C. XIV. CONCERNING THE SAME.

The Emperor Constantine the fourth day after his baptism conferred this

privilege on the Pontiff of the Roman church, that in the whole Roman

world priests should regard him as their head, as judges do the king.

In this privilege among other things is this: “We—together with all our

satraps, and the whole senate and my nobles, and also all the people

subject to the government of glorious Rome—considered it advisable, that

as the Blessed Peter is seen to have been constituted vicar of the Son

of God on the earth, so the Pontiffs who are the representatives of that

same chief of the apostles, should obtain from us and our empire the

power of a supremacy greater than the clemency of our earthly imperial

serenity is seen to have conceded to it, choosing that same chief of the

apostles and his vicars to be our constant intercessors with God. And

to the extent of our earthly imperial power, we have decreed that his

holy Roman church shall be honored with veneration, and that more than

our empire and earthly throne the most sacred seat of the Blessed Peter

shall be gloriously exalted, we giving to it power, and dignity of glory,

and vigor, and honor imperial. And we ordain and decree that he shall

have the supremacy as well over the four principal seats, Alexandria,

Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, as also over all the churches

of God in the whole earth. And the Pontiff, who at the time shall be at

the head of the holy Roman church itself, shall be more exalted than,

and chief over, all the priests of the whole world, and according to his

judgment everything which is provided for the service of God and for the

stability of the faith of Christians is to be administered. _And below_:

§. 1. On the churches of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, for the

providing of the lights, we have conferred landed estates of possessions,

and have enriched them with different objects, and through our sacred

imperial mandate we have granted him of our property in the east as

well as in the west, and even in the northern and the southern quarter;

namely, in Judea, Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa, and Italy and the various

islands; under this condition indeed, that all shall be administered

by the hand of our most blessed father the supreme Pontiff, Sylvester,

and his successors. _And below_: §. 2. And to our Father, the Blessed

Sylvester, supreme Pontiff and Pope universal, of the city of Rome, and

to all the Pontiffs, his successors, who shall sit in the seat of the

Blessed Peter even unto the end of the world, we by this present do give

our imperial Lateran palace, then the diadem, that is, the crown of our

head, and at the same time the tiara and also the shoulder-band,—that is,

the strap that usually surrounds our imperial neck; and also the purple

mantle and scarlet tunic, and all the imperial raiment; and also the

same rank as those presiding over the imperial cavalry, conferring also

even the imperial scepters, and at the same time all the standards, and

banners, and the different ornaments, and all the pomp of our imperial

eminence, and the glory of our power. §. 3. We decree moreover, as to

the most reverend men, the clergy of different orders who serve that

same holy Roman church, that they have that same eminence, distinction,

power and excellence, by the glory of which it seems proper for our most

illustrious senate to be adorned; that is, that they be made patricians

and consuls, and also we have proclaimed that they be decorated with the

other imperial dignities. And even as the imperial militia is adorned,

so also we decree that the clergy of the holy Roman church be adorned.

And even as the imperial power is adorned with different offices, of

chamberlains, indeed, and door-keepers, and all the guards, so we wish

the holy Roman church also to be decorated. And in order that the

pontifical glory may shine forth most fully, we decree this also; that

the horses of the clergy of this same holy Roman church be decorated with

saddle-cloths and linens, that is, of the whitest color, and that they

are to so ride. And even as our senate uses shoes with felt socks, that

is, distinguished by white linen, so the clergy also should use them,

so that, even as the celestial orders, so also the terrestrial may be

adorned to the glory of God. §. 4. Above all things, moreover, we give

permission to that same most holy one our Father Sylvester and to his

successors, from our edict, that he may make priest whomever he wishes,

according to his own pleasure and counsel, and enroll him in the number

of the religious clergy [i.e., regular, or monastic, clergy; or, perhaps,

the cardinals], let no one whomsoever presume to act in a domineering

way in this. §. 5. We also therefore decreed this, that he himself and

his successors might use and bear upon their heads—to the praise of God

for the honor of the Blessed Peter—the diadem, that is, the crown which

we have granted him from our own head, of purest gold and precious gems.

But since he himself, the most blessed Pope, did not at all allow that

crown of gold to be used over the clerical crown which he wears to the

glory of the Blessed Peter, we placed upon his most holy head, with our

own hands, a glittering tiara of dazzling white representing the Lord’s

resurrection, and holding the bridle of his horse, out of reverence for

the Blessed Peter, we performed for him the duty of groom, decreeing that

all his successors, and they alone, use this same tiara in processions

in imitation of our power. §. 6. Wherefore, in order that the supreme

pontificate may not deteriorate, but may rather be adorned with glory

and power even more than is the dignity of an earthly rule; behold, we

give over and relinquish to the aforesaid our most blessed Pontiff,

Sylvester, the universal Pope, as well our palace, as has been said, as

also the city of Rome, and all the provinces, places and cities of Italy

and the western regions, and we decree by this our godlike and pragmatic

sanction that they are to be controlled by him and by his successors, and

we grant that they shall remain under the law of the holy Roman church.

§. 7. Wherefore we have perceived it to be fitting that our empire and

the power of our kingdom should be transferred in the regions of the

East, and that in the province of Byzantia, in the most fitting place,

a city should be built in our name, and that our empire should there

be established, for where the supremacy of priests and the head of the

Christian religion has been established by the heavenly Emperor, it is

not right that there an earthly emperor should have jurisdiction. §. 8.

We decree, moreover, that all these things, which through this our sacred

imperial [charter] and through other godlike decrees we have established

and confirmed, remain inviolate and unshaken unto the end of the world.

Wherefore, before the living God who commanded us to reign, and in the

face of his terrible judgment, we entreat, through this our imperial

sanction, all the emperors our successors, and all the nobles, the

satraps also, the most glorious senate, and all the people in the whole

world, now and in all times still[413] to come subject to our rule, that

no one of them in any way be allowed either to break these [decrees],

or in any way overthrow them. If any one, moreover,—which we do not

believe—prove a scorner or despiser in this matter, he shall be subject

and bound over to eternal damnation, and shall feel the holy ones of God,

the chief of the apostles, Peter and Paul, opposed to him in the present

and in the future life, and he shall be burned in the lower hell and

shall perish with the devil and all the impious. The page, moreover, of

this our imperial decree, we, confirming it with our own hands, did place

above the venerable body of the Blessed Peter, chief of the apostles.

Given at Rome on the third day before the Kalends of April, our master

the august Flavius Constantine, for the fourth time, and Gallicanus, most

illustrious men, being consuls.”]

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

CONSTANTINE

I have published many books, a great many, in almost every branch of

learning. Inasmuch as there are those who are shocked that in these I

disagree with certain great writers already approved by long usage, and

charge me with rashness and sacrilege, what must we suppose some of

them will do now! How they will rage against me, and if opportunity is

afforded how eagerly and how quickly they will drag me to punishment!

For I am writing against not only the dead, but the living also, not

this man or that, but a host, not merely private individuals, but the

authorities. And what authorities! Even the supreme pontiff, armed not

only with the temporal sword as are kings and princes, but with the

spiritual also, so that even under the very shield, so to speak, of any

prince, you cannot protect yourself from him; from being struck down

by excommunication, anathema, curse. So if he was thought to have both

spoken and acted prudently who said, “I will not write against those

who can write ‘Proscribed,’” how much more would it seem that I ought

to follow the same course toward him who goes far beyond proscription,

who would pursue me with the invisible darts of his authority, so that

I could rightly say, “Whither shall I go from thy spirit, or whither

shall I flee from thy presence?”[414] Unless perhaps we think the supreme

pontiff would bear these attacks more patiently than would others. Far

from it; for Ananias, the high priest, in the presence of the tribune who

sat as judge, ordered Paul when he said he lived in good conscience to be

smitten on the mouth; and Pashur, holding the same rank, threw Jeremiah

into prison for the boldness of his speech. The tribune and the governor,

indeed, were able and willing to protect the former, and the king the

latter, from priestly violence. But what tribune, what governor, what

king, even if he wanted to, could snatch me from the hands of the chief

priest if he should seize me?

But there is no reason why this awful, twofold peril should trouble me

and turn me from my purpose; for the supreme pontiff may not bind nor

loose any one contrary to law and justice. And to give one’s life in

defense of truth and justice is the path of the highest virtue, the

highest honor, the highest reward. Have not many undergone the hazard of

death for the defense of their terrestrial fatherland? In the attainment

of the celestial fatherland (they attain it who please God, not men),

shall I be deterred by the hazard of death? Away then with trepidation,

let fears far remove, let doubts pass away. With a brave soul, with utter

fidelity, with good hope, the cause of truth must be defended, the cause

of justice, the cause of God.

