FOOTNOTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOOTNOTES[411]The meaning of this word in this connection is unknown. The chapters to which it is prefixed are for the most part supposed to have been early marginal annotations afterwards incorporated in the text of the Decretum. Cf. Friedberg, Corpus Iuris Canonici, vol. I, Prolegomena, p. lxxxvi.[412]The subject of chapters xi and xii is, “The Emperors must be under the Pontiffs, not over them.” Chapters xiii and xiv continue the same subject.[413]retrowas used at Rome in the latter part of the eighth century with the peculiar meaning of “still” or “again.” This is one of the clues to the date and place of the document. Henderson’s translation is erroneous.[414]Ps. cxxxix, 7.[415]I Tim. v, 20.[416]Valla’s error for Marcellinus. The whole story is apocryphal.[417]A reference to the reforming councils of the fifteenth century.[418]Valla was in the service of the king of Sicily and of Naples when he wrote this.[419]The phrase “Italy and the western provinces,” in the Donation of Constantine, meant to the writer of that document the Italian peninsula, including Lombardy, Venetia, Istria, and adjacent islands. Other countries probably did not occur to him as part of the Roman Empire. Valla, however, followed the current interpretation.[420]In many versions of the Life of Sylvester there is a marvellous story of an enormous serpent, finally subdued by the saint. Cf.infra,p. 143; Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, pp. 161et seq.; Mombritius, Sanctuarium, Sive Vitae collectae ex codibus (Milan,c.1479), v, ii, pp. 279et seq., also Paris edition, 1910. For the story of Bel and the Dragon, cf. the book of that name in the Apocrypha.[421]I have made two English paragraphs of the rather long Latin one. [Ed.][422]Acts xx, 35.[423]Matt. x, 8.[424]I Cor. ix, 15.[425]Rom. xi, 13.[426]Quoted, freely, from Matt. vi, 19 and Luke x, 4.[427]Quoted, freely, from Matt. xix, 24; Mk. x, 25; Luke xviii, 25.[428]I Tim. vi, 7-11.[429]Acts vi, 2.[430]II Tim. ii, 4.[431]Jer. xlviii, 10, quoted freely.[432]Free quotations from John xxi, 15-17.[433]John xviii, 36.[434]Matt. iv, 17.[435]Matt. xx, 25-28.[436]I Cor. vi, 2-5, distorted in punctuation and meaning. Paul argues that cases should be settled inside the church, and that even the humblest Christians are competent to act as judges; Valla quotes him to show that church leaders are not to be judges.[437]Quotations are from Matt. xvii, 25-26.[438]Mk. xi, 17.[439]John xii, 47.[440]Matt. xxvi, 52.[441]Matt. xvi, 19.[442]Matt. xvi. 18.[443]Matt. iv, 8-9, free quotation.[444]Matt. xi, 28-30, with the phrases transposed.[445]Matt. xxii, 21.[446]Eutropius, Breviarum ab urbe condita, X, xvi, 1.[447]Ibid., X, xvii, 1 and 2.[448]The antipope elected by the Council of Basle in 1439. This reference is one of the clues to the date of Valla’s treatise.[449]Valla’s statement about Eusebius’ Church History is slightly overdrawn. Some passages, while not definitely saying that Constantine was a Christian from boyhood, would naturally be construed as implying this, especially when taken in connection with the chapter headings in use long before Valla’s time; e.g., ix, 9, §§ 1-12. In his Life of Constantine, i, 27-32, however, Eusebius tells the story of the Emperor’s conversion in the campaign against Maxentius in 312 by the heavenly apparition, thus implying that he was not previously a Christian. Valla does not seem to have known of this latter work. Nor is he aware of the passage in Jerome, Chron. ad. ann., 2353, that Constantine was baptized near the end of his life by Eusebius of Nicomedia.[450]This is an extract from a spurious letter purporting to be from Melchiades, or Miltiades; as palpable a forgery as the Donation of Constantine itself. The whole letter is given in Migne, P. L., viii, column 566.For the question when Constantine became a Christian, and of his relations with the Popes and the church, cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, with references to sources and literature.[451]A number of chapters in Gratian’s Decretum added after Gratian have this word at their head, the one containing the Donation of Constantine among them. Cf. Friedberg’s edition of the Decretum Gratiani, Prima pars, dist. xcvi, c. xiii, in his Corpus Iuris Canonici, Leipsic, 1879-1881.[452]Decretum Gratiani, Prima pars, dist. xcvi, c. xiii; in Friedberg, Corpus Iuris Canonici, vol. II, p. 342.[453]Ibid., Pars prima, dist. xv, c. iii, Palea 19; in Friedberg, vol. II.[454]Cf. Voragine, Golden Legend, trans. by Wm. Caxton, rev. by Ellis (London, 1900).[455]December 31.[456]A reference to the story of the three young men in the bodyguard of Darius; cf. I Esdras iii and iv.