DE TABULIS DONARIORUM MARMOREIS

Concerning the Marble Donation Tablets At Rome, dedicated by the blessed Gregory the Great to the holy apostles Peter and Paul. I have judged that the marble Donation Tablets dedicated to the holy apostles Peter and Paul by the blessed Gregory the Great for the purpose of arranging the lamps, as he himself says, and affixed in the portico of Saint Peter, should be placed in this location, so that what I have said concerning the ancient manner of writing in the scholia, and especially in that scholium 241, 242 (below in volume IV of the Works of Saint Gregory, but in Patrologia volume LXXVIII), may be corroborated. Since, however, I have found another donation to the blessed Paul by the same holy Gregory, likewise for the purpose of arranging the lamps, inscribed on stone and formerly affixed in the portico of Saint Paul to the wall of the church, but now, a few days ago, transferred before the high altar and placed near one of the two columns which support the main arch, on the right side, and also recorded in the same blessed Gregory's Register, book XII, epistle; I have indicated that this also should be printed in this place, in order splendidly to represent and perpetually preserve the Christian and Apostolic piety of that same Saint. For monuments of deeds, as reason itself persuades and experience teaches, can more easily be rescued from destruction through the typographic art than through the art of sculpture. The tablets placed in the first position, and affixed to the portico of Saint Peter, appear to be fragments of two tablets, as the different shapes of the stones and the mutilated ends of the Donations themselves bear witness.

Concerning the Marble Donation Tablets in the portico of Saint Peter’s, affixed to the wall of the church, Maffeo Vegio speaks in his little book on the excellence of the basilica of Saint Peter in these words: “Blessed Gregory, to furnish more abundantly the lights of the basilica of Saint Peter, gave to it many estates and especially many olive groves, as is evident from a public document inscribed on marble tablets: which, though at first there were seven, only two are still affixed to the wall before the entrance of the basilica.” So Maffeo Vegio in his said little book, which is preserved in the library of the basilica of Saint Peter. Meanwhile I warn the reader that every care, even painstaking, has been employed in describing and printing these tablets, so that the ancient manner of writing might be represented exactly, or, as I should say more correctly, down to the smallest stroke, spaces alone excepted, which, although they are lacking in inscriptions cut in stone between each and every word, I have nevertheless taken care to insert in these printed ones, so that reading may be rendered easier. Likewise, in some contracted words the dots are not present, and lowercase letters mixed with uppercase are sometimes seen.

Finally, obsolete words that savor of that ancient age of old writers we have left just as they lie, and I wish the reader to be warned that they are free from the errors of stonecutters: for a letter is sometimes found to have been used by the ancients in place of another letter, such as *inmutilata* for *immutilata*, *inmeritum* for *immeritum*, *inpendi* for *impendi*, *set* for *sed*, *adquisita* for *acquisita*, *adsignatis* for *assignatis*, *intro* for *intra* (that is, an adverb in place of a preposition), *super* for *supra* (that is, a preposition in place of an adverb), *post hoc* for *posthac* (for *post hoc* is said as if meaning “after this time,” which meaning the adverb *posthac* has), *adfines* (of fields) for *affines* and *confines*, *adicientes* for *adjicientes*, *exsistere* for *existere*, *hor(??)us* (in the accusative case) for *hortos*, *detenebantur* for *detinebantur*, *consolatus* for *consulatus*. Examples of this kind are for the most part read as having been used in antiquity in the Aldine orthography, and in other inscriptions, which Aldus the Younger used to affirm that he had in his possession, described to the number of sixty thousand and more, and which I have thought should be passed over in silence for the sake of brevity: for it is enough in this matter to have cited the inscriptions of the ancient Latins described by Aldus. For he himself observed all the obscure monuments of antiquity in writing Latin so accurately that he had no equal in this kind.

