{
    "system": "GoGuides Verified Text",
    "api_version": "verified-text-v1",
    "status": "ok",
    "response_type": "verified_text_record",
    "source_key": "britannica_1911",
    "source_title": "Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911)",
    "license_code": "public_domain",
    "attribution": null,
    "license_url": null,
    "chunk_id": "1911:donati:283df12c70f1",
    "title": "DONATI",
    "section": null,
    "hash_alg": "sha256",
    "hash_sha256": "708ce4c2863c1321332ebad5970dc5d96d25268da2ca5648d10e6aee201d908b",
    "normalizer": {
        "name": "ggnorm",
        "version": "1.0"
    },
    "verified_text": "donati, giovanni battista (1826-1873), italian astronomer, was born at pisa on the 16th of december 1826. he entered the observatory of florence as a student in 1852, became assistant to g. b. amici in 1854, and was appointed in 1864 to succeed him as director. a new observatory at arcetri near florence, built under his supervision, was completed in 1872. during the ten years 1854-1864 donati discovered six comets, one of which, first seen on the 2nd of june 1858, bears his name (see comet). he observed the total solar eclipse of the 18th of july 1860, at torreblanca in spain, and in the same year began experiments in stellar spectroscopy. in 1862 he published a memoir, _intorno alle strie degli spettri stellari_, which indicated the feasibility of a physical classification of the stars; and on the 5th of august 1864 discovered the gaseous composition of comets by submitting to prismatic analysis the light of one then visible. an investigation of the great aurora of the 4th of february 1872 led him to refer such phenomena to a distinct branch of science, designated by him \"cosmical meteorology\"; but he was not destined to prosecute the subject. attending the international meteorological congress of august 1873 at vienna, he fell ill of cholera, and died a few hours after his arrival at arcetri, on the 20th of september 1873. see _vierteljahrsschrift der astr. gesellschaft_ (leipzig), ix. 4; _monthly notices roy. astr. society_, xxxiv. 153; _memorie degli spettroscopisti italiani_, ii. 125 (g. cacciatore); _nature_, viii. 556; &c. (a. m. c.) donatio mortis causa (grant in case of death), in law, a gift of personal property made in contemplation of death and intended either expressly or impliedly to take complete effect only if the donor dies of the illness affecting him at the time of the gift. the conception as well as the name is borrowed from roman law, and the definition given by justinian (_inst._ ii. 7. 1) applies equally to a _donatio mortis causa_ in roman and english law. a distinction, however, has arisen between the english and civil codes; by english law delivery either actual or (when from the nature of the thing actual delivery is impossible) constructive is essential, and this delivery must pass not only the possession but the dominion of the thing given; by the civil law, in some cases at least, delivery of possession was not essential (see the judgment of lord chancellor hardwicke in _ward_ v. _turner_, 1751, 2 ves. sen. 431, where the whole question is exhaustively discussed). a _donatio mortis causa_ stands halfway between a gift _inter vivos_ and a legacy, and has some of the characteristics of each form of disposition. it resembles a legacy in that (1) it is revocable during the donor's life, (2) it is subject to legacy and estate duty, and (3) it is liable to satisfy debts of the testator in default of other assets. on the other hand, it resembles a gift _inter vivos_ in that it takes effect from delivery; therefore the consent of the executor is not necessary. anything may be the subject of a _donatio mortis causa_, the absolute property in which can be made to pass by delivery after the donor's death either in law or equity; this will cover bankers' deposit notes, bills of exchange, and notes and cheques of a third person, but not promissory notes and cheques of the donor in favour of the donee, for the donor's signature is merely an authority for his banker to pay, which is revoked by his death. donation of constantine (_donatio constantini_), the supposed grant by the emperor constantine, in gratitude for his conversion by pope silvester, to that pope and his successors for ever, not only of spiritual supremacy over the other great patriarchates and over all matters of faith and worship, but also of temporal dominion over rome, italy and \"the provinces, places and _civitates_ of the western regions.\" the famous document, known as the _constitutum constantini_ and compounded of various elements (notably the apocryphal _vita s. silvestri_), was forged at rome some time between the middle and end of the 8th century, was included in the 9th century in the collection known as the false decretals, two centuries later was incorporated in the _decretum_ by a pupil of gratian, and in gibbon's day was still \"enrolled among the decrees of the canon law,\" though already rejected \"by the tacit or modest censure of the advocates of the roman church.