Chapter XIII: Concerning the Same.412 (3)

But that he might not betray himself as a liar by continuing longer on the separate garments, he embraced them all together in a single word, saying, “all the imperial raiment.” What! even that which he is accustomed to wear in war, in the chase, at banquets, in games? What could be more stupid than to say that all the raiment of the Caesar befits a pontiff!

But how gracefully he adds, “and the same rank as those presiding over the imperial cavalry.” He says “seu” [“or” for “and”].[474] He wishes to distinguish between these two in turn, as if they were very like each other, and slips along from the imperial raiment to the equestrian rank, saying—I know not what! He wants to say something wonderful, but fears to be caught lying, and so with puffed cheeks and swollen throat, he gives forth sound without sense.

“Conferring also on him the imperial sceptres.” What a turn of speech! What splendor! What harmony! What are these imperial sceptres? There is one sceptre, not several; if indeed the Emperor carried a sceptre at all. Will now the pontiff carry a sceptre in his hand? Why not give him a sword also, and helmet and javelin?

“And at the same time all the standards and banners.” What do you understand by “standards” [signa]? “Signa” are either statues (hence frequently we read “signa et tabulas” for pieces of sculpture and paintings;—for the ancients did not paint on walls, but on tablets) or military standards (hence that phrase “Standards, matched eagles”[475]). In the former sense small statues and sculptures are called “sigilla.” Now then, did Constantine give Sylvester his statues or his eagles? What could be more absurd? But what “banners” [banna[476]] may signify, I do not discover. May God destroy you, most depraved of mortals who attribute barbarous language to a cultured age!

“And different imperial ornaments.” When he said “banners,” he thought he had been explicit long enough, and therefore he lumped the rest under a general term. And how frequently he drives home the word “imperial,” as though there were certain ornaments peculiar to the Emperor over against the consul, the dictator, the Caesar!

“And all the pomp of our imperial eminence, and the glory of our power.” “He discards bombast and cubit-long words,”[477] “This king of kings, Darius, the kinsman of the gods,”[478] never speaking save in the plural! What is this imperial “pomp”; that of the cucumber twisted in the grass, and growing at the belly? Do you think the Caesar celebrated a triumph whenever he left his house, as the Pope now does, preceded by white horses which servants lead saddled and adorned? To pass over other follies, nothing is emptier, more unbecoming a Roman pontiff than this. And what is this “glory”? Would a Latin have called pomp and paraphernalia “glory,” as is customary in the Hebrew language? And instead of “soldiers” [milites] you say soldiery [militia[479]] which we have borrowed from the Hebrews, whose books neither Constantine nor his secretaries had ever laid eyes on!

But how great is your munificence, O Emperor, who deem it not sufficient to have adorned the pontiff, unless you adorn all the clergy also! As an “eminence of distinguished power and excellence,” you say, they are “made patricians and consuls.” Who has ever heard of senators or other men being made patricians? Consuls are “made,” but not patricians. The senators, the conscript fathers, are from patrician (also called senatorial), equestrian, or plebeian families as the case may be. It is greater, also, to be a senator than to be a patrician; for a senator is one of the chosen counsellors of the Republic, while a patrician is merely one who derives his origin from a senatorial family. So one who is a senator, or of the conscript fathers, is not necessarily forthwith also a patrician. So my friends the Romans are now making themselves ridiculous when they call their praetor “senator,” since a senate cannot consist of one man and a senator must have colleagues, and he who is now called “senator” performs the function of praetor. But, you say, the title of patrician is found in many books.[480] Yes; but in those which speak of times later than Constantine; therefore the “privilege” was executed after Constantine.

But how can the clergy become consuls?[481] The Latin clergy have denied themselves matrimony; and will they become consuls, make a levy of troops, and betake themselves to the provinces allotted them with legions and auxiliaries? Are servants and slaves made consuls? And are there to be not two, as was customary; but the hundreds and thousands of attendants who serve the Roman church, are they to be honored with the rank of general? And I was stupid enough to wonder at what was said about the Pope’s transformation! The attendants will be generals; but the clergy soldiers. Will the clergy become soldiers or wear military insignia, unless you share the imperial insignia with all the clergy? [I may well ask,] for I do not know what you are saying. And who does not see that this fabulous tale was concocted by those who wished to have every possible license in the attire they were to wear? If there are games of any kind played among the demons which inhabit the air I should think that they would consist in copying the apparel, the pride and the luxury of the clergy, and that the demons would be delighted most by this kind of masquerading.