[457]In the following section my translation of the phrases of the Donation is harmonized so far as possible with the translation in E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages.[458]Cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, p. 224, ll. 8et seq.[459]Virgil, Aeneid, ii, 77-78. Dryden’s translation.[460]The text of the Donation which Valla used, though apparently in a copy of Gratian’s Decretum extant in his time, differs here and in a number of other places, from the texts which we have, whether in Gratian’s Decretum, or in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.[461]The wordsatrapwas in fact applied to higher officials at Rome only in the middle of the eighth century. Scheffer-Boichorst, Mitteilungen des Instituts f. österreichische Geschichtsforschung, x (1889), p. 315.[462]Tertullian tells this apocryphal story in his Apology, chaps. 5 and 21. For a translation of letters alleged to have been written to Tiberius by Pilate, see Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff (New York, 1890-1897), vol. VIII, pp. 459-463.[463]Valla’s argument in this paragraph is partly based on the defective text of the Donation which he used, cf.supra,p. 85, note 2. Zeumer’s text would be translated, “all the Roman people who are subject to the glory of our rule,” and Friedberg’s, “all the people subject to the glorious rule of Rome.”[464]Virgil, Aeneid, vi, 852.[465]The conjunction “seu” in classical Latin meant, as Valla insists, “or”; in the eighth century it was often used with the meaning “and.” The forger of the Donation used it in the latter sense. Valla did not see the significance of this usage for dating the forgery.[466]Cf.supra,p. 85, note 2.[467]“firmos patronos,”—this use of “firmus” characterizes the style of Pope Paul I (757-767). See Scheffer-Boichorst,op. cit., p. 311.[468]Rev. v, 12; with variations.[469]Part of this criticism rests upon the peculiarities of the text of the Donation which Valla used.[470]Cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, pp. 148-151, 161-164.[471]Ps. lxxxi, 12.[472]Rom. i, 28, with the person of the verb changed.[473]Matt. xxvii, 28; John xix, 2.[474]Here, as was common in medieval Latin, “seu” is the equivalent of “et,” and means “and.” Valla’s criticism is correct, but might go further in fixing the time of the forgery. Cf.supra,p. 91, note 1.[475]Lucan, Pharsalia, i, 7.[476]In our best texts of the Donation this word is “banda,” used in the eighth century for “colors” or “flags.”[477]Horace, Ars Poetica, l. 97.[478]Julius Valerius, Res Gestae Alexandri, i, 37.[479]At Rome in the eighth century, the time of the forgery, “militia” indicated a civil rank, rather than soldiers.[480]The allusion is to the title of Patrician given to Pippin and to his sons as defenders of the Roman See.[481]The office of consul as it existed in the Republic and the Empire disappeared in the time of the German invasions. The word was later applied quite differently, to a group, practically a social class, at Rome.[482]Where Valla’s text of the Donation reads “concubitorum,” Zeumer’s reads “excubiorum” [guards].[483]Martial, XIV, 141 (140).[484]Valla for this part of his criticism uses the rather unintelligible order of words found in most texts of the Donation, instead of the more intelligible order which he used in his earlier quotations. Cf. pp. 102, 103.[485]Valla’s text of the Donation in this paragraph differs greatly from Zeumer’s, Hinschius’, and Friedberg’s. It is not very clear in any of the texts whether the intent is to give the Pope power to take any one whomsoever into the clergy and thus relieve him from civil and military duties, or to prevent the Roman nobility from forcing their way into ecclesiastical offices against the will of the Pope.[486]Ps. xxi, 3, with variation.[487]Valla does not, here, quote his own text of the Donation correctly.[488]This singular confusion about the crown in the Donation is explained by Brunner, Festgabe für Rudolf von Gneist, pp. 25et seq., as giving the Pope the possession, but not the use, of the imperial crown, thus paving the way for his prerogative of conferring the crown upon Louis the Pious in 816. Scheffer-Boichorst takes the whole episode as an attempt of the forger to glorify Sylvester by having the emperor honor him with the imperial crown, and having the Pope display the clerical humility (and pride) of rejecting it.[489]Valla’s text of the Donation here has “sive” for “seu,” cf.supra,p. 91, note 1. In the whole paragraph there are many deviations from other texts of the Donation.[490]Cf.supra, pp.41et seq.,49et seq.