Nor is he to be esteemed a true orator who knows how to speak well,

unless he also has the courage to speak. So let us have the courage to

accuse him, whoever he is, that commits crimes calling for accusation.

And let him who sins against all be called to account by the voice of

one speaking for all. Yet perhaps I ought not to reprove my brother in

public, but by himself. Rather, “Them that sin” and do not accept private

admonition “rebuke before all, that others also may fear.”[415] Or did

not Paul, whose words I have just used, reprove Peter to his face in

the presence of the church because he needed reproof? And he left this

written for our instruction. But perhaps I am not a Paul that I should

reprove a Peter. Yea, I am a Paul because I imitate Paul. Just as, and

this is far greater, I become one in spirit with God when I diligently

observe his commandments. Nor is any one made immune from chiding by an

eminence which did not make Peter immune, and many others possessed of

the same rank; for instance, Marcellus,[416] who offered a libation to

the gods, and Celestine [I] who entertained the Nestorian heresy, and

certain even within our own memory whom we know were reproved, to say

nothing of those condemned, by their inferiors, for who is not inferior

to the Pope?[417]

It is not my aim to inveigh against any one and write so-called

Philippics against him—be that villainy far from me—but to root out error

from men’s minds, to free them from vices and crimes by either admonition

or reproof. I would not dare to say [that my aim is] that others, taught

by me, should prune with steel the papal see, which is Christ’s vineyard,

rank with overabundant shoots, and compel it to bear rich grapes instead

of meager wildings. When I do that, is there any one who will want to

close either my mouth or his own ears, much less propose punishment and

death? If one should do so, even if it were the Pope, what should I call

him, a good shepherd, or a deaf viper which would not choose to heed the

voice of the charmer, but to strike his limbs with its poisonous bite?

I know that for a long time now men’s ears are waiting to hear the

offense with which I charge the Roman pontiffs. It is, indeed, an

enormous one, due either to supine ignorance, or to gross avarice which

is the slave of idols, or to pride of empire of which cruelty is ever

the companion. For during some centuries now, either they have not

known that the Donation of Constantine is spurious and forged, or else

they themselves forged it, and their successors walking in the same way

of deceit as their elders have defended as true what they knew to be

false, dishonoring the majesty of the pontificate, dishonoring the memory

of ancient pontiffs, dishonoring the Christian religion, confounding

everything with murders, disasters and crimes. They say the city of Rome

is theirs, theirs the kingdom of Sicily and of Naples,[418] the whole

of Italy, the Gauls, the Spains, the Germans, the Britons, indeed the

whole West; for all these are contained in the instrument of the Donation

itself.[419] So all these are yours, supreme pontiff? And it is your

purpose to recover them all? To despoil all kings and princes of the West

of their cities or compel them to pay you a yearly tribute, is that your

plan?

I, on the contrary, think it fairer to let the princes despoil you of

all the empire you hold. For, as I shall show, that Donation whence the

supreme pontiffs will have their right derived was unknown equally to

Sylvester and to Constantine.

But before I come to the refutation of the instrument of the Donation,

which is their one defense, not only false but even stupid, the right

order demands that I go further back. And first, I shall show that

Constantine and Sylvester were not such men that the former would choose

to give, would have the legal right to give, or would have it in his

power to give those lands to another, or that the latter would be willing

to accept them or could legally have done so. In the second place, if

this were not so, though it is absolutely true and obvious, [I shall show

that in fact] the latter did not receive nor the former give possession

of what is said to have been granted, but that it always remained under

the sway and empire of the Caesars. In the third place, [I shall show

that] nothing was given to Sylvester by Constantine, but to an earlier

Pope (and Constantine had received baptism even before that pontificate),

and that the grants were inconsiderable, for the mere subsistence of the

Pope. Fourth, that it is not true either that a copy of the Donation is

found in the Decretum [of Gratian], or that it was taken from the History

of Sylvester; for it is not found in it or in any history, and it is

comprised of contradictions, impossibilities, stupidities, barbarisms and

absurdities. Further, I shall speak of the pretended or mock donation of

certain other Caesars. Then by way of redundance I shall add that even

had Sylvester taken possession, nevertheless, he or some other pontiff

having been dispossessed, possession could not be resumed after such a

long interval under either divine or human law. Last [I shall show] that

the possessions which are now held by the supreme pontiff could not, in

any length of time, be validated by prescription.

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

then of Sylvester.

* * * * *

It would not do to argue a public and quasi imperial case without more

dignity of utterance than is usual in private cases. And so speaking as

in an assembly of kings and princes, as I assuredly do, for this oration

of mine will come into their hands, I choose to address an audience, as

it were, face to face. I call upon you, kings and princes, for it is

difficult for a private person to form a picture of a royal mind; I seek

your thought, I search your heart, I ask your testimony. Is there any

one of you who, had he been in Constantine’s place, would have thought

that he must set about giving to another out of pure generosity the city

of Rome, his fatherland, the head of the world, the queen of states, the

most powerful, the noblest and the most opulent of peoples, the victor of

the nations, whose very form is sacred, and betaking himself thence to an

humble little town, Byzantium; giving with Rome Italy, not a province but

the mistress of provinces; giving the three Gauls; giving the two Spains;

the Germans; the Britons; the whole West; depriving himself of one of the

two eyes of his empire? That any one in possession of his senses would do

this, I cannot be brought to believe.

What ordinarily befalls you that is more looked forward to, more

pleasing, more grateful, than for you to increase your empires and

kingdoms, and to extend your authority as far and wide as possible? In

this, as it seems to me, all your care, all your thought, all your labor,

night and day is expended. From this comes your chief hope of glory,

for this you renounce pleasures; for this you subject yourselves to a

thousand dangers; for this your dearest pledges, for this your own flesh

you sacrifice with serenity. Indeed, I have neither heard nor read of

any of you having been deterred from an attempt to extend his empire by

loss of an eye, a hand, a leg, or any other member. Nay, this very ardor

and this thirst for wide dominion is such that whoever is most powerful,

him it thus torments and stirs the most. Alexander, not content to have

traversed on foot the deserts of Libya, to have conquered the Orient to

the farthest ocean, to have mastered the North, amid so much bloodshed,

so many perils, his soldiers already mutinous and crying out against such

long, such hard campaigns, seemed to himself to have accomplished nothing

unless either by force or by the power of his name he should have made

the West also, and all nations, tributary to him. I put it too mildly;

he had already determined to cross the ocean, and if there was any other

world, to explore it and subject it to his will. He would have tried, I

think, last of all to ascend the heavens. Some such wish all kings have,

even though not all are so bold. I pass over the thought how many crimes,

how many horrors have been committed to attain and extend power, for

brothers do not restrain their wicked hands from the stain of brothers’

blood, nor sons from the blood of parents, nor parents from the blood of

sons. Indeed, nowhere is man’s recklessness apt to run riot further nor

more viciously. And to your astonishment, you see the minds of old men

no less eager in this than the minds of young men, childless men no less

eager than parents, kings than usurpers.

But if domination is usually sought with such great resolution, how much

greater must be the resolution to preserve it! For it is by no means so

discreditable not to increase an empire as to impair it, nor is it so

shameful not to annex another’s kingdom to your own as for your own to be

annexed to another’s. And when we read of men being put in charge of a

kingdom or of cities by some king or by the people, this is not done in

the case of the chief or the greatest portion of the empire, but in the

case of the last and least, as it were, and that with the understanding

that the recipient should always recognize the donor as his sovereign and

himself as an agent.

Now I ask, do they not seem of a base and most ignoble mind who suppose

that Constantine gave away the better part of his empire? I say nothing

of Rome, Italy, and the rest, but the Gauls where he had waged war in

person, where for a long time he had been sole master, where he had laid

the foundations of his glory and his empire! A man who through thirst

for dominion had waged war against nations, and attacking friends and

relatives in civil strife had taken the government from them, who had to

deal with remnants of an opposing faction not yet completely mastered and

overthrown; who waged war with many nations not only by inclination and

in the hope of fame and empire but by very necessity, for he was harassed

every day by the barbarians; who had many sons, relatives and associates;

who knew that the Senate and the Roman people would oppose this act; who

had experienced the instability of conquered nations and their rebellions

at nearly every change of ruler at Rome; who remembered that after the

manner of other Caesars he had come into power, not by the choice of

the Senate and the consent of the populace, but by armed warfare; what

incentive could there be so strong and urgent that he would ignore all

this and choose to display such prodigality?