Which shall I censure the more, the stupidity of the ideas, or of the words? You have heard about the ideas; here are illustrations of his words. He says, “It seems proper for our Senate to be adorned” (as though it were not assuredly adorned), and to be adorned forsooth with “glory.” And what is being done he wishes understood as already done; as, “we have proclaimed” for “we proclaim”: for the speech sounds better that way. And he puts the same act in the present and in the past tense; as, “we decree,” and “we have decreed.” And everything is stuffed with these words, “we decree,” “we decorate,” “imperial,” “imperial rank,” “power,” “glory.” He uses “extat” for “est,” though “extare” means to stand out or to be above; and “nempe” for “scilicet” [that is, “indeed” for “to wit”]; and “concubitores” [translated above, bed-watchers] for “contubernales” [companions or attendants]. “Concubitores” are literally those who sleep together and have intercourse; they must certainly be understood to be harlots. He adds those with whom he may sleep, I suppose, that he may not fear nocturnal phantoms.[482] He adds “chamberlains”; he adds “door-keepers.”

It is not an idle question to ask why he mentions these details. He is setting up, not an old man, but a ward or a young son, and like a doting father, himself arranges for him everything of which his tender age has need, as David did for Solomon! And that the story may be filled in in every respect, horses are given the clergy,—lest they sit on asses’ colts in that asinine way of Christ’s! And they are given horses, not covered nor saddled with coverings of white, but decorated with white color. And what coverings! Not horse-cloths, either Babylonian or any other kind, but “mappulae” [translated above, saddle-cloths] and “linteamina” [linen cloths or sheets, translated above, linen]. “Mappae” [serviettes] go with the table, “linteamina” with the couch. And as though there were doubt as to their color, he explains, “that is to say, of the whitest color.” Talk worthy of Constantine; fluency worthy of Lactantius; not only in the other phrases, but also in that one, “may mount mounts”!

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

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

So the “socks” are not linen, nor white, with which this two-legged ass says, not that the feet of senators are clad, but that senators are distinguished.

And in the phrase “that the terrestrial orders may be adorned to the glory of God, just as the celestial,” what do you call celestial, what terrestrial? How are the celestial orders adorned?[484] You may have seen what glory to God this is. But I, if I believe anything, deem nothing more hateful to God and to the rest of humanity than such presumption of clergy in the secular sphere. But why do I attack individual items? Time would fail me if I should try, I do not say to dwell upon, but to touch upon them all.

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

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

And again he comes back to the diadem:

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

Again he explains the meaning of diadem, for he was speaking to barbarians, forgetful ones at that. And he adds “of purest gold,” lest perchance you should think brass or dross was mixed in. And when he has said “gems,” he adds “precious,” again fearing lest you should suspect them of being cheap. Yet why did he not say most precious, just as he said “purest gold”? For there is more difference between gem and gem, than between gold and gold. And when he should have said “distinctum gemmis,” he said “ex gemmis.” Who does not see that this was taken from the passage, which the gentile ruler had not read, “Thou settest a crown of precious stone on his head”?[486] Did the Caesar speak thus, with a certain vanity in bragging of his crown, if indeed the Caesars were crowned, but cheapening himself by fearing lest people would think that he did not wear a crown “of purest gold and precious gems,” unless he said so?

Find the reason why he speaks thus: “for the honor of the blessed Peter.” As though, not Christ, but Peter, were the chief corner-stone on which the temple of the church is built; an inference he later repeats! But if he wanted to honor him so much, why did he not dedicate the episcopal temple at Rome to him, rather than to John the Baptist?

What? Does not that barbarous way of talking show that the rigmarole was composed, not in the age of Constantine, but later; “decernimus quod uti debeant”[487] for the correct form “decernimus ut utantur”? Boors commonly speak and write that way now; “Iussi quod deberes venire” for “Iussi ut venires.” And “we decreed,” and “we granted,” as though it were not being done now, but had been done some other time!

