Chapter 7

(P. A. K.; J. T. Be.)

DON,a river in the south of Aberdeenshire, Scotland, rising in peat-moss to the east of Glen Avon on the borders of Banffshire, at a height of nearly 2000 ft. above the sea. It follows a generally easterly course, roughly parallel with that of the Dee, and a few miles to the south of it, falling into the North Sea close to Old Aberdeen, after a run of 82 m. At the mouth the two rivers are only 21⁄3m. apart. Like its greater neighbour, the Don is an excellent salmon stream. On the left its chief affluents are the Ernan, Nochty, Bucket and Urie; on the right, the Conrie, Carvie, Deskry and Strow. The principal places of interest on its banks are Strathdon, Towie, Kildrummy, Alford, Keig, Monymusk, Inverurie, Kintore and Dyce.

DONAGHADEE,a market town of Co. Down, Ireland, in the north parliamentary division, near the south of Belfast Lough, on the Irish Channel, 25 m. E. by N. of Belfast by a branch of the Belfast and Co. Down railway. Pop. (1901) 2073. It is the nearest port in Ireland to Great Britain, being 21½ m. S.W. of Portpatrick in Wigtownshire. Telegraph and telephone cables join these ports, but a regular passenger route does not exist owing to the unsuitability of Portpatrick. Donaghadee harbour admits vessels up to 200 tons. On the north-east side of the town there is a rath or encampment 70 ft. high, in which a powder magazine is erected. The parish church dates from 1626. There are two holy wells in the town. The town is frequented as a seaside watering-place in the summer months.

DONALDSON, SIR JAMES(1831- ), Scottish classical scholar, educational and theological writer, was born at Aberdeen on the 26th of April 1831. He was educated at Aberdeen University and New College, London. In 1854 he was appointed rector of the Stirling high school, in 1866 rector of that of Edinburgh, in 1881 professor of humanity in the university of Aberdeen, and in 1890 principal of the university of St Andrews, by the Universities (Scotland) Act. His chief works are:Modern Greek Grammar(1853);Lyra Graeca(1854), specimens of Greek lyric poetry from Callinus to Soutsos;A Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine from the Death of the Apostles to the Nicene Council(i.-iii., 1864-1866; new ed. of i. asThe Apostolical Fathers, 1874), a book unique of its kind in England at the time of its appearance and one which adds materially to the knowledge of Christian antiquities as deduced from the apostolic fathers;Lectures on the History of Education in Prussia and England(1874);The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England(1905);Woman, her position and influence in ancient Greece and Rome(1907). He was knighted in 1907.

DONALDSON, JOHN WILLIAM(1811-1861), English philologist and biblical critic, was born in London on the 7th of June 1811. He was educated at University College, London, and Trinity College, Cambridge, of which society he subsequently became fellow. In 1841 he was elected headmaster of King Edward’s school, Bury St Edmunds. In 1855 he resigned his post and returned to Cambridge, where his time was divided between literary work and private tuition. He died on the 10th of February 1861. He is remembered as a pioneer of philology in England, and as a great scholar in his day, though much of his work is now obsolete. TheNew Cratylus(1839), the book on which his fame mainly rests, was an attempt to apply to the Greek language the principles of comparative philology. It was founded mainly on the comparative grammar of Bopp, but a large part of it was original, Bopp’s grammar not being completed till ten years after the first edition of theCratylus. In theVarronianus(1844) the same method was applied to Latin, Umbrian and Oscan. HisJashar(1854), written in Latin as an appeal to the learned world, and especially to German theologians, was an attempt to reconstitute the lost biblical book of Jashar from the remains of old songs and historical records, which, according to the author, are incorporated in the existing text of the Old Testament. His bold views on the nature of inspiration, and his free handling of the sacred text, aroused the anger of the theologians. Of his numerous other works the most important areThe Theatre of the Greeks; The History of the Literature of Ancient Greece(a translation and completion of C. O. Müller’s unfinished work); editions of theOdesof Pindar and theAntigoneof Sophocles; a Hebrew, a Greek and a Latin Grammar.

DONATELLO(diminutive of Donato) (c.1386-1466), Italian sculptor, was the son of Niccolò di Betto Bardi, a member of the Florentine Woolcombers’ Gild, and was born in Florence probably in 1386. The date is conjectural, since the scanty contemporary records of Donatello’s life are contradictory, the earliest documentary reference to the master bearing the date 1406, when a payment is made to him as an independent sculptor. That Donatello was educated in the house of the Martelli family, as stated by Vasari, and that he owed to them his introduction to his future friend and patron, Cosimo de’ Medici, is very doubtful, in view of the fact that his father had espoused the cause of the Albizzi against the Medici, and was in consequence banished from Florence, where his property was confiscated. It is, however, certain that Donatello received his first training, according to the custom of the period, in a goldsmith’s workshop, and that he worked for a short time in Ghiberti’s studio. He was too young to enter the competition for the baptistery gates in 1402, from which Ghiberti issued victorious against Brunelleschi, Jacopodella Quercia, Niccolò d’Arezzo and other rivals. But when Brunelleschi in his disappointment left Florence and went to Rome to study the remains of classic art he was accompanied by young Donatello. Whilst pursuing their studies and excavations on classic soil, which made them talked about amongst the Romans of the day as “treasure seekers,” the two young men made a living by working at the goldsmiths’ shops. This Roman sojourn was decisive for the entire development of Italian art in the 15th century, for it was during this period that Brunelleschi undertook his measurements of the Pantheon dome and of other Roman buildings, which enabled him to construct the noble cupola of S. Maria del Fiore in Florence, while Donatello acquired his knowledge of classic forms and ornamentation. The two masters, each in his own sphere, were to become the leading spirits in the art movement of the 15th century. Brunelleschi’s buildings and Donatello’s monuments are the supreme expression of the spirit of the early Renaissance in architecture and sculpture and exercised a potent influence upon the painters of that age.