They say, it was because he had become a Christian. Would he therefore

renounce the best part of his empire? I suppose it was a crime,

an outrage, a felony, to reign after that, and that a kingdom was

incompatible with the Christian religion! Those who live in adultery,

those who have grown rich by usury, those who possess goods which belong

to another, they after baptism are wont to restore the stolen wife, the

stolen money, the stolen goods. If this be your idea, Constantine, you

must restore your cities to liberty, not change their master. But that

did not enter into the case; you were led to do as you did solely for

the glory of your religion. As though it were more religious to lay

down a kingdom than to administer it for the maintenance of religion!

For so far as it concerns the recipients, that Donation will be neither

honorable nor useful to them. But if you want to show yourself a

Christian, to display your piety, to further the cause, I do not say of

the Roman church, but of the Church of God, now of all times act the

prince, so that you may fight for those who cannot and ought not to

fight, so that by your authority you may safeguard those who are exposed

to plots and injuries. To Nebuchadnezzar, to Cyrus, to Ahasuerus, and

to many other princes, by the will of God, the mystery of the truth was

revealed; but of none of them did God demand that he should resign his

government, that he should give away part of his kingdom, but only that

he should give the Hebrews their liberty and protect them from their

aggressive neighbors. This was enough for the Jews; it will be enough for

the Christians also. You have become a Christian, Constantine? Then it is

most unseemly for you now as a Christian emperor to have less sovereignty

than you had as an infidel. For sovereignty is an especial gift of God,

to which even the gentile sovereigns are supposed to be chosen by God.

But he was cured of leprosy! Probably, therefore, he would have wished to

show his gratitude and give back a larger measure than he had received.

Indeed! Naaman the Syrian, cured by Elisha, wished merely to present

gifts, not the half of his goods, and would Constantine have presented

the half of his empire? I regret to reply to this shameless story as

though it were undoubted and historical, for it is a reflection of the

story of Naaman and Elisha; just as that other story about the dragon is

a reflection of the fabulous dragon of Bel.[420] But yielding this point,

is there in this story any mention made of a “donation”? Not at all. But

of this, more later.

He was cured of leprosy? He took on therefore a Christian spirit; he

was imbued with the fear of God, with the love of God; he wished to

honor him. Nevertheless I cannot be persuaded that he wished to give

away so much; for, so far as I see, no one, either pagan, in honor of

the gods, or believer, in honor of the living God, has resigned his

empire and given it to priests. In sooth, of the kings of Israel none

could be brought to permit his people to go, according to the former

custom, to sacrifice at the temple in Jerusalem; for fear lest, moved by

that solemn religious ceremony and by the majesty of the temple, they

should return to the king of Judah from whom they had revolted. And how

much more is Constantine represented to have done! And that you may not

flatter yourself with the cure of leprosy, [let me say that] Jeroboam

was the first one chosen by God to be king of Israel and indeed from a

very low estate, which to my mind is more than being healed of leprosy;

nevertheless he did not presume to entrust his kingdom to God. And will

you have Constantine give to God a kingdom which he had not received from

him, and that, too, when he would offend his sons (which was not the case

with Jeroboam), humiliate his friends, ignore his relatives, injure his

country, plunge everybody into grief, and forget his own interests!

But if, having been such a man as he was, he had been transformed as it

were into another man, there would certainly not have been lacking those

who would warn him, most of all his sons, his relatives, and his friends.

Who does not think that they would have gone at once to the emperor?

Picture them to yourself, when the purpose of Constantine had become

known, trembling, hastening to fall with groans and tears at the feet of

the prince, and saying:

“Is it thus that you, a father hitherto most affectionate

toward your sons, despoil your sons, disinherit them, disown

them? We do not complain of the fact that you choose to divest

yourself of the best and largest part of the empire so much

as we wonder at it. But we do complain that you give it to

others to our loss and shame. Why do you defraud your children

of their expected succession to the empire, you who yourself

reigned in partnership with your father? What have we done to

you? By what disloyalty to you, to our country, to the Roman

name or the majesty of the empire, are we deemed to deserve to

be deprived of the chiefest and best part of our principality;

that we should be banished from our paternal home, from the

sight of our native land, from the air we are used to, from our

ancient ties! Shall we leave our household gods, our shrines,

our tombs, exiles, to live we know not where, nor in what part

of the earth?

“And we, your kindred, your friends, who have stood so often

with you in line of battle, who have seen brothers, fathers,

sons, pierced and writhing under hostile sword, and have not

been dismayed at the death of others, but were ourselves ready

to seek death for your sake, why are we now deserted one and

all by you! We who hold the public offices of Rome, who govern

or are destined to govern the cities of Italy, the Gauls, the

Spains, and the other provinces, are all of us to be deposed?

Are all of us to be ordered into private life? Or will you

compensate us elsewhere for this loss? And how can you, when

such a large part of the world has been given to another? Will

your majesty put the man who had charge of a hundred peoples

over one? How could you have conceived such a plan? How is

it that you have suddenly become oblivious of your subjects,

so that you have no consideration for your friends, nor your

kindred, nor your sons? Would that it had been our lot, your

Majesty, while your honor and your victory were unimpaired, to

fall in battle, rather than to see this!

“You have the power, indeed, to do with your empire what you

will, and even with us, one thing however excepted, which we

will resist to the death; we will not give up the worship of

the immortal gods,—just for the sake of a conspicuous example

to others, that you may know how much that bounty of yours will

be worth to the Christian religion. For if you do not give your

empire to Sylvester, we are willing to be Christians with you,

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

we not endure to become Christians, but you will make the name

hateful, detestable, execrable to us, and you will put us in

such a position that at last you will pity our life and our

death, nor will you accuse us, but only yourself, of obstinacy.”

Would not Constantine, unless we would have him totally devoid of

humanity, if he were not moved of his own accord, have been moved by this

speech? But if he had not been willing to listen to these men, would

there not have been those who would oppose this act with both word and

deed? Or would the Senate and the Roman people have thought that they had

no obligation to do anything in a matter of such importance? Would it not

have put forward some orator “distinguished in character and service,” as

Virgil says, who would hold forth to Constantine as follows:

“Your Majesty, if you are heedless of your subjects and of

yourself, nor care to give your sons an inheritance, nor your

kindred riches, nor your friends honors, nor to keep your

empire intact, the Senate and the Roman people at least cannot

be heedless of its rights and its dignity. How come you to take

such liberties with the Roman Empire, which has been built

up, not from your blood, but from ours! Will you cut one body

into two parts, and out of one kingdom make two kingdoms, two

heads, two wills, and, as it were, reach out to two brothers

swords with which to fight over their inheritance! We give to

states which have deserved well of this city the rights of

citizenship, so that they may be Roman citizens; you take away

from us the half of the empire, so that they will not know this

city as their mother. In beehives, if two kings are born, we

kill the weaker one; but in the hive of the Roman Empire, where

there is one prince, and that the best, you think that another

must be introduced, and that the weakest one, not a bee, but a

drone.[421]

“We see a sore lack of prudence on your part, your Majesty.

For what will happen, if either during your life or after your

death, war should be waged by barbarian tribes against the part

of the empire which you are alienating, or against the other,

which you leave for yourself? With what military force, with

what resources can we go to meet them? Even now with the troops

of the whole empire we have scarcely enough power; shall we

have enough then? Or will this part be forever at peace with

that? In my opinion it cannot be, for Rome will want to rule

and the other part will not want to be subject. Nay, even in

your lifetime, shortly, when the old officials are removed and

new ones put in their places, when you withdraw to your kingdom

and fare far forth and another is ruling here, will not all

interests be different, that is, diverse and contrary? Usually

when a kingdom is divided between two brothers, at once the

hearts of the people also are divided, and war arises from

within sooner than from foreign enemies. That that will happen

in this empire, who does not see it? Or do you not know that it

was chiefly on this ground that the patricians once said that

they would rather die before the eyes of the Roman people than

allow the motion to be carried that part of the Senate and part

of the plebeians should be sent to live at Veii and that the

Roman people should have two cities in common; for if in one

city there were so many dissensions, how would it be in two

cities? So in our time, if there are so many disorders in one

empire, your own knowledge and your labors are a witness, how

will it be in two empires!

“Come now, do you think that when you are engaged in wars,

there will be men here willing or able to bear you aid? Those

who will be in command of our soldiers and cities will always

shrink from arms and warfare, as will he who appoints them.

Indeed, will not either the Roman legions or the provinces

themselves try to despoil this man, so inexperienced in ruling

and so inviting to violence, hoping that he will neither fight

back nor seek revenge? By Hercules! I believe they will not

remain in allegiance a single month, but immediately, at the

first news of your departure they will rebel. What will you do?

What plan will you follow when you are pressed with a twofold

and even a manifold war? The nations which we have conquered we

can scarcely hold; how can we withstand them if in addition we

have war with free peoples?