\" it is now universally admitted to be a gross forgery.[1] in spite, however, of gibbon's characteristic scepticism on this point, it is certain that the _constitutum_ was regarded as genuine both by the friends and the enemies of the papal pretensions throughout the middle ages.[2] though no use of it was made by the popes during the 9th and 10th centuries, it was quoted as authoritative by eminent ecclesiastics of the frankish empire (e.g. by ado of vienne and hincmar of reims), and it was employed by two frankish popes, gregory v. and silvester ii., in urging certain territorial claims. but not till 1050 was it made the basis of the larger papal claims, when another frankish pope, leo ix., used it in his controversy with the byzantines. from this time forward it was increasingly used by popes and canonists in support of the papal pretensions, and from the 12th century onwards became a powerful weapon of the spiritual against the temporal powers. it is, however, as cardinal hergenrother points out, possible to exaggerate its importance in this respect; a charter purporting to be a grant by an emperor to a pope of spiritual as well as temporal jurisdiction was at best a double-edged weapon; and the popes generally preferred to base their claim to universal sovereignty on their direct commission as vicars of god. by the partisans of the empire, on the other hand, the donation was looked upon as the _fons et origo malorum_, and constantine was regarded as having, in his new-born zeal, betrayed his imperial trust. the expression of this opinion is not uncommon in medieval literature (e.g. walther von der vogelweide, pfeiffer's edition, 1880, nos. 85 and 164), the most famous instance being in the _inferno_ of dante (xix. 115): \"ahi, costantin, di questo mal fu matre non la tua conversion, ma quella dote che da te prese il primo ricco patre!\" the genuineness of the _constitutum_ was first critically assailed by laurentius valla in 1440, whose _de falso credita et ementita constantini donatione declamatio_ opened a controversy that lasted until, at the close of the 18th century, the defence was silenced. in modern times the controversy as to the genuineness of the document has been succeeded by a debate scarcely less lively as to its date, its authorship and place of origin. the efforts of roman catholic scholars have been directed (since baronius ascribed the forgery to the greeks) to proving that the fraud was not committed at rome. thus cardinal hergenrother holds that it was written by a frank in the 9th century, in order to prove that the greeks had been rightfully expelled from italy and that charlemagne was legitimate emperor. this view, with variations, was maintained by the writer of an article in the _civilta cattolica_ in 1864 (_serie_ v. vol. x. pp. 303, &c.) and supported by grauert, who maintains that the document was concocted at the abbey of st denis, after 840. the evidence now available, however, confirms those who ascribe an earlier date to the forgery and place it at rome. the view held by gibbon and dollinger among others,[3] that the _constitutum_ is referred to in the letter of pope adrian i. to charlemagne (778), is now indeed largely rejected; there is nothing in the letter to make such an assumption safe, and the same must be said of friedrich's attempt to find such reference in the letter addressed in 785 by the same pope to constantine vi., emperor of the east, and his mother irene. still less safe is it to ascribe the authorship of the forgery to any particular pope on the ground of its style; for papal letters were drawn up in the papal chancery and the style employed there was apt to persist through several pontificates. friedrich's theory that the _constitutum_ is a composite document, part written in the 7th century, part added by paul i. when a deacon under stephen ii., though supported by a wealth of learning, has been torn to tatters by more than one critic (g. kruger, l. loening). on one point, however, a fair amount of agreement seems now to have been reached, a result due to the labour in collating documents of scheffer-boichorst, namely, that the style of the _constitutum_ is generally that of the papal chancery in the latter half of the 8th century. this being granted, there is room for plentiful speculation as to where and why it was concocted. we may still hold the opinion of dollinger that it was intended to impress the barbarian pippin and justify in his eyes the frank intervention in favour of the pope in italy; or we may share the view of loening (rejected by brunner, _rechtsgeschichte_) that the forgery was a pious fraud on the part of a cleric of the curia, committed under adrian i.,[4] with the idea of giving a legal basis to territorial dominion which that pope had succeeded in establishing in italy. the donations of pippin and charlemagne established him as sovereign _de facto_; the donation of constantine was to