be read and books not to be read are treated, he had
said also; “The Acts of the blessed Sylvester, chief priest, though we know
not the name of him who wrote it, we know to be read by many of the
orthodox of the city of Rome, and in accordance with ancient usage the
churches follow this example.”[453] Wonderful authority this, wonderful
evidence, irrefutable proof! I grant you this, that Gelasius in speaking of the
Council of the Seventy Bishops said that. But did he say this, that the deed
of gift is to be read in the Acts of the most blessed Sylvester? He says,
indeed, only that the Acts of Sylvester are read, and that in Rome, and that
many other churches follow her authority. I do not deny this, I concede it, I
admit it, I also stand up with Gelasius as a witness to it. But what advantage
is this to you, except that you may be shown to have deliberately lied in
adducing your witnesses? The name of the man who interpolated this
[“Donation” of yours] is not known, and he is the only one who says this
[that the Donation is in the Acts of Sylvester]; the name of the man who
wrote the history of Sylvester is not known, and he is the only one cited as
witness, and that erroneously. And good men and prudent as you are, you
think this is enough and more than enough evidence for such an important
transaction! Well! how your judgment differs from mine! Even if this grant
were contained in the Acts of Sylvester, I should not think it was to be
considered genuine, for that history is not history, but fanciful and most

shameful fiction, as I shall later show; nor does any one else of any
authority whatever make mention of this grant. And [See Latin page] even
James of Voragine, though as an archbishop disposed to favor the clergy,
yet in his Acts of the Saints[454] preserved silence on the Donation of
Constantine as fictitious and not fit to figure in the Acts of Sylvester; a
conclusive judgment, in a way, against those, if there were any, who would
have committed it to writing.
But I want to take the forger himself, truly a “straw” man without wheat,
by the neck, and drag him into court. What do you say, you forger? Whence
comes it that we do not read this grant in the Acts of Sylvester? This book,
forsooth, is rare, difficult to get, not owned by the many but rather kept as
the Fasti once were by the pontifices, or the Sibylline books by the
Decemvirs! It was written in Greek, or Syriac, or Chaldee! Gelasius testifies
that it was read by many of the orthodox; Voragine mentions it; we also
have seen thousands of copies of it, and written long ago; and in almost
every cathedral it is read when Sylvester’s Day comes around.[455] Yet
nevertheless no one says that he has read there what you put in it; no one
has heard of it; no one has dreamt of it. Or is there perhaps some other
history of Sylvester? And what can that be? I know no other, nor do I
understand that any other is referred to by you, for you speak of the one
which Gelasius says is read in many churches. In this, however, we do not
find your grant. But if it is not found in the Life of Sylvester, why do you
declare that it is? How did you dare to jest in a matter of such importance,
and to make sport of the cupidity of silly men?
But I am foolish to inveigh against the audacity of this [forger], instead of
inveighing against the insanity of those who give him credence. If any one
should say that this had been recorded for remembrance among the Greeks,
the Hebrews, the barbarians, would you not bid him name his author,
produce his book, and the passage, to be explained by a reliable translator,
before you would believe it? But now your own language, and a [See Latin
page]
very well-known book are involved, and either you do not question
such an incredible occurrence, or when you do not find it written down you
have such utter credulity as to believe that it is written down and authentic!
And, satisfied with this title, you move heaven and earth, and, as though no
doubt existed, you pursue with the terrors of war and with other threats
those who do not believe you! Blessed Jesus, what power, what divinity

there is in Truth, which unaided defends itself without any great struggle
from all falsehoods and deceits; so that not undeservedly, when contention
had arisen at the court of king Darius as to what was most powerful, and
one said one thing and another another, the palm was awarded to Truth.[456]
Since I have to do with priests and not with laymen, I suppose I must
seek ecclesiastical precedents. Judas Maccabaeus, when he had sent
ambassadors to Rome and obtained a friendly alliance from the Senate, took
pains to have the terms of the alliance engraved on brass and carried to
Jerusalem. I pass by the stone tables of the Decalogue, which God gave to
Moses. And this Donation of Constantine, so magnificent and astounding,
cannot be proved by any copies, in gold, in silver, in brass, in marble, or
even in books, but only, if we believe it, on paper, or parchment. According
to Josephus, Jubal, the inventor of music, when the elders expressed the
opinion that the world was to be destroyed, once by water, and again by
fire, inscribed his teaching on two columns, one of brick against the fire,
and one of stone against the flood, which columns still remained at the time
of Josephus, as he himself writes, so that his benefaction to men might
always continue. And among the Romans, while still rustic and country
bred, when writing was inadequate and rare, the laws of the Twelve Tables
nevertheless were engraved on brass, and though the city was stormed and
burned by the Gauls they were afterwards found unharmed. Thus careful
foresight overcomes the two mightiest forces known to man, namely, long
lapse [See Latin page] of time and the violence of fortune. Yet Constantine
signed a donation of the world on paper alone and with ink, though the very
inventor of the fabulous story makes him say that he thought there would
not be lacking those who with unholy greed would set aside this Donation!
Do you have this fear, Constantine, and do you take no precaution lest those
who would snatch Rome from Sylvester should also steal the charter?
Why does Sylvester do nothing for himself? Does he leave everything
thus to Constantine? Is he so careless and lazy in such an important matter?
Does he not look ahead at all for himself, for his church, for posterity? See
to whom you commit the administration of the Roman Empire; in the midst
of such an important transaction, fraught with so much either of gain or of
peril, he goes sound asleep! For let the charter ever be lost, he will not be
able, at least as time goes on, to prove the granting of the “privilege.”[457]

“The page of the privilege” this crazy man calls it [i.e., the Donation of
Constantine]. And do you (let me controvert him as though he were present)
call the gift of the earth a “privilege”; do you want it written thus in the
document; and do you want Constantine to use that kind of language? If the
title is ridiculous, what shall we think the rest of it is?
“The Emperor Constantine the fourth day after his baptism conferred this
privilege on the pontiff of the Roman church, that in the whole Roman
world priests should regard him as their head, as judges do the king.” This
sentence is part of the History [Life] of Sylvester,[458] and it leaves no doubt
where [nor why] the document gets its title “privilege.” But, in the manner
of those who fabricate lies, he begins with the truth for the purpose of
winning confidence in his later statements, which are false, as Sinon says in
Virgil:
[See Latin page]

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

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

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

O thou scoundrel, thou villain! The same history [the Life of Sylvester]
which you allege as your evidence, says that for a long time none of

senatorial rank was willing to accept the Christian religion, and that
Constantine solicited the poor with bribes to be baptized. And you say that
within the first days, immediately, the Senate, the nobles, the satraps, as
though already Christians, with the Caesar passed decrees for the honoring
of the Roman church! What! How do you want to have satraps come in
here? Numskull, blockhead! Do the Caesars speak thus; are Roman decrees
usually drafted thus? Whoever heard of satraps being mentioned in the
councils of the Romans?[461] I do not remember ever to have read of any
Roman satrap being mentioned, or even of a satrap in any of the Roman
provinces. But this fellow [See Latin page] speaks of the Emperor’s satraps, and
puts them in before the Senate, though all honors, even those bestowed
upon the ruling prince, are decreed by the Senate alone, or with the addition
“and the Roman people.” Thus we see carved on ancient stones or bronze
tablets or coins two letters, “S. C.,” that is “By decree of the Senate,” or
four, “S. P. Q. R.,” that is, “The Senate and the Roman People.” And
according to Tertullian, when Pontius Pilate had written to Tiberius Caesar
and not to the Senate concerning the wonderful deeds of Christ, inasmuch
as magistrates were supposed to write concerning important matters to the
Senate, the Senate gave way to spite and opposed Tiberius’ proposal that
Jesus be worshipped as a God, merely on account of its secret anger at the
offense to senatorial dignity.[462] And, to show how weighty was the
authority of the Senate, Jesus did not obtain divine worship.
What now! Why do you say “nobles” [“optimates”]? Are we to
understand that these are leading men in the republic; then why should they
be mentioned when the other magistrates are passed by in silence? Or are
they the opposite of the “popular” party which curries favor with the
people; the ones who seek and champion the welfare of every aristocrat and
of the “better” elements, as Cicero shows in one of his orations? Thus we
say that Caesar before the overthrow of the republic had been a member of
the “popular” party, Cato of the “optimates.” The difference between them
Sallust explained. But the “optimates” are not spoken of as belonging to the
[Emperor’s] council, any more than the “popular” party, or other
respectable men are.
But what wonder that the “optimates” belonged to the council, when, if
we believe this fellow, “all the people,” and the people “subject to the
Roman church” at that, acted officially with the Senate and the Caesar![463]

And what people are these? The Roman [See Latin page] people? But why not
say the Roman people, rather than the “people subject”? What new insult is
this to the Quirites of whom the great poet sings:

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

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

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

Come back to life for a little while, Firmianus Lactantius, stop this ass
who brays so loudly and outrageously. So delighted is he with the sound of
swelling words, that he repeats the same terms [See Latin page] and reiterates
what he has just said. Is it thus that in your age the secretaries of the
Caesars spoke, or even their grooms? Constantine chose them not “as his
intercessors” but “to be his intercessors.” The fellow inserted that “to be”

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

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

I will not speak here of the barbarisms in [the forger’s] language when he
says “chief over the priests” instead of chief of the priests; when he puts in
the same sentence “extiterit” and “existat” [confusing meanings, moods and
tenses]; when, having said “in the whole earth,” he adds again “of the whole
world,” as though he wished to include something else, or the sky, which is
part of the world, though a good part of the earth even was not under Rome;
when he distinguishes between providing for “the faith” of Christians and
providing for their “stability,” as though they could not coexist;[469] when
he confuses “ordain” and “decree,” and when, as though Constantine had
not already joined with the rest in making the decree, he has him now
ordain it, and as though he imposes a punishment, decree [confirm] it, and
confirm it together with the people. [That, I pass by.] But what Christian
could endure this [other thing], and not, rather, critically and severely
reprove a Pope who endures it, and listens to it willingly and retails it;
namely, that the Roman See, though it received its primacy from Christ, as
the Eighth Synod declared according to the testimony of Gratian and many
of the Greeks, [See Latin page] should be represented as having received it from
Constantine, hardly yet a Christian, as though from Christ? Would that very
modest ruler have chosen to make such a statement, and that most devout
pontiff to listen to it? Far be such a grave wrong from both of them!
How in the world—this is much more absurd, and impossible in the
nature of things—could one speak of Constantinople as one of the
patriarchal sees, when it was not yet a patriarchate, nor a see, nor a
Christian city, nor named Constantinople, nor founded, nor planned! For the
“privilege” was granted, so it says, the third day after Constantine became a
Christian; when as yet Byzantium, not Constantinople, occupied that site. I
am a liar if this fool does not confess as much himself. For toward the end
of the “privilege” he writes:

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

But if he was intending to transfer the empire, he had not yet transferred
it; if he was intending to establish his empire there, he had not yet
established it; if he was planning to build a city, he had not yet built it.
Therefore he could not have spoken of it as a patriarchal see, as one of the
four sees, as Christian, as having this name, nor as already built. According
to the history [the Life of Sylvester] which Palea cites as evidence, he had
not yet even thought of founding it. And this beast, whether Palea or some
one else whom Palea follows, does not notice that he contradicts this
history, in which it is said that Constantine issued the decree concerning the
founding of the city, not on his own initiative, but at a command received in
his sleep from God, not at Rome but at Byzantium, not within a few days
[of his conversion] but several years after, and that he learned its name by
revelation in a dream.[470] Who then does not see that the man who [See Latin
page]
wrote the “privilege” lived long after the time of Constantine, and in
his effort to embellish his falsehood forgot that earlier he had said that these
events took place at Rome on the third day after Constantine was baptized?
So the trite old proverb applies nicely to him, “Liars need good memories.”
And how is it that he speaks of a province of “Byzantia,” when it was a
town, Byzantium by name? The place was by no means large enough for
the erection of so great a city; for the old city of Byzantium was included
within the walls of Constantinople. And this man says the [new] city is to be
built on the most fitting place in it! Why does he choose to put Thrace, in
which Byzantium lies, in the East, when it lies to the north? I suppose
Constantine did not know the place which he had chosen for the building of
the city, in what latitude it was, whether it was a town or a province, nor
how large it was!

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

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

And what is this that you say? You make Constantine call Peter and Paul
blessed, but Sylvester, still living, “most blessed”; and call his own
mandate, pagan as he had been but a little while before, “sacred”! Is so
much to be donated “for the providing of the lights” that the whole world
would be impoverished? And what are these “landed estates,” particularly
“landed estates of possessions”? The phrase “possessions of landed estates”
is good usage; “landed estates of possessions” is not. You give landed
estates, and you do not explain which landed estates. You have enriched
“with different objects,” and you do not show when nor with what objects.
You want the corners of the earth to be administered by Sylvester, and you
do not explain how they are to be administered. You say these were granted
earlier? Then why do you say that you have now begun to honor the Roman
church, and to grant it a “privilege”? Do you make the grant now; do you
enrich it now? Then why do you say “we have granted” and “we have
enriched”? What are you talking about; what is in your mind, you beast? (I
am speaking to the man who made up the story, not to that most excellent
ruler, Constantine.)
But why do I ask for any intelligence in you, any learning, you who are
not endowed with any ability, with any knowledge of letters, who say
“lights” for lamps, and “be transferred in the regions of the east” instead of
“be transferred to the regions of the east,” as it should be? And what next?
Are these “quarters” of yours really the four quarters of the world? What do
you count as eastern? Thrace? It lies to the north, as I have said. Judea? It
looks rather toward the south, for it is next to Egypt. And what do you count
as western? Italy? But these events occurred in Italy and no one living there
calls it western; for we say the Spains are in the west; and Italy extends, on

one hand to the south and on the other to the north, rather than to the west.
What do you count as north? Thrace? You yourself choose to put it in the
east. Asia? This alone includes the whole east, but it includes the north also,
like Europe. What do you count as southern? Africa, of course. But why do
you not specify some province? Perhaps you think even the Ethiopians were
subject to the Roman [See Latin page] Empire! And anyway Asia and Africa do
not come into consideration when we divide the earth into four parts and
enumerate the countries of each, but when we divide it into three, Asia,
Africa, Europe; that is, unless you say Asia for the province of Asia, and
Africa for that province which is next to the Gaetuli, and I do not see why
they, especially, should be mentioned.
Would Constantine have spoken thus when he was describing the four
quarters of the earth? Would he have mentioned these countries, and not
others? Would he have begun with Judea, which is counted as a part of
Syria and was no longer “Judea” after the destruction of Jerusalem (for the
Jews were driven away and almost exterminated, so that, I suppose,
scarcely one then remained in his own country, but they lived among other
nations)? Where then was Judea? It was no longer called Judea, and we
know that now that name has perished from the earth. Just as after the
driving out of the Canaanites the region ceased to be called Canaan and was
renamed Judea by its new inhabitants, so when the Jews were driven out
and mixed tribes inhabited it, it ceased to be called Judea.
You mention Judea, Thrace, and the islands, but you do not think of
mentioning the Spains, the Gauls, the Germans, and while you speak of
peoples of other tongues, Hebrew, Greek, barbarian, you do not speak of
any of the provinces where Latin is used. I see: you have omitted these for
the purpose of including them afterwards in the Donation. And why were
not these many great provinces of the East sufficient to bear the expense of
providing the lights without the rest of the world contributing!
I pass over the fact that you say these are granted as a gift, and therefore
not, as our friends say, in payment for the cure of the leprosy. Otherwise,—
well, any one who classes a gift as a payment is ill-bred.

“To the blessed Sylvester, his [Peter’s] vicar, we by this present
do give our imperial Lateran palace, then the diadem, that is, the

crown of our head, and at the same time the tiara and also the
shoulder-band,—that is, the strap that usually surrounds [See Latin
page]
our imperial neck; and also the purple mantle and scarlet tunic,
and all the imperial raiment; and the same rank as those presiding
over the imperial cavalry; conferring also on him the imperial
scepters, and at the same time all the standards and banners and the
different imperial ornaments, and all the pomp of our imperial
eminence, and the glory of our power.
“And we decree also, as to these men of different rank, the most
reverend clergy who serve the holy Roman church, that they have
that same eminence of distinguished power and excellence, by the
glory of which it seems proper for our most illustrious Senate to be
adorned; that is, that they be made patricians, consuls,—and also we
have proclaimed that they be decorated with the other imperial
dignities. And even as the imperial militia stands decorated, so we
have decreed that the clergy of the holy Roman church be adorned.
And even as the imperial power is ordered with different offices, of
chamberlains, indeed, and door-keepers and all the bed-watchers, so
we wish the holy Roman church also to be decorated. And, in order
that the pontifical glory may shine forth most fully, we decree also
that the holy clergy of this same holy Roman church may mount
mounts adorned with saddle-cloths and linens, that is, of the whitest
color; and even as our Senate uses shoes with felt socks, that is, they
[the clergy] may be distinguished by white linen, and that the
celestial [orders] may be adorned to the glory of God, just as the
terrestrial are adorned.”

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

in their knowledge, I gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things
which are not convenient.”[472] Command me, I beseech thee, O Lord, that I
may cry out against them, and perchance they may be converted.
O Roman pontiffs, the model of all crimes for other pontiffs! O
wickedest of scribes and Pharisees, who sit in Moses’ seat and do the deeds
of Dathan and Abiram! Will the raiment, the habiliments, the pomp, the
cavalry, indeed the whole manner of life of a Caesar thus befit the vicar of
Christ? What fellowship has the priest with the Caesar? Did Sylvester put
on this raiment; did he parade in this splendor; did he live and reign with
such a throng of servants in his house? Depraved wretches! They did not
know that Sylvester ought to have assumed the vestments of Aaron, who
was the high priest of God, rather than those of a heathen ruler.
But this must be more strongly pressed elsewhere. For the present,
however, let us talk to this sycophant about barbarisms of speech; for by the
stupidity of his language his monstrous impudence is made clear, and his
lie.
“We give,” he says, “our imperial Lateran palace”: as though it was
awkward to place the gift of the palace here among the ornaments, he
repeated it later where gifts are treated. “Then the diadem;” and as though
those present would not know, he interprets, “that is, the crown.” He did
not, indeed, here add “of gold,” but later, emphasizing the same statements,
he says, “of purest gold and precious gems.” The ignorant fellow did not
know that a diadem was made of coarse cloth or perhaps of silk; whence
that wise and oft-repeated remark of the king, who, they say, before he put
upon his head the diadem given him, held it and considered it long and
exclaimed, “O cloth more renowned than happy! If any one knew you
through and through, with how many anxieties and dangers and miseries
you are fraught, he would not [See Latin page] care to pick you up; no, not even
if you were lying on the ground!” This fellow does not imagine but that it is
of gold, with a gold band and gems such as kings now usually add. But
Constantine was not a king, nor would he have dared to call himself king,
nor to adorn himself with royal ceremony. He was Emperor of the Romans,
not king. Where there is a king, there is no republic. But in the republic
there were many, even at the same time, who were “imperatores”
[generals]; for Cicero frequently writes thus, “Marcus Cicero, imperator, to

some other imperator, greeting”: though, later on, the Roman ruler, as the
highest of all, is called by way of distinctive title the Emperor.
“And at the same time the tiara and also the shoulder-band,—that is the
strap that usually surrounds our imperial neck.” Who ever heard “tiara”
[phrygium] used in Latin? You talk like a barbarian and want it to seem to
me to be a speech of Constantine’s or of Lactantius’. Plautus, in the
Menaechmi, applied “phrygionem” to a designer of garments; Pliny calls
clothes embroidered with a needle “phrygiones” because the Phrygians
invented them; but what does “phrygium” mean? You do not explain this,
which is obscure; you explain what is quite clear. You say the “shoulder-
band” is a “strap,” and you do not perceive what the strap is, for you do not
visualize a leather band, which we call a strap, encircling the Caesar’s neck
as an ornament. [It is of leather], hence we call harness and whips “straps”:
but if ever gold straps are mentioned, it can only be understood as applying
to gilt harness such as is put around the neck of a horse or of some other
animal. But this has escaped your notice, I think. So when you wish to put a
strap around the Caesar’s neck, or Sylvester’s, you change a man, an
Emperor, a supreme pontiff, into a horse or an ass.
“And also the purple mantle and scarlet tunic.” Because Matthew says “a
scarlet robe,” and John “a purple robe,”[473] this fellow tries to join them
together in the same passage. But if they are the same color, as the
Evangelists imply, why are you not content, as they were, to name either
one alone; unless, like ignorant folk today, you use “purple” for silk goods
of a whitish color? The [See Latin page] “purple” [pupura], however, is a fish in
whose blood wool is dyed, and so from the dye the name has been given to
the cloth, whose color can be called red, though it may rather be blackish
and very nearly the color of clotted blood, a sort of violet. Hence by Homer
and Virgil blood is called purple, as is porphyry, the color of which is
similar to amethyst; for the Greeks call purple “porphyra.” You know
perhaps that scarlet is used for red; but I would swear that you do not know
at all why he makes it “coccineum” when we say “coccum,” or what sort of
a garment a “mantle” [chlamys] is.
But that he might not betray himself as a liar by continuing longer on the
separate garments, he embraced them all together in a single word, saying,
“all the imperial raiment.” What! even that which he is accustomed to wear