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

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

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

Does not this fable-fabricator seem to blunder, not through imprudence, but deliberately and of set purpose, and so as to offer handles for catching him? In the same passage he says both that the Lord’s resurrection is represented by the tiara, and that it is an imitation of Caesar’s power; two things which differ most widely from each other. God is my witness, I find no words, no words merciless enough with which to stab this most abandoned scoundrel; so full of insanity are all the words he vomits forth. He makes Constantine not only similar in office to Moses, who at the command of God honored the chief priest, but also an expounder of secret mysteries, a most difficult thing even for those long versed in the sacred books. Why did you not make Constantine supreme pontiff while you were about it, as many emperors have been, that he might more conveniently transfer his attire to the other high priest? But you did not know history. And I give thanks to God on this very score, that he did not permit this utterly vicious scheme to be suggested save to an exceedingly stupid man. Subsequent considerations also show this. For he suggests the fact that Moses performed for Aaron, seated on a horse, the duty of squire [dextratoris], and that in the midst not of Israel, but of the Canaanites and the Egyptians, that is, of an heathen state, where there was not so much a secular government as one of demons and demon-worshipping peoples.

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

We have already, in the oration of the Romans and that of Sylvester, said a good deal about this.[490] Here it is in place to say that no one would have thought of including all the nations in a single word of a grant; and that a man who had earlier followed out the minutest details of straps, the shoes, the linen horse-cloths, would not have thought of omitting to cite by name provinces which now have separate kings or rulers equal to kings, and more than one to each. But this forger, of course, did not know which provinces were under Constantine, and which were not. For certainly not all were under him. When Alexander died, we see all the countries enumerated one by one in the division among the generals. We see the lands and rulers which were under the government of Cyrus, whether voluntarily or by conquest, named by Xenophon. We see the names of the Greek and barbarian kings, their lineage, their country, their bravery, their strength, their excellence, the number of their ships and the approximate number of their men, included by Homer in his catalog. And not only did many Greeks follow his example, but our Latin authors also, Ennius, Virgil, Lucan, Statius, and others. By Joshua and Moses, in the division of the promised land, even all the little villages were described. And you refuse to enumerate even provinces! You name only the “western provinces.”[491] What are the boundaries of the west; where do they begin; where do they end? Are the frontiers of west and east, south and north, as definite and fixed as those of Asia, Africa and Europe? Necessary words you omit, you heap on superfluous ones. You say, “provinces, places and cities.” Are not provinces and cities, “places”? And when you have said provinces you add cities, as though the latter would not be understood with the former. But it is not strange that a man who gives away so large a part of the earth should pass over the names of cities and of provinces, and as though overcome with lethargy not know what he says. “Of Italy or of the western regions,” as though he meant “either ... or” when he means “both”;[492] speaking of “provinces ... of the ... regions,” when it should rather be the regions of the provinces; and using the gerundive, “permanendas,” for the future infinitive (permansuras).

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, he who spoke so grandly and loftily, begins to fear, and to distrust himself, and so takes to entreating:

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

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

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

This terrible threat is the usual one, not of a secular ruler, but of the early priests and flamens, and nowadays, of ecclesiastics. And so this is not the utterance of Constantine, but of some fool of a priest who, stuffed and pudgy, knew neither what to say nor how to say it, and, gorged with eating and heated with wine, belched out these wordy sentences which convey nothing to another, but turn against the author himself. First he says, “shall be subject to eternal damnation,” then as though more could be added, he wishes to add something else, and to eternal penalties he joins penalties in the present life; and after he frightens us with God’s condemnation, he frightens us with the hatred of Peter, as though it were something still greater. Why he should add Paul, and why Paul alone, I do not know. And with his usual drowsiness he returns again to eternal penalties, as though he had not said that before. Now if these threats and curses were Constantine’s, I in turn would curse him as a tyrant and destroyer of my country, and would threaten that I, as a Roman, would take vengeance on him. But who would be afraid of the curse of an overly avaricious man, and one saying a counterfeit speech after the manner of actors, and terrifying people in the rôle of Constantine? This is being a hypocrite in the true sense, if we press the Greek word closely; that is, hiding your own personality under another’s.