proclaim him as sovereign _de jure_. it is significant in this connexion that it was under adrian (c. 774) that the papal chancery ceased to date by the regnal years of the eastern emperor and substituted that of the pontificate. dollinger's view is supported and carried a step further by h. bohmer, who by an ingenious argument endeavours to prove that the _constitutum_ was forged in 753, probably by the notary christophorus, and was carried with him by pope stephen ii. to the court of pippin, in 754, with an eye to the acquisition of the exarchate. in support of this argument it is to be noted that the forged document first appears at the abbey of st denis, where stephen spent the winter months of 754. e. mayer, on the other hand, denies that the _constitutum_ can have been forged before the news of the iconoclastic decrees of the council of constantinople of 754 had reached rome. he lays stress on the relation of the supposed confession of faith of constantine, embodied in the forgery, to that issued by the emperor constantine v., pointing out the efforts made by the byzantines between 756 and the synod of gentilly in 767 to detach pippin from the cause of rome and the holy images. the forgery thus had a double object: as a weapon against byzantine heresy and as a defence of the papal patrimony. as the result of an exhaustive analysis of the text and of the political and religious events of the time, mayer comes to the conclusion that the document was forged about 775, i.e. at the time when charlemagne was beginning to reverse the policy by which in 774 he had confirmed the possession of the duchies of spoleto and benevento to the pope. bibliography.--see dollinger, _papstfabeln des mittelalters_ (munich, 1863; eng. trans. a. plummer, 1871); \"janus,\" _der pabst und das konzil_ (munich, 1869; eng. trans. 1869); hergenrother, _catholic church and christian state_ (freiburg im breisgau, 1872; eng. trans. 2 vols. 1876); w. martens, _die romische frage unter pippin u. karl d. grossen_ (stuttgart, 1881), with text; h. grauert, \"die konstantinische schenkung\" in _hist. jahrb. der gorres-gesellsch._ iii. (1882), iv. (1883); langen, \"entstehung u. tendenz der konst. schenkungsurkunde\" in sybel's _hist. zeitschr. l._ (1883); l. weiland, \"die konst. schenkung\" in _zeitschr. f. kirchenrecht_, xxii. (1887-1888), maintains that the _constitutum_ was forged at rome between 813 and 875, in connexion with the papal claim to crown the emperors; h. brunner and k. zeumer, _die konstantinische schenkungsurkunde_ (berlin, 1888; festgaben fur r. v. gneist), with text; friedrich, _die konst. schenkung_ (nordlingen, 1889), with text; w. martens, _die falsche generalkonzession konstantins des grossen_ (munich, 1889); p. scheffer-boichorst, \"neue forschungen uber die konst. schenkung,\" i. ii. _mitteilungen des instituts fur osterr. geschichtsforschung_, x. (1889), xi. (1890); g. kruger, \"die frage der entstehungszeit der konst. schenkung,\" in _theologische literaturzeitung_, xiv. (1889); j. hodgkin, _italy and her invaders_, vol. vii. p. 135 (oxford, 1899); article \"konstantinische schenkung,\" g. h. bohmer, in herzog-hauck, _realencykl._ (1902); e. mayer, \"die schenkungen konstantins und pipins\" in _deutsche zeitschr. fur kirchenrecht_ (tubingen, 1904). laurentius valla's treatise was issued in a new edition, with french translation and historical introduction, by a. bonneau, _la donation de constantin_ (lisieux, 1879). (w. a. p.) footnotes: [1] dr hodgkin's suggestion (_italy and her invaders_, vii. p. 153) that the _constitutum_ may have been originally a mere pious romance, recognized as such by its author and his contemporaries, and laid up in the papal archives until its origin was forgotten, is wholly inconsistent with the unquestioned results of the critical analysis of the text. [2] leo of vercelli, the emperor otto iii.'s chancellor, protested that the _constitutum_ was a forgery, but without effect. the attacks upon it by the heretical followers of arnold of brescia (1152) convinced neither the partisans of the pope nor those of the emperor. [3] so langen (1883) and e. mayer (1904). [4] this is also w. mayer's view in his later work. in his _die romische frage_ (1881) he had placed the forgery in 805 or 806.",
    "source_url": "https://archive.org/details/EB1911WMF",
    "observed_at": "2026-02-08 18:42:31",
    "integrity": {
        "hash_check": "match",
        "hash_scope": "full_normalized_text",
        "computed_sha256": "708ce4c2863c1321332ebad5970dc5d96d25268da2ca5648d10e6aee201d908b"
    },
    "machine_use": {
        "read": true,
        "cite": true,
        "decision": "verified_public_domain_text"
    },
    "goguides_data_license": "https://www.goguides.com/data-license",
    "goguides_data_license_version": "2.0",
    "documentation": {
        "white_paper_url": "https://www.goguides.com/white-paper.php",
        "pdf_url": "https://www.goguides.com/whitepapers/goguides-ai-source-clearance-white-paper.pdf"
    }
}