Lorenzo Valla: Part 3
How brutal, how violent, how barbarous the tyranny of priests often is, I do not say. If this was not known before, it has lately been learned from that monster of depravity, John Vitelleschi, cardinal and patriarch, who wore out the sword of Peter, with which [the apostle] cut off the ear of Malchus, with the blood of Christians. By this sword he himself also perished.[110] But is it true
[Page 165] that the people of Israel were permitted to revolt from the house of David and Solomon whom prophets sent by God had anointed, because their impositions were too heavy; and that God approved their act? May we not revolt on account of such great tyranny, particularly from those who are not kings, and cannot be; and who from being shepherds of the sheep, that is to say, of souls, have become thieves and brigands?
And to come to human law, who does not know that there is no right conferred by war, or if there is any, that it prevails just as long as you possess what you have gotten by war? For when you lose possession, you have lost the right. And so ordinarily, if captives have escaped no one summons them into court: and so also with plunder if the former owners have recovered it. Bees and any other kind of winged creatures, if they have flown away far from my property and have settled on another's, cannot be reclaimed. And do you seek to reclaim men, who are not only free creatures, but masters of others, when they set themselves free by force of arms, [reclaim them] not by force of arms, but by law, as though you were a man, and they sheep?
Nor can you say, "The Romans were [considered] just in waging wars against the nations, and just in depriving them of liberty." Do not drag me into that discussion, lest I be forced to speak against my fellow Romans. However, no fault could be so serious that people should merit everlasting servitude therefor. And in this connection [one must remember also] that people often waged a war for which a prince or some important citizen in the Republic was to blame, and, being conquered, were undeservedly punished with servitude. There are everywhere abundant examples of this.
Nor in truth does the law of nature provide that one people should subjugate another people to itself. We can instruct others, we can urge them; we cannot rule them and do them violence, unless, leaving humanity aside, we wish to copy the more savage beasts which force their bloody rule upon the weaker, as the lion among quadrupeds, the eagle among birds, the dolphin among fish. Yet even these creatures do not vaunt authority over their
[Page 167] own kind, but over an inferior. How much more ought we to act thus, and as men have due regard for men, since in the words of Marcus Fabius there is no beast upon the earth so fierce that his own likeness is not sacred to him?
Now there are four reasons why wars are waged: either for avenging a wrong and defending friends; or for fear of incurring disaster later, if the strength of others is allowed to increase; or for hope of booty; or for desire of glory. Of these the first is rather honorable, the second less so, and the last two are far from honorable. And wars were indeed often waged against the Romans, but after they had defended themselves, they waged war against their assailants and against others. Nor is there any nation which yielded to their sway unless conquered in war and subdued; whether justly, or for what cause, they themselves could judge. I should be unwilling to condemn them as fighting unjustly or to acquit them as fighting in a just cause. I can only say that the Roman people waged wars against others for the same reason as other peoples and kings did, and that it was left open even to those who were attacked and conquered in war to revolt from the Romans just as they revolted from other masters; lest perchance (and none would agree to this) all authority should be imputed to the oldest people who were first masters; that is, to those who were the first to take possession of what belonged to others.
And yet the Roman people had a better right over nations conquered in war than had the Caesars in their overthrow of the Republic. Wherefore, if it was right for the nations to revolt from Constantine, and, what is far more, from the Roman people, surely it will be right to revolt from him to whom Constantine gave his authority. And to put the matter more boldly, if the Roman people were free either to drive Constantine out, as they did Tarquinius, or to slay him, as they did Julius Caesar, much more will the Romans or the provinces be free to slay him, who at any time has succeeded Constantine. But though this is true, yet it is beyond the scope of my argument, and so I want to restrain myself and not press anything I have said further than this, that it is folly to adduce any verbal right, where the right of
[Page 169] arms prevails, because that which is acquired by arms, is likewise lost by arms.
This, indeed, the more, that other, new, peoples as we have heard in the case of the Goths, who were never subject to Roman rule after putting to flight the earlier inhabitants, seized upon Italy and many provinces. What justice, pray, is there in restoring these to a servitude which they have never experienced; especially as they are the conquering peoples; and to servitude perchance under the conquered peoples? And if at this time any cities and nations, deserted by the Emperor at the arrival of the barbarians, as we know to have been the case, had been compelled to elect a king under whose leadership they then won victory, is there any reason why they should later depose this ruler? Or should they bid his sons, popular it may be for their father's praise, it may be for their own valor, become private citizens, that they might again become subjects of a Roman prince, even though they were greatly in need of their assistance and hoped for no aid elsewhere? If the Caesar himself, or Constantine, returned to life, or even the Senate and Roman people should call them before a general court such as the Amphictyony was in Greece, [the plaintiff ] would at once be ruled out at his first plea because he was reclaiming to bondage and slavery those who once had been abandoned by him, their guardian, those who for a long time had been living under another ruler, those who had never been subject to a foreign-born king, men, in conclusion, who were freeborn and proclaimed free by their vigor of mind and body. How clear it should be, that if the Caesar, if the Roman people, is thus debarred from recovering control, much more decidedly is the Pope! And if the other nations which have been subject to Rome are free either to appoint a king for themselves or to maintain a republic, far more are the Roman people themselves free to do this, especially against the innovation of papal tyranny.
Estopped from defending the Donation, since it never existed and, if it had existed, it would now have expired from lapse of time, our adversaries take refuge in another kind of defense; [Page 171] figuratively speaking, the city being given up for lost, they betake themselves to their citadel,-which forthwith they are constrained by lack of provisions to surrender. "The Roman church," they say, "is entitled by prescription to what it possesses." Why then does it lay claim to that, the greater part, to which it has no title by prescription, and to which others are entitled by prescription; unless others cannot act toward it as it can act toward them?
The Roman church has title by prescription! Why then does it so often take care to have the Emperors confirm its right? Why does it vaunt the Donation, and its confirmation by the Caesars? If this alone is sufficient, you seriously weaken it by not at the same time keeping silent about the other title [by prescription]. Why don't you keep silent about that other? Obviously because this is not sufficient.
The Roman church has prescribed! And how can it have entered a prescription where no title is established but only possession through bad faith? Or if you deny that the possession was a case of bad faith, at least you cannot deny that the faith [in the Donation] was stupid. Or, in a matter of such importance and notoriety, ought ignorance of fact and of law to be excused? Of fact, because Constantine did not make a grant of Rome and the provinces; a fact of which a man of the common people might well be ignorant, but not the supreme pontiff. Of law, because they could not be granted; which any Christian ought to know. And so, will stupid credulity give you a right to that which, had you been more conscientious, would never have been yours? Well! Now, at least, after I have shown that you held possession through ignorance and stupidity, do you not lose that right, if it was such? and what ignorance unhappily brought you, does not knowledge happily take away again? and does not the property revert from the illegal to the legal master, perchance even with interest? But if you continue to keep possession in the future, your ignorance is henceforth changed into malice aforethought and into deceit, and you become a fraudulent holder.
The Roman church has entered a prescription! 0 simpletons, 0 ignoramuses in divine law! No length of years whatever can
[Page 173] destroy a true title. Or indeed, if I were captured by barbarians and supposed to have perished, and should return again home after a hundred years of captivity, as a claimant of my paternal inheritance, should I be excluded? What could be more inhuman! And, to give another example, did Jephthah, the leader of Israel, when the Ammonites demanded back the land from "the borders of Arnon even unto Jabbok and unto Jordan," reply, "Israel has prescribed this now through three hundred years' occupation"? Or did he not show that the land which they demanded as theirs, had never been theirs, but had been the Amorites'? And the proof that it did not belong to the Ammonites was that they had never in the course of so many years claimed it.[111]
The Roman church has prescribed! Keep still, impious tongue! You transfer "prescription," which is used of inanimate, senseless objects, to man; and holding man in servitude is the more detestable, the longer it lasts. Birds and wild animals do not let themselves be "prescribed," but however long the time of captivity, when they please and occasion is offered, they escape. And may not man, held captive by man, escape?
Let me tell why the Roman pontiffs show fraud and craft rather than ignorance in using war instead of law as their arbiter,-and I believe that the first pontiffs to occupy the city [of Rome] and the other towns did about the same. Shortly before I was born, Rome was led by an incredible sort of fraud, I call those then present there to witness, to accept papal government or rather usurpation, after it had long been free.[112] The Pope was Boniface IX, fellow of Boniface VIII in fraud as in name,-if they are to be called Boniface (benefactor) at all, who are the worst malefactors. And when the Romans, after the treachery had been detected, stirred up trouble, the good Pope, after the manner of Tarquinius, struck off all the tallest poppies with his stick.[113] When his successor, Innocent [VII], afterwards tried to
[Page 175] imitate this procedure he was driven out of the city. I will not speak of other Popes; they have always held Rome down by force of arms. Suffice it to say that as often as it could it has rebelled; as for instance, six years ago,[114] when it could not obtain peace from Eugenius, and it was not equal to the enemies which were besieging it, it besieged the Pope within his house, and would not permit him to go out before he either made peace with the enemy or turned over the administration of the city to the citizens. But he preferred to leave the city in disguise, with a single companion in flight, rather than to gratify the citizens in their just and fair demands. If you give them the choice, who does not know that they would choose liberty rather than slavery?
We may suspect the same of the other cities, which are kept in servitude by the supreme pontiff, though they ought rather to be liberated by him from servitude. It would take too long to enumerate how many cities taken from their enemies the Roman people once set free; it went so far that Titus Flaminius [Flamininus] set free the whole of Greece, which had been under Antiochus,[115] and directed that it enjoy its own laws. But the Pope, as may be seen, lies in wait assiduously against the liberty of countries; and therefore one after another, they daily, as opportunity affords, rebel. (Look at Bologna just now.) And if at any time they have voluntarily accepted papal rule, as may happen when another danger threatens them from elsewhere, it must not be supposed that they have accepted it in order to enslave themselves, so that they could never withdraw their necks from the yoke, so that neither themselves nor those born afterwards should have control of their own affairs; for this would be utterly iniquitous.