in war, in the chase, at banquets, in games? What could be more stupid than
to say that all the raiment of the Caesar befits a pontiff!
But how gracefully he adds, “and the same rank as those presiding over
the imperial cavalry.” He says “seu” [“or” for “and”].[474] He wishes to
distinguish between these two in turn, as if they were very like each other,
and slips along from the imperial raiment to the equestrian rank, saying—I
know not what! He wants to say something wonderful, but fears to be
caught lying, and so with puffed cheeks and swollen throat, he gives forth
sound without sense.
“Conferring also on him the imperial sceptres.” What a turn of speech!
What splendor! What harmony! What are these imperial sceptres? There is
one sceptre, not several; if indeed the Emperor carried a sceptre at all. Will
now the pontiff carry a sceptre in his hand? Why not give him a sword also,
and helmet and javelin?
“And at the same time all the standards and banners.” What do you
understand by “standards” [signa]? “Signa” are either statues (hence
frequently we read “signa et tabulas” for pieces [See Latin page] of sculpture
and paintings;—for the ancients did not paint on walls, but on tablets) or
military standards (hence that phrase “Standards, matched eagles”[475]). In
the former sense small statues and sculptures are called “sigilla.” Now then,
did Constantine give Sylvester his statues or his eagles? What could be
more absurd? But what “banners” [banna[476]] may signify, I do not
discover. May God destroy you, most depraved of mortals who attribute
barbarous language to a cultured age!
“And different imperial ornaments.” When he said “banners,” he thought
he had been explicit long enough, and therefore he lumped the rest under a
general term. And how frequently he drives home the word “imperial,” as
though there were certain ornaments peculiar to the Emperor over against
the consul, the dictator, the Caesar!
“And all the pomp of our imperial eminence, and the glory of our
power.” “He discards bombast and cubit-long words,”[477] “This king of
kings, Darius, the kinsman of the gods,”[478] never speaking save in the
plural! What is this imperial “pomp”; that of the cucumber twisted in the
grass, and growing at the belly? Do you think the Caesar celebrated a

triumph whenever he left his house, as the Pope now does, preceded by
white horses which servants lead saddled and adorned? To pass over other
follies, nothing is emptier, more unbecoming a Roman pontiff than this.
And what is this “glory”? Would a Latin have called pomp and
paraphernalia “glory,” as is customary in the Hebrew language? And instead
of “soldiers” [milites] you say soldiery [militia[479]] which we have
borrowed from the Hebrews, whose books neither Constantine nor his
secretaries had ever laid eyes on!
But how great is your munificence, O Emperor, who deem it not
sufficient to have adorned the pontiff, unless you adorn all the clergy also!
As an “eminence of distinguished power and excellence,” [See Latin page] you
say, they are “made patricians and consuls.” Who has ever heard of senators
or other men being made patricians? Consuls are “made,” but not patricians.
The senators, the conscript fathers, are from patrician (also called
senatorial), equestrian, or plebeian families as the case may be. It is greater,
also, to be a senator than to be a patrician; for a senator is one of the chosen
counsellors of the Republic, while a patrician is merely one who derives his
origin from a senatorial family. So one who is a senator, or of the conscript
fathers, is not necessarily forthwith also a patrician. So my friends the
Romans are now making themselves ridiculous when they call their praetor
“senator,” since a senate cannot consist of one man and a senator must have
colleagues, and he who is now called “senator” performs the function of
praetor. But, you say, the title of patrician is found in many books.[480] Yes;
but in those which speak of times later than Constantine; therefore the
“privilege” was executed after Constantine.
But how can the clergy become consuls?[481] The Latin clergy have
denied themselves matrimony; and will they become consuls, make a levy
of troops, and betake themselves to the provinces allotted them with legions
and auxiliaries? Are servants and slaves made consuls? And are there to be
not two, as was customary; but the hundreds and thousands of attendants
who serve the Roman church, are they to be honored with the rank of
general? And I was stupid enough to wonder at what was said about the
Pope’s transformation! The attendants will be generals; but the clergy
soldiers. Will the clergy become soldiers or wear military insignia, unless
you share the imperial insignia with all the clergy? [I may well ask,] for I do
not know what you are saying. And who does not see that this fabulous tale

was concocted by those who wished to have every possible license in the
[See Latin page]
attire they were to wear? If there are games of any kind played
among the demons which inhabit the air I should think that they would
consist in copying the apparel, the pride and the luxury of the clergy, and
that the demons would be delighted most by this kind of masquerading.
Which shall I censure the more, the stupidity of the ideas, or of the
words? You have heard about the ideas; here are illustrations of his words.
He says, “It seems proper for our Senate to be adorned” (as though it were
not assuredly adorned), and to be adorned forsooth with “glory.” And what
is being done he wishes understood as already done; as, “we have
proclaimed” for “we proclaim”: for the speech sounds better that way. And
he puts the same act in the present and in the past tense; as, “we decree,”
and “we have decreed.” And everything is stuffed with these words, “we
decree,” “we decorate,” “imperial,” “imperial rank,” “power,” “glory.” He
uses “extat” for “est,” though “extare” means to stand out or to be above;
and “nempe” for “scilicet” [that is, “indeed” for “to wit”]; and
“concubitores” [translated above, bed-watchers] for “contubernales”
[companions or attendants]. “Concubitores” are literally those who sleep
together and have intercourse; they must certainly be understood to be
harlots. He adds those with whom he may sleep, I suppose, that he may not
fear nocturnal phantoms.[482] He adds “chamberlains”; he adds “door-
keepers.”
It is not an idle question to ask why he mentions these details. He is
setting up, not an old man, but a ward or a young son, and like a doting
father, himself arranges for him everything of which his tender age has
need, as David did for Solomon! And that the story may be filled in in every
respect, horses are given the clergy,—lest they sit on asses’ colts in that
asinine way of Christ’s! And they are given horses, not covered nor saddled
with coverings of white, but decorated with white color. And what
coverings! Not horse-cloths, either Babylonian or any other kind, but
“mappulae” [translated above, saddle-cloths] and [See Latin page] “linteamina”
[linen cloths or sheets, translated above, linen]. “Mappae” [serviettes] go
with the table, “linteamina” with the couch. And as though there were doubt
as to their color, he explains, “that is to say, of the whitest color.” Talk
worthy of Constantine; fluency worthy of Lactantius; not only in the other
phrases, but also in that one, “may mount mounts”!

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

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

So the “socks” are not linen, nor white, with which this two-legged ass
says, not that the feet of senators are clad, but that senators are
distinguished.
And in the phrase “that the terrestrial orders may be adorned to the glory
of God, just as the celestial,” what do you call celestial, what terrestrial?
How are the celestial orders adorned?[484] You may have seen what glory to
God this is. But I, if I believe anything, deem nothing more hateful to God
and to the rest of humanity than such presumption of clergy in the secular
sphere. But why do I attack individual items? Time would fail me if I
should try, I do not say to dwell upon, but to touch upon them all.

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

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

“Enroll in the pious number of the religious”; and “clericare,” “clericorum,”
“indictu,” and “placatus”!
And again he comes back to the diadem:

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

Again he explains the meaning of diadem, for he was speaking to
barbarians, forgetful ones at that. And he adds “of purest gold,” lest
perchance you should think brass or dross was mixed in. And when he has
said “gems,” he adds “precious,” again fearing lest you should suspect them
of being cheap. Yet why did he not say most precious, just as he said
“purest gold”? For there is more difference between gem and gem, than
between gold and gold. And when he should have said “distinctum
gemmis,” he said “ex gemmis.” Who does not see that this was taken from
the passage, which the gentile ruler had not read, “Thou settest a crown of
precious stone on his head”?[486] Did the Caesar speak thus, with a certain
vanity in bragging of his crown, if indeed the Caesars were crowned, but
cheapening himself by fearing lest [See Latin page] people would think that he
did not wear a crown “of purest gold and precious gems,” unless he said so?
Find the reason why he speaks thus: “for the honor of the blessed Peter.”
As though, not Christ, but Peter, were the chief corner-stone on which the
temple of the church is built; an inference he later repeats! But if he wanted
to honor him so much, why did he not dedicate the episcopal temple at
Rome to him, rather than to John the Baptist?
What? Does not that barbarous way of talking show that the rigmarole
was composed, not in the age of Constantine, but later; “decernimus quod
uti debeant”[487] for the correct form “decernimus ut utantur”? Boors
commonly speak and write that way now; “Iussi quod deberes venire” for
“Iussi ut venires.” And “we decreed,” and “we granted,” as though it were
not being done now, but had been done some other time!

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

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

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

Does not this fable-fabricator seem to blunder, not through imprudence,
but deliberately and of set purpose, and so as to offer handles for catching
him? In the same passage he says both that the Lord’s resurrection is
represented by the tiara, and that it is an imitation of Caesar’s power; two
things which differ most widely from each other. God is my witness, I find
no words, no words merciless enough with which to stab this most
abandoned scoundrel; so full of insanity are all the words he vomits forth.
He makes Constantine not only similar in office to Moses, who at the
command of God honored the chief priest, but also an expounder of secret
mysteries, a most difficult thing even for those long versed in the sacred
books. Why did you not make Constantine supreme pontiff while you were
about it, as many emperors have been, that he might more conveniently
transfer his attire to the other high priest? But you did not know history.
And I give thanks to God on this very score, that he did not permit this

utterly vicious scheme to be suggested save to an exceedingly stupid man.
Subsequent considerations also show this. For he suggests the fact that
Moses performed for Aaron, seated on a horse, the duty of squire
[dextratoris], and that in the midst not of Israel, but of the Canaanites and
the Egyptians, that is, of an heathen state, where there was not so much a
secular government as one of demons and demon-worshipping peoples.