There are also writers who say that the said words were in frequent use among the ancients; these I omit for the sake of brevity. Likewise, in the age of Blessed Gregory, the letter B was often used for Y, and V for B, as can be seen above in the first of the two tablets, in which we read *parba* for *parva*, *olibetum* for *olivetum*, *silbula* for *silvula*, *octabiano* for *octaviano*; *devitarem* for *debitorem*, and *uveribus* for *uberibus*. This ancient practice of writing we have explained quite fully in our scholium (cited above), so that the same scholium, in which some things perhaps worthy of knowledge are set forth, might also serve for this tablet. Other matters, not entirely to be despised, pertaining to this manner of writing and pronunciation we have also taught in our commentary on the Vatican Library, printed in the year [——], page [——]. I also warn the reader that in the list of olive groves, *olibetum* is always read in the accusative case by a word contracted in this way, *olibet*, both with and without a dot, or *olibetu*, sometimes with a dot, sometimes without. That the accusative case without a final letter was in use among those ancient Latins who existed in the age of Blessed Gregory is persuaded to us by many ancient inscriptions carved in stone, examples of which I also omit, consulting brevity.

I do not think it should be passed over in silence, why *olivetum*, which is of the neuter gender, is always found in this inscription as masculine: which I think is done by the figure *synthesis*, which disagrees with the word and agrees with its meaning, as in Virgil, *Aeneid* VIII, *Praeneste sub ipsa*, as the elder Alo testifies, and *Camerino sub ipsa*, i.e. *civitate*: for *Praeneste* and *Camerinum* are of the neuter gender. By this same figure, *synthesis*, it is said: *Lilium est albissimus florum*, i.e. the most white flower of all flowers; so also *olivetum*, which is a place or field in which olive trees are planted, disagrees with the word and agrees with the meaning, if it is referred to the place or field. In the second tablet, which is seen below, *isdem* is read in the nominative for *idem*. This word *isdem*, in the nominative singular for *idem*, was used not only by Eucherius twice in Book II on Genesis and twice in the Book of Kings, but also by Ennius, a very ancient author, in the nominative singular and in the ablative plural, as Cicero reports in his book *De Oratore*, using the same word *isdem*, saying: *Isdem campus habit* (says Ennius) *et in templis isdem, probavit*, etc.

In the same temples for *iisdem*, Ennius said. Hence Cicero in the same place says that *isdem* is used both in the nominative singular and in the ablative plural, and that both forms were employed by Ennius: for the word *isdem* is derived from *is, ea, id* and *demum*, according to Priscian, book XII, chapter on figure. Hence, if it were read not *isdem* but *idem campus*, as it is now indeed read, but corruptly, Cicero’s discussion of this word would be pointless. For Ennius, although he said *isdem* in the nominative singular, not *idem campus*, also said *in templis isdem* in the ablative plural, for *iisdem*, and preferred to use the same word in the second instance, dropping one *i* to avoid a bad sound, which would use the word *eisdem* for *iisdem*, which word (as Cicero says) was more copious, such as Ennius’s age bore, which indeed savored of antiquity. Therefore, with the word *isdem* restored in place of *idem* in the first passage of Ennius, Cicero’s passage is corrected.

Two also for *duos*, as in *hortos duo positos*. I would have believed that passage in the second tablet to be corrupt, had I not read the passage of Charisius writing that *duo* for *duos* and *ambo* for *ambos* are correctly said according to analogy and Greek declension. For Charisius says in Book I: "Some, following the Greeks, because they say both, said *hos duo* and *hos ambo*." *Ambo* for *ambos* in Virgil, *Eclogues*: *nam saepe aene(??)spe carminis ambo Luserat.* Thus it must be read according to Charisius, and also according to a very ancient and notable manuscript, written in capital letters, which is preserved in the Vatican Library. The same Virgil in Book IV of the *Georgics*: *Verum ubi ductores acie revocaveris ambo.* Thus the Virgilian passage is to be emended according to Charisius. In the notable Vatican codex this verse does not survive, because in this Book IV of the *Georgics* several pages are missing. Afranius in *Pantaleo*: *Revocas nos ambo ad praelium.*