"Of our own will we came to you, supreme pontiff, that you might govern us; of our own will we now leave you again, that you may govern us no more. If you have any claim against us, let
[Page 177] the balance of debit and credit be determined. But you want to govern us against our will, as though we were wards of yours, we who perhaps could govern you more wisely than you do yourself! Add to this the wrongs all the time being committed against this state either by you or by your magistrates. We call God to witness that our wrong drives us to revolt, as once Israel did from Rehoboam. And what great wrong did they have? What [a small] part of our calamity is the [mere] payment of heavier taxes! What then if you impoverish the Republic? You have impoverished it. What if you despoil our temples? You have despoiled them. What if you outrage maidens and matrons? You have outraged them. What if you drench the city with the blood of its citizens? You have drenched it. Must we endure all this? Nay, rather, since you have ceased to be a father to us, shall we not likewise forget to be sons? This people summoned you, supreme pontiff, to be a father, or if it better pleases you, to be their lord, not to be an enemy and a hangman; you do not choose to act the father or the lord, but the enemy and the hangman. But, since we are Christians, we will not imitate your ferocity and your impiety, even though by the law of reprisal we might do so, nor will we bare the avenging sword above your head; but first your abdication and removal, and then we will adopt another father or lord. Sons may flee from vicious parents who brought them into the world; may we not flee from you, not our real father but an adopted one who treats us in the worst way possible? But do you attend to your priestly functions; and don't take your stand in the north, and thundering there hurl your lightning and thunderbolts against this people and others."
But why need I say more in this case, absolutely self-evident as it is? I contend that not only did Constantine not grant such great possessions, not only could the Roman pontiff not hold them by prescription, but that even if either were a fact, nevertheless either right would have been extinguished by the crimes of the possessors, for we know that the slaughter and devastation of all Italy and of many of the provinces has flowed from this
[Page 179] 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.[116] And vice versa, if the stream is bitter, the source must be stopped up; if the branches are unclean, the fault comes from the root; if the lump is unholy, the first fruit must also be accursed. Can we justify the principle of papal power when we perceive it to be the cause of such great crimes and of such great and varied evils?
Wherefore I declare, and cry aloud, nor, trusting God, will I fear men, that in my time no one in the supreme pontificate has been either a faithful or a prudent steward, but they have gone so far from giving food to the household of God that they have devoured it as food and a mere morsel of bread! And the Pope himself makes war on peaceable people, and sows discord among states and princes. The Pope both thirsts for the goods of others and drinks up his own: he is what Achilles calls Agamemnon, ___________ ________, "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,
[Page 181] 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."[117] But if the Roman people through excess of wealth lost the wellknown 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.[118] 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
[Page 183] 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.[119] 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."[120] 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.[121]
Latin Footnotes
English Footnotes [1] De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione is the title Valla gave his work; cf. letter to Guarini from Naples in November, 1443; Epistolae principum (Venice, 1574), p. 356; also Barozzi e Sabbadini, Studii sul Panormita e sul Valla (Florence, 1891), p. 93. In L. Valla Opera (Basle, 1543), p. 762, the title runs, Contra Donationis, quae Constantini dicitur, privilegia, ut falso creditum declamatio. No title appears with the text of Codex Vaticanus Lat. 5314. The title in Ulrich von Hutten's edition inserts patricii Romani after Vallensis. The treatise is also frequently entitled libellus or oratio instead of declamatio.
[2] principum; Cod. Vat. Urb. 337 (containing a few fragments of this treatise). Hutten.
[3] execratione; Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314, so throughout.
[4] Cod. Vat. Urb. 337. relinquit; Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314. reliquerit; Hutten. [5] sacerdotem; Cod. Vat. Urb. 337, Hutten.
[6] caeteri; Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314 (hereafter referred to as MS.), so throughout.
[7] obverberari (instead of os verberari); Hutten.
[8] quippiam; Hutten.
[9] coelestem; MS., so throughout.
[10] Hutten. sit; MS.
[11] Omit eum; Hutten.
[12] heretico; MS.
[13] quempiam; Hutten.
[14] nunquis; MS., so throughout.
[15] expectare; MS., Hutten, so throughout.
[16] quodnam . . . crimen; Hutten.
[17] vero; Hutten.
[18] commentitiam; MS.
[19] minis; Hutten.
[20] Hyspanias; MS., so throughout.
[21] accaepturus; MS., so throughout.
[22] Pontifici a quo baptismum; Bonneau.
[23] Hutten. Ms. omits in.
[24] quorumdam; MS., so throughout.
[25] posse; Hutten.
[26] in in; MS. error.
[27] Hutten. concione; MS., so throughout.
[28] nunquid; MS., so throughout. [29] omit duobus; Hutten.
[30] iocundius; MS., so throughout.
[31] diesque; Hutten.
[32] charissima; MS., so throughout.
[33] detestantibusque; Hutten.
[34] coelum; MS., so throughout.
[35] quottidie; MS.
[36] amicis; Hutten.
[37] hi; Hutten.
[38] his; Hutten.
[39] Hebreis; MS., so throughout.
[40] minorem; Hutten.
[41] Neeman; MS., so throughout.
[42] altero; MS. error.
[43] Insert loquar; Bonneau.
[44] coepit; MS.
[45] lavatum; Hutten.
[46] lachrimisque; MS., so throughout.
[47] exhaeredas; MS.
[48] relegamur; MS.
[49] phana; MS.
[50] destituimur; Hutten.
[51] provintiis; MS.
[52] praefuturi fuimus; Hutten. praefecturi sumus; Bonneau. praefecturi fuimus; Schard. [53] Insert vel; Hutten.
[54] extirpatam; MS., so throughout.
[55] partum; Hutten.
[56] qui; Hutten.
[57] es; Hutten.
[58] praesidiis; Hutten.
[59] comunes; MS., so throughout.
[60] provintiae; MS.
[61] initium; Hutten.
[62] tribunitii; MS.
[63] tanquam; MS., so throughout.
[64] 0mit nostrae; Hutten.
[65] Carthaginenses; MS.
[66] foeminae; MS.
[67] provintias; MS.
[68] Bonneau. praefecimus; MS., Hutten.
[69] coges; Hutten.
[70] Insert occupavit; Hutten. Insert occupanti; Bonneau.
[71] tibi; Hutten.
[72] Tarquinum; MS.
[73] videtur; Hutten.
[74] suspitio; MS.
[75] discedere; Hutten.
[76] unquam; MS., so throughout. [77] Apparently se was omitted, or it has dropped out of the text.
[78] ovem; Hutten, Bonneau.
[79] assentiar; Hutten.
[80] possum; Hutten.
[81] Ihesum; MS., so throughout.
[82] Insert a; Hutten.
[83] Omit reges; MS., an error.
[84] praecaepta; MS., so throughout.
[85] negociorum; MS., so throughout.
[86] haec; Hutten.
[87] Blank space for the Greek word, followed apparently by its transcription, clerus; MS. Hutten reads dominatus for clerus, and terrenus for terrena in the following line. Bonneau has divina after the Greek word.
[88] idem; Hutten.
[89] reliquerunt; MS.
[90] Eius; Hutten.
[91] prophanum; MS., so throughout.
[92] frequenter; Hutten.
[93] haec; Hutten.
[94] ipsius; Hutten. suum; Bonneau.
[95] omit in; Hutten.
[96] duriciam; MS.
[97] de rebus controversis; Hutten.
[98] quodcunque; MS., so throughout.
[99] dignationem; Hutten. [100] ferri; Hutten.
[101] blasfement; MS., so throughout.
[102] charissimos; MS.
[103] Insert est; Bonneau (as in Vulgate).
[104] Omit ut iam; Hutten. in hoc, instead of ut iam; Bonneau.
[105] in; Hutten. v [106] acceptatam; Hutten.
[107] Bonneau omits acceptatum ... non fuisse.
[108] iuste; Hutten.
[109] avariciam; MS.
[110] tabulis; Hutten.
[111] haec ... solent; Hutten.
[112] circunduxit; MS.
[113] Hispanias; Hutten.
[114] Hutten. gratulabantur; MS.
[115] hi; Hutten.
[116] This sentence is omitted by Hutten.
[117] aliquis; Hutten.
[118] sedicionem; MS.
[119] fecem; MS.
[120] ulcionem; MS.
[121] hybernis; MS.
[122] ediles; MS.
[123] Moedorum; MS. [124] enim; Hutten.
[125] at; Hutten.
[126] Hutten. sufficiet; MS.
[127] diaconus; Hutten.
[128] imperatorque; Hutten.
[129] The clauses, qui fuit....idolorum cultu, are not in the original text of Eutropius.
[130] Eutropius, Bonneau. Claudium propontum, thelesium; MS. Claudium propontum Telestinum; Hutten. Caudium Propontum Telesinum; Schard. Valla makes omissions in this and in the preceding sentence from Eutropius.
[131] Insert qui; Hutten.
[132] Omit licet; Hutten.
[133] Faelicis; MS.
[134] Archadium; MS.
[135] Proho; MS. Proh; Hutten.
[136] laetale; MS., Hutten.
[137] Hutten. Constantino; MS. error.
[138] Ruffinus; MS.
[139] pene; MS., Hutten.
[140] Insert ad; Hutten.
[141] Insert sub; Hutten.
[142] Bonneau. non; MS. qui non in dubium vocari; Hutten. qui in dubium vocari; Schard.
[143] codicibus; Hutten.
[144] Lodoici; MS.
[145] ad; Hutten.