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

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

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

You see the malicious artfulness of the cunning Sinon![499] Because the Donation of Constantine cannot be produced, therefore he said that the “privilege” is not on bronze but on paper records; therefore he said that it lies with the body of the most holy apostle, so that either we should not dare to seek it in the venerable tomb, or if we should seek it, we would think it rotted away. But where then was the body of the blessed Peter? Certainly it was not yet in the temple where it now is, not in a place reasonably protected and safe. Therefore the Caesar would not have put the “page” there. Or did he not trust the “page” to the most blessed Sylvester, as not holy enough, not careful nor diligent enough? O Peter! O Sylvester! O holy pontiffs of the Roman church! to whom the sheep of the Lord were entrusted, why did you not keep the “page” entrusted to you? Why have you suffered it to be eaten by worms, to rot away with mold? I presume that it was because your bodies also have wasted away. Constantine therefore acted foolishly. Behold the “page” reduced to dust; the right conferred by the “privilege” at the same time passes away into dust.

And yet, as we see, a copy of the “page” is shown. Who then was so bold as to take it from the bosom of the most holy apostle? No one did it, I think. Whence then the copy? By all means some ancient writer ought to be adduced, one not later than the time of Constantine. However, none such is adduced, but as it happens some recent writer or other. Whence did he get it? For whoever composes a narrative about an earlier age, either writes at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, or follows the authority of former writers, and of those, of course, who wrote concerning their own age. So whoever does not follow earlier writers will be one of those to whom the remoteness of the event affords the boldness to lie. But if this story is to be read anywhere, it is not consistent with antiquity any more than that stupid narrative of the glossator Accursius about Roman ambassadors being sent to Greece to get laws agrees with Titus Livius and the other best writers.

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

He took the next to the last day of March so that we might feel that this was done in the season of holy days, which, for the most part, come at that time. And “Constantine consul for the fourth time, and Gallicanus consul for the fourth time.” Strange if each had been consul thrice, and they were colleagues in a fourth consulship! But stranger still that the Augustus, a leper, with elephantiasis (which disease is as remarkable among diseases, as elephants are among animals), should want to even accept a consulship, when king Azariah, as soon as he was affected with leprosy, kept himself secluded, while the management of the kingdom was given over to Jotham his son;[501] and almost all lepers have acted similarly. And by this argument alone the whole “privilege” is confuted outright, destroyed, and overturned. And if any one disputes the fact that Constantine must have been leprous before he was consul, he should know that according to physicians this disease develops gradually, that according to the known facts of antiquity the consulate is an annual office and begins in the month of January; and these events are said to have taken place the following March.

Nor will I here pass over the fact that “given” is usually written on letters, but not on other documents, except among ignorant people. For letters are said either to be given one (illi) or to be given to one (ad illum); in the former case [they are given to] one who carries them, a courier for instance, and puts them in the hand of the man to whom they are sent; in the latter case [they are given] to one in the sense that they are to be delivered to him by the bearer, that is [they are given to] the one to whom they are sent. But the “privilege,” as they call it, of Constantine, as it was not to be delivered to any one, so also it ought not to be said to be “given.” And so it should be apparent that he who spoke thus lied, and did not know how to imitate what Constantine would probably have said and done. And those who think that he has told the truth, and defend him, whoever they are, make themselves abetters and accessories in his stupidity and madness. However, they have nothing now with which to honorably excuse their opinion, not to speak of defending it.

Or is it an honorable excuse for an error, to be unwilling to acquiesce in the truth when you see it disclosed, because certain great men have thought otherwise? Great men, I call them, on account of their position, not on account of their wisdom or their goodness. How do you even know whether those whom you follow, had they heard what you hear, would have continued in their belief, or would have given it up? And moreover it is most contemptible to be willing to pay more regard to man than to Truth, that is, to God. [I say this] for some men beaten at every argument are wont to answer thus: “Why, have so many supreme pontiffs believed this Donation to be genuine?” I call you to witness, that you urge me where I would not, and force me against my will to rail at the supreme pontiffs whose faults I would prefer to veil. But let us proceed to speak frankly, inasmuch as this case cannot be conducted in any other way.