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

We have already, in the oration of the Romans and that of Sylvester, said
a good deal about this.[490] Here it is in place to say that no one would have
thought of including all the nations in a single word of a grant; and that a
man who had earlier followed out the minutest details of straps, the shoes,
the linen horse-cloths, would not have thought of omitting to cite by name
provinces which now have separate kings or rulers equal to kings, and more
than one to each. But this forger, of course, did not know which provinces
were under Constantine, and which were not. For certainly not all were
under him. When Alexander died, we see all the countries enumerated one
by one in the division among the generals. We see the lands and rulers
which were under the government of Cyrus, whether voluntarily or by
conquest, named by Xenophon. We see the names of the Greek and
barbarian kings, their lineage, their country, their bravery, their strength,
their excellence, the number of their ships and the approximate number of
their men, included by Homer in his catalog. And not only did many Greeks
follow his example, but our Latin authors also, Ennius, Virgil, Lucan,
Statius, and others. By Joshua and Moses, in the division of the promised
land, even all the little villages were described. And you refuse to
enumerate even provinces! You name only the “western provinces.”[491]

What are the boundaries of the west; where do they begin; where do they
end? Are the frontiers of west and east, south and north, as definite and
fixed as those of Asia, Africa and Europe? Necessary words you omit, you
heap on superfluous ones. You say, “provinces, [See Latin page] places and
cities.” Are not provinces and cities, “places”? And when you have said
provinces you add cities, as though the latter would not be understood with
the former. But it is not strange that a man who gives away so large a part of
the earth should pass over the names of cities and of provinces, and as
though overcome with lethargy not know what he says. “Of Italy or of the
western regions,” as though he meant “either ... or” when he means “both”;
[492]
speaking of “provinces ... of the ... regions,” when it should rather be
the regions of the provinces; and using the gerundive, “permanendas,” for
the future infinitive (permansuras).

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

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

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

[See Latin page]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This terrible threat is the usual one, not of a secular ruler, but of the early
priests and flamens, and nowadays, of ecclesiastics. And so this is not the
utterance of Constantine, but of some fool of a priest who, stuffed and
pudgy, knew neither what to say nor how to say it, and, gorged with eating
and heated with wine, belched out these wordy sentences which convey
nothing to [See Latin page] another, but turn against the author himself. First he
says, “shall be subject to eternal damnation,” then as though more could be
added, he wishes to add something else, and to eternal penalties he joins
penalties in the present life; and after he frightens us with God’s

condemnation, he frightens us with the hatred of Peter, as though it were
something still greater. Why he should add Paul, and why Paul alone, I do
not know. And with his usual drowsiness he returns again to eternal
penalties, as though he had not said that before. Now if these threats and
curses were Constantine’s, I in turn would curse him as a tyrant and
destroyer of my country, and would threaten that I, as a Roman, would take
vengeance on him. But who would be afraid of the curse of an overly
avaricious man, and one saying a counterfeit speech after the manner of
actors, and terrifying people in the rôle of Constantine? This is being a
hypocrite in the true sense, if we press the Greek word closely; that is,
hiding your own personality under another’s.

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

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

though he lies with Peter, and the two could guard it better than if the body
of one alone were present?
You see the malicious artfulness of the cunning Sinon![499] Because the
Donation of Constantine cannot be produced, therefore he said that the
“privilege” is not on bronze but on paper records; therefore he said that it
lies with the body of the most holy apostle, so that either we should not dare
to seek it in the venerable tomb, or if we should seek it, we would think it
rotted away. But where then was the body of the blessed Peter? Certainly it
was not yet in the temple where it now is, not in a place reasonably
protected and safe. Therefore the Caesar would not have put the “page”
there. Or did he not trust the “page” to the most blessed Sylvester, as not
holy enough, not careful nor diligent enough? O Peter! O Sylvester! O holy
pontiffs of the Roman church! to whom the sheep of the Lord were
entrusted, why did you not keep the “page” entrusted to you? Why have you
suffered it to be eaten by worms, to rot away with mold? I presume that it
was because your bodies also have wasted away. Constantine therefore
acted foolishly. Behold the “page” reduced to dust; the right conferred by
the “privilege” at the same time passes away into dust.
And yet, as we see, a copy of the “page” is shown. Who then was so bold
as to take it from the bosom of the most holy apostle? No one did it, I think.
Whence then the copy? By all means some [See Latin page] ancient writer
ought to be adduced, one not later than the time of Constantine. However,
none such is adduced, but as it happens some recent writer or other. Whence
did he get it? For whoever composes a narrative about an earlier age, either
writes at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, or follows the authority of former
writers, and of those, of course, who wrote concerning their own age. So
whoever does not follow earlier writers will be one of those to whom the
remoteness of the event affords the boldness to lie. But if this story is to be
read anywhere, it is not consistent with antiquity any more than that stupid
narrative of the glossator Accursius about Roman ambassadors being sent to
Greece to get laws agrees with Titus Livius and the other best writers.

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

He took the next to the last day of March so that we might feel that this
was done in the season of holy days, which, for the most part, come at that
time. And “Constantine consul for the fourth time, and Gallicanus consul
for the fourth time.” Strange if each had been consul thrice, and they were
colleagues in a fourth consulship! But stranger still that the Augustus, a
leper, with elephantiasis (which disease is as remarkable among diseases, as
elephants are among animals), should want to even accept a consulship,
when king Azariah, as soon as he was affected with leprosy, kept himself
secluded, while the management of the kingdom was given over to Jotham
his son;[501] and almost all lepers have acted similarly. And by this
argument alone the whole “privilege” is confuted outright, destroyed, and
overturned. And if any one disputes the fact that Constantine must have
been leprous before he was consul, he should know that according to
physicians this disease develops gradually, that according to the [See Latin
page]
known facts of antiquity the consulate is an annual office and begins in
the month of January; and these events are said to have taken place the
following March.
Nor will I here pass over the fact that “given” is usually written on
letters, but not on other documents, except among ignorant people. For
letters are said either to be given one (illi) or to be given to one (ad illum);
in the former case [they are given to] one who carries them, a courier for
instance, and puts them in the hand of the man to whom they are sent; in the
latter case [they are given] to one in the sense that they are to be delivered
to him by the bearer, that is [they are given to] the one to whom they are
sent. But the “privilege,” as they call it, of Constantine, as it was not to be
delivered to any one, so also it ought not to be said to be “given.” And so it
should be apparent that he who spoke thus lied, and did not know how to
imitate what Constantine would probably have said and done. And those
who think that he has told the truth, and defend him, whoever they are,
make themselves abetters and accessories in his stupidity and madness.

However, they have nothing now with which to honorably excuse their
opinion, not to speak of defending it.
Or is it an honorable excuse for an error, to be unwilling to acquiesce in
the truth when you see it disclosed, because certain great men have thought
otherwise? Great men, I call them, on account of their position, not on
account of their wisdom or their goodness. How do you even know whether
those whom you follow, had they heard what you hear, would have
continued in their belief, or would have given it up? And moreover it is
most contemptible to be willing to pay more regard to man than to Truth,
that is, to God. [I say this] for some men beaten at every argument are wont
to answer thus: “Why, have so many supreme pontiffs believed this
Donation to be genuine?” I call you to witness, that you urge me where I
would not, and force me against my will to rail at the supreme pontiffs
whose faults I would prefer to veil. But let us proceed to speak frankly,
inasmuch as this case cannot be conducted in any other way.
Admitting that they did thus believe and were not dishonest; [See Latin page]
why wonder that they believed these stories where so much profit allured
them, seeing that they are led to believe a great many things, in which no
profit is apparent, through their extraordinary ignorance? Do you not, at Ara
Coeli, in that most notable temple and in the most impressive place see the
fable of the Sibyl and Octavian[502] depicted by the authority, they say, of
Innocent III, who wrote it and who also left an account of the destruction of
the Temple of Peace on the day of the Savior’s birth, that is, at the delivery
of the Virgin?[503] These stories tend rather to the destruction of faith, by
their falsity, than to the establishment of faith, by their wonders. Does the
vicar of Truth dare to tell a lie under the guise of piety, and consciously
entangle himself in this sin? Or does he not lie? Verily, does he not see that
in perpetrating this he contradicts the most holy men? Omitting others;
Jerome cites the testimony of Varro that there were ten Sibyls, and Varro
wrote his work before the time of Augustus. Jerome also writes thus of the
Temple of Peace: “Vespasian and Titus, after the Temple of Peace was built
at Rome, dedicated the vessels of the temple [of the Jews] and all manner of
gifts in her shrine, as the Greek and Roman historians tell.” And this
ignorant man, alone, wants us to believe his libel, barbarously written at
that, rather than the most accurate histories of ancient and most painstaking
authors!

Since I have touched on Jerome, I will not suffer the following insult to
him to be passed by in silence. At Rome, by the authority of the Pope, with
the candles ever burning, as though for a relic of the saints, is shown a copy
of the Bible, which they say is written in the hand of Jerome. Do you seek
proof? Why, there is “much embroidered cloth and gold,” as Virgil says, a
thing which indicates rather that it was not written by the hand of Jerome.
When I inspected it more carefully, I found that it was written [See Latin page]
by order of a king, Robert, I think, and in the handwriting of an
inexperienced man.
Similarly,—there are indeed ten thousand things of this sort at Rome,—
among sacred objects is shown the panel portrait of Peter and Paul, which,
after Constantine had been spoken to by these apostles in his sleep,
Sylvester produced in confirmation of the vision. I do not say this because I
deny that they are portraits of the apostles (would that the letter sent in the
name of Lentulus about the portrait of Christ were as genuine, instead of
being no less vicious and spurious than this “privilege” which we have
refuted), but because that panel was not produced for Constantine by
Sylvester. At that story my mind cannot restrain its astonishment.
So I will briefly discuss the Sylvester legend, because the whole question
hinges on this; and, since I have to do with Roman pontiffs, it will be in
order to speak chiefly of the Roman pontiff so that from one example an
estimate of the others may be formed. And of the many absurdities told in
this [legend] I shall touch upon one alone, that of the serpent,[504] in order
to show that Constantine had not been a leper. And verily the Life of
Sylvester (Gesta Silvestri), according to the translator, was written by
Eusebius,[505] a Greek, always the readiest people at lying, as Juvenal’s
satirical judgment runs:

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

Whence came that dragon? Dragons are not engendered in Rome.
Whence, too, his venom? In Africa alone, on account of its hot climate, are
there said to be pest-producing dragons. Whence, too, so much venom that
he wasted with pestilence such [See Latin page] a spacious city as Rome; the
more remarkable that the serpent was down in a cavern so deep that one

descended to it by a hundred and fifty steps? Serpents, excepting possibly
the basilisk, inject their poison and kill, not with their breath, but with their
bite. Cato, fleeing from Caesar through the very midst of the African deserts
with such a large force as he had, did not see any of his company slain by
the breath of a serpent, either on the march or in camp; nor do the natives
think the air pestilential on account of serpents. And if we believe at all in
the stories, the Chimaera, the Hydra and Cerberus have all often been seen
and touched without injury.
Why hadn’t the Romans already slain it instead [of waiting for
Sylvester]? They couldn’t, you say? But Regulus killed a much larger
serpent in Africa on the banks of the Bagradas. And it was very easy indeed
to kill the one at Rome; for instance, by closing the mouth of the cavern. Or
didn’t they want to? Ah, they worshipped it as a god, I suppose, as the
Babylonians did? Why then, as Daniel is said to have killed that serpent,
[507]
had not Sylvester killed this one when he had bound him with a
hempen thread, and destroyed that brood forever? The reason the inventor
of the legend did not want the dragon slain was that it might not be apparent
that he had copied the narrative of Daniel. But if Jerome, a most learned
and accurate translator, Apollinaris, Origen, Eusebius and others affirm the
story of Bel to be apocryphal, if the Jews in their original of the Old
Testament do not know it; that is, if all the most learned of the Latins, most
of the Greeks, and certain of the Hebrews, condemn that as a legend, shall I
not condemn this adumbration of it, which is not based on the authority of
any writer, and which far surpasses its model in absurdity?
For who had built the underground home for the beast? Who had put it
there and commanded it not to come out and fly away (for dragons fly, as
some say; even though others deny it)? Who had thought out that kind of
food for him? Who had directed that women, virgins at that, devoted to
chastity, go down to him, [See Latin page] and only on the Kalends? Or did the
serpent remember what day was the Kalends? And was he content with
such scant and occasional food? And did not the virgins dread such a deep
cavern, and a beast so monstrous and greedy? I suppose the serpent
wheedled them, as they were women, and virgins, and brought him his
victuals; I suppose he even chatted with them. What if, pardon the
expression, he even had intercourse with them; for both Alexander and
Scipio are said to have been born by the embrace of a dragon, or a serpent,

with their mothers! Why, if food were afterward denied him, would he not
have come out then, or have died?
O the strange folly of men who have faith in these senile ravings! How
long now had this been going on? When did the beginning occur? Before
the advent of the Savior, or after? As to this, nothing is known. We should
be ashamed! We should be ashamed of these silly songs, and this frivolity
worse than dangerous! A Christian, who calls himself a son of truth and
light, should blush to utter things which not only are not true, but are not
credible.
But, they say, the demons obtained this power over the heathen, so as to
mock them for serving the gods. Silence, you utter ignoramuses, not to call
you utter rascals, you who always spread such a veil over your stories! True
Christianity does not need the patronage of falsehood; it is maintained
satisfactorily by itself, and by its own light and truth, without those lying
and deceitful fables,—unmitigated insults to God, to Christ, and to the Holy
Spirit. Would God thus have given the human race over into the power of
demons, to be seduced by such evident, such imposing miracles, that he
might well-nigh be accused of the injustice of turning sheep over to wolves,
and that men should have good excuse for their errors? But if so much
license was once given demons, even more would be given them now
among infidels; which is by no means the case, nor are any legends of this
sort told by them.
Passing by other peoples, I will speak of the Romans. Among them the
miracles reported are few, and they early and obscure. [See Latin page] Valerius
Maximus tells that that chasm in the middle of the forum, when Curtius,
armed and spurring on his horse, plunged into it, closed again, and returned
forthwith to its former state.[508] Again, the [effigy of] Juno Moneta, when it
was asked, in jest, by a certain Roman soldier at the capture of Veii,
whether it wanted to move to Rome, replied that it did.[509]
Titus Livius, an earlier and more authoritative writer, knows neither of
these stories. For he has it that the chasm was permanent, not a sudden
opening but an old one, there before the founding of the city, and called
Curtius’ Pond, because Mettius Curtius, a Sabine, fleeing from an attack by
the Romans, had hidden in it; and that the Juno did not reply, but nodded
assent, and it was added to the story afterwards that she had spoken.[510]

And about the nod also, it is evident that they lied, either by interpreting the
movement of the image when they pulled it away as made by its own
accord, or by pretending in the same joking way in which they asked the
question that the hostile, conquered, stone goddess nodded assent. Indeed,
Livy does not say that she nodded, but that the soldiers exclaimed that she
nodded. Such stories, too, good writers do not defend as facts, but excuse as
tradition. For even as this same Livy says, “This indulgence is to be granted
antiquity, that by mingling the human and the divine it may make the
beginnings of cities more august.”[511] And elsewhere: “But in connection
with events of such ancient times, if probabilities should be accepted as
facts, no harm would be done. These stories are more suited to the display
of a stage which delights in wonders, than to sober belief; it is not worth
while either to affirm or to refute them.”[512]
Terentius Varro, an earlier, more learned and, I think, more authoritative
writer than these two, says there were three accounts of Curtius’ Pond given
by as many writers; one by Proculus, that [See Latin page] this pond was so
called for a Curtius who cast himself into it; another by Piso, that it was
named for Mettius the Sabine; the third by Cornelius, and he adds Luctatius
as his associate in the matter, that it was for Curtius the consul, whose
colleague was Marcus Genutius.[513]
Nor should I have concealed that Valerius cannot be altogether criticised
for speaking as he does, since a little later he earnestly and seriously adds;
“And I do not ignore the fact that as to human eyes and ears perceiving the
movement and the voice of immortal gods, our judgment is rather confused
by wavering opinion; but because what is said is not new but the repetition
of traditions, the authors may lay claim to credence.”[514] He spoke of the
voice of the gods on account of the Juno Moneta,[515] and on account of the
statue of Fortune which is represented to have twice spoken in these words,
“With due form have you seen me, matrons; with due form have you
dedicated me.”[516]
But our own story-tellers every once in a while bring in talking idols of
which the heathen themselves, and the worshippers of the idols; do not
speak; rather they deny them more earnestly than the Christians affirm
them. Among the heathen the very few wonders which are told make their
way not by the belief of writers, but by the sanction of their antiquity, as

something sacred and venerable; among our writers wonders more recent
are narrated, wonders of which the men of those times did not know.
I neither disparage admiration for the saints, nor do I deny their divine
works, for I know that faith, as much of it as a grain of mustard seed, is able
even to remove mountains. Rather I defend and uphold them, but I do not
allow them to be confused with ridiculous legends. Nor can I be persuaded
that these writers were other than either infidels, who did this to deride the
Christians in case these bits of fiction handed out by crafty men to the [See
Latin page]
ignorant should be accepted as true, or else believers with a zeal
for God, to be sure, but not according to knowledge, men who did not
shrink from writing shameless accounts not only of the acts of the saints but
even of the mother of God, and indeed of Christ himself, nor from writing
pseudo-gospels. And the supreme pontiff calls these books apocryphal as
though it were no blemish that their author is unknown, as though what was
told were credible, as though they were sacred, tending to establish religion;
so that now there is no less fault on his part in that he approves evils, than
on the part of the one who devised them. We detect spurious coins, we pick
them out and reject them; shall we not detect spurious teaching? Shall we
retain it, confuse it with the genuine and defend it as genuine?
But I, to give my frank opinion, deny that the Acts of Sylvester is an
apocryphal book; because, as I have said, a certain Eusebius is said to have
been its author; but I think it is false and not worth reading, in other parts as
well as in what it has to say about the serpent, the bull,[517] and the leprosy,
to refute which I have gone over so much ground. For even if Naaman was
leprous, should we forthwith say that Constantine also was leprous? Many
writers allude to it in Naaman’s case; that Constantine the head of the whole
earth had leprosy no one mentioned; at least none of his fellow citizens, but
perhaps some foreigner or other, to be given no more credence than that
other fellow who wrote about wasps building their nest in Vespasian’s
nostrils, and about the frog taken from Nero at birth, whence they say the
place was called the Lateran, for the frog (rana) is concealed (latere) there
in its grave.[518] Such stuff neither the wasps themselves, nor frogs, if they
could speak, would have uttered! [I pass over the statement that boys’ blood
is a remedy for leprosy, which medical [See Latin page] science does not admit;
[519]
] unless they attribute this to the Capitoline gods, as though they were
wont to talk and had ordered this to be done!

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

But you say, “Why do not the Emperors, who were the sufferers from this
forgery, deny the Donation of Constantine, instead of admitting it,
confirming it and maintaining it?” A great argument! [See Latin page] a
marvellous defense! For of which Emperor are you speaking? If of the
Greek one, who was the true Emperor, I will deny the admission; if of the
Latin, I will confess it, and with pleasure. For who does not know that the
Latin Emperor was gratuitously established by a supreme pontiff, Stephen I
think, who robbed the Greek Emperor because he would not aid Italy, and
established a Latin Emperor; so the Emperor thus received more from the
Pope than the Pope from the Emperor?[520] Oh, of course, Achilles and
Patroclus divided the Trojan spoils between themselves alone on some such
terms. The words of Louis [the Pious] seem to me to imply just this when
he says, “I, Louis, Roman Emperor, Augustus, ordain and grant, by this
compact of our confirmation, to you, blessed Peter, prince of the apostles,
and through you to your vicar, the supreme pontiff, lord Paschal [I], and to

his successors forever, to hold, just as from our predecessors until now you
have held, under your authority and rule, the Roman state with its duchy,
with all its towns and villages, its mountain districts, sea coasts and harbors,
and all cities, forts, walled towns, and estates in the districts of
Tuscany.”[521]
Do you, Louis, make a pact with Paschal? If these are yours, that is, the
Roman Empire’s, why do you grant them to another? If they are his and are
held in his own possession, what sense is there in your confirming them?
How little of the Roman Empire will be yours if you lose the very head of
the Empire? From Rome the Roman Emperor takes his name. What! Are
your other possessions yours or Paschal’s? Yours, you will say, I suppose.
Therefore, the Donation of Constantine is not valid at all; that is, if you
possess what was given by him to the pontiff. If it is valid, by what right
does Paschal give you the rest [of the Empire], retaining for himself only
what he possesses? What does your excessive prodigality toward him at the
expense of the Roman Empire mean, or his toward you? Therefore,
deservedly do you call it a “compact,” something like collusion.
[See Latin page]

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

question the right of the Pope is not my concern but that of the
Emperor yonder at Constantinople.”