Donatello probably did not return to Florence before 1405, since the earliest works in that city that can be traced to his chisel are two small statues of “prophets” for the north door of the cathedral, for which he received payment in November 1406 and in the beginning of 1408. In the latter year he was entrusted with the important commissions for the marble “David,” now at the Bargello, and for the colossal seated figure of “St John the Evangelist,” which until 1588 occupied a niche of the old cathedral façade, and is now placed in a dark chapel of the Duomo. We find him next employed at Or San Michele, where between 1340 and 1406 only four of the fourteen niches had been filled. As the result of a reminder sent by the Signory to the gilds who had undertaken to furnish the statues, the services of Ciuffagni, Nanni di Banco, Ghiberti and Donatello were enlisted, and Donatello completed between 1412 and 1415 the “St Peter,” the “St George” (the original, now in the Bargello, has been replaced by a copy) and the “St Mark.” He probably also assisted Nanni di Banco in his group of four saints. To this early period—in spite of Dr Bode’s contention, who places it about twenty years later—belongs the wooden crucifix in S. Croce, the most striking instance of Donatello’s realism in rendering the human form and his first attempt at carving the nude. It is said that this crucifix was executed in rivalry with Brunelleschi’s noble work at S. Maria Novella, and that Donatello, at the sight of his friend’s work, exclaimed, “It has been left to you to shape a real Christ, whilst I have made a peasant.” In this early group of statues, from the prophets for the cathedral door to the “St George,” can be followed the gradual advance from Gothic stiffness of attitude and draping to a forceful rendering of the human form and of movement, which is a distinct approach to the classic ideal; from the massiveness of the heavily draped figure to easy poise and muscular litheness. All these figures were carved in marble and are admirably conceived in relation to their architectural setting. In fact, so strong is this tendency that the “St Mark,” when inspected at the master’s workshop, was disapproved of by the heads of the Gild of Linen-weavers, but aroused public enthusiasm when placedin situ, and at a later date received Michelangelo’s unstinted admiration.

Between the completion of the niches for Or San Michele and his second journey to Rome in 1433, Donatello was chiefly occupied with statuary work for the campanile and the cathedral, though from this period dates the bronze figure of the Baptist for the christening font of Orvieto Cathedral, which was never delivered and is now among the treasures of the Berlin museum. This, and the “St Louis of Toulouse,” which originally occupied a niche at Or San Michele and is now badly placed at S. Croce, were the first works in bronze which owed their origin to the partnership of Donatello with Michelozzo, who undertook the casting of the models supplied by his senior. The marble statues for the campanile, which are either proved to be Donatello’s by documentary evidence or can be recognized as his work from their style, are the “Abraham,” wrought by the master in conjunction with Giovanni di Bartolo (il Rosso); the “St John the Baptist”; the so-called “Zuccone” (Jonah?); “Jeremiah”; “Habakuk” (?); the unknown “prophet” who is supposed to bear the features of the humanist Poggio Bracciolini; and possibly he may have had a share in the completion of the “Joshua” commenced by Ciuffagni in 1415. All these statues, and the “St John” at the Bargello, mark a bold departure from the statuesque balance of the “St Mark” and “St George” to an almost instantaneous impression of life. The fall of the draperies is no longer arranged in harmonious lines, but is treated in an accidental, massive, bold manner. At the same time the heads are no longer, as it were, impersonal, but almost cruelly realistic character portraits of actual people, just as the arms and legs and necks are faithfully copied from life with all their angularities and deviations from the lines of beauty. During this period Donatello executed some work for the baptismal font at S. Giovanni in Siena, which Jacopo della Quercia and his assistants had begun in 1416. Though the Florentine’s share in it is confined to a relief which may have been designed, or even begun, by Jacopo, and a few statuettes, it is of considerable importance in Donatello’s life-work, as it includes his first attempt at relief sculpture—except the marble relief on the socle of the “St George”—his first female figures,—“Faith” and “Hope,” and his firstputti. The relief, “Herod’s Feast,” shows already that power of dramatic narration and the skill of expressing the depth of space by varying the treatment from plastic roundness to the fineststiacciato, which was to find its mature expression in the panels of the altar of S. Antonio in Padua and of the pulpit of S. Lorenzo in Florence. The casting of the pieces for the Siena font was probably done by Michelozzo, who is also credited with an important share in the next two monumental works, in the designing of which Donatello had to face a new problem—the tomb of John XXIII. in the baptistery (begun about 1425), and that of Cardinal Brancacci at S. Angelo a Nilo in Naples (executed in Pisa, 1427). The noble recumbent figure of the defunct on the former, the relief on the sarcophagus, and the whole architectural design, are unquestionably due to Donatello; the figure of the pope is the most beautiful tomb figure of the 15th century, and served as the model on which Rossellino, Desiderio, and other sculptors of the following period based their treatment of similar problems. Donatello’s share in the Naples monument is probably confined to the characteristic low relief of the “Ascension.” The baptistery tomb shows how completely Donatello had mastered the forms of Renaissance architecture, even before his second visit to Rome. An earlier proof of his knowledge of classic art is his niche for the “St Louis” at Or S. Michele, now occupied by Verrocchio’s “Christ and St Thomas.” Similar in treatment to the “Ascension” relief is the “Charge to St Peter” at South Kensington, which is almost impressionistic in its suggestion of distance and intervening atmosphere expressed by the extreme slightness of the relief. Another important work of this period, and not, as Vasari maintains, of Donatello’s youth, is the “Annunciation” relief, with its wealth of delicately wrought Renaissancemotifsin the architectural setting.

