History of the challenge to apostolic authority (esp Peter)

[rgprice]

Still looking for more info on this. Any chance anyone known of any English scholarship on early Protestant arguments against Peter's presence in Rome? What case did 16th and 17th century Protestants make against Peter's presence in Rome?

[rgprice]

Still trying to get some more details on this. What I've mostly been able to find on the internet are Catholic arguments against supposed Protestant claims, btu they don't cite Protestant sources.

For example:
https://stillcurrent.blog/2021/01/26/wa ... -martyred/

https://bccatholic.ca/voices/graham-osb ... er-in-rome

https://www.catholic.com/tract/peters-roman-residency

What I'm really looking for are primarily German Protestant works from the 16th-17th centuries that make a case against Peter having founded the Church in Rome or having been to Rome at all. I know these works exist, I've seen numerous references to such works, but I can't identify titles or authors, quotes or specific passages.

[rgprice]

Can anyone provide an English translation of Panvinio's De Primatu Petri?

https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_GpI0 ... 5/mode/2up

[MrMacSon]

Can anyone provide an English translation of Panvinio's De Primatu Petri?
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_GpI0 ... 5/mode/2up

It's also available in that form, but perhaps a better version, at google books (where it seems to be able to be downloaded as a pdf)* https://www.google.com.au/books/edition ... SR8C?hl=en

• clicking on the "Download PDF" hot-button gives https://books.googleusercontent.com/boo ... Y2Kp5r4Idw)

That doesn't help you (though it may be easier to copy 'n' paste text into a translator(?))

• (via google: https://www.google.com/search?q=latin+t ... e&ie=UTF-8)

• perhaps https://lingvanex.com/translation/latin-ad-anglica

For posterity:

De primatu Petri et Apostolicae Sedis potestate libri tres … contra Centuriarum auctores (“Three Books on the Primacy of Peter and the Power of the Apostolic See … against the Authors of the Centuries”), by Onofrio Panvinio...printed in Venice in 1591, aimed to counter the arguments of Protestants against papal primacy. Since the Reformation, Protestants had rejected the idea that the Roman pontiff had supreme episcopal jurisdiction as pastor and governor of the Universal Church.

The Italian church historian Onofrio Panvinio (1530-1568)...was captivated by history. At the age of nineteen he wrote a chronicle of the order; two years later he would transcribe the calendars of ancient Rome (the Fasti Capitolini), numerous fragments of which had been found in the Roman Forum. There followed research into the history of several noble Roman families, ancient Roman history, the history of the Popes and, from 1559 onward, the history of papal elections.

De primatu Petri was a digest of sources relating to the primacy of St Peter. It was originally to be dedicated to Pope Pius V in 1566. The manuscript remained stuck, however, with the ecclesiastical authorities. These were keen to ensure that special care was taken in approving a book of such high significance. Until his death in 1568, Panvinio was unable to get the manuscript back from Cardinal Marcantonio Colonna and was thus unable to send it to another Cardinal, Otto von Waldburg, who wanted to have it published. The commission charged in 1570-1572 with finding Catholic answers to the most influential Protestant church history (Ecclesiastica historia, known as the Magdeburg Centuries) may have considered publishing De primatu Petri, but, if so, the plan was aborted.

In De primatu Petri, Panvinio aimed to counter the arguments of the Centuriators of Magdeburg by collecting and ordering testimonies, starting from the Bible, which proved that the primacy was given to St Peter by Christ, that Peter exerted it during his lifetime (Bk I) and that all the succeeding popes used it as well (Bk II). Panvinio took pride in answering the Centuriators’ polemical and insulting language, and their mixture of truth and lies, with a factual and orderly presentation of testimonies from authors who wrote mainly before the time of Emperor Charlemagne (d. 814) (“conviciis et maledictis a quibus ego vehementer abhorreo”; preface to Bk I).