“As for your interests, your Majesty, that is for you to see

to. But this ought to concern us no less than you. You are

mortal; the Empire of the Roman people ought to be immortal,

and so far as in us lies, it will be, and not the Empire alone

but respect for it as well. Shall we, forsooth, accept the

government of those whose religion we despise; shall we, rulers

of the world, serve this altogether contemptible being! When

the city was captured by the Gauls the aged Romans did not

suffer their beards to be stroked by the victors. Will all

these men of senatorial, praetorian, tribunician, consular and

triumphal rank now suffer those to rule them, upon whom as

upon guilty slaves they themselves have heaped every kind of

contumely and punishment! Will those men create magistrates,

govern provinces, wage war, pass sentences of death upon

us? Will the Roman nobility take wages under them, hope for

honors and receive rewards at their hands? What greater, what

deeper wound can we receive? Do not think, your Majesty, that

the Roman blood has so degenerated as to endure this with

equanimity and not deem it a thing to be avoided by fair means

or foul. By my faith, not even our women would suffer it, but

they would rather burn themselves with their dear children and

their household gods, for Carthaginian women should not be

braver than Roman.

“To be sure, your Majesty, if we had chosen you king, you

would have a great measure of control over the Roman Empire

indeed, yet not such that you could in the least diminish

its greatness, for then we who should have made you king, by

that same token would order you to abdicate your kingdom. How

much less then could you divide the kingdom, alienate so many

provinces, and deliver even the capital of the kingdom over to

a man who is a stranger and altogether base. We put a watch-dog

over the sheepfold, but if he tries rather to act like a wolf,

we either drive him out or kill him. Now will you, who have

long been the watch-dog of the Roman fold and defended it, at

the last in unprecedented manner turn into a wolf?

“But you must know, since you compel us to speak harshly in

defense of our rights, that you have no right over the Empire

of the Roman people, for Caesar seized the supreme power by

force; Augustus was the heir of his wrongdoing and made himself

master by the ruin of the opposing factions; Tiberius, Gaius,

Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, and the

rest, in the same way or nearly so, made spoil of our liberty;

and you also became ruler by expelling or killing others. I say

nothing of your being born out of wedlock.

“Wherefore, to speak our mind, your Majesty; if you do not care

to keep the government of Rome, you have sons, and by the law

of nature, with our permission, also, and on our motion, you

may substitute one of them in your place. If not, it is our

purpose to defend the public honor and our personal dignity.

For this is no less an act of violence against the Quirites

than was once the rape of Lucretia, nor will there fail us a

Brutus to offer himself to this people as a leader against

Tarquinius for the recovery of liberty. We will draw our swords

first upon those whom you are putting over us, and then upon

you, as we have done against many emperors, and for lighter

reasons.”

This would surely have prevailed on Constantine, unless we deem him made

of stone or wood. And if the people would not have said this, it could

be believed that they spoke among themselves and vented their rage in

about these words. Let me go on a step and say that Constantine wished to

benefit Sylvester, the one whom he would subject to the hatred and the

swords of so many men that he, Sylvester, would scarcely have survived,

I think, a single day. For it seemed that when he and a few others had

been removed all trace of such a cruel outrage and insult would have been

obliterated from the breasts of the Romans.

Let us suppose, however, if possible, that neither prayers, nor threats,

nor any argument availed aught, and that still Constantine persisted and

was not willing to yield through persuasion the position he had taken.

Who would not acknowledge himself moved by the speech of Sylvester, that

is, if the event had ever actually occurred? It would doubtless have been

something like this:

“Most worthy prince and son, Caesar, though I cannot but like

and embrace your piety, so abject and effusive, nevertheless

you have fallen somewhat into error in offering gifts to God

and immolating victims, and I am not at all surprised at it,

for you are still a novice in the Christian service. As once

it was not right for the priest to sacrifice every sort of

beast and animal and fowl, so now he is not to accept every

sort of gift. I am a priest and pontiff, and I ought to look

carefully at what I permit to be offered on the altar, lest

perchance there be offered, I do not say an unclean animal,

but a viper or a serpent. And this is what you would do. But

if it were your right to give a part of the Empire including

Rome, queen of the world, to another than your sons, a thing I

do not at all approve; if this people, if Italy, if the other

nations, should suffer themselves to be willing to submit to

the government of those whom they hate and whose religion,

snared by the enticements of this world, they have hitherto

spit upon,—an impossible supposition; if you nevertheless think

I am to be given anything, my most loving son, I could not by

any argument be brought to give you my assent, unless I were to

be false to myself, to forget my station, and well-nigh deny

my Lord Jesus. For your gifts, or if you wish, your payments,

would tarnish and utterly ruin my honor and purity and holiness

and that of all my successors, and would close the way to those

who are about to come to the knowledge of the truth.

“Elisha was not willing, was he, to accept a reward when Naaman

the Syrian was cured of the leprosy? Should I accept one when

you are cured? He rejected presents; should I allow kingdoms

to be given to me? He was unwilling to obscure the prophetic

office; could I obscure the office of Christ, which I bear in

me? But why did he think that the prophetic office would be

obscured by his receiving gifts? Doubtless because he might

seem to sell sacred things, to put the gift of God out at

usury, to want the patronage of men, to lower and lessen the

worth of his benefaction. He preferred, therefore, to make

princes and kings his beneficiaries rather than to be himself

their beneficiary, or even to allow mutual benefactions.

For, as says the Lord, ‘It is more blessed to give than to

receive.’[422] I am in the same case, only more so, whom the

Lord taught, saying, ‘Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise

the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely

give.’[423] Shall I commit such a disgrace, your Majesty, as

not to follow the precepts of God; as to tarnish my glory?

‘It were better,’ says Paul, ‘for me to die than that any man

should make my glorying void.’[424] Our glory is to honor our

ministry in the sight of God, as Paul also said; ‘I speak to

you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I

magnify mine office.’[425]

“Your Majesty, should even I be both an example and a cause

for the apostasy of others, I, a Christian, a priest of God,

pontiff of Rome, vicar of Christ? For how, indeed, will

the blamelessness of priests remain untouched amid riches,

magistracies, and the management of secular business? Do we

renounce earthly possessions in order to attain them more

richly, and have we given up our own property in order to

possess another’s and the public’s? Shall we have cities,

tributes, tolls? How then can you call us ‘clergy’ if we

do this? Our portion, or our lot, which in Greek is called

_kleros_, is not earthly, but celestial. The Levites, also

clergy, were not allotted a portion with their brethren, and do

you command us to take even our brothers’ portion!

“What are riches and dominions to me who am commanded by the

voice of the Lord not to be anxious for the morrow, and to

whom he said; ‘Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth,

possess not gold nor silver nor money in your purses,’[426]

and ‘It is harder for a rich man to enter into the kingdom

of heaven, than for a camel to go through the eye of a

needle.’[427] Therefore he chose poor men as his ministers,

and those who left all to follow him, and was himself an

example of poverty. Even so is the handling of riches and of

money, not merely their possession and ownership, the enemy of

uprightness. Judas alone, he that had the purses and carried

the alms, was a liar, and for the love of money, to which he

had become accustomed, chided and betrayed his Master, his

Lord, his God. So I fear, your Majesty, lest you change me from

a Peter into a Judas.

“Hear also what Paul says: ‘We brought nothing into this world,

and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and

raiment, let us be therewith content. But they that will be

rich fall into temptation and a snare of the devil, and into

many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction

and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil,

which while some coveted after, they erred from the faith,

and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O

man of God, flee these things.’[428] And you command me, your

Majesty, to accept what I ought to shun as poison!

“And consider besides, for prudence’ sake, your Majesty, what

chance would there be in all this for divine service? To

certain who complained that their destitute were neglected

in the daily distribution, the apostles answered that it was

not reason that they should leave the word of God, and serve

tables.[429] Yet to feed widows, how different is that from

exacting tolls, running the treasury, hiring soldiers, and

engaging in a thousand other cares of this sort! ‘No man that

warreth for God entangleth himself with the affairs of this

life,’[430] says Paul. Did Aaron and others of the tribe of

Levi take care of anything except the tabernacle of the Lord?

And his sons, because they had put strange fire in their

censers, were consumed by fire from heaven. And you order us to

put the fire of worldly riches, forbidden and profane, in our

sacred censers, that is, our priestly duties! Did Eleazar, did

Phinehas, did the other priests and ministers, either of the

tabernacle or of the temple, administer anything except what

pertained to the divine service? I say did they administer,

nay, could they have administered anything, if they wished to

fulfil their own duty? And if they did not wish to, they would

hear the curse of the Lord, saying, ‘Cursed be they that do the

work of the Lord deceitfully.’[431] And this curse, though it

impends over all, yet most of all it impends over the pontiffs.