[146] ut; Hutten. [147] nauci; Hutten, Bonneau.
[148] utimini; Hutten.
[149] Gelatium; MS., so throughout.
[150] omit Is ... legi; Hutten, evidently copyist's error.
[151] secuntur; MS.
[152] duntaxat; MS.
[153] Sybillini; MS.
[154] collumnis; MS.
[155] Hutten. christianos; MS.
[156] in; Hutten, Bonneau.
[157] papiro; MS.
[158] committis; Hutten.
[159] in urbe Roma; Hutten. in tota urbe Romana; Bonneau.
[160] incipit; Bonneau.
[161] satrapas; Hutten, so throughout.
[162] adiuncto (instead of aut iuncto) Hutten, Bonneau.
[163] quatuor; MS., so throughout.
[164] nominantur; Hutten.
[165] Bonneau omits Romane . . . populos.
[166] pontifex; Hutten, Bonneau.
[167] non; Hutten, Bonneau.
[168] hi; Hutten, Bonneau.
[169] infaelix; MS., so throughout.
[170] exaltare; Hutten. [171] Formiane; MS.
[172] elegis; Hutten, Bonneau.
[173] exaltare; Hutten.
[174] dignitatem; Hutten.
[175] Hutten, Bonneau. disponatur; MS. error.
[176] Bizantium; MS., so in many places.
[177] Hutten, Bonneau. confitentur; MS. error.
[178] Atqui; Hutten. Atque; Bonneau.
[179] Hutten omits Byzantiam . . . nomine.
[180] Trachia; MS., so throughout.
[181] extruxerat; MS.
[182] comunem; MS.
[183] Getulos; MS.
[184] Hutten. nominetur; Ms.
[185] Siccine; MS.
[186] exequitur; MS., so throughout.
[187] extinctis; MS., so throughout.
[188] igitur, instead of tu ideo; Hutten. te omnino omisisse; Bonneau.
[189] circundare; MS.
[190] Hutten. clamydem; MS.
[191] revendissimis; MS., an error.
[192] patritios; MS.
[193] Hutten. hostiariorum; MS.
[194] adomatur; Hutten. [195] decrevimus; Hutten.
[196] blasfemiam; MS.
[197] paciens; MS., so throughout.
[198] convertentur; Hutten, Bonneau.
[199] Pharisei; MS.
[200] Hutten, Bonneau. Omit cum; MS.
[201] patescet; MS.
[202] cognosceret; Hutten, Bonneau.
[203] solicitudinibus; MS.
[204] Menecbinis; MS.
[205] Hutten. frygionem; MS.
[206] Correct form is phrygionias. Bonneau omits this whole sentence.
[207] fuerunt; Hutten.
[208] significet; Hutten.
[209] loro circumdari collum; Bonneau.
[210] Insert aut canem; Hutten, Bonneau.
[211] chlamidem; MS., so below.
[212] porphiritum; MS.
[213] amethisto; MS.
[214] si; Hutten.
[215] dilabitur; Hutten, Bonneau.
[216] mendatio; MS.
[217] loqueris; Hutten, Bonneau.
[218] cresentis; MS. [219] Insert summum; Hutten.`
[220] patritii; MS.
[221] patritius; MS.
[222] Hutten, Bonneau. iis; MS.
[223] fiant; Hutten. faciunt; Bonneau. Add aut militaria ornamenta; Hutten, Bonneau.
[224] scenid; MS.
[225] ociosum; MS.
[226] Hutten, Bonneau. Salomon; MS.
[227] inpraesentiarum; MS.
[228] Bonneau. Cilicini; MS., Hutten.
[229] Bonneau. Cyniphio; MS., Hutten.
[230] terrestria; Hutten, Bonneau. The quotation, to correspond with Valla's earlier citation, should be "ita caelestia sicut terrena ad laudem Dei decorentur"
[231] deficiet; Hutten, Bonneau. Insert alias deficient; Bonneau.
[232] prae; Hutten, Bonneau.
[233] concessimus; Bonneau, Zeumer's text of the Constitutum Constantini.
[234] preciosis; MS., so below.
[235] Hutten. admistum; MS.
[236] nanque; MS.
[237] loqutus; MS., so throughout.
[238] Decrevimus hoc ut....uti debeant, is the correct quotation from the Constitutum Constantini. Decrevimus quod uti debeant; Hutten.
[239] decrevimus; MS., Hutten.
[240] eodo; MS.
[241] representari; MS. [242] Hutten. misteria; MS. ministeria; Bonneau.
[243] libris; Bonneau.
[244] qui; Bonneau.
[245] Moysem; MS.
[246] Omit ut; Hutten, Zeumer's text of the Constitutum Constantini.
[247] provintias; MS.
[248] calceo; MS., an error.
[249] Insert ornamenta; Hutten.
[250] provintias; MS., so below.
[251] Omit non; Bonneau.
[252] Omit Nam ... erant; Bonneau.
[253] numero; MS., an error.
[254] cathalogo; MS.
[255] descirptos; MS.
[256] permanendas in the passage as quoted above by Valla. The form used varies in different texts of the Donation; permansurum, permanenda, permanendam, permanendas.
[257] Bonneau includes as part of this quotation the next quoted passage below, quoniam . . . potestatem. He repeats it in its proper place without quotation marks.
[258] Schard. Italiam; MS., Hutten.
[259] urbis; Hutten, Bonneau.
[260] desisti; MS.
[261] Insert scripturam; Hutten, Bonneau.
[262] firmavimus; Hutten. confirmamus; Bonneau. confirmavimus; Zeumer's text of the Constitutum Constantini.
[263] et; MS. [264] coeno; MS.
[265] peribit; Hutten.
[266] quod tu Summo Deo; Hutten. quod tu Summo Pontifici; Bonneau.
[267] Hutten, Bonneau. praccipit; MS.
[268] Omit obtestamur; MS., an error.
[269] nunc instead of nec non; Bonneau, Zeumer's text of the Constitutum Constantini.
[270] imposterum; MS.
[271] Hutten, Bonneau, Zeumer's text of the Constitutum Constantini. Omit non; MS.
[272] Insert Caesaris aut; Hutten, Bonneau.
[273] existimat; Hutten.
[274] quemdam; MS.
[275] maliciamque; MS.
[276] sepulchro; MS.
[277] sanctae; Hutten, Bonneau.
[278] custoditis; Hutten, Bonneau.
[279] Hutten's text omits two sentences, "Nemo....exemplar."
[280] glosatoris; MS.
[281] Kalendarum; Bonneau. Kalendarum Apriliarum; Zeumer's text of the Constitutum Constantini.
[282] joathan; Bonneau.
[283] Omit hoc; Hutten, Bonneau.
[284] Omit ad illum vero. . . is cui mittuntur; Hutten, Bonneau.
[285] ne; MS.
[286] senserunt; Hutten. [287] tamen; Hutten.
[288] Omit mihi; Hutten.
[289] malicia; MS.
[290] Hutten. angusto; MS.
[291] Insert veritatis; Hutten.
[292] tacite; Hutten.
[293] bybliae; MS.
[294] luminaribus; Hutten.
[295] Hutten, Bonneau. dicant; MS.
[296] Hutten, Bonneau, est; MS.
[297] prumptissima; MS.
[298] satyrica; MS.
[299] ullum sociorum ac comitum suorum; Hutten.
[300] Bonneau. Bragadae; MS., Hutten.
[301] Insert olim and omit illum; Hutten, Bonneau.
[302] quin; Hutten, Bonneau.
[303] Instead of the two preceding sentences, Bonneau has; Volant enim dracones; imperite eum cuius genus illud sit excogitaverat.
[304] foeminas; MS., so throughout.
[305] prodiisset; MS.
[306] fuit; Hutten.
[307] mimicae; Bonneau.
[308] impudentissimi; Hutten.
[309] demonum; MS. [310] seduceretur; Hutten, Bonneau.
[311] iniusticiae; MS.
[312] Hutten, Bonneau. illius; MS.
[313] Omit haec; Hutten.
[314] hec; MS.
[315] opereprecium; MS. operepretium; Hutten.
[316] Hutten. Genuitius; MS. Bonneau omits this sentence Terentius Varro . . .M. Genutius.
[317] dedistis; Valerius Maximus, factotum et dictorum memorabilium, lib. i, viii, 4.
[318] Bonneau. istos; MS., Hutten.
[319] nescirent; Bonneau.
[320] inficior; Bonneau.
[321] synapis; MS.
[322] horum; Bonneau.
[323] aemulationem si non scientiam; Bonneau.
[324] Omit improba quaedam et; Bonneau.
[325] Insert nisi; Bonneau.
[326] abiicimus; MS.
[327] Omit ut; Hutten. ingenuam; Hutten, Bonneau.
[328] illo; Hutten. eo; Bonneau.
[329] Bonneau inserts Transeo quod cruorem puerorum ad curationem leprae facere dicunt, quod medicina non confitetur.
[330] iusissent; MS.
[331] Hutten, Bonneau.; MS.
[332] sed; Hutten, Bonneau. [333] MS. Hutten. ; Bonneau.
[334] Hutten, Bonneau. distingunt; MS.
[335] Bonneau. Metropolis sed Mitropolis; MS. metropolis.
[336] civitatis sive urbis; Hutten, Bonneau.
[337] Insert ita legendum Simonem; Hutten.
[338] commentitiam; MS.
[339] Lodoici; MS., so throughout,
[340] Pascali; MS., so throughout.
[341] imperpetuum; MS.
[342] predecessoribus; MS.
[343] ditione; MS.
[344] Insert et cetera; Hutten.
[345] ipso; Hutten.
[346] voluerit; Hutten, Bonneau.
[347] tamen; Hutten, Bonneau.
[348] aut; Hutten, Bonneau.