Bk I (the only one published) contained two chapters dealing with the arguments of the Magdeburg Centuries against the primacy and a very long chapter where he picked apart the entire treatise of Ulrich Velenus^a from 1520 (who claimed that Peter had never come to Rome), citing all of it and trying to refute it passage by passage (see M. Flacius et al., Ecclesiastica historia, 13 vols, Basel 1559-74, Centuria I, cols 524-30, “Argumenta contra primatum Petri”; U. Velenus, In hoc libello ... probatur Apostolum Petrum Romam non venisse, s.l. ca. 1520).

1. added here, ie. an aside
   1. https://archive.org/details/ulrichusvel ... 3/mode/1up
   2. https://www.google.com.au/books/edition ... QBAJ?hl=en
   3. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... C33B8522C7

Popes Gregory XIII and Sixtus V in 1585 granted Paolo Panvinio (Onofrio’s brother) and Marco Antonio Lanfranchi the privilege to publish the work as soon as it had been examined by the Inquisition. It was held back by the Inquisitors for another four years and was finally printed in 1589. In the dedication of the first edition to Sixtus V, Cardinal Colonna (the head of the Congregation of the Index of Prohibited Books) did not mention the Inquisition at all: he simply stated that after Panvinio’s death his literary executioners had approached him because Panvinio, on his deathbed, had uttered the wish that this work should be published. The scholar and editor Latino Latini had made editorial revisions (checking, in particular, Panvinio’s references to church fathers), while some theologians including Cardinal Guglielmo Sirleto had been consulted to confirm that the book could indeed be published.

Panvinio’s De primatu Petri was reprinted in Venice in 1591 (which is the copy in the Middle Temple Library); in Rome in 1698, in Bibliotheca maxima pontificia, edited by J.T. de Rocaberti, and in Venice again in 1762, in Thesaurus theologicus, edited by F.A. Zaccaria.

On Panvinio see the biographical entry ‘Panvinio, Onofrio’, in Dizionario biografico degli italiani, lxxxi (Rome 2014), pp. 36-39, available online at http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ono ... ografico)/. For a detailed summary of the contents of De primatu, see also J. L. Orella y Unzué, Respuestas católicas a las Centurias de Magdeburgo (1559-1588), Madrid 1976, pp. 284-95.

Stefan Bauer
Marie Curie Fellow
Lecturer in Early Modern History (from September 2017)
University of York

stefan.bauer@york.ac.uk

July 2017

---

https://www.middletemple.org.uk/library ... /July-2017

There's also this https://www.bavarikon.de/object/bav:BSB ... 77?lang=en
and this https://www.bavarikon.de/object/BSB-HSS ... en&lang=en

And this https://www.jstor.org/stable/23563544 =
ŠTEFAN PORÚBČAN (1967) The Consciousness of Peter's Primacy in the New Testament Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, vol. 5; pp.9-39

[MrMacSon]

And this https://www.jstor.org/stable/23563544 =
ŠTEFAN PORÚBČAN (1967) The Consciousness of Peter's Primacy in the New Testament Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, vol. 5; pp.9-39

(It looks like the full article is available with access through an appropriate account)

A translation of the summary:
(single quotation marks and italicized and added or done by me)

Summarium — Melior « stratificatio » chronologica scriptorum N. Testamenti permittit ut novo examini subiciatur quaestio de conscientia primatus S. Petri in Novo Testamento. In primo stadio (Actus, Mc et parall.) primatus specifice non apparet, quamvis nomen « Petri », quod vere est nomen officii, testimonium de eo perhibeat. Collegium Apostolorum seu « Duodecim » revera Ecclesiam regebat. Tamen, etsi numerus apostolorum paulatim minuebatur, ex itineribus S. Pauli in lerusalem, sec. Act et Gal, constat Petrurn cum duobus vel tribus apostolis plenas Collegii apostolici vices gessisse. Post Petri discessum ab lerusalem quaestio acute proponebatur, utrum ipse, etiam solus, nomine Collegii apostolici loqui agereque valeret. Responsum affirmativum datum est per textus evangelicos in Mt, L et Jn, qui de primatu Petri a Christo instituto agunt. Contra sententiam clarissimi O. Cullmann hi textus plene intellegi nequeunt, nisi Primatus tamquam institutio in Ecclesia concipiatur et in eo primatu Petrus successores habeat.