“Oh what a responsibility is the pontifical office! What

a responsibility it is to be head of the church! What a

responsibility to be appointed over such a great flock as a

shepherd at whose hand is required the blood of every single

lamb and sheep lost; to whom it is said, ‘If thou lovest me

more than these, as thou sayest, feed my lambs.’ Again, ‘If

thou lovest me, as thou sayest, feed my sheep.’ And a third

time, ‘If thou lovest me, as thou sayest, feed my sheep.’[432]

And you order me, your Majesty, to shepherd also goats and

swine, which cannot be herded by the same shepherd!

“What! you want to make me king, or rather Caesar, that is

ruler of kings! When the Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, king

and priest, affirmed himself king, hear of what kingdom he

spoke: ‘My kingdom,’ he said, ‘is not of this world; if my

kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.’[433]

And what was his first utterance and the oft-repeated burden

of his preaching, but this: ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven

is at hand.’[434] ‘The kingdom of God is at hand for him for

whom the kingdom of heaven is prepared.’ When he said this,

did he not make clear that he had nothing to do with secular

sovereignty? And not only did he not seek a kingdom of this

sort, but when it was offered him, he would not accept it. For

once when he learned that the people planned to take him and

make him king, he fled to the solitude of the mountains. He

not only gave this to us who occupy his place as an example to

be imitated, but he taught us by precept: ‘The princes of the

Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great

exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among

you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your

minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be

your servant; even as the Son of man came not to be ministered

unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for

many.’[435]

“Know this, your Majesty; God formerly established judges over

Israel, not kings; and he hated the people for demanding a

king for themselves. And he gave them a king on account of the

hardness of their hearts, but only because he permitted their

rejection, which he revoked in the new law. And should I accept

a kingdom, who am scarcely permitted to be a judge? ‘Or do ye

not know,’ says Paul, ‘that the saints shall judge the world?

and if the world shall be judged by you, you are not the ones

to judge the smallest matters. Know ye not that we shall judge

angels? How much more things that pertain to this life! If

then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set

them to judge who are least in the church.’[436] But judges

merely gave judgment concerning matters in controversy, they

did not levy tribute also. Should I do it, with the knowledge

that when Peter was asked by the Lord, ‘Of whom do the kings of

the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children or of

strangers?’ and answered ‘Of strangers,’ the Lord said, ‘Then

are the children free.’[437] But if all men are my children,

your Majesty, as they certainly are, then will all be free;

nobody will pay anything. Therefore your Donation will be no

good to me, and I shall get nothing out of it but labor which I

am least able to do, as also I am least justified in doing it.

“Nay more, I should have to use my authority to shed blood in

punishing offenders, in waging wars, in sacking cities, in

devastating countries with fire and sword. Otherwise I could

not possibly keep what you have given me. And if I do this am

I a priest, a pontiff, a vicar of Christ? Rather I should hear

him thunder out against me, saying, ‘My house shall be called

of all nations the house of prayer, but ye have made it a den

of thieves.’[438] ‘I am not come into the world,’ said the

Lord, ‘to judge the world, but to save it.’[439] And shall I

who have succeeded him be the cause of men’s death, I to whom

in the person of Peter it was said, ‘Put up again thy sword

into his place, for all they that take the sword shall perish

with the sword’?[440] It is not permitted us even to defend

ourselves with the sword, for Peter wished only to defend his

Lord, when he cut off the servant’s ear. And do you command

us to use the sword for the sake of either getting or keeping

riches?

“Our authority is the authority of the keys, as the Lord said,

‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and

whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:

and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in

heaven.’[441] ‘And the gates of hell shall not prevail against

it.’[442] Nothing can be added to this authority, nor to

this dignity, nor to this kingdom. He who is not contented

therewith, seeks something more from the devil, who dared even

to say to the Lord, ‘I will give thee all the kingdoms of the

world, if thou wilt fall to the earth and worship me.’[443]

Wherefore, your Majesty, by your leave let me say it, do not

play the part of the devil to me by ordering Christ, that is,

me, to accept the kingdoms of the world at your hand. For I

prefer rather to scorn than to possess them.

“And, to speak of the unbelievers, future believers though, I

hope, do not transform me for them from an angel of light into

an angel of darkness. I want to win their hearts to piety, not

impose a yoke upon their necks; to subject them to me with the

sword of the word of God, not with a sword of iron, that they

should not be made worse than they are, nor kick, nor gore me,

nor, angered by my mistake, blaspheme the name of God. I want

to make them my most beloved sons, not my slaves; to adopt

them, not cast them out; to have them born again, not to seize

them out of hand; to offer their souls a sacrifice to God, not

their bodies a sacrifice to the devil. ‘Come unto me,’ says the

Lord, ‘for I am meek and lowly in heart. Take my yoke upon you,

and ye shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and

my burden is light.’[444]

“Finally, to come to an end at last, in this matter accept

that sentence of his, which he spoke as though to me and

to you; ‘Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s;

and unto God, the things that are God’s.’[445] Accordingly,

therefore, your Majesty, you must not surrender the things that

are yours, and I must not accept the things that are Caesar’s;

nor will I ever accept them, though you offer them a thousand

times.”

To this speech of Sylvester’s, worthy of an apostolic hero, what could

there be further for Constantine to bring out in opposition? Since the

case stands thus, do not they who say that the Donation took place do

violence to Constantine when they would have him rob his own family and

tear the Roman Empire asunder? Do they not do violence to the Senate and

the Roman people, to Italy, and to the whole West, which according to

them allowed the government to be changed contrary to law and justice? Do

they not do violence to Sylvester, who according to them accepted a gift

not befitting a holy man? violence to the supreme pontificate, when they

think that it would take charge of earthly kingdoms and rule over the

Roman Empire? Verily, all this tends to show plainly that Constantine,

in the face of so many obstacles, would never have thought of giving

practically the whole Roman state to Sylvester, as they say he did.

* * * * *

Proceed to the next point; to make us believe in this “donation” which

your document recites, something ought still to be extant concerning

Sylvester’s acceptance of it. There is nothing concerning it extant. But

it is believable, you say, that he recognized this “donation.” I believe

so, too; that [if it was given] he not only recognized it, but sought

it, asked for it, extorted it with his prayers; that is believable. But

why do you reverse the natural conjecture and then say it is believable?

For the fact that there is mention of the donation in the document of

the deed is no reason for inferring that it was accepted; but on the

contrary, the fact that there is no mention [anywhere] of an acceptance

is reason for saying that there was no donation. So you have stronger

proof that Sylvester refused the gift than that Constantine wished to

give it, and a benefaction is not conferred upon a man against his will.

Indeed, we must suspect not so much that Sylvester refused the grants as

that he tacitly disclosed that neither could Constantine legally make

them nor could he himself legally accept.

O avarice, ever blind and ill-advised! Let us suppose that you may be

able to adduce even genuine documents for the assent of Sylvester,

not tampered with, authentic: even so, were the grants actually made

which are found in such documents? Where is any taking possession, any

delivery? For if Constantine gave a charter only, he did not want to

befriend Sylvester, but to mock him. It is likely, you say, that any

one who makes a grant, gives possession of it, also. See what you are

saying; for it is certain that possession was not given, and the question

is whether the title was given! It is likely that one who did not give

possession did not want to give the title either.

Or is it not certain that possession was never given? To deny it is the

sheerest impudence. Did Constantine ever lead Sylvester in state to the

Capitol amid the shouts of the assembled Quirites, heathen as they were?

Did he place him on a golden throne in the presence of the whole Senate?

Did he command the magistrates, each in the order of his rank, to salute

their king and prostrate themselves before him? This, rather than the

giving of some palace such as the Lateran, is customary in the creation

of new rulers. Did he afterwards escort him through all Italy? Did he

go with him to the Gauls? Did he go to the Spains? Did he go to the

Germans, and the rest of the West? Or if they both thought it too onerous

to traverse so many lands, to whom did they delegate such an important

function, to represent Caesar in transferring possession and Sylvester in

receiving it? Distinguished men, and men of eminent authority, they must

have been: and nevertheless we do not know who they were. And how much

weight there is here in these two words, _give_ and _receive_! To pass

by ancient instances, I do not remember to have seen any other procedure

when any one was made lord of a city, a country, or a province; for we do

not count possession as given until the old magistrates are removed and

the new ones substituted. If then Sylvester had not demanded that this be

done, nevertheless the dignity of Constantine required that he show that

he gave possession not in words but in fact, that he ordered his officers

to retire and others to be substituted by Sylvester. Possession is not

transferred when it remains in the hands of those who had it before, and

the new master dares not remove them.

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

notwithstanding, we assume Sylvester to have been in possession, and

let us say that the whole transaction took place though not in the

customary and natural way. After Constantine went away, what governors

did Sylvester place over his provinces and cities, what wars did he wage,

what nations that took up arms did he subdue, through whom did he carry

on this government? We know none of these circumstances, you answer. So!