Admitting that they did thus believe and were not dishonest; why wonder that they believed these stories where so much profit allured them, seeing that they are led to believe a great many things, in which no profit is apparent, through their extraordinary ignorance? Do you not, at Ara Coeli, in that most notable temple and in the most impressive place see the fable of the Sibyl and Octavian[502] depicted by the authority, they say, of Innocent III, who wrote it and who also left an account of the destruction of the Temple of Peace on the day of the Savior’s birth, that is, at the delivery of the Virgin?[503] These stories tend rather to the destruction of faith, by their falsity, than to the establishment of faith, by their wonders. Does the vicar of Truth dare to tell a lie under the guise of piety, and consciously entangle himself in this sin? Or does he not lie? Verily, does he not see that in perpetrating this he contradicts the most holy men? Omitting others; Jerome cites the testimony of Varro that there were ten Sibyls, and Varro wrote his work before the time of Augustus. Jerome also writes thus of the Temple of Peace: “Vespasian and Titus, after the Temple of Peace was built at Rome, dedicated the vessels of the temple [of the Jews] and all manner of gifts in her shrine, as the Greek and Roman historians tell.” And this ignorant man, alone, wants us to believe his libel, barbarously written at that, rather than the most accurate histories of ancient and most painstaking authors!

Since I have touched on Jerome, I will not suffer the following insult to him to be passed by in silence. At Rome, by the authority of the Pope, with the candles ever burning, as though for a relic of the saints, is shown a copy of the Bible, which they say is written in the hand of Jerome. Do you seek proof? Why, there is “much embroidered cloth and gold,” as Virgil says, a thing which indicates rather that it was not written by the hand of Jerome. When I inspected it more carefully, I found that it was written by order of a king, Robert, I think, and in the handwriting of an inexperienced man.

Similarly,—there are indeed ten thousand things of this sort at Rome,—among sacred objects is shown the panel portrait of Peter and Paul, which, after Constantine had been spoken to by these apostles in his sleep, Sylvester produced in confirmation of the vision. I do not say this because I deny that they are portraits of the apostles (would that the letter sent in the name of Lentulus about the portrait of Christ were as genuine, instead of being no less vicious and spurious than this “privilege” which we have refuted), but because that panel was not produced for Constantine by Sylvester. At that story my mind cannot restrain its astonishment.

So I will briefly discuss the Sylvester legend, because the whole question hinges on this; and, since I have to do with Roman pontiffs, it will be in order to speak chiefly of the Roman pontiff so that from one example an estimate of the others may be formed. And of the many absurdities told in this [legend] I shall touch upon one alone, that of the serpent,[504] in order to show that Constantine had not been a leper. And verily the Life of Sylvester (Gesta Silvestri), according to the translator, was written by Eusebius,[505] a Greek, always the readiest people at lying, as Juvenal’s satirical judgment runs:

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

Whence came that dragon? Dragons are not engendered in Rome. Whence, too, his venom? In Africa alone, on account of its hot climate, are there said to be pest-producing dragons. Whence, too, so much venom that he wasted with pestilence such a spacious city as Rome; the more remarkable that the serpent was down in a cavern so deep that one descended to it by a hundred and fifty steps? Serpents, excepting possibly the basilisk, inject their poison and kill, not with their breath, but with their bite. Cato, fleeing from Caesar through the very midst of the African deserts with such a large force as he had, did not see any of his company slain by the breath of a serpent, either on the march or in camp; nor do the natives think the air pestilential on account of serpents. And if we believe at all in the stories, the Chimaera, the Hydra and Cerberus have all often been seen and touched without injury.

Why hadn’t the Romans already slain it instead [of waiting for Sylvester]? They couldn’t, you say? But Regulus killed a much larger serpent in Africa on the banks of the Bagradas. And it was very easy indeed to kill the one at Rome; for instance, by closing the mouth of the cavern. Or didn’t they want to? Ah, they worshipped it as a god, I suppose, as the Babylonians did? Why then, as Daniel is said to have killed that serpent,[507] had not Sylvester killed this one when he had bound him with a hempen thread, and destroyed that brood forever? The reason the inventor of the legend did not want the dragon slain was that it might not be apparent that he had copied the narrative of Daniel. But if Jerome, a most learned and accurate translator, Apollinaris, Origen, Eusebius and others affirm the story of Bel to be apocryphal, if the Jews in their original of the Old Testament do not know it; that is, if all the most learned of the Latins, most of the Greeks, and certain of the Hebrews, condemn that as a legend, shall I not condemn this adumbration of it, which is not based on the authority of any writer, and which far surpasses its model in absurdity?