Summary — A better chronological "stratification" of the writers of the N. Testament allows the question of the consciousness of the primacy of St. Peter in the New Testament to be subjected to a new examination. In the first stage (Acts, Mc et al.) the primacy does not specifically appear, although the name "Peter", which is really the name of the office, bears witness to it. The College of the Apostles or [the] "Twelve" really governed the Ecclessiam [the Church]. Nevertheless, although the number of the apostles was gradually decreasing, from the travels of St. Paul in Jerusalem, 'sec.' In Acts and Galatians, it is clear that Peter, together with two or three apostles, took full turns in the Apostolic College. After Peter's departure from Jerusalem, the question was acutely raised whether he alone was able to speak and act in the name of the Apostolic College. An affirmative answer was given by the evangelical texts in Mt, L and Jn, which deal with the primacy of Peter 'established by Christ.' Contrary to the opinion of the famous O. Cullmann, these texts cannot be fully understood unless the Primacy is conceived as an institution in the Church and Peter has successors in that primacy.

I presume 'sec' in "from the travels of St. Paul in Jerusalem, 'sec.' In Acts and Galatians, it is clear that Peter, together with two or three apostles, took full turns in the Apostolic College," in the middle, means 'according to,' or 'as outlined in' : it's also an abbreviation in the Latin summary.

• maybe it should be small 'i' for 'in,' thus:
  "from the travels of St. Paul in Jerusalem, 'sec.' in Acts and Galatians, it is clear that Peter, together with two or three apostles, took full turns in the Apostolic College."

[MrMacSon]

I presume the mention of O. Cullmann there^ would be related to the "very important Petrus of Oscar Cullmann" mentioned here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42720158

There's a few versions of Otto Katter's Peter And The Church: An Examination Of Cullmann's Thesis, which that article is about, at archive.org. The best one, on face value, seems to be https://archive.org/details/peterchurch ... 4/mode/2up

And more here:

Peter And The Church: An Examination Of Cullmann's Thesis*

Karrer, Otto - Nama Orang

Otto Karrer, who has devoted much of his work to studying and promoting Christian unity, examines Oscar Cullmann's challenging theses concerning the primary of Peter in the Church. The prominent Protestant theologian went further than others before him in recognizing the Catholic character of the early apostolic Church, but he retained the traditional Protestant view that Peter was only the primus of the early Church. Disputes over the position of the Roman Pontiff in the Church have traditionally centered upon the so-called primacy texts, especially Matthew 16:18 ("Thou art Peter. . ."). Cullmann in his Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr contended that no conclusions can be derived from that primacy concerning the apostolic succession and indeed the papacy as it developed. For him, it is clear that Peter at an early date yielded his primacy to James the Less (whose position in the early Church has long intrigued scholars), and that the Catholic case for the apostolic succession is inadequately founded in the Scriptures. Cullmann's book was something of a landmark in theological controversy; it was free from any spirit of hostile polemic against the Catholic Church or the Papacy. The author hoped for some frank response from the Catholic side and it is here given by Father Karrer.

https://www.perpustakaankarmelindo.org/ ... &keywords=

Cullmann's Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, seemingly the 1963 English edition of his 1952, Petrus, Jünger, Apostel, Martyrer: das historische und das theologische Petrus-problem, is available in English at archive.org: https://archive.org/details/peterdiscipleapo0000cull

[MrMacSon]

This seemingly apologetic, Catholic page is interesting for its preservation of passages that give Peter primacy:
(edited slightly here)

... Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Mark 3:16-19, Matt. 10:1-4, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes it was only "Peter and his companions" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who spoke for the Apostles (Mark 8:29, Matt. 18:21, Luke 12:41, John 6:69), and he played a decisive role in many of the most dramatic scenes (Mark 10:28, Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24). It was Peter who first preached to the crowds on Pentecost (Acts 2: 14-40); Peter worked the first healing (Acts 3:6-7); and significantly, it was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be Baptized (Acts 10:46-48).