I think all this was done in the nighttime, and no one saw it at all!

Come now! Was Sylvester ever in possession? Who dispossessed him? For

he did not have possession permanently, nor did any of his successors,

at least till Gregory the Great, and even he did not have possession.

One who is not in possession and cannot prove that he has been disseized

certainly never did have possession, and if he says he did, he is crazy.

You see, I even prove that you are crazy! Otherwise, tell who dislodged

the Pope? Did Constantine himself, or his sons, or Julian, or some other

Caesar? Give the name of the expeller, give the date, from what place

was the Pope expelled first, where next, and so in order. Was it by

sedition and murder, or without these? Did the nations conspire together

against him, or which first? What! Did not one of them give him aid,

not one of those who had been put over cities or provinces by Sylvester

or another Pope? Did he lose everything in a single day, or gradually

and by districts? Did he and his magistrates offer resistance, or did

they abdicate at the first disturbance? What! Did not the victors use

the sword on those dregs of humanity, whom they thought unworthy of the

Empire, to revenge their outrage, to make sure of the newly won mastery,

to show contempt for our religion, not even to make an example for

posterity? Did not one of those who were conquered take to flight at

all? Did no one hide? Was no one afraid? O marvellous event! The Roman

Empire, acquired by so many labors, so much bloodshed, was so calmly, so

quietly both won and lost by Christian priests that no bloodshed, no war,

no uproar took place; and not less marvellous, it is not known at all by

whom this was done, nor when, nor how, nor how long it lasted! You would

think that Sylvester reigned in sylvan shades, among the trees, not at

Rome nor among men, and that he was driven out by winter rains and cold,

not by men!

Who that is at all widely read, does not know what Roman kings, what

consuls, what dictators, what tribunes of the people, what censors, what

aediles were chosen? Of such a large number of men in times so long past,

none escapes us. We know also what Athenian commanders there were, and

Theban, and Lacedemonian; we know all their battles on land and sea.

Nor are the kings of the Persians unknown to us; of the Medes; of the

Chaldeans; of the Hebrews; and of very many others; nor how each of these

received his kingdom, or held it, or lost it, or recovered it. But how

the Roman Empire, or rather the Sylvestrian, began, how it ended, when,

through whom, is not known even in the city of Rome itself. I ask whether

you can adduce any witnesses of these events, any writers. None, you

answer. And are you not ashamed to say that it is likely that Sylvester

possessed—even cattle, to say nothing of men!

But since you cannot [prove anything], I for my part will show that

Constantine, to the very last day of his life, and thereafter all the

Caesars in turn, did have possession [of the Roman Empire], so that you

will have nothing left even to mutter. But it is a very difficult, and, I

suppose, a very laborious task, forsooth, to do this! Let all the Latin

and the Greek histories be unrolled, let the other authors who mention

those times be brought in, and you will not find a single discrepancy

among them on this point. Of a thousand witnesses, one may suffice;

Eutropius, who saw Constantine, who saw the three sons of Constantine who

were left masters of the world by their father, and who wrote thus in

connection with Julian, the son of Constantine’s brother: “This Julian,

who was subdeacon in the Roman church and when he became Emperor returned

to the worship of the gods, seized the government, and after elaborate

preparations made war against the Parthians; in which expedition I also

took part.”[446] He would not have kept silent about the donation of the

Western Empire [had it been made], nor would he have spoken as he did a

little later about Jovian, who succeeded Julian: “He made with Sapor a

peace which was necessary, indeed, but dishonorable, the boundaries being

changed and a part of the Roman Empire being given up, a thing which had

never before happened since the Roman state was founded; no, not even

though our legions, at the Caudine [Forks] by Pontius Telesinus, and in

Spain at Numantia, and in Numidia, were sent under the yoke, were any of

the frontiers given up.”[447]

Here I would like to interrogate you, most recent, though deceased,

Popes, and you, Eugenius, who live, thanks only to Felix.[448] Why do

you parade the Donation of Constantine with a great noise; and all the

time, as though avengers of a stolen Empire, threaten certain kings

and princes; and extort some servile confession or other from the

Emperor when he is crowned, and from some other princes, such as the

king of Naples and Sicily? None of the early Roman pontiffs ever did

this, Damasus in the case of Theodosius, nor Syricius in the case of

Arcadius, nor Anastasius in the case of Honorius, nor John in the case of

Justinian, nor the other most holy Popes respectively in the case of the

other most excellent Emperors: rather they always regarded Rome and Italy

and the provinces I have named as belonging to the Emperors. And so, to

say nothing of other monuments and temples in the city of Rome, there

are extant gold coins of Constantine’s after he became a Christian, with

inscriptions, not in Greek, but in Latin letters, and of almost all the

Emperors in succession. There are many of them in my possession with this

inscription for the most part, under the image of the cross, “Concordia

orbis [The Peace of the World].” What an infinite number of coins of the

supreme pontiffs would be found if you ever had ruled Rome! But none such

are found, neither gold nor silver, nor are any mentioned as having been

seen by any one. And yet whoever held the government at Rome at that time

had to have his own coinage: doubtless the Pope’s would have borne the

image of the Savior or of Peter.

Alas for man’s ignorance! You do not see that if the Donation of

Constantine is authentic nothing is left to the Emperor, the Latin

Emperor, I mean. Ah, what an Emperor, what a Roman king, he would

be, when if any one had his kingdom and had no other, he would have

nothing at all! But if it is thus manifest that Sylvester did not have

possession, that is, that Constantine did not give over possession, then

there will be no doubt that he [Constantine], as I have said, did not

give even the right to possess. That is, unless you say that the right

was given, but that for some reason possession was not transferred. In

that case he manifestly gave what he knew would never in the least exist;

he gave what he could not transfer; he gave what could not come into the

possession of the recipient until after it was nonexistent; he gave a

gift which would not be valid for five hundred years, or never would be

valid. But to say or to think this is insanity.

* * * * *

But it is high time, if I am not to be too prolix, to give the

adversaries’ cause, already struck down and mangled, the mortal blow

and to cut its throat with a single stroke. Almost every history worthy

of the name speaks of Constantine as a Christian from boyhood, with his

father Constantius, long before the pontificate of Sylvester; as, for

instance, Eusebius, author of the Church History, which Rufinus, himself

a great scholar, translated into Latin, adding two books on his own

times.[449] Both of these men were nearly contemporary with Constantine.

Add to this also the testimony of the Roman pontiff who not only took

part, but the leading part in these events, who was not merely a witness

but the prime mover, who narrates, not another’s doings, but his own. I

refer to Pope Melchiades, Sylvester’s immediate predecessor. He says:

“The church reached the point where not only the nations, but even the

Roman rulers who held sway over the whole world, came together into the

faith of Christ and the sacraments of the faith. One of their number, a

most devout man, Constantine, the first openly to come to belief in the

Truth, gave permission to those living under his government, throughout

the whole world, not only to become Christians, but even to build

churches, and he decreed that landed estates be distributed among these.

Finally also the said ruler bestowed immense offerings, and began the

building of the temple which was the first seat of the blessed Peter,

going so far as to leave his imperial residence and give it over for the

use of the blessed Peter and his successors.”[450] You see, incidentally,

that Melchiades does not say that anything was given by Constantine

except the Lateran palace, and landed estates, which Gregory mentions

very frequently in his register. Where are those who do not permit us to

call into question whether the Donation of Constantine is valid, when the

“donation” both antedated Sylvester and conferred private possessions

alone?

But though it is all obvious and clear, yet the deed of gift itself,

which those fools always put forward, must be discussed.

And first, not only must I convict of dishonesty him who tried to play

Gratian and added sections to the work of Gratian, but also must convict

of ignorance those who think a copy of the deed of gift is contained in

Gratian; for the well-informed have never thought so, nor is it found in

any of the oldest copies of the Decretum. And if Gratian had mentioned

it anywhere, he would have done so, not where they put it, breaking the

thread of the narrative, but where he treats of the agreement of Louis

[the Pious]. Besides, there are two thousand passages in the Decretum

which forbid the acceptance of this passage; for example, that where

the words of Melchiades, which I have cited above, are given. Some say

that he who added this chapter [the Donation of Constantine] was called

Palea,[451] either because that was his real name or because what he

added of his own, compared with Gratian, is as straw [palea] beside

grain. However that may be, it is monstrous to believe that the compiler

of the Decretum either did not know what was interpolated by this man, or

esteemed it highly and held it for genuine. Good! It is enough! We have

won! First, because Gratian does not say what they lyingly quote; and

more especially because on the contrary, as can be seen in innumerable

passages, he denies and disproves it; and last, because they bring

forward only a single unknown individual, of not the least authority, so

very stupid as to affix to Gratian what cannot be harmonized with his

other statements. This then is the author you bring forward? On his sole

testimony you rely? His charter, in a matter of such importance, you

recite as confirmation against hundreds of kinds of proof? But I should

have expected you to show gold seals, marble inscriptions, a thousand

authors.