When Cosimo, the greatest art patron of his time, was exiled from Florence in 1433, Michelozzo accompanied him to Venice, whilst Donatello for the second time went to Rome to drink once more at the source of classic art. The two works which still testify to his presence in this city, the “Tomb of Giovanni Crivelli” at S. Maria in Aracoeli, and the “Ciborium” at St Peter’s, bear the stamp of classic influence. Donatello’s return to Florence in the following year almost coincides with Cosimo’s. Almost immediately, in May 1434, he signed a contract for the marble pulpit on the façade of Prato cathedral, the last work executed in collaboration with Michelozzo, a veritable bacchanalian dance of half-nudeputti, pagan in spirit, passionate in its wonderful rhythmic movement—the forerunner of the “singing tribune” for Florence cathedral, at which he worked intermittently from 1433 to 1440, and which is now restored to its original complete form at the museum of the Opera del Duomo. But Donatello’s greatest achievement of his “classic period” is the bronze “David” at the Bargello, the first nude statue of the Renaissance, the first figure conceived in the round, independent of any architectural surroundings—graceful, well-proportioned,superbly balanced, suggestive of Greek art in the simplification of form, and yet realistic, without any striving after ideal proportions. The same tendencies are to be noted in the bronzeputtoat the Bargello.

In 1443 Donatello was invited to Padua to undertake the decoration of the high altar of S. Antonio, but in the period preceding his departure he not only assisted Brunelleschi in the decoration of the sacristy of S. Lorenzo, towards which the bronze doors are his chief contribution, but found time to chisel, or model in wax or terra-cotta, for Cosimo and other private patrons, most of the portrait busts and small reliefs, which are now distributed over the museums of the world. His first work in Padua was the bronze crucifix for the high altar, a work immeasurably superior to the early wooden crucifix at S. Croce, both as regards nobility of expression and subtlety of form. In the very year when Donatello arrived in Padua the famous Condottiere Erasmo de’ Narni, called Gattamelata, had died, and when it was decided to honour his memory with an equestrian statue, it was only natural that this master should be chosen to undertake a task from the difficulties of which all others may well have shrunk—had shrunk, indeed, since classic times. This commission, and the reliefs and figures for the high altar, kept Donatello in Padua for ten years, though during that time he visited Venice (where he carved the wooden “St John” at the Frari) and probably Mantua, Ferrara and Modena. At least, he was in communication with of Borso d’Este of Modena about a project for an equestrian statue, and had to give expert opinion about two equestrian statues at Ferrara. In his workshop in Padua he gathered around him quite a small army of assistants, stone-carvers, metal-workers, painters, gilders and bronze-casters. The Gattamelata was finished and set up in 1453—a work powerful and majestic in its very repose; there is no striving for dramatic effect, no exaggerated muscular action, but the whole thing is dominated by the strong, energetic head, which is modelled with the searching realism of the Zuccone and the Poggio heads. The high altar, for which Donatello executed twenty-two reliefs, seven statues and the crucifix, was completed in 1450, but had subsequently to undergo many changes, in the course of which the original disposition of the sculptures was entirely lost sight of, the present arrangement being due to Camillo Boito (1895). The chief features of the altar are the wonderfully animated and dramatic bronze reliefs, four in number, of the “Miracles of St Anthony.”