I quite excuse you, Louis, and every other ruler similarly placed. What
must we suspect of the compact of other Emperors with the supreme
pontiffs, when we know what Sigismund did, a ruler otherwise most
excellent and courageous, but at that time affected and weakened by age?
We saw him, hedged in throughout Italy, with a few retainers, living from
day to day at Rome, and he would, indeed, have perished with hunger, had
not Eugenius fed him,—but not for nothing, for he extorted the Donation
from him. When he had come to Rome to be crowned Emperor of the
Romans, he could not get the Pope to crown him, except by confirming the
Donation of Constantine and by granting anew all that it contained. What
more contradictory than for him to be crowned Roman Emperor who had
renounced Rome itself, and that by the man whom he both acknowledges
and, so far as he can, makes master of the Roman Empire; and [for the [See
Latin page]
Emperor] to confirm the Donation which, if genuine, leaves none
of the Empire for the Emperor! It is a thing which, as I think, not even
children would have done. So it is not strange that the Pope arrogates to
himself the coronation of the Caesar, which ought to belong to the Roman
people.
If you, O Pope, on the one hand can deprive the Greek Emperor of Italy
and the western provinces, and on the other you create a Latin Emperor,
why do you resort to “compacts”? Why do you divide the Caesar’s estate?
Why do you transfer the Empire to yourself?
Wherefore, let whoever is called Emperor of the Romans know that in
my judgment he is not Augustus, nor Caesar, nor Emperor, unless he rules
at Rome; and unless he takes up the recovery of the city of Rome, he will
plainly be forsworn. For those earlier Caesars, and Constantine first of
them, were not forced to take the oath by which the Caesars are now bound;
but rather the oath that, so far as it lay in human power, they would not
diminish the extent of the Roman Empire, but would diligently add to it.
Yet not for this reason are they called Augusti, namely that they ought to
augment the Empire, as some think whose knowledge of Latin is imperfect;
for he is called Augustus, as consecrated, from “avium gustus” (the taste, or

appetite, of the birds), a customary step in consulting the omens: and this
derivation is supported by the language of the Greeks, among whom the
Augustus is called Σεβαστός, from which Sebastia gets its name. Better
might the supreme pontiff be called Augustus from “augere” (to augment),
except for the fact that when he augments his temporal he diminishes his
spiritual power. Thus it is a fact that the worse the supreme pontiff is, the
more he exerts himself to defend this Donation. Take the case of Boniface
VIII, who deceived Celestine by means of pipes fixed in the wall.[522] He
both writes concerning the Donation of Constantine, and he despoils the
French king; and, as though he wished to put the Donation [See Latin page] of
Constantine in execution, he decrees that the kingdom itself belonged to
and was subject to the Roman church. This decretal his successors,
Benedict and Clement, revoked outright, as wicked and unjust.
But what is the significance of your anxiety, Roman pontiffs, in requiring
each Emperor to confirm the Donation of Constantine, unless it be that you
distrust its legality? But you are washing bricks [you labor in vain], as they
say; for that Donation never existed, and since it does not exist it cannot be
confirmed; and whatever the Caesars grant, their acts are due to deception
as to the precedent of Constantine; and they cannot grant the Empire.

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

monster of depravity, John Vitelleschi, cardinal and patriarch, who wore out
the sword of Peter, with which [the apostle] cut off the ear of Malchus, with
the blood of Christians. By this sword he himself also perished.[523] But is it
true [See Latin page] that the people of Israel were permitted to revolt from the
house of David and Solomon whom prophets sent by God had anointed,
because their impositions were too heavy; and that God approved their act?
May we not revolt on account of such great tyranny, particularly from those
who are not kings, and cannot be; and who from being shepherds of the
sheep, that is to say, of souls, have become thieves and brigands?
And to come to human law, who does not know that there is no right
conferred by war, or if there is any, that it prevails just as long as you
possess what you have gotten by war? For when you lose possession, you
have lost the right. And so ordinarily, if captives have escaped no one
summons them into court: and so also with plunder if the former owners
have recovered it. Bees and any other kind of winged creatures, if they have
flown away far from my property and have settled on another’s, cannot be
reclaimed. And do you seek to reclaim men, who are not only free
creatures, but masters of others, when they set themselves free by force of
arms, [reclaim them] not by force of arms, but by law, as though you were a
man, and they sheep?
Nor can you say, “The Romans were [considered] just in waging wars
against the nations, and just in depriving them of liberty.” Do not drag me
into that discussion, lest I be forced to speak against my fellow Romans.
However, no fault could be so serious that people should merit everlasting
servitude therefor. And in this connection [one must remember also] that
people often waged a war for which a prince or some important citizen in
the Republic was to blame, and, being conquered, were undeservedly
punished with servitude. There are everywhere abundant examples of this.
Nor in truth does the law of nature provide that one people should
subjugate another people to itself. We can instruct others, we can urge them;
we cannot rule them and do them violence, unless, leaving humanity aside,
we wish to copy the more savage beasts which force their bloody rule upon
the weaker, as the lion among quadrupeds, the eagle among birds, the
dolphin among fish. Yet even these creatures do not vaunt authority over
their [See Latin page] own kind, but over an inferior. How much more ought we

to act thus, and as men have due regard for men, since in the words of
Marcus Fabius there is no beast upon the earth so fierce that his own
likeness is not sacred to him?
Now there are four reasons why wars are waged: either for avenging a
wrong and defending friends; or for fear of incurring disaster later, if the
strength of others is allowed to increase; or for hope of booty; or for desire
of glory. Of these the first is rather honorable, the second less so, and the
last two are far from honorable. And wars were indeed often waged against
the Romans, but after they had defended themselves, they waged war
against their assailants and against others. Nor is there any nation which
yielded to their sway unless conquered in war and subdued; whether justly,
or for what cause, they themselves could judge. I should be unwilling to
condemn them as fighting unjustly or to acquit them as fighting in a just
cause. I can only say that the Roman people waged wars against others for
the same reason as other peoples and kings did, and that it was left open
even to those who were attacked and conquered in war to revolt from the
Romans just as they revolted from other masters; lest perchance (and none
would agree to this) all authority should be imputed to the oldest people
who were first masters; that is, to those who were the first to take
possession of what belonged to others.
And yet the Roman people had a better right over nations conquered in
war than had the Caesars in their overthrow of the Republic. Wherefore, if
it was right for the nations to revolt from Constantine, and, what is far
more, from the Roman people, purely it will be right to revolt from him to
whom Constantine gave his authority. And to put the matter more boldly, if
the Roman people were free either to drive Constantine out, as they did
Tarquinius, or to slay him, as they did Julius Caesar, much more will the
Romans or the provinces be free to slay him, who at any time has succeeded
Constantine. But though this is true, yet it is beyond the scope of my
argument, and so I want to restrain myself and not press anything I have
said further than this, that it is folly to adduce any verbal right, where the
right of [See Latin page] arms prevails, because that which is acquired by arms,
is likewise lost by arms.
This, indeed, the more, that other, new, peoples as we have heard in the
case of the Goths, who were never subject to Roman rule, after putting to
flight the earlier inhabitants, seized upon Italy and many provinces. What

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

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

you seriously weaken it by not at the same time keeping silent about the
other title [by prescription]. Why don’t you keep silent about that other?
Obviously because this is not sufficient.
The Roman church has prescribed! And how can it have entered a
prescription where no title is established but only possession through bad
faith? Or if you deny that the possession was a case of bad faith, at least you
cannot deny that the faith [in the Donation] was stupid. Or, in a matter of
such importance and notoriety, ought ignorance of fact and of law to be
excused? Of fact, because Constantine did not make a grant of Rome and
the provinces; a fact of which a man of the common people might well be
ignorant, but not the supreme pontiff. Of law, because they could not be
granted; which any Christian ought to know. And so, will stupid credulity
give you a right to that which, had you been more conscientious, would
never have been yours? Well! Now, at least, after I have shown that you
held possession through ignorance and stupidity, do you not lose that right,
if it was such? and what ignorance unhappily brought you, does not
knowledge happily take away again? and does not the property revert from
the illegal to the legal master, perchance even with interest? But if you
continue to keep possession in the future, your ignorance is henceforth
changed into malice aforethought and into deceit, and you become a
fraudulent holder.
The Roman church has entered a prescription! O simpletons, O
ignoramuses in divine law! No length of years whatever can [See Latin page]
destroy a true title. Or indeed, if I were captured by barbarians and
supposed to have perished, and should return again home after a hundred
years of captivity, as a claimant of my paternal inheritance, should I be
excluded? What could be more inhuman! And, to give another example, did
Jephthah, the leader of Israel, when the Ammonites demanded back the land
from “the borders of Arnon even unto Jabbok and unto Jordan,” reply,
“Israel has prescribed this now through three hundred years’ occupation”?
Or did he not show that the land which they demanded as theirs, had never
been theirs, but had been the Amorites’? And the proof that it did not belong
to the Ammonites was that they had never in the course of so many years
claimed it.[524]
The Roman church has prescribed! Keep still, impious tongue! You
transfer “prescription,” which is used of inanimate, senseless objects, to

man; and holding man in servitude is the more detestable, the longer it lasts.
Birds and wild animals do not let themselves be “prescribed,” but however
long the time of captivity, when they please and occasion is offered, they
escape. And may not man, held captive by man, escape?
Let me tell why the Roman pontiffs show fraud and craft rather than
ignorance in using war instead of law as their arbiter,—and I believe that
the first pontiffs to occupy the city [of Rome] and the other towns did about
the same. Shortly before I was born, Rome was led by an incredible sort of
fraud, I call those then present there to witness, to accept papal government
or rather usurpation, after it had long been free.[525] The Pope was Boniface
IX, fellow of Boniface VIII in fraud as in name,—if they are to be called
Boniface (benefactor) at all, who are the worst malefactors. And when the
Romans, after the treachery had been detected, stirred up trouble, the good
Pope, after the manner of Tarquinius, struck off all the tallest poppies with
his stick.[526] When his successor, Innocent [VII], afterwards tried to [See
Latin page]
imitate this procedure he was driven out of the city. I will not
speak of other Popes; they have always held Rome down by force of arms.
Suffice it to say that as often as it could it has rebelled; as for instance, six
years ago,[527] when it could not obtain peace from Eugenius, and it was not
equal to the enemies which were besieging it, it besieged the Pope within
his house, and would not permit him to go out before he either made peace
with the enemy or turned over the administration of the city to the citizens.
But he preferred to leave the city in disguise, with a single companion in
flight, rather than to gratify the citizens in their just and fair demands. If
you give them the choice, who does not know that they would choose
liberty rather than slavery?
We may suspect the same of the other cities, which are kept in servitude
by the supreme pontiff, though they ought rather to be liberated by him
from servitude. It would take too long to enumerate how many cities taken
from their enemies the Roman people once set free; it went so far that Titus
Flaminius [Flamininus] set free the whole of Greece, which had been under
Antiochus,[528] and directed that it enjoy its own laws. But the Pope, as may
be seen, lies in wait assiduously against the liberty of countries; and
therefore one after another, they daily, as opportunity affords, rebel. (Look
at Bologna just now.) And if at any time they have voluntarily accepted
papal rule, as may happen when another danger threatens them from

elsewhere, it must not be supposed that they have accepted it in order to
enslave themselves, so that they could never withdraw their necks from the
yoke, so that neither themselves nor those born afterwards should have
control of their own affairs; for this would be utterly iniquitous.