From the very onset of Christ calling the Apostles, Peter was shown to hold a preeminent position among them, although the signs were given gradually. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as Rock (John 1:42). The amazing thing was that in the Old Testament only God had called a rock, until now. The word was never used as a proper name for a man. So, the Apostles had to take note of this momentous event and ask why Peter for Simon, why give him as a name that had only been used for God before this?

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BESTOWAL OF NEW NAMES

It is an axiomatic truth that Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were His fellow Jews as a whole when it came to names. The bestowing of a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram was changed to Abraham (Gen. 17:5), Jacob to Israel (Gen. 32:28), as we have already taken note of. But no Jew had ever been called Rock because that was reserved to God. The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Barach [which means lightning but no Rock. In the New Testament James and John were surnamed Boanerges, Sons of Thunder, by Christ, but their original names remained in usage. However, Simon's new name supplanted the old.

No one of the Apostles complained of Simon being singled out for this honor because they understood at once and thus from that time on Simon is called by his new name while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.

When He first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him closely and said, Thou art Simon the son of Jonah; thou shalt be called Cephas (which means the same as Peter)" (John 1:42). Later, after Peter and the others had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi,. This was the place where Peter made his profession of faith: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16: 17). Jesus told him that this truth was especially revealed to him, and then He re-emphasized: "Thou art Peter" (Matt. 16:18). Then he gave the Divine promise that the Church that would be founded would, in some way, be founded on Peter (Matt. 16:18).

Now we must look at two very significant truths that were told to Peter. First, "Whatever thou shalt bind on earth shalt be bound in Heaven; whatever thou shalt loose on earth shalt be loosed in Heaven" (Matt. 16:19). There is no missing that Peter was designated the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. After a time the other Apostles would be given similar power, but here Peter received it in a special way. Second, Then Peter alone was promised something else. "I will give to thee [singular] the keys to the kingdom of Heaven" (Matt. 16: 1.9). In those days keys were the literal hallmark of authority as they are still somewhat symbolically today. Cities were walled, often with but one great gate and that gate one great lock worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city meant to be given ready access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. Keys are used elsewhere in the Bible such as in Isaiah 22: 22: "And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open." A foreshadowing of Peter and his authority.

When Jesus appeared to His disciples after the Resurrection, He asked Peter three times, "Dost thou love me?" (John 21:15-17). In expiation for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, Who is the Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14), gave Peter all the authority He earlier promised:--"Feed my sheep" (John 21:17) bringing the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives to full circle. Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, ³¹"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has claimed power over you all, so that he can sift you like wheat; ³²[but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and, when once you have turned again, [that] you strengthen your brothers]" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter that Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others, and His prayer, being perfectly infallible, was sure to be fulfilled.

http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradit ... imacy5.htm

[rgprice]

Thanks MrMacSon, very helpful.

Doe anyone know of an English version of the Spanish work mentioned above: J. L. Orella y Unzué, Respuestas católicas a las Centurias de Magdeburgo (1559-1588), 1976

[rgprice]

Also looking for the Magdeburg Centuries in English or at least the essay by Ulrich Velenus or commentaries on them.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdeburg_Centuries

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/ma ... ish.85650/

Can anyone at least locate these in German or Latin digitally, which can be translated?