With the exception of another visit to Siena in 1457, of which the bronze “St John” in the cathedral is a reminder, Donatello spent the remaining years of his life in Florence. Closely akin to the rugged “St John” at Siena, and therefore probably contemporaneous, is the repulsively ugly, emaciated “Magdalen” at the baptistery in Florence. The dramatic intensity of the “Judith” group in the Loggia de’ Lanzi, which was originally placed in the court of the Medici Palace, marks it as belonging to the post-Paduan period of the master’s life. His last work of importance was the bronze reliefs for the pulpit of S. Lorenzo, commissioned about 1460, and finished after Donatello’s death by his pupil Bertoldo. The reliefs of the “Flagellation” and “Crucifixion” at the Victoria and Albert Museum are typical examples of the master’s style at this closing period of his life. He died on the 13th of December 1466.

As happened subsequently to Velazquez and Frans Hals, Donatello, whose supreme mastery had been acknowledged by Michelangelo, Raphael and the other giants of the late Renaissance, almost sank into oblivion during the 18th and early 19th centuries, and only in comparatively recent times has he been restored to the eminent position which is his due in the history of art. The full power of his genius was only revealed to the world when, at the quincentenary celebration of his birth, the greater part of his life-work was brought together in Florence. The large hall at the Bargello has ever since been devoted to the display of his works, the numerous original bronzes and marbles and terra-cottas being supplemented by casts of works at other places, such as the colossal Gattamelata monument.

Authorities.—Before the date of the Florence exhibition in 1886 the only books on the subject of Donatello—apart from references in general histories of art—were Pastor’sDonatello(Giessen, 1882) and Semper’sDonatello, seine Zeit und seine Schule(Vienna, 1875). Since then the great Florentine sculptor has received attention from many of the leading art writers, though England has only contributed a not very complete record of his life and work by Hope Rea,Donatello(London, 1900), and an excellent critical study by Lord Balcarres,Donatello(London, 1903), besides a translation of A. G. Meyer’s fully illustrated and exhaustive monograph in the Knackfuss series (London, 1904). Other notable books on the subject are:—Eugène Müntz,Donatello(Paris, 1885), and in the series ofLes Artistes célèbres(Paris, 1890); Schmarzow,Donatello(Breslau, 1886); Cavalucci,Vita ed opere del Donatello(Milan, 1886); Tschudi,Donatello e la critica moderna(Turin, 1887); Reymond,Donatello(Florence, 1899); and Bode,Florentiner Bildhauer der Renaissance(Donatello als Architekt und Dekorator, Die Madonnenreliefs Donatellos) (Berlin, 1902).

(P. G. K.)

DONATI, GIOVANNI BATTISTA(1826-1873), Italian astronomer, was born at Pisa on the 16th of December 1826. He entered the observatory of Florence as a student in 1852, became assistant to G. B. Amici in 1854, and was appointed in 1864 to succeed him as director. A new observatory at Arcetri near Florence, built under his supervision, was completed in 1872. During the ten years 1854-1864 Donati discovered six comets, one of which, first seen on the 2nd of June 1858, bears his name (seeComet). He observed the total solar eclipse of the 18th of July 1860, at Torreblanca in Spain, and in the same year began experiments in stellar spectroscopy. In 1862 he published a memoir,Intorno alle strie degli spettri stellari, which indicated the feasibility of a physical classification of the stars; and on the 5th of August 1864 discovered the gaseous composition of comets by submitting to prismatic analysis the light of one then visible. An investigation of the great aurora of the 4th of February 1872 led him to refer such phenomena to a distinct branch of science, designated by him “cosmical meteorology”; but he was not destined to prosecute the subject. Attending the International Meteorological Congress of August 1873 at Vienna, he fell ill of cholera, and died a few hours after his arrival at Arcetri, on the 20th of September 1873.

SeeVierteljahrsschrift der astr. Gesellschaft(Leipzig), ix. 4;Monthly Notices Roy. Astr. Society, xxxiv. 153;Memorie degli spettroscopisti italiani, ii. 125 (G. Cacciatore);Nature, viii. 556; &c.

(A. M. C.)

DONATIO MORTIS CAUSA(grant in case of death), in law, a gift of personal property made in contemplation of death and intended either expressly or impliedly to take complete effect only if the donor dies of the illness affecting him at the time of the gift. The conception as well as the name is borrowed from Roman law, and the definition given by Justinian (Inst.ii. 7. 1) applies equally to adonatio mortis causain Roman and English law. A distinction, however, has arisen between the English and civil codes; by English law delivery either actual or (when from the nature of the thing actual delivery is impossible) constructive is essential, and this delivery must pass not only the possession but the dominion of the thing given; by the civil law, in some cases at least, delivery of possession was not essential (see the judgment of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke inWardv.Turner, 1751, 2 Ves. sen. 431, where the whole question is exhaustively discussed). Adonatio mortis causastands halfway between a giftinter vivosand a legacy, and has some of the characteristics of each form of disposition. It resembles a legacy in that (1) it is revocable during the donor’s life, (2) it is subject to legacy and estate duty, and (3) it is liable to satisfy debts of the testator in default of other assets. On the other hand, it resembles a giftinter vivosin that it takes effect from delivery; therefore the consent of the executor is not necessary. Anything may be the subject of adonatio mortis causa, the absolute property in which can be made to pass by delivery after the donor’s death either in law or equity; this will cover bankers’ deposit notes, bills of exchange, and notes and cheques of a third person, but not promissory notes and cheques of the donor in favour of the donee, for the donor’s signature is merely an authority for his banker to pay, which is revoked by his death.