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

But why need I say more in this case, absolutely self-evident as it is? I
contend that not only did Constantine not grant such great possessions, not
only could the Roman pontiff not hold them by prescription, but that even if
either were a fact, nevertheless either right would have been extinguished
by the crimes of the possessors, for we know that the slaughter and
devastation of all Italy and of many of the provinces has flowed from this
[See Latin page]
single source. If the source is bitter, so is the stream; if the root
is unclean, so are the branches; if the first fruit is unholy, so is the lump.[529]
And vice versa, if the stream is bitter, the source must be stopped up; if the
branches are unclean, the fault comes from the root; if the lump is unholy,
the first fruit must also be accursed. Can we justify the principle of papal
power when we perceive it to be the cause of such great crimes and of such
great and varied evils?
Wherefore I declare, and cry aloud, nor, trusting God, will I fear men,
that in my time no one in the supreme pontificate has been either a faithful
or a prudent steward, but they have gone so far from giving food to the
household of God that they have devoured it as food and a mere morsel of
bread! And the Pope himself makes war on peaceable people, and sows
discord among states and princes. The Pope both thirsts for the goods of
others and drinks up his own: he is what Achilles calls Agamemnon,
Δημοβόρος βασιλεύς, “a people-devouring king.” The Pope not only
enriches himself at the expense of the republic, as neither Verres nor
Catiline nor any other embezzler dared to do, but he enriches himself at the
expense of even the church and the Holy Spirit as old Simon Magus himself
would abhor doing. And when he is reminded of this and is reproved by
good people occasionally, he does not deny it, but openly admits it, and
boasts that he is free to wrest from its occupants by any means whatever the
patrimony given the church by Constantine; as though when it was
recovered Christianity would be in an ideal state,—and not rather the more
oppressed by all kinds of crimes, extravagances and lusts; if indeed it can
be oppressed more, and if there is any crime yet uncommitted!
And so, that he may recover the other parts of the Donation, money
wickedly stolen from good people he spends more wickedly, and he
supports armed forces, mounted and foot, with which all places are plagued,
while Christ is dying of hunger and nakedness in so many thousands of
paupers. Nor does he know, [See Latin page] the unworthy reprobate, that while

he works to deprive secular powers of what belongs to them, they in turn
are either led by his bad example, or driven by necessity (granting that it
may not be a real necessity) to make off with what belongs to the officers of
the church. And so there is no religion anywhere, no sanctity, no fear of
God; and, what I shudder to mention, impious men pretend to find in the
Pope an excuse for all their crimes. For he and his followers furnish an
example of every kind of crime, and with Isaiah and Paul, we can say
against the Pope and those about him: “The name of God is blasphemed
among the Gentiles through you, you who teach others, but do not teach
yourselves; who preach against stealing and yourselves are robbers; who
abhor idols, and commit sacrilege; who make your boast of the law and the
pontificate, and through breaking the law dishonor God, the true
pontiff.”[530]
But if the Roman people through excess of wealth lost the well-known
quality of true Romans; if Solomon likewise fell into idolatry through the
love of women; should we not recognize that the same thing happens in the
case of a supreme pontiff and the other clergy? And should we then think
that God would have permitted Sylvester to accept an occasion of sin? I will
not suffer this injustice to be done that most holy man, I will not allow this
affront to be offered that most excellent pontiff, that he should be said to
have accepted empires, kingdoms, provinces, things which those who wish
to enter the clergy are wont, indeed, to renounce. Little did Sylvester
possess, little also the other holy pontiffs, those men whose presence was
inviolable even among enemies, as Leo’s presence overawed and broke
down the wild soul of the barbarian king, which the strength of Rome had
not availed to break down nor overawe.[531] But recent supreme pontiffs,
that is, those having riches and pleasures in abundance, seem to work hard
to make themselves just as impious and foolish as those early pontiffs were
wise and holy, and to extinguish the lofty [See Latin page] praises of those men
by every possible infamy. Who that calls himself a Christian can calmly
bear this?
However, in this my first discourse I do not wish to urge princes and
peoples to restrain the Pope in his unbridled course as he roams about, and
compel him to stay within bounds, but only to warn him, and perhaps he
has already learned the truth, to betake himself from others’ houses to his
own, and to put to port before the raging billows and savage tempests. But

if he refuses, then I will have recourse to another discourse far bolder than
this.[532] If only I may sometime see, and indeed I can scarcely wait to see
it, especially if it is brought about by my counsel, if only I may see the time
when the Pope is the vicar of Christ alone, and not of Caesar also! If only
there would no longer be heard the fearful cry, “Partisans for the Church,”
“Partisans against the Church,” “The Church against the Perugians,”
“against the Bolognese”! It is not the church, but the Pope, that fights
against Christians; the church fights against “spiritual wickedness in high
places.”[533] Then the Pope will be the Holy Father in fact as well as in
name, Father of all, Father of the church; nor will he stir up wars among
Christians, but those stirred up by others he, through his apostolic judgment
and papal prerogative, will stop.[534]

FOOTNOTES
[411] The meaning of this word in this connection is unknown. The chapters
to which it is prefixed are for the most part supposed to have been early marginal
annotations afterwards incorporated in the text of the Decretum. Cf. Friedberg,
Corpus Iuris Canonici, vol. I, Prolegomena, p. lxxxvi.
[412] The subject of chapters xi and xii is, “The Emperors must be under the
Pontiffs, not over them.” Chapters xiii and xiv continue the same subject.
[413] retro was used at Rome in the latter part of the eighth century with the
peculiar meaning of “still” or “again.” This is one of the clues to the date and
place of the document. Henderson’s translation is erroneous.
[414] Ps. cxxxix, 7.
[415] I Tim. v, 20.
[416] Valla’s error for Marcellinus. The whole story is apocryphal.
[417] A reference to the reforming councils of the fifteenth century.
[418] Valla was in the service of the king of Sicily and of Naples when he
wrote this.
[419] The phrase “Italy and the western provinces,” in the Donation of
Constantine, meant to the writer of that document the Italian peninsula,
including Lombardy, Venetia, Istria, and adjacent islands. Other countries
probably did not occur to him as part of the Roman Empire. Valla, however,
followed the current interpretation.
[420] In many versions of the Life of Sylvester there is a marvellous story of
an enormous serpent, finally subdued by the saint. Cf. infra, p. 143; Coleman,
Constantine the Great and Christianity, pp. 161 et seq.; Mombritius,
Sanctuarium, Sive Vitae collectae ex codibus (Milan, c. 1479), v, ii, pp. 279 et

seq., also Paris edition, 1910. For the story of Bel and the Dragon, cf. the book
of that name in the Apocrypha.
[421] I have made two English paragraphs of the rather long Latin one. [Ed.]
[422] Acts xx, 35.
[423] Matt. x, 8.
[424] I Cor. ix, 15.
[425] Rom. xi, 13.
[426] Quoted, freely, from Matt. vi, 19 and Luke x, 4.
[427] Quoted, freely, from Matt. xix, 24; Mk. x, 25; Luke xviii, 25.
[428] I Tim. vi, 7-11.
[429] Acts vi, 2.
[430] II Tim. ii, 4.
[431] Jer. xlviii, 10, quoted freely.
[432] Free quotations from John xxi, 15-17.
[433] John xviii, 36.
[434] Matt. iv, 17.
[435] Matt. xx, 25-28.
[436] I Cor. vi, 2-5, distorted in punctuation and meaning. Paul argues that
cases should be settled inside the church, and that even the humblest Christians
are competent to act as judges; Valla quotes him to show that church leaders are
not to be judges.
[437] Quotations are from Matt. xvii, 25-26.
[438] Mk. xi, 17.
[439] John xii, 47.
[440] Matt. xxvi, 52.
[441] Matt. xvi, 19.
[442] Matt. xvi. 18.
[443] Matt. iv, 8-9, free quotation.
[444] Matt. xi, 28-30, with the phrases transposed.
[445] Matt. xxii, 21.
[446] Eutropius, Breviarum ab urbe condita, X, xvi, 1.
[447] Ibid., X, xvii, 1 and 2.
[448] The antipope elected by the Council of Basle in 1439. This reference is
one of the clues to the date of Valla’s treatise.
[449] Valla’s statement about Eusebius’ Church History is slightly overdrawn.
Some passages, while not definitely saying that Constantine was a Christian
from boyhood, would naturally be construed as implying this, especially when
taken in connection with the chapter headings in use long before Valla’s time;

e.g., ix, 9, §§ 1-12. In his Life of Constantine, i, 27-32, however, Eusebius tells
the story of the Emperor’s conversion in the campaign against Maxentius in 312
by the heavenly apparition, thus implying that he was not previously a Christian.
Valla does not seem to have known of this latter work. Nor is he aware of the
passage in Jerome, Chron. ad. ann., 2353, that Constantine was baptized near the
end of his life by Eusebius of Nicomedia.
[450] This is an extract from a spurious letter purporting to be from
Melchiades, or Miltiades; as palpable a forgery as the Donation of Constantine
itself. The whole letter is given in Migne, P. L., viii, column 566.
For the question when Constantine became a Christian, and of his relations
with the Popes and the church, cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great and
Christianity, with references to sources and literature.
[451] A number of chapters in Gratian’s Decretum added after Gratian have
this word at their head, the one containing the Donation of Constantine among
them. Cf. Friedberg’s edition of the Decretum Gratiani, Prima pars, dist. xcvi, c.
xiii, in his Corpus Iuris Canonici, Leipsic, 1879-1881.
[452] Decretum Gratiani, Prima pars, dist. xcvi, c. xiii; in Friedberg, Corpus
Iuris Canonici, vol. II, p. 342.
[453] Ibid., Pars prima, dist. xv, c. iii, Palea 19; in Friedberg, vol. II.
[454] Cf. Voragine, Golden Legend, trans. by Wm. Caxton, rev. by Ellis
(London, 1900).
[455] December 31.
[456] A reference to the story of the three young men in the bodyguard of
Darius; cf. I Esdras iii and iv.
[457] In the following section my translation of the phrases of the Donation is
harmonized so far as possible with the translation in E. F. Henderson, Select
Historical Documents of the Middle Ages.
[458] Cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, p. 224, ll. 8 et seq.
[459] Virgil, Aeneid, ii, 77-78. Dryden’s translation.
[460] The text of the Donation which Valla used, though apparently in a copy
of Gratian’s Decretum extant in his time, differs here and in a number of other
places, from the texts which we have, whether in Gratian’s Decretum, or in the
Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.
[461] The word satrap was in fact applied to higher officials at Rome only in
the middle of the eighth century. Scheffer-Boichorst, Mitteilungen des Instituts f.
österreichische Geschichtsforschung, x (1889), p. 315.
[462] Tertullian tells this apocryphal story in his Apology, chaps. 5 and 21.
For a translation of letters alleged to have been written to Tiberius by Pilate, see
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff (New York, 1890-1897), vol.
VIII, pp. 459-463.
[463] Valla’s argument in this paragraph is partly based on the defective text
of the Donation which he used, cf. supra, p. 85, note 2. Zeumer’s text would be
translated, “all the Roman people who are subject to the glory of our rule,” and
Friedberg’s, “all the people subject to the glorious rule of Rome.”