For who had built the underground home for the beast? Who had put it there and commanded it not to come out and fly away (for dragons fly, as some say; even though others deny it)? Who had thought out that kind of food for him? Who had directed that women, virgins at that, devoted to chastity, go down to him, and only on the Kalends? Or did the serpent remember what day was the Kalends? And was he content with such scant and occasional food? And did not the virgins dread such a deep cavern, and a beast so monstrous and greedy? I suppose the serpent wheedled them, as they were women, and virgins, and brought him his victuals; I suppose he even chatted with them. What if, pardon the expression, he even had intercourse with them; for both Alexander and Scipio are said to have been born by the embrace of a dragon, or a serpent, with their mothers! Why, if food were afterward denied him, would he not have come out then, or have died?

O the strange folly of men who have faith in these senile ravings! How long now had this been going on? When did the beginning occur? Before the advent of the Savior, or after? As to this, nothing is known. We should be ashamed! We should be ashamed of these silly songs, and this frivolity worse than dangerous! A Christian, who calls himself a son of truth and light, should blush to utter things which not only are not true, but are not credible.

But, they say, the demons obtained this power over the heathen, so as to mock them for serving the gods. Silence, you utter ignoramuses, not to call you utter rascals, you who always spread such a veil over your stories! True Christianity does not need the patronage of falsehood; it is maintained satisfactorily by itself, and by its own light and truth, without those lying and deceitful fables,—unmitigated insults to God, to Christ, and to the Holy Spirit. Would God thus have given the human race over into the power of demons, to be seduced by such evident, such imposing miracles, that he might well-nigh be accused of the injustice of turning sheep over to wolves, and that men should have good excuse for their errors? But if so much license was once given demons, even more would be given them now among infidels; which is by no means the case, nor are any legends of this sort told by them.

Passing by other peoples, I will speak of the Romans. Among them the miracles reported are few, and they early and obscure. Valerius Maximus tells that that chasm in the middle of the forum, when Curtius, armed and spurring on his horse, plunged into it, closed again, and returned forthwith to its former state.[508] Again, the [effigy of] Juno Moneta, when it was asked, in jest, by a certain Roman soldier at the capture of Veii, whether it wanted to move to Rome, replied that it did.[509]

Titus Livius, an earlier and more authoritative writer, knows neither of these stories. For he has it that the chasm was permanent, not a sudden opening but an old one, there before the founding of the city, and called Curtius’ Pond, because Mettius Curtius, a Sabine, fleeing from an attack by the Romans, had hidden in it; and that the Juno did not reply, but nodded assent, and it was added to the story afterwards that she had spoken.[510] And about the nod also, it is evident that they lied, either by interpreting the movement of the image when they pulled it away as made by its own accord, or by pretending in the same joking way in which they asked the question that the hostile, conquered, stone goddess nodded assent. Indeed, Livy does not say that she nodded, but that the soldiers exclaimed that she nodded. Such stories, too, good writers do not defend as facts, but excuse as tradition. For even as this same Livy says, “This indulgence is to be granted antiquity, that by mingling the human and the divine it may make the beginnings of cities more august.”[511] And elsewhere: “But in connection with events of such ancient times, if probabilities should be accepted as facts, no harm would be done. These stories are more suited to the display of a stage which delights in wonders, than to sober belief; it is not worth while either to affirm or to refute them.”[512]

Terentius Varro, an earlier, more learned and, I think, more authoritative writer than these two, says there were three accounts of Curtius’ Pond given by as many writers; one by Proculus, that this pond was so called for a Curtius who cast himself into it; another by Piso, that it was named for Mettius the Sabine; the third by Cornelius, and he adds Luctatius as his associate in the matter, that it was for Curtius the consul, whose colleague was Marcus Genutius.[513]

Nor should I have concealed that Valerius cannot be altogether criticised for speaking as he does, since a little later he earnestly and seriously adds; “And I do not ignore the fact that as to human eyes and ears perceiving the movement and the voice of immortal gods, our judgment is rather confused by wavering opinion; but because what is said is not new but the repetition of traditions, the authors may lay claim to credence.”[514] He spoke of the voice of the gods on account of the Juno Moneta,[515] and on account of the statue of Fortune which is represented to have twice spoken in these words, “With due form have you seen me, matrons; with due form have you dedicated me.”[516]

But our own story-tellers every once in a while bring in talking idols of which the heathen themselves, and the worshippers of the idols; do not speak; rather they deny them more earnestly than the Christians affirm them. Among the heathen the very few wonders which are told make their way not by the belief of writers, but by the sanction of their antiquity, as something sacred and venerable; among our writers wonders more recent are narrated, wonders of which the men of those times did not know.