DONATION OF CONSTANTINE(Donatio Constantini), the supposed grant by the emperor Constantine, in gratitude for his conversion by Pope Silvester, to that pope and his successorsfor ever, not only of spiritual supremacy over the other great patriarchates and over all matters of faith and worship, but also of temporal dominion over Rome, Italy and “the provinces, places andcivitatesof the western regions.” The famous document, known as theConstitutum Constantiniand compounded of various elements (notably the apocryphalVita S. Silvestri), was forged at Rome some time between the middle and end of the 8th century, was included in the 9th century in the collection known as the False Decretals, two centuries later was incorporated in theDecretumby a pupil of Gratian, and in Gibbon’s day was still “enrolled among the decrees of the canon law,” though already rejected “by the tacit or modest censure of the advocates of the Roman church.” It is now universally admitted to be a gross forgery.1In spite, however, of Gibbon’s characteristic scepticism on this point, it is certain that theConstitutumwas regarded as genuine both by the friends and the enemies of the papal pretensions throughout the middle ages.2Though no use of it was made by the popes during the 9th and 10th centuries, it was quoted as authoritative by eminent ecclesiastics of the Frankish empire (e.g.by Ado of Vienne and Hincmar of Reims), and it was employed by two Frankish popes, Gregory V. and Silvester II., in urging certain territorial claims. But not till 1050 was it made the basis of the larger papal claims, when another Frankish pope, Leo IX., used it in his controversy with the Byzantines. From this time forward it was increasingly used by popes and canonists in support of the papal pretensions, and from the 12th century onwards became a powerful weapon of the spiritual against the temporal powers. It is, however, as Cardinal Hergenröther points out, possible to exaggerate its importance in this respect; a charter purporting to be a grant by an emperor to a pope of spiritual as well as temporal jurisdiction was at best a double-edged weapon; and the popes generally preferred to base their claim to universal sovereignty on their direct commission as vicars of God. By the partisans of the Empire, on the other hand, the Donation was looked upon as thefons et origo malorum, and Constantine was regarded as having, in his new-born zeal, betrayed his imperial trust. The expression of this opinion is not uncommon in medieval literature (e.g.Walther von der Vogelweide, Pfeiffer’s edition, 1880, Nos. 85 and 164), the most famous instance being in theInfernoof Dante (xix. 115):

“Ahi, Costantin, di questo mal fu matreNon la tua conversion, ma quella doteChe da te prese il primo ricco patre!”

“Ahi, Costantin, di questo mal fu matre

Non la tua conversion, ma quella dote

Che da te prese il primo ricco patre!”

The genuineness of theConstitutumwas first critically assailed by Laurentius Valla in 1440, whoseDe falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione declamatioopened a controversy that lasted until, at the close of the 18th century, the defence was silenced. In modern times the controversy as to the genuineness of the document has been succeeded by a debate scarcely less lively as to its date, its authorship and place of origin. The efforts of Roman Catholic scholars have been directed (since Baronius ascribed the forgery to the Greeks) to proving that the fraud was not committed at Rome. Thus Cardinal Hergenröther holds that it was written by a Frank in the 9th century, in order to prove that the Greeks had been rightfully expelled from Italy and that Charlemagne was legitimate emperor. This view, with variations, was maintained by the writer of an article in theCiviltà cattolicain 1864 (Seriev. vol. x. pp. 303, &c.) and supported by Grauert, who maintains that the document was concocted at the abbey of St Denis, after 840. The evidence now available, however, confirms those who ascribe an earlier date to the forgery and place it at Rome. The view held by Gibbon and Döllinger among others,3that theConstitutumis referred to in the letter of Pope Adrian I. to Charlemagne (778), is now indeed largely rejected; there is nothing in the letter to make such an assumption safe, and the same must be said of Friedrich’s attempt to find such reference in the letter addressed in 785 by the same pope to Constantine VI., emperor of the East, and his mother Irene. Still less safe is it to ascribe the authorship of the forgery to any particular pope on the ground of its style; for papal letters were drawn up in the papal chancery and the style employed there was apt to persist through several pontificates. Friedrich’s theory that theConstitutumis a composite document, part written in the 7th century, part added by Paul I. when a deacon under Stephen II., though supported by a wealth of learning, has been torn to tatters by more than one critic (G. Krüger, L. Loening).