The same Virgil, *Aeneid* book 12: *Hunc congressus, et hunc; illum eminus, eminus ambo.* Thus it is read in the very ancient and most notable Vatican manuscript. Terence, *Andria* act 2, scene: *Ambo opportune vos volo.* Thus it is to be read according to Charisius; others read: *Ambo opportune: vos volo.* *Duo* for *duos* is correctly written, says Charisius book 1, Attius in *Epinausimache*: *Manes armis duo congressos crederes.* Thus it is to be read according to Charisius. Terence, *Adelphi* act 5, scene: *Tu illos duo pro re olim tollebas tua.* Where Helenius Acron, *duo* for *duos*. Thus it is read in the very ancient and most notable Vatican manuscript. Thus also it is read in Terence by Gabriel Faernus; and that passage of Terence is to be emended from Charisius. Cicero, *Against Verres* book 1, act: *Horum pater abhinc duo et viginti annos est mortuus.* Thus it was read, and thus it ought to be read. The same, *To Atticus* book 4, last letter: *Duo consulares, qui te dicerent.* Thus it is to be read. The same, *To Q. Fr.* book 1, letter: *Duo Mysos.* Thus it is to be read, and thus Paulus Manutius emended it from the book of Bessarion. The same, *Familiar Letters* book 3, letter: *Duo enim duarum aetatum plurimi facio, Cn. Pompeium filiae socerum, et M. Brutum generum tuum.* The same, book 7, letter: *Praeter duo nos, loquitur isto modo nemo.* Thus it is read, and thus it ought to be read. The same, same book, letter: *Duo parietes de eadem fidelia dealbare.* The same, *On Friendship*: *Ut omnis caritas sive inter duo, aut inter paucos iungeretur.*

Sallust, *Histories* book 4, in the letter of Mithridates: *Inter me atque Lucullum, prope inopia rursus ambo incessit.* Virgil, *Eclogue* 5: *Craterasque duo statuam tibi.* Thus Pierius reads it to avoid the sibilant; and thus it is read in the very ancient and most notable Vatican manuscript. The same, *Aeneid* book 2: *Si duo praeterea tales Idaea tulisset Terra viros* Thus it is read in the very ancient and most notable Vatican manuscript, nor can it be read otherwise, because both syllables in the word *duo* are short; and in the first position it is a dactyl, in which the first syllable is long, the two following short. Priscian, book 7, says: *Oportet scire quidem analogiae rationem, usum tamen auctorum magis aemulari.* *Duo praeterea* and *Ambo* produce accusatives, according to this declension, *Ambos* and *Duos*. C. Julius Romanus, in his little book *On Analogy*, holds that the correct declension is: *Hos duo*.

Therefore, it must be admitted and affirmed that *duo* is correctly written for *duos*, and *ambo* for *ambos*, based on Charisius and other most authoritative authors. As for orthography, two words are read in the first tablet without a diphthong, the first of which is the word *quedam*, and the other *Cesariano*. In the second tablet, *Fhoca* is read for *Phoca*. I certainly do not think these words are free from the errors of stonecutters. *Massa* in these tablets is not used in the sense in which *massa* of gold and silver is spoken of, and other things of that kind; but it is used for *fundus* or *villa*, which is commonly called a *possessio*. Hence, the *massarius*, to whom the care of the entire villa is entrusted, is so named, as Hugutio holds. Consequently, in some places, a rustic possession, taken for a villa or estate, is customarily called *massaria*. These are the remarks on the glosses or obscure words of the ancient Latins inscribed on both tablets of the Donaria. I wished to warn the reader about these, lest anyone think that obsolete words were printed due to the carelessness of the typesetters, or lest anyone suspect that all of them are errors of the stonecutters.