I neither disparage admiration for the saints, nor do I deny their divine works, for I know that faith, as much of it as a grain of mustard seed, is able even to remove mountains. Rather I defend and uphold them, but I do not allow them to be confused with ridiculous legends. Nor can I be persuaded that these writers were other than either infidels, who did this to deride the Christians in case these bits of fiction handed out by crafty men to the ignorant should be accepted as true, or else believers with a zeal for God, to be sure, but not according to knowledge, men who did not shrink from writing shameless accounts not only of the acts of the saints but even of the mother of God, and indeed of Christ himself, nor from writing pseudo-gospels. And the supreme pontiff calls these books apocryphal as though it were no blemish that their author is unknown, as though what was told were credible, as though they were sacred, tending to establish religion; so that now there is no less fault on his part in that he approves evils, than on the part of the one who devised them. We detect spurious coins, we pick them out and reject them; shall we not detect spurious teaching? Shall we retain it, confuse it with the genuine and defend it as genuine?

But I, to give my frank opinion, deny that the Acts of Sylvester is an apocryphal book; because, as I have said, a certain Eusebius is said to have been its author; but I think it is false and not worth reading, in other parts as well as in what it has to say about the serpent, the bull,[517] and the leprosy, to refute which I have gone over so much ground. For even if Naaman was leprous, should we forthwith say that Constantine also was leprous? Many writers allude to it in Naaman’s case; that Constantine the head of the whole earth had leprosy no one mentioned; at least none of his fellow citizens, but perhaps some foreigner or other, to be given no more credence than that other fellow who wrote about wasps building their nest in Vespasian’s nostrils, and about the frog taken from Nero at birth, whence they say the place was called the Lateran, for the frog (rana) is concealed (latere) there in its grave.[518] Such stuff neither the wasps themselves, nor frogs, if they could speak, would have uttered! [I pass over the statement that boys’ blood is a remedy for leprosy, which medical science does not admit;[519]] unless they attribute this to the Capitoline gods, as though they were wont to talk and had ordered this to be done!

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

* * * * *

But you say, “Why do not the Emperors, who were the sufferers from this forgery, deny the Donation of Constantine, instead of admitting it, confirming it and maintaining it?” A great argument! a marvellous defense! For of which Emperor are you speaking? If of the Greek one, who was the true Emperor, I will deny the admission; if of the Latin, I will confess it, and with pleasure. For who does not know that the Latin Emperor was gratuitously established by a supreme pontiff, Stephen I think, who robbed the Greek Emperor because he would not aid Italy, and established a Latin Emperor; so the Emperor thus received more from the Pope than the Pope from the Emperor?[520] Oh, of course, Achilles and Patroclus divided the Trojan spoils between themselves alone on some such terms. The words of Louis [the Pious] seem to me to imply just this when he says, “I, Louis, Roman Emperor, Augustus, ordain and grant, by this compact of our confirmation, to you, blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, and through you to your vicar, the supreme pontiff, lord Paschal [I], and to his successors forever, to hold, just as from our predecessors until now you have held, under your authority and rule, the Roman state with its duchy, with all its towns and villages, its mountain districts, sea coasts and harbors, and all cities, forts, walled towns, and estates in the districts of Tuscany.”[521]

Do you, Louis, make a pact with Paschal? If these are yours, that is, the Roman Empire’s, why do you grant them to another? If they are his and are held in his own possession, what sense is there in your confirming them? How little of the Roman Empire will be yours if you lose the very head of the Empire? From Rome the Roman Emperor takes his name. What! Are your other possessions yours or Paschal’s? Yours, you will say, I suppose. Therefore, the Donation of Constantine is not valid at all; that is, if you possess what was given by him to the pontiff. If it is valid, by what right does Paschal give you the rest [of the Empire], retaining for himself only what he possesses? What does your excessive prodigality toward him at the expense of the Roman Empire mean, or his toward you? Therefore, deservedly do you call it a “compact,” something like collusion.

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