[349] false; MS.
[350] Omit illum; Hutten, Bonneau.
[351] Omit princeps; Hutten.
[352] alioquin; MS.
[353] Insert ut; Hutten, Bonneau.
[354] Omit Romano; Hutten.
[355] provintiisque; MS.
[356] Insert non; Bonneau. [357] Omit qui dicitur; Hutten.
[358] vocantur; Bonneau.
[359] MS. leaves blank.; Hutten.
[360] Insert regno; Bonneau.
[361] ipsius successorum; Bonneau.
[362] tantum; MS.
[363] quinquagessimo; MS.
[364] predas; MS., so throughout.
[365] questionem; MS.
[366] vendicant; MS.
[367] iccirco; MS.
[368] hoc; Hutten, Bonneau.
[369] Amphitrionum; MS., Hutten.
[370] tandiu; MS., Hutten.
[371] his; Hutten, Bonneau.
[372] malae fidei; Hutten, Bonneau, so below.
[373] maliciam; MS.
[374] est; MS.
[375] quantumvis; Hutten, Bonneau, so throughout.
[376] periisse; Hutten, Bonneau, so throughout.
[377] Amonitas; MS.
[378] licet; Hutten.
[379] et, instead of ut in; Hutten, Bonneau.
[380] bonifatii; MS. [381] Bonifacius; Hutten, Bonneau.
[382] pax; Hutten, Bonneau.
[383] illa; Hutten, Bonneau.
[384] exhauristi; MS.
[385] non must have dropt out of the text.
[386] Hutten, Bonneau. tonantem; MS.
[387] vastitate; MS.
[388] abbominanda; MS., so throughout.
[389] ut dederit familiae cibum, et escam panis; Hutten. donaret, instead of devorarit; Bonneau.
[390] exorbet; MS.
[391] MS. leaves blank space for the Greek words.
[392] Omit id est populi vexator rex; Hutten. populi vorator, omitting id est and rex; Bonneau.
[393] questui; MS.
[394] ei; Bonneau.
[395] aufferre; MS.
[396] esse; MS.
[397] Bonneau omits sanctissimo . . . fieri.
[398] renunciare; MS.
[399] Hutten, Bonneau. Omit nec; MS.
[400] delitiis; MS.
[401] MS. bears postscript; Finis septimo Idus Decembris, Mccccli. Laus Deo.
[1] Ps. cxxxix, 7.
[2] I Tim. v, 20.
[3] Valla's error for MarceIIinus. The whole story is apocryphal. [4] A reference to the reforming coundis of the fifteenth century.
[5] Valla was in the service of the king of Sicily and of Naples when he wrote this.
[6] 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.
[7] In many versions of the Life of Sylvester there is a marvellous story of an enormous serpent, finally subdued by the saint. Cf, infra, p. 143; Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, pp. 161 et seq.; Mombritius, Sanctuarium, Sive Vitae collectae ex codibus (Milan, c. 1479), v, ii, pp. 279 et seq., also Paris edition, 1910. For the story of Bel and the Dragon, cf. the book of that name in the Apocrypha.
[8] I have made two English paragraphs of the rather long Latin one [Ed.]
[9] Acts xx, 35.
[10] Matt. x, 8.
[11] I Cor. ix, 15.
[12] Rom. xi, 13.
[13] Quoted, freely, from Matt. vi, 19 and Luke x, 4.
[14] Quoted, freely, from Matt. xix, 24; Mk. x, 29; Luke xviii, 25.
[15] I Tim. vi, 7-11.
[16] Acts vi, 2.
[17] II Tim. ii, 4.
[18] Jer. xlviii, 10, quoted freely.
[19] Free quotations from John xxi, 15-17.
[20] John xviii, 36.
[21] Matt. iv, 17.
[22] Matt. xx, 25-28.
[23] 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.
[24] Quotations are from Matt. xvii, 25-26.
[25] Mk. xi, 17.
[26] John xii, 47.
[27] Matt. xxvi, 52.
[28] Matt. xvi, 19.
[29] Matt. xvi, 18.
[30] Matt. iv, 8-9, free quotation.
[31] Matt. xi, 28-30, with the phrases transposed.
[32] Matt. xxii, 21.
[33] Eutropius, Breviarum ab urbe condita, X, xvi, I.
[34] Ibid., X, xvii, I and 2.
[35] The antipope elected by the Council of Basle in 1439. This reference is one of the clues to the date of Valla's treatise.
[36] 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 Valia'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.
[37] 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.
[38] 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. [39] Decretum Gratiani, Prima pars, dist. xcvi, c. xiii; in Friedberg, Corpus Iuris Canonici, vol. II, P. 342.
[40] Ibid., Pars prima, dist. xv, c. iii, Palea 19; in Friedberg, vol. II.
[41] Cf. Voragine, Golden Legend, trans. by Wm. Caxton, rev. by Ellis (London, 1900).
[42] December 31.
[43] A reference to the story of the three young men in the bodyguard of Darius; cf. I Esdras iii and iv.
[44] 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.
[45] Cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, P. 224, 11. 8 et seq.
[46] Virgil, Aeneid, ii, 77-78. Dryden's translation.
[47] 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 PseudoIsidorian Decretals.
[48] The word satrap was in fact applied to higher officials at Rome only in the middle of the eighth century. Scheffer-Boichorst, Mitteilungen des Instituts f. osterreichische Geschichtsforschung, x (I889), P. 315.
[49] 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.
[50] 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."
[51] Virgil, Aeneid, vi, 852.
[52] 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.
[53] Cf. supra, p. 85, note 2.
[54] "firmos patronos,"-this use of "firmus" characterizes the style of Pope Paul I (757-767). See Scheffer-Boichorst, op. cit., P. 311. [55] Rev. v, 12; with variations.
[56] Part of this criticism rests upon the peculiarities of the text of the Donation which Valla used.
[57] Cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, pp. 148-151, 161-164.
[58] Ps. lxxxi, 12.
[59] Rom. i, 28, with the person of the verb changed.
[60] Matt. xxvii, 28; John xix, 2.
[61] 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 I.
[62] Lucan, Pharsalia, i, 7.
[63] In our best texts of the Donation this word is "banda," used in the eighth century for "colors" or "flags."
[64] Horace, Ars Poetica, 1. 97.
[65] Julius Valerius, Res Gestae Alexandri, i, 37.
[66] At Rome in the eighth century, the time of the forgery, "Militia" indicated a civil rank, rather than soldiers.
[67] The allusion is to the title of Patrician given to Pippin and to his sons as defenders of the Roman See.
[68] 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.
[69] Where Valla's text of the Donation reads "concubitarum," Zeumer's reads "excubiorum" [guards].
[70] Martial, XIV, 141 (140).
[71] 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.
[72] 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.
[73] Ps. xxi, 3, with variation.
[74] Valla does not, here, quote his own text of the Donation correctly.
[75] This singular confusion about the crown in the Donation is explained by Brunner, Festgabe for Rudolf von Gneist, pp. 25 et seq., as giving the Pope the possession, but not the use, of the imperial crown, thus paving the way for his prerogative of conferring the crown upon Louis the Pious in 816. Scheffer-Boichorst takes the whole episode as an attempt of the forger to glorify Sylvester by having the emperor honor him with the imperial crown, and having the Pope display the clerical humility (and pride) of rejecting it.
[76] Valla's text of the Donation here has "sive" for "seu," cf. supra, p. 91, note I. In the whole paragraph there are many deviations from other texts of the Donation.
[77] Cf. supra, pp. 41 et seq., 49 et seq.
[78] 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, Dollinger, Papstfabeln (ed. Friedrich), p. 122, note. In classical Latin it would have been, as Valla insists, a vague term.
[79] Cf. supra, pp. 91, 109.
[80] Cf. supra, p. 95.
[81] King [rex] was a forbidden title at Rome after the time of the Tarquins.
[82] A parody on Matt. v, 18.
[83] Rev. xxii, 18-19.
[84] "Pagina" in medieval Latin often meant "document."
[85] In the Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne, i, 494) 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.
[86] Cf. supra, p. 85.
[87] 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.
[88] II Kings xv, 5. [89] "This apocryphal story ran that the Sibyl prophesied of Christ, and that Augustus erected an altar to him.
[90] The Temple of Peace was built by Vespasian and was not destroyed until it was burned down in the time of Commodus.
[91] 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.
[92] 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.
[93] Satura, x, 174-175.
[94] Cf. the story of Bel and the Dragon in the Apocrypha.
[95] Factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri novem, V, vi, 2.
[96] Ibid., I, viii, 3.
[97] Livy, VII, 6, incorrectly summarized.
[98] Livy, Preface, 7.
[99] Livy, V, 21, 9.
[100] Terentius Varro, de lingua latina, lib. v, 148-150.
[101] Valerius Maximus, factorum et dictorum memorabilium, lib. i, viii, 7.
[102] Ibid., i, viii, 3.
[103] Ibid., i, viii, 4, with the substitution of "seen" for "given."
[104] 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.
[105] 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.
[106] 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. 102.
[107] 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.
[108] A forgery of the eleventh century. Cf. E. Emerton, Medieval Europe, p. 55.
[109] Gossip had it that Boniface VIII induced his predecessor to abdicate by angelic warnings, which he himself produced through improvised speaking tubes.
[110] 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.
[111] Judges xi, 12-28.
[112] For these episodes, cf. Creighton, History of the Papacy, etc., Vol. 1, passim.
[113] 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.
[114] 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.
[115] Flamininus had defeated Phihp V of Macedonia, and it was from Philip, not Antiochus, that he "freed" Greece.
[116] A reminiscence of Rom. xi, 16.
[117] Free quotations from Rom. ii, 21-24.
[118] A reference to the well-known interview in which Leo I persuaded Attila to desist from his invasion of Italy.