The donarial tablet which now stands at the basilica of Saint Paul is also read in the Register of the blessed Gregory, book 12, epistle 19; but in the epistle inserted into the Register, several things are missing: for in the epistolary salutation these words, which appear on the marble tablet, are absent: *Episcopus servus servorum Dei*. And at the end of the epistle, these words: *Bene vale. Dat. viij. Kalend. Februarias, Imp. Domino N. Fhoca PP. Aug. anno secundo, et consolatus ejus anno primo, ind. septima*. These are on the marble tablet. Likewise, several words, such as *in foro*, for which *bifurco* is read on the tablet; *horos duos*, for *hortos duo positos*; *id est*, for *ibidem*; similarly *parte sinistra ad portam*, for *similiter a porta, parte sinistra*; *Eugentis*, for *Eugenilis*; *possessionibus monasterii sancti Edistii*, for *possessioni monasterii sancti Aristi*; *hortos*, for *hortus*; *deleri facias ac auferri*, for *delere debeat ac auferre*.

Concerning these matters, I also wished to warn the cutter, so that if anyone should compare the marble tablet with the letter inserted into the Register, he may know that this collation was not made when the Register was being printed: for the reason that, while the Register was being committed to type, that tablet, not yet transferred into the church, was affixed to the wall in the portico of Saint Paul, situated in a very high place, and hence known to very few and almost to no one: because scarcely anything of it could be read. I, however, while I was seeing to the publication of scholia and other works of mine on blessed Gregory, chanced, while occupied with other matters, upon Panvinius, who left this entire tablet transcribed in his little book on the seven churches of the City, when he was treating of the basilica of Saint Peter. Therefore, with all diligence and industry applied, I sought it out and found it, and once found, faithfully copied it from the marble, and finally, having copied and printed it, I thought it fitting to place it here, for the reasons assigned at the beginning.

It remains for us to explain briefly why the blessed Gregory the Great destined and dedicated so many estates and lands, or so many possessions, and finally so many olive groves of the same saints to their basilicas, solely for the lighting of lamps or candles in honor of the holy apostles Peter and Paul: for from so many and such great revenues of the estates, and especially of the olive groves, we can gather that an immense number of lamps was once employed in the said churches. This indeed becomes clear to anyone if the Lives of the Supreme Pontiffs by Anastasius the Librarian and by Platina, or the Sacred History written by Petrus Mallius, are read. For after Pope Silvester, Caelestinus, Hilarius, Simplicius, Symmachus, and after Gregory the Great, Sabinianus his successor, then Honorius, Agatho, Gregory II, Zacharias, and others gave various kinds of silver candelabra, called by various names (that is, coronae, phara, canthara, cerostata, and rhetia), and many pounds of gold and silver for the lamps of the basilica of Saint Peter at Rome. The same was done by the Emperor Constantine the Great, then by King Theodoric under Hormisdas, and by Belisarius under Vigilius, who offered various kinds of candelabra of great price, and many pounds of gold and silver, befitting imperial and royal opulence and liberality, to the church of Saint Peter and likewise to that of the blessed Paul.

Panvinius, in his book *On the Memorable Antiquities and Preeminence of the Basilica of Saint Peter*, book 5, preserved in the library of the same church, says: "Matilda, celebrated for her sanctity, made the basilica of Saint Peter so great, and in order that it might be more adorned with the addition of lights, she gave her patrimony as a dowry due to it, that is, the principal parts of Liguria and Etruria, with all the towns and their rights." Thus Panvinius. Platina, in his *Life of Paschal II*, speaks in this manner: "At this time, the Countess Matilda, being quite advanced in age and dying, left by testament to the Roman Church whatever lies from the river Pissia and San Quirico in the territory of Siena as far as Ceperano, between the Apennines and the sea, with the addition of Ferrara, which is still tributary to the Roman Church." Thus Platina. But Ferrara was under the dominion of the Church much earlier, that is, nearly a thousand years ago, namely in the time of Vitalian, as can be seen in the chronicles of the pilgrim Priscianus and of Gaspar Sardus; then in the time of Pippin, Charlemagne, Louis I, Henry I, and Otto I before Matilda; and this is established from the privileges of these and of other emperors after Matilda, which are kept in the archive of the Castle of Sant'Angelo. Concerning this donation, and the confirmation of the donation made by the Countess Matilda in the time of Gregory VII and Paschal II, there is no lack of authentic written records, which are preserved in all the archives of the Holy Roman Church.