But, you say, Palea himself adduces his author, shows the source of his

narrative, and cites Pope Gelasius and many bishops as witnesses; it is,

he says, “from the Acts of Sylvester (which the blessed Pope Gelasius

in the Council of the Seventy Bishops recounts as read by the catholic,

and in accordance with ancient usage many churches he says follow this

example) which reads: ‘Constantine ..., etc.’”[452] Considerably earlier,

where books to be read and books not to be read are treated, he had said

also; “The Acts of the blessed Sylvester, chief priest, though we know

not the name of him who wrote it, we know to be read by many of the

orthodox of the city of Rome, and in accordance with ancient usage the

churches follow this example.”[453] Wonderful authority this, wonderful

evidence, irrefutable proof! I grant you this, that Gelasius in speaking

of the Council of the Seventy Bishops said that. But did he say this,

that the deed of gift is to be read in the Acts of the most blessed

Sylvester? He says, indeed, only that the Acts of Sylvester are read, and

that in Rome, and that many other churches follow her authority. I do

not deny this, I concede it, I admit it, I also stand up with Gelasius

as a witness to it. But what advantage is this to you, except that you

may be shown to have deliberately lied in adducing your witnesses? The

name of the man who interpolated this [“Donation” of yours] is not known,

and he is the only one who says this [that the Donation is in the Acts

of Sylvester]; the name of the man who wrote the history of Sylvester is

not known, and he is the only one cited as witness, and that erroneously.

And good men and prudent as you are, you think this is enough and more

than enough evidence for such an important transaction! Well! how

your judgment differs from mine! Even if this grant were contained

in the Acts of Sylvester, I should not think it was to be considered

genuine, for that history is not history, but fanciful and most shameful

fiction, as I shall later show; nor does any one else of any authority

whatever make mention of this grant. And even James of Voragine,

though as an archbishop disposed to favor the clergy, yet in his Acts

of the Saints[454] preserved silence on the Donation of Constantine as

fictitious and not fit to figure in the Acts of Sylvester; a conclusive

judgment, in a way, against those, if there were any, who would have

committed it to writing.

But I want to take the forger himself, truly a “straw” man without wheat,

by the neck, and drag him into court. What do you say, you forger? Whence

comes it that we do not read this grant in the Acts of Sylvester? This

book, forsooth, is rare, difficult to get, not owned by the many but

rather kept as the Fasti once were by the pontifices, or the Sibylline

books by the Decemvirs! It was written in Greek, or Syriac, or Chaldee!

Gelasius testifies that it was read by many of the orthodox; Voragine

mentions it; we also have seen thousands of copies of it, and written

long ago; and in almost every cathedral it is read when Sylvester’s Day

comes around.[455] Yet nevertheless no one says that he has read there

what you put in it; no one has heard of it; no one has dreamt of it. Or

is there perhaps some other history of Sylvester? And what can that be? I

know no other, nor do I understand that any other is referred to by you,

for you speak of the one which Gelasius says is read in many churches.

In this, however, we do not find your grant. But if it is not found in

the Life of Sylvester, why do you declare that it is? How did you dare to

jest in a matter of such importance, and to make sport of the cupidity of

silly men?

But I am foolish to inveigh against the audacity of this [forger],

instead of inveighing against the insanity of those who give him

credence. If any one should say that this had been recorded for

remembrance among the Greeks, the Hebrews, the barbarians, would you

not bid him name his author, produce his book, and the passage, to be

explained by a reliable translator, before you would believe it? But

now your own language, and a very well-known book are involved, and

either you do not question such an incredible occurrence, or when you

do not find it written down you have such utter credulity as to believe

that it is written down and authentic! And, satisfied with this title,

you move heaven and earth, and, as though no doubt existed, you pursue

with the terrors of war and with other threats those who do not believe

you! Blessed Jesus, what power, what divinity there is in Truth, which

unaided defends itself without any great struggle from all falsehoods

and deceits; so that not undeservedly, when contention had arisen at the

court of king Darius as to what was most powerful, and one said one thing

and another another, the palm was awarded to Truth.[456]

Since I have to do with priests and not with laymen, I suppose I must

seek ecclesiastical precedents. Judas Maccabaeus, when he had sent

ambassadors to Rome and obtained a friendly alliance from the Senate,

took pains to have the terms of the alliance engraved on brass and

carried to Jerusalem. I pass by the stone tables of the Decalogue, which

God gave to Moses. And this Donation of Constantine, so magnificent and

astounding, cannot be proved by any copies, in gold, in silver, in brass,

in marble, or even in books, but only, if we believe it, on paper, or

parchment. According to Josephus, Jubal, the inventor of music, when the

elders expressed the opinion that the world was to be destroyed, once by

water, and again by fire, inscribed his teaching on two columns, one of

brick against the fire, and one of stone against the flood, which columns

still remained at the time of Josephus, as he himself writes, so that his

benefaction to men might always continue. And among the Romans, while

still rustic and country bred, when writing was inadequate and rare,

the laws of the Twelve Tables nevertheless were engraved on brass, and

though the city was stormed and burned by the Gauls they were afterwards

found unharmed. Thus careful foresight overcomes the two mightiest forces

known to man, namely, long lapse of time and the violence of fortune.

Yet Constantine signed a donation of the world on paper alone and with

ink, though the very inventor of the fabulous story makes him say that he

thought there would not be lacking those who with unholy greed would set

aside this Donation! Do you have this fear, Constantine, and do you take

no precaution lest those who would snatch Rome from Sylvester should also

steal the charter?

Why does Sylvester do nothing for himself? Does he leave everything thus

to Constantine? Is he so careless and lazy in such an important matter?

Does he not look ahead at all for himself, for his church, for posterity?

See to whom you commit the administration of the Roman Empire; in the

midst of such an important transaction, fraught with so much either of

gain or of peril, he goes sound asleep! For let the charter ever be lost,

he will not be able, at least as time goes on, to prove the granting of

the “privilege.”[457]

* * * * *

“The page of the privilege” this crazy man calls it [i.e., the Donation

of Constantine]. And do you (let me controvert him as though he were

present) call the gift of the earth a “privilege”; do you want it written

thus in the document; and do you want Constantine to use that kind of

language? If the title is ridiculous, what shall we think the rest of it

is?

“The Emperor Constantine the fourth day after his baptism conferred this

privilege on the pontiff of the Roman church, that in the whole Roman

world priests should regard him as their head, as judges do the king.”

This sentence is part of the History [Life] of Sylvester,[458] and it

leaves no doubt where [nor why] the document gets its title “privilege.”

But, in the manner of those who fabricate lies, he begins with the truth

for the purpose of winning confidence in his later statements, which are

false, as Sinon says in Virgil:

“... Whate’er

My fate ordains, my words shall be sincere:

I neither can nor dare my birth disclaim;

Greece is my country, Sinon is my name.”[459]

This first; then he put in his lies. So our Sinon does here; for when he

had begun with the truth, he adds:

“In this privilege, among other things, is this: ‘We—together

with all our satraps and the whole Senate and the nobles also,

and all the people subject to the government of the Roman

church[460]—considered it advisable that, as the blessed Peter

is seen to have been constituted vicar of God on the earth, so

the pontiffs who are the representatives of that same chief of

the apostles, should obtain from us and our Empire the power of

a supremacy greater than the clemency of our earthly imperial

serenity is seen to have conceded to it.’”

O thou scoundrel, thou villain! The same history [the Life of Sylvester]

which you allege as your evidence, says that for a long time none of

senatorial rank was willing to accept the Christian religion, and that

Constantine solicited the poor with bribes to be baptized. And you say

that within the first days, immediately, the Senate, the nobles, the

satraps, as though already Christians, with the Caesar passed decrees for

the honoring of the Roman church! What! How do you want to have satraps

come in here? Numskull, blockhead! Do the Caesars speak thus; are Roman

decrees usually drafted thus? Whoever heard of satraps being mentioned

in the councils of the Romans?[461] I do not remember ever to have read

of any Roman satrap being mentioned, or even of a satrap in any of the

Roman provinces. But this fellow speaks of the Emperor’s satraps, and

puts them in before the Senate, though all honors, even those bestowed

upon the ruling prince, are decreed by the Senate alone, or with the

addition “and the Roman people.” Thus we see carved on ancient stones

or bronze tablets or coins two letters, “S. C.,” that is “By decree of

the Senate,” or four, “S. P. Q. R.,” that is, “The Senate and the Roman

People.” And according to Tertullian, when Pontius Pilate had written

to Tiberius Caesar and not to the Senate concerning the wonderful deeds

of Christ, inasmuch as magistrates were supposed to write concerning

important matters to the Senate, the Senate gave way to spite and opposed

Tiberius’ proposal that Jesus be worshipped as a God, merely on account

of its secret anger at the offense to senatorial dignity.[462] And, to

show how weighty was the authority of the Senate, Jesus did not obtain

divine worship.