On one point, however, a fair amount of agreement seems now to have been reached, a result due to the labour in collating documents of Scheffer-Boichorst, namely, that the style of theConstitutumis generally that of the papal chancery in the latter half of the 8th century. This being granted, there is room for plentiful speculation as to where and why it was concocted. We may still hold the opinion of Döllinger that it was intended to impress the barbarian Pippin and justify in his eyes the Frank intervention in favour of the pope in Italy; or we may share the view of Loening (rejected by Brunner,Rechtsgeschichte) that the forgery was a pious fraud on the part of a cleric of the Curia, committed under Adrian I.,4with the idea of giving a legal basis to territorial dominion which that pope had succeeded in establishing in Italy. The donations of Pippin and Charlemagne established him as sovereignde facto; the donation of Constantine was to proclaim him as sovereignde jure. It is significant in this connexion that it was under Adrian (c. 774) that the papal chancery ceased to date by the regnal years of the Eastern emperor and substituted that of the pontificate. Döllinger’s view is supported and carried a step further by H. Böhmer, who by an ingenious argument endeavours to prove that theConstitutumwas forged in 753, probably by the notary Christophorus, and was carried with him by Pope Stephen II. to the court of Pippin, in 754, with an eye to the acquisition of the Exarchate. In support of this argument it is to be noted that the forged document first appears at the abbey of St Denis, where Stephen spent the winter months of 754. E. Mayer, on the other hand, denies that theConstitutumcan have been forged before the news of the iconoclastic decrees of the council of Constantinople of 754 had reached Rome. He lays stress on the relation of the supposed confession of faith of Constantine, embodied in the forgery, to that issued by the emperor Constantine V., pointing out the efforts made by the Byzantines between 756 and the synod of Gentilly in 767 to detach Pippin from the cause of Rome and the holy images. The forgery thus had a double object: as a weapon against Byzantine heresy and as a defence of the papal patrimony. As the result of an exhaustive analysis of the text and of the political and religious events of the time, Mayer comes to the conclusion that the document was forged about 775,i.e.at the time when Charlemagne was beginning to reverse the policy by which in 774 he had confirmed the possession of the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento to the pope.

Bibliography.—See Döllinger,Papstfabeln des Mittelalters(Munich, 1863; Eng. trans. A. Plummer, 1871); “Janus,”Der Pabst und das Konzil(Munich, 1869; Eng. trans. 1869); Hergenröther,Catholic Church and Christian State(Freiburg im Breisgau, 1872; Eng. trans. 2 vols. 1876); W. Martens,Die römische Frage unter Pippin u. Karl d. Grossen(Stuttgart, 1881), with text; H. Grauert, “Die Konstantinische Schenkung” inHist. Jahrb. der Gorres-Gesellsch.iii. (1882), iv. (1883); Langen, “Entstehung u. Tendenz der Konst. Schenkungsurkunde” in Sybel’sHist. Zeitschr. l.(1883); L. Weiland, “Die Konst. Schenkung” inZeitschr. f. Kirchenrecht, xxii. (1887-1888), maintains that theConstitutumwas forged at Rome between 813 and 875, in connexion with the papal claim to crown the emperors; H. Brunner and K. Zeumer,Die Konstantinische Schenkungsurkunde(Berlin, 1888; Festgaben für R. v. Gneist), with text; Friedrich,Die Konst. Schenkung(Nördlingen, 1889), with text; W. Martens,Die falsche Generalkonzession Konstantins des Grossen(Munich, 1889); P. Scheffer-Boichorst, “NeueForschungen über die Konst. Schenkung,” i. ii.Mitteilungen des Instituts für österr. Geschichtsforschung, x. (1889), xi. (1890); G. Krüger, “Die Frage der Entstehungszeit der Konst. Schenkung,” inTheologische Literaturzeitung, xiv. (1889); J. Hodgkin,Italy and her Invaders, vol. vii. p. 135 (Oxford, 1899); article “Konstantinische Schenkung,” G. H. Böhmer, in Herzog-Hauck,Realencykl.(1902); E. Mayer, “Die Schenkungen Konstantins und Pipins” inDeutsche Zeitschr. für Kirchenrecht(Tübingen, 1904). Laurentius Valla’s treatise was issued in a new edition, with French translation and historical introduction, by A. Bonneau,La Donation de Constantin(Lisieux, 1879).

(W. A. P.)

1Dr Hodgkin’s suggestion (Italy and her Invaders, vii. p. 153) that theConstitutummay have been originally a mere pious romance, recognized as such by its author and his contemporaries, and laid up in the papal archives until its origin was forgotten, is wholly inconsistent with the unquestioned results of the critical analysis of the text.2Leo of Vercelli, the emperor Otto III.’s chancellor, protested that theConstitutumwas a forgery, but without effect. The attacks upon it by the heretical followers of Arnold of Brescia (1152) convinced neither the partisans of the pope nor those of the emperor.3So Langen (1883) and E. Mayer (1904).4This is also W. Mayer’s view in his later work. In hisDie römische Frage(1881) he had placed the forgery in 805 or 806.

2Leo of Vercelli, the emperor Otto III.’s chancellor, protested that theConstitutumwas a forgery, but without effect. The attacks upon it by the heretical followers of Arnold of Brescia (1152) convinced neither the partisans of the pope nor those of the emperor.

3So Langen (1883) and E. Mayer (1904).

4This is also W. Mayer’s view in his later work. In hisDie römische Frage(1881) he had placed the forgery in 805 or 806.