[119] This other discourse did not appear.
[120] Eph. vi, 12.
[121] The MS., Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314, on which this translation is based, was finished December 7, 1451.
[Page 165] that the people of Israel were permitted to revolt from the house of David and Solomon whom prophets sent by God had anointed, because their impositions were too heavy; and that God approved their act? May we not revolt on account of such great tyranny, particularly from those who are not kings, and cannot be; and who from being shepherds of the sheep, that is to say, of souls, have become thieves and brigands?
And to come to human law, who does not know that there is no right conferred by war, or if there is any, that it prevails just as long as you possess what you have gotten by war? For when you lose possession, you have lost the right. And so ordinarily, if captives have escaped no one summons them into court: and so also with plunder if the former owners have recovered it. Bees and any other kind of winged creatures, if they have flown away far from my property and have settled on another's, cannot be reclaimed. And do you seek to reclaim men, who are not only free creatures, but masters of others, when they set themselves free by force of arms, [reclaim them] not by force of arms, but by law, as though you were a man, and they sheep?
Nor can you say, "The Romans were [considered] just in waging wars against the nations, and just in depriving them of liberty." Do not drag me into that discussion, lest I be forced to speak against my fellow Romans. However, no fault could be so serious that people should merit everlasting servitude therefor. And in this connection [one must remember also] that people often waged a war for which a prince or some important citizen in the Republic was to blame, and, being conquered, were undeservedly punished with servitude. There are everywhere abundant examples of this.
Nor in truth does the law of nature provide that one people should subjugate another people to itself. We can instruct others, we can urge them; we cannot rule them and do them violence, unless, leaving humanity aside, we wish to copy the more savage beasts which force their bloody rule upon the weaker, as the lion among quadrupeds, the eagle among birds, the dolphin among fish. Yet even these creatures do not vaunt authority over their
[Page 167] own kind, but over an inferior. How much more ought we to act thus, and as men have due regard for men, since in the words of Marcus Fabius there is no beast upon the earth so fierce that his own likeness is not sacred to him?
Now there are four reasons why wars are waged: either for avenging a wrong and defending friends; or for fear of incurring disaster later, if the strength of others is allowed to increase; or for hope of booty; or for desire of glory. Of these the first is rather honorable, the second less so, and the last two are far from honorable. And wars were indeed often waged against the Romans, but after they had defended themselves, they waged war against their assailants and against others. Nor is there any nation which yielded to their sway unless conquered in war and subdued; whether justly, or for what cause, they themselves could judge. I should be unwilling to condemn them as fighting unjustly or to acquit them as fighting in a just cause. I can only say that the Roman people waged wars against others for the same reason as other peoples and kings did, and that it was left open even to those who were attacked and conquered in war to revolt from the Romans just as they revolted from other masters; lest perchance (and none would agree to this) all authority should be imputed to the oldest people who were first masters; that is, to those who were the first to take possession of what belonged to others.
And yet the Roman people had a better right over nations conquered in war than had the Caesars in their overthrow of the Republic. Wherefore, if it was right for the nations to revolt from Constantine, and, what is far more, from the Roman people, surely it will be right to revolt from him to whom Constantine gave his authority. And to put the matter more boldly, if the Roman people were free either to drive Constantine out, as they did Tarquinius, or to slay him, as they did Julius Caesar, much more will the Romans or the provinces be free to slay him, who at any time has succeeded Constantine. But though this is true, yet it is beyond the scope of my argument, and so I want to restrain myself and not press anything I have said further than this, that it is folly to adduce any verbal right, where the right of
[Page 169] arms prevails, because that which is acquired by arms, is likewise lost by arms.
This, indeed, the more, that other, new, peoples as we have heard in the case of the Goths, who were never subject to Roman rule after putting to flight the earlier inhabitants, seized upon Italy and many provinces. What justice, pray, is there in restoring these to a servitude which they have never experienced; especially as they are the conquering peoples; and to servitude perchance under the conquered peoples? And if at this time any cities and nations, deserted by the Emperor at the arrival of the barbarians, as we know to have been the case, had been compelled to elect a king under whose leadership they then won victory, is there any reason why they should later depose this ruler? Or should they bid his sons, popular it may be for their father's praise, it may be for their own valor, become private citizens, that they might again become subjects of a Roman prince, even though they were greatly in need of their assistance and hoped for no aid elsewhere? If the Caesar himself, or Constantine, returned to life, or even the Senate and Roman people should call them before a general court such as the Amphictyony was in Greece, [the plaintiff ] would at once be ruled out at his first plea because he was reclaiming to bondage and slavery those who once had been abandoned by him, their guardian, those who for a long time had been living under another ruler, those who had never been subject to a foreign-born king, men, in conclusion, who were freeborn and proclaimed free by their vigor of mind and body. How clear it should be, that if the Caesar, if the Roman people, is thus debarred from recovering control, much more decidedly is the Pope! And if the other nations which have been subject to Rome are free either to appoint a king for themselves or to maintain a republic, far more are the Roman people themselves free to do this, especially against the innovation of papal tyranny.
Estopped from defending the Donation, since it never existed and, if it had existed, it would now have expired from lapse of time, our adversaries take refuge in another kind of defense; [Page 171] figuratively speaking, the city being given up for lost, they betake themselves to their citadel,-which forthwith they are constrained by lack of provisions to surrender. "The Roman church," they say, "is entitled by prescription to what it possesses." Why then does it lay claim to that, the greater part, to which it has no title by prescription, and to which others are entitled by prescription; unless others cannot act toward it as it can act toward them?
The Roman church has title by prescription! Why then does it so often take care to have the Emperors confirm its right? Why does it vaunt the Donation, and its confirmation by the Caesars? If this alone is sufficient, you seriously weaken it by not at the same time keeping silent about the other title [by prescription]. Why don't you keep silent about that other? Obviously because this is not sufficient.
The Roman church has prescribed! And how can it have entered a prescription where no title is established but only possession through bad faith? Or if you deny that the possession was a case of bad faith, at least you cannot deny that the faith [in the Donation] was stupid. Or, in a matter of such importance and notoriety, ought ignorance of fact and of law to be excused? Of fact, because Constantine did not make a grant of Rome and the provinces; a fact of which a man of the common people might well be ignorant, but not the supreme pontiff. Of law, because they could not be granted; which any Christian ought to know. And so, will stupid credulity give you a right to that which, had you been more conscientious, would never have been yours? Well! Now, at least, after I have shown that you held possession through ignorance and stupidity, do you not lose that right, if it was such? and what ignorance unhappily brought you, does not knowledge happily take away again? and does not the property revert from the illegal to the legal master, perchance even with interest? But if you continue to keep possession in the future, your ignorance is henceforth changed into malice aforethought and into deceit, and you become a fraudulent holder.
The Roman church has entered a prescription! 0 simpletons, 0 ignoramuses in divine law! No length of years whatever can
[Page 173] destroy a true title. Or indeed, if I were captured by barbarians and supposed to have perished, and should return again home after a hundred years of captivity, as a claimant of my paternal inheritance, should I be excluded? What could be more inhuman! And, to give another example, did Jephthah, the leader of Israel, when the Ammonites demanded back the land from "the borders of Arnon even unto Jabbok and unto Jordan," reply, "Israel has prescribed this now through three hundred years' occupation"? Or did he not show that the land which they demanded as theirs, had never been theirs, but had been the Amorites'? And the proof that it did not belong to the Ammonites was that they had never in the course of so many years claimed it.[111]
The Roman church has prescribed! Keep still, impious tongue! You transfer "prescription," which is used of inanimate, senseless objects, to man; and holding man in servitude is the more detestable, the longer it lasts. Birds and wild animals do not let themselves be "prescribed," but however long the time of captivity, when they please and occasion is offered, they escape. And may not man, held captive by man, escape?
Let me tell why the Roman pontiffs show fraud and craft rather than ignorance in using war instead of law as their arbiter,-and I believe that the first pontiffs to occupy the city [of Rome] and the other towns did about the same. Shortly before I was born, Rome was led by an incredible sort of fraud, I call those then present there to witness, to accept papal government or rather usurpation, after it had long been free.[112] The Pope was Boniface IX, fellow of Boniface VIII in fraud as in name,-if they are to be called Boniface (benefactor) at all, who are the worst malefactors. And when the Romans, after the treachery had been detected, stirred up trouble, the good Pope, after the manner of Tarquinius, struck off all the tallest poppies with his stick.[113] When his successor, Innocent [VII], afterwards tried to
[Page 175] imitate this procedure he was driven out of the city. I will not speak of other Popes; they have always held Rome down by force of arms. Suffice it to say that as often as it could it has rebelled; as for instance, six years ago,[114] when it could not obtain peace from Eugenius, and it was not equal to the enemies which were besieging it, it besieged the Pope within his house, and would not permit him to go out before he either made peace with the enemy or turned over the administration of the city to the citizens. But he preferred to leave the city in disguise, with a single companion in flight, rather than to gratify the citizens in their just and fair demands. If you give them the choice, who does not know that they would choose liberty rather than slavery?
We may suspect the same of the other cities, which are kept in servitude by the supreme pontiff, though they ought rather to be liberated by him from servitude. It would take too long to enumerate how many cities taken from their enemies the Roman people once set free; it went so far that Titus Flaminius [Flamininus] set free the whole of Greece, which had been under Antiochus,[115] and directed that it enjoy its own laws. But the Pope, as may be seen, lies in wait assiduously against the liberty of countries; and therefore one after another, they daily, as opportunity affords, rebel. (Look at Bologna just now.) And if at any time they have voluntarily accepted papal rule, as may happen when another danger threatens them from elsewhere, it must not be supposed that they have accepted it in order to enslave themselves, so that they could never withdraw their necks from the yoke, so that neither themselves nor those born afterwards should have control of their own affairs; for this would be utterly iniquitous.