Also, does anyone have access to this article: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rest.12642

I was able to find this book, which may be helpful: https://books.google.com/books/about/Ul ... RLEAAAQBAJ

[MrMacSon]

Also, does anyone have access to this article: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rest.12642

No, but clicking on the 'Citing Literature' tab gives two citations including -

• Talia Di Manno (2023) 'A New History of Christian Empire: Excavating Pope Sylvester’s Oratory, 1636' Religions 14(5): 616

- which is fully available here https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/14/5/616

1. Introduction

In 1632, workers dug up a metal, circular object with three points in a garden near the Lateran basilica in Rome (Filippini 1639, p. 51). The object was about five centimeters wide and had a cross inscribed on it. Inside were the words: “Sancto silvestro ancilla sua votum.” Antiquarians believed they had found the crown of Pope Sylvester (314–335), the “pope” who baptized the emperor Constantine according to Christian tradition ...

This article discusses how antiquarians used excavations under the church of San Martino in Monti (in whose gardens the crown was discovered), to show that Pope Sylvester exercised spiritual and temporal authority in ancient Rome .... texts sought to show that the archaeological site below the current church of San Martino in Monti had functioned as a primitive Christian worship site under Pope Sylvester before the baptism of Constantine, and that Sylvester had enlarged the church after Constantine’s conversion.

The site [known later as “The Oratory of Saint Sylvester”], and its association with Sylvester, has been shown to date to the patronage of Pope Symmachus in the sixth century. Its artwork, in turn, dates predominantly to the ninth century ...

Because the conclusions drawn about the oratory in the seventeenth century have not held up to archeo-historical critique, little work has been done to understand the ways it was discovered and interpreted, and their significance for our understanding of post-Tridentine Catholicism. I suggest, rather, that the discovery of the oratory illustrates how seventeenth-century Catholics sought new epistemologies to offer support for more nuanced histories of the early church. Antiquarians pointed to material evidence – the underground site and its objects – to argue that Sylvester wielded power in the ancient Roman world in a time when the traditional, textual source for the argument, the Donation of Constantine, was universally regarded as a forgery.

According to Catholic tradition, Pope Sylvester was the leader of the Roman church after Constantine’s victory over Maxentius in 312 and the legalization of Christianity with the Edict of Milan in 313 ...

There were three major early sources for the life of Sylvester, dated to between the end of the fourth and the sixth centuries. Already in the mid-fourth century Sylvester’s biography began to include details intended to enhance the Roman pope’s position by showing that Sylvester had baptized Constantine, and received special privileges ... [eg.] Actus Silvestri ... the Liber pontificalis ... the Constitutum Silvestri ...

According to the story developed (likely to credit Sylvester for the emperor’s conversion) between the late-fourth and early-fifth century, Constantine instated a persecution of Christians during the early years of Sylvester’s pontificate (314–335). Constantine contracted leprosy and, loath to follow the prescriptions of his priests to bathe in the blood of young children, dreamt that Peter and Paul instructed him to seek out the Christian pope. Constantine found Sylvester hiding outside Rome. Sylvester then catechized the emperor, assigned him a week of penance, and baptized him—healed of his leprosy—at the Lateran palace. The grateful emperor built the basilica of Saint John Lateran, as well as other cemetery churches. Sylvester was therefore given a special position in the history of the early church as marking the transition from pagan to Christian empire.

In the eighth century an apocryphal document called the Donation of Constantine, or the Constitutum Constantini, claimed that after being baptized, Constantine gave Sylvester supremacy over Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Antioch. He also gave the Roman pope control over all the regions of the western empire. The story of Constantine’s conversion by Sylvester then became a symbol for papal pre-eminence ... In the thirteenth century, for example, images of the story of Sylvester and Constantine were painted in a chapel dedicated to Sylvester at the church of Santi Quattro Coronati in the heat of conflicts between Pope Innocent IV and Frederick II. Sylvester’s story remained popular throughout the Middle Ages because it provided a historical justification for the spiritual and temporal ambitions of the papacy; Sylvester was the spiritual leader of a Catholic empire over which the emperor (Constantine) had given him temporal control.