[491]This phrase as used in the Donation probably meant Lombardy, Venetia and Istria; i.e., practically, northern, as distinct from peninsular, Italy. Cf.supra,p. 27, note 2, also, Döllinger, Papstfabeln (ed. Friedrich), p. 122, note. In classical Latin it would have been, as Valla insists, a vague term.[492]Cf.supra, pp.91,109.[493]Cf.supra,p. 95.[494]King [rex] was a forbidden title at Rome after the time of the Tarquins.[495]A parody on Matt. v, 18.[496]Rev. xxii, 18-19.[497]“Pagina” in medieval Latin often meant “document.”[498]In the Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne, i, 454) the keys of Ravenna and other cities included in the so-called Donation of Pippin are said to have been placed in “the confession of St. Peter” (i.e., before his tomb). This association seems to have been common in the eighth century.[499]Cf.supra,p. 85.[500]In the best text of the Donation this is not called the fourth consulship of Gallicanus. In any case, however, the date is impossible; no such consulship as this is known.[501]II Kings xv, 5.[502]This apocryphal story ran that the Sibyl prophesied of Christ, and that Augustus erected an altar to him.[503]The Temple of Peace was built by Vespasian and was not destroyed until it was burned down in the time of Commodus.[504]This episode in the Gesta, or Actus, or Vita, Silvestri, as may be gathered from Valla’s subsequent discussion, involves an enormous serpent, dwelling in a cave under the Tarpeian rock, devastating the entire city of Rome with his poisonous breath, appeased only by maidens being given him to devour, and finally bound forever in his cave by Sylvester. For references, cf. Coleman, Constantine, etc., pp. 161, 168.[505]Apparently Valla assumes that the Gesta Silvestri was written by a Greek named Eusebius, but not Eusebius of Caesarea, author of the Church History. Cf., however, Coleman, Constantine, pp. 161-168.[506]Satura, x, 174-175.[507]Cf. the story of Bel and the Dragon in the Apocrypha.[508]Factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri novem, V, vi, 2.[509]Ibid., I, viii, 3.[510]Livy, VII, 6, incorrectly summarized.[511]Livy, Preface, 7.[512]Livy, V, 21, 9.[513]Terentius Varro, de lingua latina, lib. v, 148-150.[514]Valerius Maximus, factorum et dictorum memorabilium, lib. i, viii, 7.[515]Ibid., i, viii, 3.[516]Ibid., i, viii, 4, with the substitution of “seen” for “given.”[517]In a disputation between Sylvester and Jewish rabbis the rabbis are said to have killed a bull by shouting the sacred name, Jehovah, and Sylvester is said to have brought him to life by whispering the name of Christ. Cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great, etc., p. 163.[518]These stories were to be found, among other places, in the Mirabilia urbis Romae, a guidebook to Rome dating from the twelfth century. English translation by F. M. Nichols, The Marvels of Rome (London and Rome, 1889), pp. 19-20.[519]This clause, though not in the MS. or Hutten, seems necessary to the sense of the following clause, so I have translated it from Bonneau’s text. In the Vita Silvestri we are told that the pagan priests ordered Constantine to bathe in infants’ blood in order to cure himself of leprosy. Cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great, etc., p. 162.[520]It will be remembered that Valla wrote this while in the service of the King of Naples, who was in conflict with imperial as well as with papal claims.[521]A forgery of the eleventh century. Cf. E. Emerton, Medieval Europe, p. 55.[522]Gossip had it that Boniface VIII induced his predecessor to abdicate by angelic warnings, which he himself produced through improvised speaking tubes.[523]The assassination of Vitelleschi, supposedly by order of the Pope, took place in March, 1440, and is one of the means of dating Valla’s treatise.[524]Judges xi, 12-28.[525]For these episodes, cf. Creighton, History of the Papacy, etc., vol. I,passim.[526]Tarquinius, by striking down the tallest poppies with his cane, gave the hint that the leaders of the opposition should be executed; cf. Livy, I, 54.[527]The ensuing episode occurred in 1434 and thus fixes the date of the writing of this passage as 1439 or 1440. Cf. Mancini, Vita di Lorenzo Valla, p. 163.[528]Flamininus had defeated Philip V of Macedonia, and it was from Philip, not Antiochus, that he “freed” Greece.[529]A reminiscence of Rom. xi, 16.[530]Free quotations from Rom. ii, 21-24.[531]A reference to the well-known interview in which Leo I persuaded Attila to desist from his invasion of Italy.[532]This other discourse did not appear.[533]Eph. vi, 12.[534]The MS., Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314, on which this translation is based, was finished December 7, 1451.