"Of our own will we came to you, supreme pontiff, that you might govern us; of our own will we now leave you again, that you may govern us no more. If you have any claim against us, let
[Page 177] the balance of debit and credit be determined. But you want to govern us against our will, as though we were wards of yours, we who perhaps could govern you more wisely than you do yourself! Add to this the wrongs all the time being committed against this state either by you or by your magistrates. We call God to witness that our wrong drives us to revolt, as once Israel did from Rehoboam. And what great wrong did they have? What [a small] part of our calamity is the [mere] payment of heavier taxes! What then if you impoverish the Republic? You have impoverished it. What if you despoil our temples? You have despoiled them. What if you outrage maidens and matrons? You have outraged them. What if you drench the city with the blood of its citizens? You have drenched it. Must we endure all this? Nay, rather, since you have ceased to be a father to us, shall we not likewise forget to be sons? This people summoned you, supreme pontiff, to be a father, or if it better pleases you, to be their lord, not to be an enemy and a hangman; you do not choose to act the father or the lord, but the enemy and the hangman. But, since we are Christians, we will not imitate your ferocity and your impiety, even though by the law of reprisal we might do so, nor will we bare the avenging sword above your head; but first your abdication and removal, and then we will adopt another father or lord. Sons may flee from vicious parents who brought them into the world; may we not flee from you, not our real father but an adopted one who treats us in the worst way possible? But do you attend to your priestly functions; and don't take your stand in the north, and thundering there hurl your lightning and thunderbolts against this people and others."
But why need I say more in this case, absolutely self-evident as it is? I contend that not only did Constantine not grant such great possessions, not only could the Roman pontiff not hold them by prescription, but that even if either were a fact, nevertheless either right would have been extinguished by the crimes of the possessors, for we know that the slaughter and devastation of all Italy and of many of the provinces has flowed from this
[Page 179] 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.[116] And vice versa, if the stream is bitter, the source must be stopped up; if the branches are unclean, the fault comes from the root; if the lump is unholy, the first fruit must also be accursed. Can we justify the principle of papal power when we perceive it to be the cause of such great crimes and of such great and varied evils?
Wherefore I declare, and cry aloud, nor, trusting God, will I fear men, that in my time no one in the supreme pontificate has been either a faithful or a prudent steward, but they have gone so far from giving food to the household of God that they have devoured it as food and a mere morsel of bread! And the Pope himself makes war on peaceable people, and sows discord among states and princes. The Pope both thirsts for the goods of others and drinks up his own: he is what Achilles calls Agamemnon, ___________ ________, "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,
[Page 181] 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."[117] But if the Roman people through excess of wealth lost the wellknown 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.[118] 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
[Page 183] 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.[119] 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."[120] 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.[121]
Latin Footnotes
English Footnotes [1] De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione is the title Valla gave his work; cf. letter to Guarini from Naples in November, 1443; Epistolae principum (Venice, 1574), p. 356; also Barozzi e Sabbadini, Studii sul Panormita e sul Valla (Florence, 1891), p. 93. In L. Valla Opera (Basle, 1543), p. 762, the title runs, Contra Donationis, quae Constantini dicitur, privilegia, ut falso creditum declamatio. No title appears with the text of Codex Vaticanus Lat. 5314. The title in Ulrich von Hutten's edition inserts patricii Romani after Vallensis. The treatise is also frequently entitled libellus or oratio instead of declamatio.
[2] principum; Cod. Vat. Urb. 337 (containing a few fragments of this treatise). Hutten.
[3] execratione; Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314, so throughout.
[4] Cod. Vat. Urb. 337. relinquit; Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314. reliquerit; Hutten. [5] sacerdotem; Cod. Vat. Urb. 337, Hutten.
[6] caeteri; Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314 (hereafter referred to as MS.), so throughout.
[7] obverberari (instead of os verberari); Hutten.
[8] quippiam; Hutten.
[9] coelestem; MS., so throughout.
[10] Hutten. sit; MS.
[11] Omit eum; Hutten.
[12] heretico; MS.
[13] quempiam; Hutten.
[14] nunquis; MS., so throughout.
[15] expectare; MS., Hutten, so throughout.
[16] quodnam . . . crimen; Hutten.
[17] vero; Hutten.
[18] commentitiam; MS.
[19] minis; Hutten.
[20] Hyspanias; MS., so throughout.
[21] accaepturus; MS., so throughout.
[22] Pontifici a quo baptismum; Bonneau.
[23] Hutten. Ms. omits in.
[24] quorumdam; MS., so throughout.
[25] posse; Hutten.
[26] in in; MS. error.
[27] Hutten. concione; MS., so throughout.
[28] nunquid; MS., so throughout. [29] omit duobus; Hutten.
[30] iocundius; MS., so throughout.
[31] diesque; Hutten.
[32] charissima; MS., so throughout.
[33] detestantibusque; Hutten.
[34] coelum; MS., so throughout.
[35] quottidie; MS.
[36] amicis; Hutten.
[37] hi; Hutten.
[38] his; Hutten.
[39] Hebreis; MS., so throughout.
[40] minorem; Hutten.
[41] Neeman; MS., so throughout.
[42] altero; MS. error.
[43] Insert loquar; Bonneau.
[44] coepit; MS.
[45] lavatum; Hutten.
[46] lachrimisque; MS., so throughout.
[47] exhaeredas; MS.
[48] relegamur; MS.
[49] phana; MS.
[50] destituimur; Hutten.
[51] provintiis; MS.
[52] praefuturi fuimus; Hutten. praefecturi sumus; Bonneau. praefecturi fuimus; Schard. [53] Insert vel; Hutten.
[54] extirpatam; MS., so throughout.
[55] partum; Hutten.
[56] qui; Hutten.
[57] es; Hutten.
[58] praesidiis; Hutten.
[59] comunes; MS., so throughout.
[60] provintiae; MS.
[61] initium; Hutten.
[62] tribunitii; MS.
[63] tanquam; MS., so throughout.
[64] 0mit nostrae; Hutten.
[65] Carthaginenses; MS.
[66] foeminae; MS.
[67] provintias; MS.
[68] Bonneau. praefecimus; MS., Hutten.
[69] coges; Hutten.
[70] Insert occupavit; Hutten. Insert occupanti; Bonneau.
[71] tibi; Hutten.
[72] Tarquinum; MS.
[73] videtur; Hutten.
[74] suspitio; MS.
[75] discedere; Hutten.
[76] unquam; MS., so throughout. [77] Apparently se was omitted, or it has dropped out of the text.
[78] ovem; Hutten, Bonneau.
[79] assentiar; Hutten.
[80] possum; Hutten.
[81] Ihesum; MS., so throughout.
[82] Insert a; Hutten.
[83] Omit reges; MS., an error.
[84] praecaepta; MS., so throughout.
[85] negociorum; MS., so throughout.
[86] haec; Hutten.
[87] Blank space for the Greek word, followed apparently by its transcription, clerus; MS. Hutten reads dominatus for clerus, and terrenus for terrena in the following line. Bonneau has divina after the Greek word.
[88] idem; Hutten.
[89] reliquerunt; MS.
[90] Eius; Hutten.
[91] prophanum; MS., so throughout.
[92] frequenter; Hutten.
[93] haec; Hutten.
[94] ipsius; Hutten. suum; Bonneau.
[95] omit in; Hutten.
[96] duriciam; MS.
[97] de rebus controversis; Hutten.
[98] quodcunque; MS., so throughout.
[99] dignationem; Hutten. [100] ferri; Hutten.
[101] blasfement; MS., so throughout.
[102] charissimos; MS.
[103] Insert est; Bonneau (as in Vulgate).
[104] Omit ut iam; Hutten. in hoc, instead of ut iam; Bonneau.
[105] in; Hutten. v [106] acceptatam; Hutten.
[107] Bonneau omits acceptatum ... non fuisse.
[108] iuste; Hutten.
[109] avariciam; MS.
[110] tabulis; Hutten.
[111] haec ... solent; Hutten.
[112] circunduxit; MS.
[113] Hispanias; Hutten.
[114] Hutten. gratulabantur; MS.
[115] hi; Hutten.
[116] This sentence is omitted by Hutten.
[117] aliquis; Hutten.
[118] sedicionem; MS.
[119] fecem; MS.
[120] ulcionem; MS.
[121] hybernis; MS.
[122] ediles; MS.
[123] Moedorum; MS. [124] enim; Hutten.
[125] at; Hutten.
[126] Hutten. sufficiet; MS.
[127] diaconus; Hutten.
[128] imperatorque; Hutten.
[129] The clauses, qui fuit....idolorum cultu, are not in the original text of Eutropius.
[130] Eutropius, Bonneau. Claudium propontum, thelesium; MS. Claudium propontum Telestinum; Hutten. Caudium Propontum Telesinum; Schard. Valla makes omissions in this and in the preceding sentence from Eutropius.
[131] Insert qui; Hutten.
[132] Omit licet; Hutten.
[133] Faelicis; MS.
[134] Archadium; MS.
[135] Proho; MS. Proh; Hutten.
[136] laetale; MS., Hutten.
[137] Hutten. Constantino; MS. error.
[138] Ruffinus; MS.
[139] pene; MS., Hutten.
[140] Insert ad; Hutten.
[141] Insert sub; Hutten.
[142] Bonneau. non; MS. qui non in dubium vocari; Hutten. qui in dubium vocari; Schard.
[143] codicibus; Hutten.
[144] Lodoici; MS.
[145] ad; Hutten.
[146] ut; Hutten. [147] nauci; Hutten, Bonneau.
[148] utimini; Hutten.
[149] Gelatium; MS., so throughout.
[150] omit Is ... legi; Hutten, evidently copyist's error.
