bishop of Alexandria, who was also called ára, 1 as to the bishop of Rome.

Further on we meet with a word never used by any Greek author with whom I am acquainted, koivcovλoi for consuls, with the usual word izara merely inserted alongside as explanatory. This can only be explained on the supposition that the text is a translation. And here the Greek text itself affords palpable evidence of a distorting of the original in a way which betrays the unlearned translator. The original ordains that

1 [Tanag or mana, Papa, was originally a general name for all Greek presbyters and Latin bishops; but from an early age it was the special address which, long before the name of a patriarch or archbishop, was given to the bishop of Alexandria. "Pope of Alex"andria" was a well-known dignity centuries before the bishops of Rome claimed an exclusive right to the title of pope. This was first done by Gregory VII., in a Council held at Rome in 1076. Stanley (Eastern Church, p. 113) gives the following curious explanation of the name: "Down to Heraclas (A.D. 230), the bishop of "Alexandria, being the sole Egyptian bishop, was called 'Abba' " (father), and his clergy Elders.' From his time more bishops "were created, who then received the name of 'Abba,' and con"sequently the name of 'Papa' (ab-aba, pater patrum, grandfather) "was appropriated to the Primate. The Roman account (inconsistent "with facts) is that the name was first given to Cyril, as represent"ing the bishop of Rome in the council of Ephesus (Suicer, in "voce)" He then adds other fantastic explanations: "1 Popper, "from the short life of each pope; 2. Ra, for Pater; 3. Pap, suck; 4. Pap, breast; 5. Pa (Paul), Pe (Peter); 6. Ħaжaî! (admiration); 7. Paps, keeper (Oscan); 8. Pappas, chief slave; 9. Pa(ter) "Pa(tria); 10. Pa, sound of a father's kiss. See Abraham "Echellensis, De Origine Nom. Papa, 60. It is a little difficult to believe that all of these are serious."

the Roman clergy shall have the same privileges as the imperial senate, namely, that its members become patricians and consuls, and so can attain to the very highest honours which the Byzantine kingdom has to bestow. Instead of this object, which expresses a wish of the Roman clergy, quite natural and not unattainable under the circumstances of the time, the Greek text represents the emperor as making an enactment, the realisation of which no one could have seriously expected, namely, that to the Roman clergy generally should be attributed that pre-eminence and greatness, which the great senate, or the patricians, consuls, and other dignitaries possessed. Last of all comes the story that Constantine, holding the reins of Sylvester's horse, had performed the office of groom to Sylvester (oтpáτwрos ÖppíKLOV Éñochσaμeν), a story which, both in its wording and circumstances, is unmistakeably of western growth, alike foreign to oriental customs and oriental sentiment. This thing occurs for the first time in the year 754, when Pepin showed this mark of respect to Stephen III., who had come to visit him. This act caused such great satisfaction in Rome, that it was forthwith transferred to Constantine, and made into a pattern and rule for kings and emperors.

1 "Vice stratoris usque in aliquantum loci juxta ejus sellarem "properavit.”—Vita Steph. in Vignoli, ii., 104.

The chief passage in the document, the cession of Rome and Italy or of the western regions to the pope, is correctly rendered in the text as given by Balsamon. On the other hand, it is wanting in other Greek recensions, especially in the one by Matthew Blastares (about 1335), and in others given by Boulanger and Fabricius,2 from a Parisian manuscript.

This is not hard to explain. The fictitious Donation has acquired a high canonical authority among the Greeks. Since Balsamon's time it has taken its place among a mass of manuscripts respecting Greek ecclesiastical rights; and Greek eyes, usually so keensighted for the discovery of Latin forgeries, were in this case so blinded, that they readily accepted the palpable forgery, and set to work to make capital out of it in practice. Blastares quite goes into raptures over it. Nothing more pious or more worthy of

1 Beveridge, Pandectæ Canonum, i., p. 2, p. 117. But the Latin translator has made a laughable perversion of the sense, making the emperor say, "Placuit ut Papa ab urbe Roma et occidentalibus " omnibus provinciis et urbibus exiret."

2 Biblioth. Gr. ed. nov. vi., 699.

3 They are for the most part enumerated in Biener De Collectionibus Canonum Eccles. Græcæ, 1827, p. 79. In the Vienna Codex, which Lambecius describes Comment., lib. viii., p. 1019. nov. ed., the remark is added παρεξεβλήθη ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγνιωτάτου πατριάρχου και σταντινουπόλεως κυροῦ φωτίου ταῦτα. A man so well read as Photius in literature and history, of course perceived not only the unauthenticity of the document, but also the object of the fiction.

"reverence is to be seen anywhere," he says, "nothing "which better deserves to be proclaimed far and "wide." This satisfaction rested on a very simple calculation. The canon of the second oecumenical synod of 381, that palladium of the Byzantine Church, enacts that the bishop of Constantinople shall have the privileges of the bishop of Rome, and (as was further concluded) that the clergy of new Rome shall have, in like manner, all the rights of the clergy of old Rome. Therefore, says Balsamon, and this was the opinion of the clergy of the capital, all in the way of honors, dignity, and privileges, which Constantine had showered on the clergy of old Rome with so prodigal a hand, holds good also for the clergy and patriarch of new Rome. Another and later imperial enactment, also cited by Balsamon,2 serves to confirm this, viz., that Constantinople shall enjoy, not merely the privileges of Italy, but those of Rome itself. The emperors themselves accepted the objects at which this document was aimed, at any rate those which had reference to the relations between ecclesiastical and civil dignities. Thus Michael Palæologus, in the year 1270, wrote to direct the patriarch, that whereas he, the emperor, had appointed the deacon Theodore Skutariotes to the office of Dikæophylax (supreme

1 Cf. tit. 1, c. 36, p. 38, then tit. 8, c. 1, pp. 85, 89, ed. Paris, 1620.

judge or custos justitia), the said deacon should also be invested with an equivalent ecclesiastical dignity, namely, that of an exokatakoilos (that is an assessor of the patriarch with the right of precedence of the bishops) according to the terms of Constantine's rescript to Sylvester.1

Moreover, the Donation was acknowledged in the West centuries before it was known and noticed by the Greeks. The lately-published Georgius Hamartolus 2 (about the year 842) recounts the fables connected with the legend of Sylvester in considerable detail, but does not say a single word about the Donation. On the contrary, he represents the emperor as giving up the West to his sons Constantius' and Constans, and to his nephew Dalmatius, intending to make Byzantium his own place of residence. The first Byzantine who mentions and makes use of the Donation is Balsamon, who died patriarch of Antioch in the year 1180, that is at a period when the Greeks had long since lost every foot of territory in Italy, and the giving away of Italy to the papal chair was a matter perfectly harmless so far as they at least were concerned. But at that time the Latins had for long

1 Novella Constitutiones Imperatorum post Justinianum, ed. Zachariæ, 1857, p. 592.

2 Chronicon ed. E. de Muralto, Petropoli, 1859, p. 399.