DONATISTS, a powerful sect which arose in the Christian church of northern Africa at the beginning of the 4th century.1In its doctrine it sprang from the same roots, and in its history it had in many things the same character, as the earlier Novatians. The predisposing causes of the Donatist schism were the belief, early introduced into the African church, that the validity of all sacerdotal acts depended upon the personal character of the agent, and the question, arising out of that belief, as to the eligibility for sacerdotal office of thetraditores, or those who had delivered up their copies of the Scriptures under the compulsion of the Diocletian persecution; the exciting cause was the election of a successor to Mensurius, bishop of Carthage, who died in 311. Mensurius had held moderate views as to the treatment of thetraditores, and accordingly a strong fanatical party had formed itself in Carthage in opposition to him, headed by a wealthy and influential widow named Lucilla, and countenanced by Secundus of Tigisis,episcopus primae sedisin Numidia. There were thus two parties, each anxious to secure the succession to the vacant see. The friends of the late bishop fixed their choice on Caecilian, the archdeacon, and secured his election and his consecration by Felix, the bishop of Aptunga, before the other party were ready for action. It had been customary for the Numidian bishops to be present at the election and consecration of the bishop of Carthage, who as metropolitan of proconsular Africa occupied a position of primacy towards all the African provinces. Caecilian’s party, however, had not waited for them, knowing them to be in sympathy with their opponents. Soon after Caecilian’s consecration, Secundus sent a commission to Carthage, which appointed an interventor temporarily to administer the bishopric which they regarded as vacant. Then Secundus himself with seventy of the Numidian bishops arrived at Carthage. A synod of Africa was formed, before which Caecilian was summoned; his consecration was declared invalid, on the ground that Felix had been a traditor; and finally, having refused to obey the summons to appear, he was excommunicated, and the lector Majorinus, a dependant of Lucilla’s, consecrated in his stead. This synod forbade the African churches to hold communion with Caecilian, the schism became overt, and in a very short time there were rival bishops and rival churches throughout the whole province.

It was soon clear, by the exclusion of the “Pars Majorini” from certain privileges conferred on the African church, that the sympathies of Constantine were with the other party (Eusebius,Hist. eccl.x. 6, 7). To investigate the dispute an imperial commission was issued to five Gallic bishops, under the presidency of Melchiades, bishop of Rome. The number of referees was afterwards increased to twenty, and the case was tried at Rome in 313.2Ten bishops appeared on each side, the leading representative of the Donatists being Donatus of Casae Nigrae. The decision was entirely in favour of Caecilian, and Donatus was found guilty of various ecclesiastical offences. An appeal was taken and allowed; but the decision of the synod of Arles in 314 not only confirmed the position of Caecilian, but greatly strengthened it by passing a canon that ordination was not invalid because performed by a traditor, if otherwise regular. Felix had previously been declared innocent after an examination of records and witnesses at Carthage. A further appeal to the emperor in person was heard at Milan in 316, when all points were finally decided in favour of Caecilian, probably on the advice of Hosius, bishop of Cordova. Henceforward the power of the state was directed to the suppression of the defeated party. Persistent Donatists were no longer merely heretics; they were rebels and incurred the confiscation of their church property and the forfeiture of their civil rights.

The attempt to destroy the sect by force had the result of intensifying its fanaticism. Majorinus, the Donatist bishop of Carthage, died in 315, and was succeeded by Donatus, surnamed Magnus, a man of great force of character, under whose influence the schism gained fresh strength from the opposition it encountered. Force was met with force; the Circumcelliones, bands of fugitive slaves and vagrant (circum cellas) peasants, attached themselves to the Donatists, and their violence reached such a height as to threaten civil war. In 321 Constantine, seeing probably that he had been wrong in abandoning his usual policy of toleration, sought to retrace his steps by granting the Donatists liberty to act according to their consciences, and declaring that the points in dispute between them and the orthodox should be left to the judgment of God. This wise policy, to which he consistently adhered to the close of his reign, was not followed by his son and successor Constans, who, after repeated attempts to win over the sect by bribes, resorted to persecution. The renewed excesses of the Circumcelliones, among whom were ranged fugitive slaves, debtors and political malcontents of all kinds, had given to the Donatist schism a revolutionary aspect; and its forcible suppression may therefore have seemed to Constans even more necessary for the preservation of the empire than for the vindication of orthodoxy. The power which they had been the first to invoke having thus declared so emphatically and persistently against them, the Donatists revived the old world-alien Christianity of the days of persecution, and repeated Tertullian’s question, “What has the emperor to do with the church?” (Quid est imperatori cum ecclesia?) Such an attitude aggravated the lawlessness of the Circumcellion adherents of the sect, and their outrages were in turn made the justification for the most rigorous measures against the whole Donatist party indiscriminately. Many of their bishops fell victims to the persecution, and Donatus (Magnus) and several others were banished from their sees.