[151] secuntur; MS.
[152] duntaxat; MS.
[153] Sybillini; MS.
[154] collumnis; MS.
[155] Hutten. christianos; MS.
[156] in; Hutten, Bonneau.
[157] papiro; MS.
[158] committis; Hutten.
[159] in urbe Roma; Hutten. in tota urbe Romana; Bonneau.
[160] incipit; Bonneau.
[161] satrapas; Hutten, so throughout.
[162] adiuncto (instead of aut iuncto) Hutten, Bonneau.
[163] quatuor; MS., so throughout.
[164] nominantur; Hutten.
[165] Bonneau omits Romane . . . populos.
[166] pontifex; Hutten, Bonneau.
[167] non; Hutten, Bonneau.
[168] hi; Hutten, Bonneau.
[169] infaelix; MS., so throughout.
[170] exaltare; Hutten. [171] Formiane; MS.
[172] elegis; Hutten, Bonneau.
[173] exaltare; Hutten.
[174] dignitatem; Hutten.
[175] Hutten, Bonneau. disponatur; MS. error.
[176] Bizantium; MS., so in many places.
[177] Hutten, Bonneau. confitentur; MS. error.
[178] Atqui; Hutten. Atque; Bonneau.
[179] Hutten omits Byzantiam . . . nomine.
[180] Trachia; MS., so throughout.
[181] extruxerat; MS.
[182] comunem; MS.
[183] Getulos; MS.
[184] Hutten. nominetur; Ms.
[185] Siccine; MS.
[186] exequitur; MS., so throughout.
[187] extinctis; MS., so throughout.
[188] igitur, instead of tu ideo; Hutten. te omnino omisisse; Bonneau.
[189] circundare; MS.
[190] Hutten. clamydem; MS.
[191] revendissimis; MS., an error.
[192] patritios; MS.
[193] Hutten. hostiariorum; MS.
[194] adomatur; Hutten. [195] decrevimus; Hutten.
[196] blasfemiam; MS.
[197] paciens; MS., so throughout.
[198] convertentur; Hutten, Bonneau.
[199] Pharisei; MS.
[200] Hutten, Bonneau. Omit cum; MS.
[201] patescet; MS.
[202] cognosceret; Hutten, Bonneau.
[203] solicitudinibus; MS.
[204] Menecbinis; MS.
[205] Hutten. frygionem; MS.
[206] Correct form is phrygionias. Bonneau omits this whole sentence.
[207] fuerunt; Hutten.
[208] significet; Hutten.
[209] loro circumdari collum; Bonneau.
[210] Insert aut canem; Hutten, Bonneau.
[211] chlamidem; MS., so below.
[212] porphiritum; MS.
[213] amethisto; MS.
[214] si; Hutten.
[215] dilabitur; Hutten, Bonneau.
[216] mendatio; MS.
[217] loqueris; Hutten, Bonneau.
[218] cresentis; MS. [219] Insert summum; Hutten.`
[220] patritii; MS.
[221] patritius; MS.
[222] Hutten, Bonneau. iis; MS.
[223] fiant; Hutten. faciunt; Bonneau. Add aut militaria ornamenta; Hutten, Bonneau.
[224] scenid; MS.
[225] ociosum; MS.
[226] Hutten, Bonneau. Salomon; MS.
[227] inpraesentiarum; MS.
[228] Bonneau. Cilicini; MS., Hutten.
[229] Bonneau. Cyniphio; MS., Hutten.
[230] terrestria; Hutten, Bonneau. The quotation, to correspond with Valla's earlier citation, should be "ita caelestia sicut terrena ad laudem Dei decorentur"
[231] deficiet; Hutten, Bonneau. Insert alias deficient; Bonneau.
[232] prae; Hutten, Bonneau.
[233] concessimus; Bonneau, Zeumer's text of the Constitutum Constantini.
[234] preciosis; MS., so below.
[235] Hutten. admistum; MS.
[236] nanque; MS.
[237] loqutus; MS., so throughout.
[238] Decrevimus hoc ut....uti debeant, is the correct quotation from the Constitutum Constantini. Decrevimus quod uti debeant; Hutten.
[239] decrevimus; MS., Hutten.
[240] eodo; MS.
[241] representari; MS. [242] Hutten. misteria; MS. ministeria; Bonneau.
[243] libris; Bonneau.
[244] qui; Bonneau.
[245] Moysem; MS.
[246] Omit ut; Hutten, Zeumer's text of the Constitutum Constantini.
[247] provintias; MS.
[248] calceo; MS., an error.
[249] Insert ornamenta; Hutten.
[250] provintias; MS., so below.
[251] Omit non; Bonneau.
[252] Omit Nam ... erant; Bonneau.
[253] numero; MS., an error.
[254] cathalogo; MS.
[255] descirptos; MS.
[256] permanendas in the passage as quoted above by Valla. The form used varies in different texts of the Donation; permansurum, permanenda, permanendam, permanendas.
[257] Bonneau includes as part of this quotation the next quoted passage below, quoniam . . . potestatem. He repeats it in its proper place without quotation marks.
[258] Schard. Italiam; MS., Hutten.
[259] urbis; Hutten, Bonneau.
[260] desisti; MS.
[261] Insert scripturam; Hutten, Bonneau.
[262] firmavimus; Hutten. confirmamus; Bonneau. confirmavimus; Zeumer's text of the Constitutum Constantini.
[263] et; MS. [264] coeno; MS.
[265] peribit; Hutten.
[266] quod tu Summo Deo; Hutten. quod tu Summo Pontifici; Bonneau.
[267] Hutten, Bonneau. praccipit; MS.
[268] Omit obtestamur; MS., an error.
[269] nunc instead of nec non; Bonneau, Zeumer's text of the Constitutum Constantini.
[270] imposterum; MS.
[271] Hutten, Bonneau, Zeumer's text of the Constitutum Constantini. Omit non; MS.
[272] Insert Caesaris aut; Hutten, Bonneau.
[273] existimat; Hutten.
[274] quemdam; MS.
[275] maliciamque; MS.
[276] sepulchro; MS.
[277] sanctae; Hutten, Bonneau.
[278] custoditis; Hutten, Bonneau.
[279] Hutten's text omits two sentences, "Nemo....exemplar."
[280] glosatoris; MS.
[281] Kalendarum; Bonneau. Kalendarum Apriliarum; Zeumer's text of the Constitutum Constantini.
[282] joathan; Bonneau.
[283] Omit hoc; Hutten, Bonneau.
[284] Omit ad illum vero. . . is cui mittuntur; Hutten, Bonneau.
[285] ne; MS.
[286] senserunt; Hutten. [287] tamen; Hutten.
[288] Omit mihi; Hutten.
[289] malicia; MS.
[290] Hutten. angusto; MS.
[291] Insert veritatis; Hutten.
[292] tacite; Hutten.
[293] bybliae; MS.
[294] luminaribus; Hutten.
[295] Hutten, Bonneau. dicant; MS.
[296] Hutten, Bonneau, est; MS.
[297] prumptissima; MS.
[298] satyrica; MS.
[299] ullum sociorum ac comitum suorum; Hutten.
[300] Bonneau. Bragadae; MS., Hutten.
[301] Insert olim and omit illum; Hutten, Bonneau.
[302] quin; Hutten, Bonneau.
[303] Instead of the two preceding sentences, Bonneau has; Volant enim dracones; imperite eum cuius genus illud sit excogitaverat.
[304] foeminas; MS., so throughout.
[305] prodiisset; MS.
[306] fuit; Hutten.
[307] mimicae; Bonneau.
[308] impudentissimi; Hutten.
[309] demonum; MS. [310] seduceretur; Hutten, Bonneau.
[311] iniusticiae; MS.
[312] Hutten, Bonneau. illius; MS.
[313] Omit haec; Hutten.
[314] hec; MS.
[315] opereprecium; MS. operepretium; Hutten.
[316] Hutten. Genuitius; MS. Bonneau omits this sentence Terentius Varro . . .M. Genutius.
[317] dedistis; Valerius Maximus, factotum et dictorum memorabilium, lib. i, viii, 4.
[318] Bonneau. istos; MS., Hutten.
[319] nescirent; Bonneau.
[320] inficior; Bonneau.
[321] synapis; MS.
[322] horum; Bonneau.
[323] aemulationem si non scientiam; Bonneau.
[324] Omit improba quaedam et; Bonneau.
[325] Insert nisi; Bonneau.
[326] abiicimus; MS.
[327] Omit ut; Hutten. ingenuam; Hutten, Bonneau.
[328] illo; Hutten. eo; Bonneau.
[329] Bonneau inserts Transeo quod cruorem puerorum ad curationem leprae facere dicunt, quod medicina non confitetur.
[330] iusissent; MS.
[331] Hutten, Bonneau.; MS.
[332] sed; Hutten, Bonneau. [333] MS. Hutten. ; Bonneau.
[334] Hutten, Bonneau. distingunt; MS.
[335] Bonneau. Metropolis sed Mitropolis; MS. metropolis.
[336] civitatis sive urbis; Hutten, Bonneau.
[337] Insert ita legendum Simonem; Hutten.
[338] commentitiam; MS.
[339] Lodoici; MS., so throughout,
[340] Pascali; MS., so throughout.
[341] imperpetuum; MS.
[342] predecessoribus; MS.
[343] ditione; MS.
[344] Insert et cetera; Hutten.
[345] ipso; Hutten.
[346] voluerit; Hutten, Bonneau.
[347] tamen; Hutten, Bonneau.
[348] aut; Hutten, Bonneau.
[349] false; MS.
[350] Omit illum; Hutten, Bonneau.
[351] Omit princeps; Hutten.
[352] alioquin; MS.
[353] Insert ut; Hutten, Bonneau.