What now! Why do you say “nobles” [“optimates”]? Are we to understand

that these are leading men in the republic; then why should they be

mentioned when the other magistrates are passed by in silence? Or are

they the opposite of the “popular” party which curries favor with the

people; the ones who seek and champion the welfare of every aristocrat

and of the “better” elements, as Cicero shows in one of his orations?

Thus we say that Caesar before the overthrow of the republic had been a

member of the “popular” party, Cato of the “optimates.” The difference

between them Sallust explained. But the “optimates” are not spoken of as

belonging to the [Emperor’s] council, any more than the “popular” party,

or other respectable men are.

But what wonder that the “optimates” belonged to the council, when, if

we believe this fellow, “all the people,” and the people “subject to

the Roman church” at that, acted officially with the Senate and the

Caesar![463] And what people are these? The Roman people? But why not

say the Roman people, rather than the “people subject”? What new insult

is this to the Quirites of whom the great poet sings:

“Do thou, O Roman, take care to rule the peoples with imperial

sway!”[464]

Can those who rule other peoples, themselves be called a subject people?

It is preposterous! For in this, as Gregory in many letters testifies,

the Roman ruler differs from the others, that he alone is ruler of a free

people. But be this as it may. Are not other peoples also subject? Or do

you mean others also? How could it be brought to pass in three days that

all the people subject to the government of the Roman church gave assent

to that decree? Though did every Tom, Dick, and Harry give his judgment?

What! would Constantine, before he had subjected the people to the Roman

pontiff, call them subject? How is it that those who are called subjects

are said to have been in authority in the making of the decree? How is it

that they are said to have decreed this very thing, that they should be

subject and that he to whom they are already subject should have them as

his subjects? What else do you do, you wretch, other than admit that you

have the will to commit forgery, but not the ability?

“Choosing that same prince of the apostles, or his vicars, to

be our constant intercessors with God. And, to the extent of

our earthly imperial power, we have decreed that his holy Roman

church shall be honored with veneration: and that more than our

empire and earthly throne, the most sacred seat of the blessed

Peter shall be gloriously exalted; we giving to it power and

glory, and dignity, and vigor and honor imperial.”

Come back to life for a little while, Firmianus Lactantius, stop this

ass who brays so loudly and outrageously. So delighted is he with the

sound of swelling words, that he repeats the same terms and reiterates

what he has just said. Is it thus that in your age the secretaries of the

Caesars spoke, or even their grooms? Constantine chose them not “as his

intercessors” but “to be his intercessors.” The fellow inserted that “to

be” [esse] so as to get a more elegant rhythm. A fine reason! To speak

barbarously so that your speech may run along more gracefully, as if

indeed, anything can be graceful in such filthiness. “Choosing the prince

of the apostles, or his vicars”: you do not choose Peter, and then his

vicars, but either him, excluding them, or them, excluding him.[465] And

he calls the Roman pontiffs “vicars” of Peter, either as though Peter

were living, or as though they were of lower rank than was Peter. And

is not this barbarous; “from us and our empire”?[466] As if the empire

had a mind to give grants, and power! Nor was he content to say “should

obtain,” without also saying “conceded,” though either one would have

sufficed. And that “constant intercessors,”[466] is very elegant indeed!

Doubtless he wants them “constant” so that they may not be corrupted by

money nor moved by fear. And “earthly imperial power”; two adjectives

without a conjunction. And “be honored with veneration”: and “clemency

of our imperial serenity”;[467] it smacks of Lactantian eloquence to

speak of “serenity” and “clemency,” instead of grandeur and majesty,

when the power of the Empire is concerned! And how inflated he is with

puffed-up pride; as in that phrase “gloriously exalted” by “glory, and

power, and dignity, and vigor, and imperial honor”! This seems to be

taken from the Apocalypse, where it says, “Worthy is the Lamb that was

slain, to receive power, and divinity and wisdom, and strength, and honor

and blessing.”[468] Frequently, as will be shown later, Constantine is

made to arrogate to himself the titles of God, and to try to imitate the

language of the sacred scriptures, which he had never read.

“And we ordain and decree that he shall have the supremacy as

well over the four seats, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and

Constantinople, as also over all the churches of God in the

whole earth. And the pontiff also, who at the time shall be at

the head of the holy Roman church itself, shall be more exalted

than, and chief over, all the priests of the whole world; and,

according to his judgment everything which is to be provided

for the service of God, and for the faith or the stability of

the Christians is to be administered.”

I will not speak here of the barbarisms in [the forger’s] language when

he says “chief over the priests” instead of chief of the priests; when he

puts in the same sentence “extiterit” and “existat” [confusing meanings,

moods and tenses]; when, having said “in the whole earth,” he adds again

“of the whole world,” as though he wished to include something else, or

the sky, which is part of the world, though a good part of the earth

even was not under Rome; when he distinguishes between providing for

“the faith” of Christians and providing for their “stability,” as though

they could not coexist;[469] when he confuses “ordain” and “decree,”

and when, as though Constantine had not already joined with the rest in

making the decree, he has him now ordain it, and as though he imposes a

punishment, decree [confirm] it, and confirm it together with the people.

[That, I pass by.] But what Christian could endure this [other thing],

and not, rather, critically and severely reprove a Pope who endures

it, and listens to it willingly and retails it; namely, that the Roman

See, though it received its primacy from Christ, as the Eighth Synod

declared according to the testimony of Gratian and many of the Greeks,

should be represented as having received it from Constantine, hardly yet

a Christian, as though from Christ? Would that very modest ruler have

chosen to make such a statement, and that most devout pontiff to listen

to it? Far be such a grave wrong from both of them!

How in the world—this is much more absurd, and impossible in the nature

of things—could one speak of Constantinople as one of the patriarchal

sees, when it was not yet a patriarchate, nor a see, nor a Christian

city, nor named Constantinople, nor founded, nor planned! For the

“privilege” was granted, so it says, the third day after Constantine

became a Christian; when as yet Byzantium, not Constantinople, occupied

that site. I am a liar if this fool does not confess as much himself. For

toward the end of the “privilege” he writes:

“Wherefore we have perceived it to be fitting that our empire

and our royal power should be transferred in the regions of the

East; and that in the province of Bizantia [_sic_], in the most

fitting place, a city should be built in our name; and that our

empire should there be established.”

But if he was intending to transfer the empire, he had not yet

transferred it; if he was intending to establish his empire there, he had

not yet established it; if he was planning to build a city, he had not

yet built it. Therefore he could not have spoken of it as a patriarchal

see, as one of the four sees, as Christian, as having this name, nor as

already built. According to the history [the Life of Sylvester] which

Palea cites as evidence, he had not yet even thought of founding it.

And this beast, whether Palea or some one else whom Palea follows, does

not notice that he contradicts this history, in which it is said that

Constantine issued the decree concerning the founding of the city, not

on his own initiative, but at a command received in his sleep from God,

not at Rome but at Byzantium, not within a few days [of his conversion]

but several years after, and that he learned its name by revelation in a

dream.[470] Who then does not see that the man who wrote the “privilege”

lived long after the time of Constantine, and in his effort to embellish

his falsehood forgot that earlier he had said that these events took

place at Rome on the third day after Constantine was baptized? So the

trite old proverb applies nicely to him, “Liars need good memories.”

And how is it that he speaks of a province of “Byzantia,” when it was a

town, Byzantium by name? The place was by no means large enough for the

erection of so great a city; for the old city of Byzantium was included

within the walls of Constantinople. And this man says the [new] city is

to be built on the most fitting place in it! Why does he choose to put

Thrace, in which Byzantium lies, in the East, when it lies to the north?

I suppose Constantine did not know the place which he had chosen for the

building of the city, in what latitude it was, whether it was a town or a

province, nor how large it was!

“On the churches of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, for

the providing of the lights, we have conferred landed estates

of possessions, and have enriched them with different objects;

and through our sacred imperial mandate, we have granted them

of our property in the east as well as in the west; and even

in the north and in the southern quarter; namely, in Judea,

Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa and Italy and the various islands;

under this condition indeed, that all shall be administered

by the hand of our most blessed father the supreme pontiff,

Sylvester, and his successors.”