admits was done after the burial, so to say, of the records, be contained in the records? This is nothing else than saying that "the page of the privilege" was dead and buried before it was born, and yet never returned from death and burial; and saying expressly that it was confirmed before it had been written, and not with one hand alone at that, but with both of the Caesar's hands! And what is this "confirming"? Was it done with the signature of the Caesar, or with his signet ring? Surely, hard and fast that, more so by far than if he had entrusted it to bronze tablets! But there is no need of bronze inscription, when the charter is laid away above the body of the blessed Peter. But why do you here suppress Paul, though he lies with Peter, and the two could guard it better than if the body of one alone were present?

1

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

And yet, as we see, a copy of the "page" is shown. Who then was so bold as to take it from the bosom of the most holy apostle? No one did it, I think. Whence then the copy? By all means some 1 Cf. supra, p. 85.

scriptorum debet afferri, nec posterior Constantini temporibus. At is nullus affertur, sed fortasse aliquis recens. Unde hic habuit? Quisquis enim de superiore aetate historiam texit, aut Spiritu Sancto dictante loquitur, aut veterum scriptorum et eorum quidem qui de sua aetate scripserunt sequitur auctoritatem. Quare quicumque veteres non sequitur, is de illorum numero erit quibus ipsa vetustas praebet audaciam mentiendi. Quod si quo in loco ista res legitur, non aliter cum antiquitate consentit quam illa glossatoris1 Accursii de legatis Romanis ad leges accipiendas dimissis in Graeciam plusquam stulta narratio cum Tito Livio aliisque praestantissimis scriptoribus convenit.

"Datum Romae tertio Kalendas2 Aprilis, Constantino Augusto quarto consule et Gallicano quarto consule."

Diem posuit penultimum Martii ut sentiremus hoc factum esse sub tempus sanctorum dierum, qui illo plerumque tempore solent esse. Et Constantino quartum consule, et Gallicano quartum consule! Mirum si uterque ter fuerat consul et in quarto consulatu forent collegae! Sed mirandum magis Augustum leprosum elephantia, qui morbus inter ceteros ut elephas inter beluas eminet, velle etiam accipere consulatum, cum rex Azarias simul ac lepra tactus est in privato se continuerit, procuratione regni ad Ionatam3 filium relegata, ut fere omnes leprosi fecerunt! Quo uno argumento totum prorsus privilegium confutatur, profligatur, evertitur. Ac ne quis ambigat ante leprosum esse debuisse quam consulem, sciat et ex medicina paulatim hunc morbum succrescere, et ex notitia

1 glosatoris; MS.

2 Kalendarum; Bonneau. Kalendarum Apriliarum; Zeumer's text of the Constitutum Constantini.

3 Joathan; Bonneau.

ancient writer ought to be adduced, one not later than the time of Constantine. However, none such is adduced, but as it happens some recent writer or other. Whence did he get it? For whoever composes a narrative about an earlier age, either writes at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, or follows the authority of former writers, and of those, of course, who wrote concerning their own age. So whoever does not follow earlier writers will be one of those to whom the remoteness of the event affords the boldness to lie. But if this story is to be read anywhere, it is not consistent with antiquity any more than that stupid narrative of the glossator Accursius about Roman ambassadors being sent to Greece to get laws agrees with Titus Livius and the other best writers.

"Given at Rome, on the third day before the Kalends of April, Constantine Augustus consul for the fourth time, and Gallicanus consul for the fourth time."

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

2

1 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.

2 II Kings xv, 5.

antiquitatis consulatum iniri Ianuario mense magistratumque esse annuum, et haec Martio proximo gesta referuntur.

Ubi neque hoc1 silebo; in epistolis scribi solere "datum," non autem in ceteris, nisi apud indoctos. Dicuntur enim epistolae dari vel illi, vel ad illum; illi quidem qui perfert ut puta tabellario, ut reddat et in manum porrigat homini cui mittuntur; ad illum vero ut ei a perferente reddantur, hic est is cui mittuntur.2 Privilegium autem, ut aiunt, Constantini, quod reddi alicui non debebat, nec dari debuit dici: ut appareat eum qui sic locutus est mentitum esse, nec3 scisse fingere quod Constantinum dixisse ac fecisse verisimile esset. Cuius stultitiae atque vesaniae affines se ac socios faciunt quicumque hunc vera dixisse existimant atque defendunt; licet nihil iam habeant quo opinionem suam, non dico defendere, sed honeste excusare, possint.

4

5

An honesta erroris excusatio est, cum patefactam videas veritatem, nolle illi acquiescere quia nonnulli magni homines aliter senserint? Magni, inquam, dignitate, non sapientia nec virtute. Unde tantum scis an illi quos tu sequeris, si eadem audissent quae tu, mansuri in sententia fuerint, an a sententia recessuri? Et nihilominus indignissimum est plus homini velle tribuere quam veritati, id est Deo. Ita enim quidam omnibus defecti rationibus solent mihi respondere: Cur tot summi pontifices donationem hanc veram esse crediderunt? Testificor vos, me vocatis quo nolo, et invitum me maledicere summis pontificibus cogitis, quos magis in delictis suis operire vellem. Sed pergamus ingenue loqui, quandoquidem aliter agi nequit haec causa.

6

Ut fatear eos ita credidisse, et non malitia' fecisse; quid mirum

known facts of antiquity the consulate is an annual office and begins in the month of January; and these events are said to have taken place the following March.

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

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

Admitting that they did thus believe and were not dishonest;