With the accession of Julian (361) an entire change took place in the treatment of the Donatists. Their churches were restored and their bishops reinstated (Parmenianus succeeding the deceased Donatus at Carthage), with the natural result of greatly increasing both the numbers and the enthusiasm of the party. A return to the earlier policy of repression was made under Valentinian I. and Gratian, by whom the Donatist churches were again closed, and all their assemblies forbidden. It was not, however, until the commencement of the 5th century that the sect began to decline, owing largely to the rise among them of a group of moderate and scholarly men like the grammarian Tychonius, who vainly strove to overcome the more fanatical section. Against the house thus divided against itself both state and church directed not unsuccessful assaults. In 405 an edict was issued by the emperor Honorius commanding the Donatists, under the severest penalties, to return to the Catholic church. On the other hand, Augustine, bishop of Hippo, after several years’ negotiation, arranged a great conference between the Donatists and the orthodox, which was held under the authority of the emperor at Carthage in 411. There were present 286 Catholics and 279 Donatist bishops. Before entering on the proceedings the Catholics pledged themselves, if defeated, to give up their sees, while in the other event they promised to recognize the Donatists as bishops on their simply declaring their adherence to the Catholic church. The latter proposal, though it was received with scorn at the time, had perhaps ultimately as much influence as the logic of Augustine in breaking the strength of the schism. The discussion, which lasted for three days, Augustineand Aurelius of Carthage being the chief speakers on the one side, and Primian and Petilian on the other, turned exclusively upon the two questions that had given rise to the schism—first, the question of fact, whether Felix of Aptunga who consecrated Caecilian had been a traditor; and secondly, the question of doctrine, whether a church by tolerance of unworthy members within its pale lost the essential attributes of purity and catholicity. The Donatist position, like that of the Novatians, was that the mark of the true church is to guard the essential predicate of holiness by excluding all who have committed mortal sin; the Catholic standpoint was that such holiness is not destroyed by the presence of unworthy members in the church but rests upon the divine foundation of the church and upon the gift of the Holy Spirit and the communication of grace through the priesthood. In the words of Optatus of Milevi,sanctitas de sacramentis colligitur, non de superbia personarum pondera. And the much wider diffusion of the orthodox church was also taken as practical confirmation that it alone possessed what was regarded as the equally essential predicate of catholicity.

The decision of Marcellinus, the imperial commissioner, was in favour of the Catholic party on both questions, and it was at once confirmed on an appeal to the emperor. The severest penal measures were enforced against the schismatics; in 414 they were denied all civil rights, in 415 the holding of assemblies was forbidden on pain of death. But they lived on, suffering with their orthodox brethren in the Vandal invasions of the 5th century, and like them finally disappearing before the Saracen onslaught two centuries later.

Authorities.—1. Contemporary sources: Optatus MilevitanusDe Schismate Donatistarum adversus Parmenianum, written c. 368 (Dupin’s ed., Paris, 1700), and several of the works of Augustine. 2. Modern: C. W. F. Walch,Entwurf einer vollständigen Historie der Ketzereien(Leipzig, 1768); Hauck-Herzog,Realencyk. für prot. Theol., art. “Donatismus” by N. Bonwetsch, who cites the literature very fully; W. Möller,History of the Christian Church(vol. i. pp. 331 ff., 445 ff.); D. Völter,Der Ursprung des Donatismus(Freiburg, 1883).

1There were three prominent men named Donatus connected with the movement—Donatus of Casae Nigrae; Donatus surnamed Magnus, who succeeded Majorinus as the Donatist bishop of Carthage; and Donatus of Bagoi, a leader of thecircumcelliones, who was captured and executed c. 350. The name of the sect was derived from the second of these. The Donatists themselves repudiated the designation, which was applied to them by their opponents as a reproach. They called themselves “Pars Majorini” or “Pars Donati.”2The Donatist movement affords a valuable illustration of the new importance which the changed position of the church under Constantine gave to the synodal system of ecclesiastical legislation.

2The Donatist movement affords a valuable illustration of the new importance which the changed position of the church under Constantine gave to the synodal system of ecclesiastical legislation.

DONATUS, AELIUS, Roman grammarian and teacher of rhetoric, flourished in the middle of the 4th centurya.d.The only fact known regarding his life is that he was the tutor of St Jerome. He was the author of a number of professional works, of which there are still extant:—Ars grammatica; the larger portion of his commentary on Terence (a compilation from other commentaries), but probably not in its original form; and a few fragments of his notes on Virgil, preserved and severely criticized by Servius, together with the preface and introduction, and life of Virgil. The first of these works, and especially the section on the eight parts of speech, though possessing little claim to originality, and in fact evidently based on the same authorities which were used by the grammarians Charisius and Diomedes, attained such popularity as a school-book that in the middle ages the writer’s name, like the French Calepin, became a common metonymy (in the formdonet) for a rudimentary treatise of any sort. On the introduction of printing editions of the little book were multiplied to an enormous extent. It is extant in the form of anArs Minor, which only treats of the parts of speech, and anArs Major, which deals with grammar in general at greater length.

Aelius Donatus is to be distinguished from Tiberius Claudius Donatus, the author of a commentary (Interpretationes) on the Aeneid (of far less value than that of Servius), who lived about fifty years later.

Back to Index Next