[464] Virgil, Aeneid, vi, 852.
[465] The conjunction “seu” in classical Latin meant, as Valla insists, “or”; in
the eighth century it was often used with the meaning “and.” The forger of the
Donation used it in the latter sense. Valla did not see the significance of this
usage for dating the forgery.
[466] Cf. supra, p. 85, note 2.
[467] “firmos patronos,”—this use of “firmus” characterizes the style of Pope
Paul I (757-767). See Scheffer-Boichorst, op. cit., p. 311.
[468] Rev. v, 12; with variations.
[469] Part of this criticism rests upon the peculiarities of the text of the
Donation which Valla used.
[470] Cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, pp. 148-151, 161-
164.
[471] Ps. lxxxi, 12.
[472] Rom. i, 28, with the person of the verb changed.
[473] Matt. xxvii, 28; John xix, 2.
[474] Here, as was common in medieval Latin, “seu” is the equivalent of “et,”
and means “and.” Valla’s criticism is correct, but might go further in fixing the
time of the forgery. Cf. supra, p. 91, note 1.
[475] Lucan, Pharsalia, i, 7.
[476] In our best texts of the Donation this word is “banda,” used in the eighth
century for “colors” or “flags.”
[477] Horace, Ars Poetica, l. 97.
[478] Julius Valerius, Res Gestae Alexandri, i, 37.
[479] At Rome in the eighth century, the time of the forgery, “militia”
indicated a civil rank, rather than soldiers.
[480] The allusion is to the title of Patrician given to Pippin and to his sons as
defenders of the Roman See.
[481] The office of consul as it existed in the Republic and the Empire
disappeared in the time of the German invasions. The word was later applied
quite differently, to a group, practically a social class, at Rome.
[482] Where Valla’s text of the Donation reads “concubitorum,” Zeumer’s
reads “excubiorum” [guards].
[483] Martial, XIV, 141 (140).
[484] Valla for this part of his criticism uses the rather unintelligible order of
words found in most texts of the Donation, instead of the more intelligible order
which he used in his earlier quotations. Cf. pp. 102, 103.
[485] Valla’s text of the Donation in this paragraph differs greatly from
Zeumer’s, Hinschius’, and Friedberg’s. It is not very clear in any of the texts
whether the intent is to give the Pope power to take any one whomsoever into
the clergy and thus relieve him from civil and military duties, or to prevent the

Roman nobility from forcing their way into ecclesiastical offices against the will
of the Pope.
[486] Ps. xxi, 3, with variation.
[487] Valla does not, here, quote his own text of the Donation correctly.
[488] This singular confusion about the crown in the Donation is explained by
Brunner, Festgabe für Rudolf von Gneist, pp. 25 et seq., as giving the Pope the
possession, but not the use, of the imperial crown, thus paving the way for his
prerogative of conferring the crown upon Louis the Pious in 816. Scheffer-
Boichorst takes the whole episode as an attempt of the forger to glorify Sylvester
by having the emperor honor him with the imperial crown, and having the Pope
display the clerical humility (and pride) of rejecting it.
[489] Valla’s text of the Donation here has “sive” for “seu,” cf. supra, p. 91,
note 1. In the whole paragraph there are many deviations from other texts of the
Donation.
[490] Cf. supra, pp. 41 et seq., 49 et seq.
[491] This phrase as used in the Donation probably meant Lombardy, Venetia
and Istria; i.e., practically, northern, as distinct from peninsular, Italy. Cf. supra,
p. 27, note 2, also, Döllinger, Papstfabeln (ed. Friedrich), p. 122, note. In
classical Latin it would have been, as Valla insists, a vague term.
[492] Cf. supra, pp. 91, 109.
[493] Cf. supra, p. 95.
[494] King [rex] was a forbidden title at Rome after the time of the Tarquins.
[495] A parody on Matt. v, 18.
[496] Rev. xxii, 18-19.
[497] “Pagina” in medieval Latin often meant “document.”
[498] In the Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne, i, 454) the keys of Ravenna and
other cities included in the so-called Donation of Pippin are said to have been
placed in “the confession of St. Peter” (i.e., before his tomb). This association
seems to have been common in the eighth century.
[499] Cf. supra, p. 85.
[500] In the best text of the Donation this is not called the fourth consulship of
Gallicanus. In any case, however, the date is impossible; no such consulship as
this is known.
[501] II Kings xv, 5.
[502] This apocryphal story ran that the Sibyl prophesied of Christ, and that
Augustus erected an altar to him.
[503] The Temple of Peace was built by Vespasian and was not destroyed until
it was burned down in the time of Commodus.
[504] This episode in the Gesta, or Actus, or Vita, Silvestri, as may be
gathered from Valla’s subsequent discussion, involves an enormous serpent,
dwelling in a cave under the Tarpeian rock, devastating the entire city of Rome
with his poisonous breath, appeased only by maidens being given him to devour,

and finally bound forever in his cave by Sylvester. For references, cf. Coleman,
Constantine, etc., pp. 161, 168.
[505] Apparently Valla assumes that the Gesta Silvestri was written by a
Greek named Eusebius, but not Eusebius of Caesarea, author of the Church
History. Cf., however, Coleman, Constantine, pp. 161-168.
[506] Satura, x, 174-175.
[507] Cf. the story of Bel and the Dragon in the Apocrypha.
[508] Factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri novem, V, vi, 2.
[509] Ibid., I, viii, 3.
[510] Livy, VII, 6, incorrectly summarized.
[511] Livy, Preface, 7.
[512] Livy, V, 21, 9.
[513] Terentius Varro, de lingua latina, lib. v, 148-150.
[514] Valerius Maximus, factorum et dictorum memorabilium, lib. i, viii, 7.
[515] Ibid., i, viii, 3.
[516] Ibid., i, viii, 4, with the substitution of “seen” for “given.”
[517] In a disputation between Sylvester and Jewish rabbis the rabbis are said
to have killed a bull by shouting the sacred name, Jehovah, and Sylvester is said
to have brought him to life by whispering the name of Christ. Cf. Coleman,
Constantine the Great, etc., p. 163.
[518] These stories were to be found, among other places, in the Mirabilia
urbis Romae, a guidebook to Rome dating from the twelfth century. English
translation by F. M. Nichols, The Marvels of Rome (London and Rome, 1889),
pp. 19-20.
[519] This clause, though not in the MS. or Hutten, seems necessary to the
sense of the following clause, so I have translated it from Bonneau’s text. In the
Vita Silvestri we are told that the pagan priests ordered Constantine to bathe in
infants’ blood in order to cure himself of leprosy. Cf. Coleman, Constantine the
Great, etc., p. 162.
[520] It will be remembered that Valla wrote this while in the service of the
King of Naples, who was in conflict with imperial as well as with papal claims.
[521] A forgery of the eleventh century. Cf. E. Emerton, Medieval Europe, p.
55.
[522] Gossip had it that Boniface VIII induced his predecessor to abdicate by
angelic warnings, which he himself produced through improvised speaking
tubes.
[523] The assassination of Vitelleschi, supposedly by order of the Pope, took
place in March, 1440, and is one of the means of dating Valla’s treatise.
[524] Judges xi, 12-28.
[525] For these episodes, cf. Creighton, History of the Papacy, etc., vol. I,
passim.

[526] Tarquinius, by striking down the tallest poppies with his cane, gave the
hint that the leaders of the opposition should be executed; cf. Livy, I, 54.
[527] The ensuing episode occurred in 1434 and thus fixes the date of the
writing of this passage as 1439 or 1440. Cf. Mancini, Vita di Lorenzo Valla, p.
163.
[528] Flamininus had defeated Philip V of Macedonia, and it was from Philip,
not Antiochus, that he “freed” Greece.
[529] A reminiscence of Rom. xi, 16.
[530] Free quotations from Rom. ii, 21-24.
[531] A reference to the well-known interview in which Leo I persuaded Attila
to desist from his invasion of Italy.
[532] This other discourse did not appear.
[533] Eph. vi, 12.
[534] The MS., Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314, on which this translation is based, was
finished December 7, 1451.

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TREATISE OF
LORENZO VALLA ON THE DONATION OF CONSTANTINE ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright royalties.
Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license,
apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and
trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not
be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of
the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project
Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may
use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative
works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks
may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically
ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S.
copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic
work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept
all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your possession. If
you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this
agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom
you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the

collection of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg works
in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project
Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily comply with
the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format
with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which
the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase
“Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with

this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located
in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the
country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived
from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United
States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or
providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”
associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with
the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain
permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide
access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official

version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of
obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided
that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the
use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the
owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days
following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does
not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You
must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works
possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all
access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth
in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in
Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend
considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and
proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the
Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be
stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete,
inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -
Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation,
the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH
OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES

EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return
the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that
provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu
of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a
refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If
any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law
of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly
from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a)

distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration,
modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work,
and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project
Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals
and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely
available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and
permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future generations. To
learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and
the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state
of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue
Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is
64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S.
federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza
#516, Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact

links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable
effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have
not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg
electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including
how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.