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

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

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

[414]Ps. cxxxix, 7.

[415]I Tim. v, 20.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[422]Acts xx, 35.

[423]Matt. x, 8.

[424]I Cor. ix, 15.

[425]Rom. xi, 13.

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

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

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

[429]Acts vi, 2.

[430]II Tim. ii, 4.

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

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

[433]John xviii, 36.

[434]Matt. iv, 17.

[435]Matt. xx, 25-28.

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

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

[438]Mk. xi, 17.

[439]John xii, 47.

[440]Matt. xxvi, 52.

[441]Matt. xvi, 19.

[442]Matt. xvi. 18.

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

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

[445]Matt. xxii, 21.

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

[447]Ibid., X, xvii, 1 and 2.

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

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

[450]This is an extract from a spurious letter purporting to be from Melchiades, or Miltiades; as palpable a forgery as the Donation of Constantine itself. The whole letter is given in Migne, P. L., viii, column 566.For the question when Constantine became a Christian, and of his relations with the Popes and the church, cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, with references to sources and literature.

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

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

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

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

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

[455]December 31.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[464]Virgil, Aeneid, vi, 852.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[471]Ps. lxxxi, 12.

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

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

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

[475]Lucan, Pharsalia, i, 7.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[493]Cf.supra,p. 95.

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

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

[496]Rev. xxii, 18-19.

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

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

[499]Cf.supra,p. 85.

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

[501]II Kings xv, 5.

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

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

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

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

[506]Satura, x, 174-175.

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

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

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

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

[511]Livy, Preface, 7.

[512]Livy, V, 21, 9.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[524]Judges xi, 12-28.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[532]This other discourse did not appear.

[533]Eph. vi, 12.

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

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Back to Index Next