[354] Omit Romano; Hutten.
[355] provintiisque; MS.
[356] Insert non; Bonneau. [357] Omit qui dicitur; Hutten.
[358] vocantur; Bonneau.
[359] MS. leaves blank.; Hutten.
[360] Insert regno; Bonneau.
[361] ipsius successorum; Bonneau.
[362] tantum; MS.
[363] quinquagessimo; MS.
[364] predas; MS., so throughout.
[365] questionem; MS.
[366] vendicant; MS.
[367] iccirco; MS.
[368] hoc; Hutten, Bonneau.
[369] Amphitrionum; MS., Hutten.
[370] tandiu; MS., Hutten.
[371] his; Hutten, Bonneau.
[372] malae fidei; Hutten, Bonneau, so below.
[373] maliciam; MS.
[374] est; MS.
[375] quantumvis; Hutten, Bonneau, so throughout.
[376] periisse; Hutten, Bonneau, so throughout.
[377] Amonitas; MS.
[378] licet; Hutten.
[379] et, instead of ut in; Hutten, Bonneau.
[380] bonifatii; MS. [381] Bonifacius; Hutten, Bonneau.
[382] pax; Hutten, Bonneau.
[383] illa; Hutten, Bonneau.
[384] exhauristi; MS.
[385] non must have dropt out of the text.
[386] Hutten, Bonneau. tonantem; MS.
[387] vastitate; MS.
[388] abbominanda; MS., so throughout.
[389] ut dederit familiae cibum, et escam panis; Hutten. donaret, instead of devorarit; Bonneau.
[390] exorbet; MS.
[391] MS. leaves blank space for the Greek words.
[392] Omit id est populi vexator rex; Hutten. populi vorator, omitting id est and rex; Bonneau.
[393] questui; MS.
[394] ei; Bonneau.
[395] aufferre; MS.
[396] esse; MS.
[397] Bonneau omits sanctissimo . . . fieri.
[398] renunciare; MS.
[399] Hutten, Bonneau. Omit nec; MS.
[400] delitiis; MS.
[401] MS. bears postscript; Finis septimo Idus Decembris, Mccccli. Laus Deo.
[1] Ps. cxxxix, 7.
[2] I Tim. v, 20.
[3] Valla's error for MarceIIinus. The whole story is apocryphal. [4] A reference to the reforming coundis of the fifteenth century.
[5] Valla was in the service of the king of Sicily and of Naples when he wrote this.
[6] 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.
[7] In many versions of the Life of Sylvester there is a marvellous story of an enormous serpent, finally subdued by the saint. Cf, infra, p. 143; Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, pp. 161 et seq.; Mombritius, Sanctuarium, Sive Vitae collectae ex codibus (Milan, c. 1479), v, ii, pp. 279 et seq., also Paris edition, 1910. For the story of Bel and the Dragon, cf. the book of that name in the Apocrypha.
[8] I have made two English paragraphs of the rather long Latin one [Ed.]
[9] Acts xx, 35.
[10] Matt. x, 8.
[11] I Cor. ix, 15.
[12] Rom. xi, 13.
[13] Quoted, freely, from Matt. vi, 19 and Luke x, 4.
[14] Quoted, freely, from Matt. xix, 24; Mk. x, 29; Luke xviii, 25.
[15] I Tim. vi, 7-11.
[16] Acts vi, 2.
[17] II Tim. ii, 4.
[18] Jer. xlviii, 10, quoted freely.
[19] Free quotations from John xxi, 15-17.
[20] John xviii, 36.
[21] Matt. iv, 17.
[22] Matt. xx, 25-28.
[23] 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.
[24] Quotations are from Matt. xvii, 25-26.
[25] Mk. xi, 17.
[26] John xii, 47.
[27] Matt. xxvi, 52.
[28] Matt. xvi, 19.
[29] Matt. xvi, 18.
[30] Matt. iv, 8-9, free quotation.
[31] Matt. xi, 28-30, with the phrases transposed.
[32] Matt. xxii, 21.
[33] Eutropius, Breviarum ab urbe condita, X, xvi, I.
[34] Ibid., X, xvii, I and 2.
[35] The antipope elected by the Council of Basle in 1439. This reference is one of the clues to the date of Valla's treatise.
[36] 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 Valia'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.
[37] 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.
[38] 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. [39] Decretum Gratiani, Prima pars, dist. xcvi, c. xiii; in Friedberg, Corpus Iuris Canonici, vol. II, P. 342.
[40] Ibid., Pars prima, dist. xv, c. iii, Palea 19; in Friedberg, vol. II.
[41] Cf. Voragine, Golden Legend, trans. by Wm. Caxton, rev. by Ellis (London, 1900).
[42] December 31.
[43] A reference to the story of the three young men in the bodyguard of Darius; cf. I Esdras iii and iv.
[44] 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.
[45] Cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, P. 224, 11. 8 et seq.
[46] Virgil, Aeneid, ii, 77-78. Dryden's translation.
[47] 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 PseudoIsidorian Decretals.
[48] The word satrap was in fact applied to higher officials at Rome only in the middle of the eighth century. Scheffer-Boichorst, Mitteilungen des Instituts f. osterreichische Geschichtsforschung, x (I889), P. 315.
[49] 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.
[50] 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."
[51] Virgil, Aeneid, vi, 852.
[52] 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.
[53] Cf. supra, p. 85, note 2.
[54] "firmos patronos,"-this use of "firmus" characterizes the style of Pope Paul I (757-767). See Scheffer-Boichorst, op. cit., P. 311. [55] Rev. v, 12; with variations.
[56] Part of this criticism rests upon the peculiarities of the text of the Donation which Valla used.
[57] Cf. Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, pp. 148-151, 161-164.
[58] Ps. lxxxi, 12.
[59] Rom. i, 28, with the person of the verb changed.
[60] Matt. xxvii, 28; John xix, 2.
[61] 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 I.
[62] Lucan, Pharsalia, i, 7.
[63] In our best texts of the Donation this word is "banda," used in the eighth century for "colors" or "flags."
[64] Horace, Ars Poetica, 1. 97.
[65] Julius Valerius, Res Gestae Alexandri, i, 37.
[66] At Rome in the eighth century, the time of the forgery, "Militia" indicated a civil rank, rather than soldiers.
[67] The allusion is to the title of Patrician given to Pippin and to his sons as defenders of the Roman See.
[68] 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.
[69] Where Valla's text of the Donation reads "concubitarum," Zeumer's reads "excubiorum" [guards].
[70] Martial, XIV, 141 (140).
[71] 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.
[72] 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.
[73] Ps. xxi, 3, with variation.
[74] Valla does not, here, quote his own text of the Donation correctly.
[75] This singular confusion about the crown in the Donation is explained by Brunner, Festgabe for Rudolf von Gneist, pp. 25 et seq., as giving the Pope the possession, but not the use, of the imperial crown, thus paving the way for his prerogative of conferring the crown upon Louis the Pious in 816. Scheffer-Boichorst takes the whole episode as an attempt of the forger to glorify Sylvester by having the emperor honor him with the imperial crown, and having the Pope display the clerical humility (and pride) of rejecting it.
[76] Valla's text of the Donation here has "sive" for "seu," cf. supra, p. 91, note I. In the whole paragraph there are many deviations from other texts of the Donation.
[77] Cf. supra, pp. 41 et seq., 49 et seq.
[78] 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, Dollinger, Papstfabeln (ed. Friedrich), p. 122, note. In classical Latin it would have been, as Valla insists, a vague term.
[79] Cf. supra, pp. 91, 109.
[80] Cf. supra, p. 95.
[81] King [rex] was a forbidden title at Rome after the time of the Tarquins.
[82] A parody on Matt. v, 18.
[83] Rev. xxii, 18-19.
[84] "Pagina" in medieval Latin often meant "document."
[85] In the Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne, i, 494) 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.
[86] Cf. supra, p. 85.
[87] 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.
[88] II Kings xv, 5. [89] "This apocryphal story ran that the Sibyl prophesied of Christ, and that Augustus erected an altar to him.
[90] The Temple of Peace was built by Vespasian and was not destroyed until it was burned down in the time of Commodus.
[91] 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.
[92] 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.
[93] Satura, x, 174-175.
[94] Cf. the story of Bel and the Dragon in the Apocrypha.
[95] Factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri novem, V, vi, 2.
[96] Ibid., I, viii, 3.
[97] Livy, VII, 6, incorrectly summarized.
[98] Livy, Preface, 7.
[99] Livy, V, 21, 9.
[100] Terentius Varro, de lingua latina, lib. v, 148-150.
[101] Valerius Maximus, factorum et dictorum memorabilium, lib. i, viii, 7.
[102] Ibid., i, viii, 3.
[103] Ibid., i, viii, 4, with the substitution of "seen" for "given."
[104] 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.
[105] 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.
[106] 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. 102.
[107] 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.
[108] A forgery of the eleventh century. Cf. E. Emerton, Medieval Europe, p. 55.
[109] Gossip had it that Boniface VIII induced his predecessor to abdicate by angelic warnings, which he himself produced through improvised speaking tubes.
[110] 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.
[111] Judges xi, 12-28.
[112] For these episodes, cf. Creighton, History of the Papacy, etc., Vol. 1, passim.
[113] 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.
[114] 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.
[115] Flamininus had defeated Phihp V of Macedonia, and it was from Philip, not Antiochus, that he "freed" Greece.
[116] A reminiscence of Rom. xi, 16.
[117] Free quotations from Rom. ii, 21-24.
[118] A reference to the well-known interview in which Leo I persuaded Attila to desist from his invasion of Italy.
[119] This other discourse did not appear.
[120] Eph. vi, 12.
[121] The MS., Cod. Vat. Lat. 5314, on which this translation is based, was finished December 7, 1451.