After I had, however, not deliberately but as the matter itself supplied it to me, fallen into discourse concerning Ferrara, I shall say briefly and almost in passing what happened concerning Ferrara itself while I was committing to writing these matters about the lamps of the holy apostles Peter and Paul. For in the previous year of our Lord 1597, on the day of October, with Alfonso d'Este, the second of this name and the last Duke of Ferrara, having died without sons or descendants, our most holy Lord Clement VIII, the most vigilant pastor of the Church and the most zealous and tireless defender of the patrimony of Saint Peter, as soon as he learned that the Duchy of Ferrara, once granted in fief by his predecessors the Roman pontiffs, had devolved to the Roman Church due to the extinction of the said Alfonso's line, acted gravely and wisely, with no hesitation whatsoever, together with the entire college of cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, concerning its recovery, with the same cardinals also urgently demanding said recovery. Therefore, our most holy Lord, in the decree pronouncing on this matter, setting aside human considerations, with steadfast spirit and marvelous ardor of piety, devoted and consecrated the entire dominion of Ferrara to Christ the Lord our Savior, as well as to the glorious and ever-virgin Mother of God Mary, and to the holy apostles Peter and Paul.

Therefore, with the order of law and canons preserved, and with both swords finally drawn, and with Peter, cardinal deacon of San Nicola in Carcere, Aldobrandino, nephew of the same Clement, born for the swift and successful accomplishment of truly splendid and arduous tasks for the Roman Church, sent with military forces to recover the duchy of Ferrara, the Este Caesar, with no battle of soldiers having been awaited, promised to restore the same duchy of Ferrara to its ancient and legitimate lord, the Holy Roman Church, in this very year on the day of January, by an agreement committed to writing; and in fact, on the twenty-ninth day of the same month, that is, on the day before the day consecrated to Saint Hippolytus, on which the birthday of the pontificate of Clement himself, formerly called Hippolytus, is celebrated, he restored it freely and peacefully, not only by human aid but by the express assistance of divine help. Ferrara rejoicing, the whole city of Rome exulting, and giving immense thanks to God, and all Italy marveling. Thus far concerning Ferrara. Now let us return to our subject concerning the lamps that were once accustomed to be lit in honor of the holy apostles Peter and Paul.

For Petrus Mallius, in his book on the history of the Basilica of Saint Peter, as may be seen in the Vatican Library, after enumerating various kinds of gifts and revenues of the Basilica of Saint Peter for the lighting of lamps, speaking of the lights perpetually burning in the Church, testifies that in his time 150 lamps burned day and night in the Basilica of Saint Peter, and on station days 250, and he lists the various kinds and names of lamps and candelabra, and likewise all the places where candelabra were suspended, describing the stations of the whole year. Moreover, a candelabrum was lit which had as many lamps as there are days in the year, that is 365. Indeed, as Anastasius the Librarian says in his life of Hadrian I, Hadrian himself gave as a gift to the Basilica of Saint Peter a candelabrum representing the form of a cross, adorned with 1,360 candles or lamps, which, hanging before the presbytery, was lit four times a year, namely on the day of the Nativity of the Lord, at Easter, on the feast of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and on the election of the Roman pontiff, which is celebrated each year during his lifetime, and 1,370 lamps used to be lit before the presbytery. The same is nearly read concerning the Basilica of Saint Paul. Since, therefore, so many lamps burned perpetually in the basilicas of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, it should seem a wonder to no one if so many estates and so many olive groves were dedicated and assigned to the said basilicas.