2. The Early Modern Revival of Pope Sylvester

... Around the year 1444, the humanist Lorenzo Valla used his skills as a Latin philologist to show that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery likely created in the eighth century. Valla’s treatise, published in 1517, was popular among the Protestant Reformers for whom it became a symbol of the triumph of textual criticism over tradition, and the corruption of the Catholic Church. John Calvin used it to refute the Catholic tradition of papal primacy in his Institutes ...

The Magdeburg Centuries, the history of the church developed by a group of Protestants in the mid-sixteenth century, regarded the forging of the Donation as a crucial moment when the Roman Catholic church diverged from its apostolic roots to follow corrupt, temporal concerns.

Valla’s refutation of the Donation of Constantine is commonly understood as symbolic for three early modern paradigms: the shift from the tradition-based authority of the church to the individual, text-based knowledge of the humanists; the eventual fragmentation of Christendom; and the disentanglement of the Roman church from the politics of increasingly powerful European rulers ...

In the following pages I will qualify this narrative by showing that Catholics sought new evidence that might buttress Sylvester’s historical-political position of privilege (and therefore the tradition that the Roman pope had imperially-sanctioned power) by bypassing the necessity of the forged Donation. Confessional historians such as Cesare Baronio (described in more detail below) acknowledged that the Donation was inauthentic, but this did not mean that historical-devotional interest in Sylvester died out. In contrast, interest increased in the post-Tridentine period in the texts and sites associated with Sylvester.

At the beginning of the seventeenth century, efforts to rewrite Sylvester’s story linked a careful rereading of Sylvester’s biography in the textual record to Rome’s topography. The Actus Silvestri, Constitutum Silvestri, and Liber pontificalis contained (apocryphal) details about Sylvester’s life that were resurrected at the beginning of the seventeenth century.

According to the Liber pontificalis Sylvester built a church out of land near the Baths of Domitian donated to him by a Christian named Equitius after Constantine’s conversion:

“He built a church in the city of Rome, in the garden of one of his parish priests who was called Equitius, and he appointed it as a titular church of Rome, near the baths of Domitian, and even unto this day it is called the church of Equitius.”

Subsequent editions also substituted the baths of Domitian for the baths of Trajan, which were a supplement to the baths of Titus. We lack sources from the time of Sylvester (314–355) until the rule of Pope Symmachus (498–514) that describe the founding of a church on the property of the family Equitius, or that list the titulus Equitii in catalogs before the time of Symmachus.

4. Conclusions [in part]

... the case study illustrates two important facts about early modern Catholicism. The first is that there was no “universal” history of the early church.

It is commonly accepted that Cardinal Baronio’s Annalesa was the principal source of Roman Catholic history in the post-Tridentine period (Roncalli 1961; Caraffa 1963; Jedin 1978). In many respects, this view is appropriate in the Roman context because Rome’s guidebooks borrowed vociferously from the Annales, and Baronio was regarded as the authority in questions of Church history. In recent years, scholars have examined local histories and liturgies across Catholic Europe to challenge the “universal” scope of Roman history (Ditchfield 2002; Harris 2007; Olds 2015).

My research suggests that even in the city of Rome antiquarians and patrons debated—according to the discovery and interpretation of textual and material evidence—the details of saints’ lives offered by Baronio. Roman Catholic historiography of the early church was therefore dynamic rather than static. What was more, the reach of these stories was primarily local. Stories were published in Rome primarily in the vernacular, and likely stayed for the most part in Rome. San Martino in Monti is a case in point; despite grand claims made about it, the story did not expand beyond local guidebooks and Filippini’s printed text in Italian.

Second, confessional historiography in Rome experienced a “material” shift in the first half of the seventeenth century. This case study was just one among many such cases in Rome in which archaeological evidence was used to ground the stories of early pontiffs,
martyrs, house churches, matrons, and patrons in topographical details that often went beyond the traditional textual narrative ...

---

a From earlier in the article:
"Baronio’s Annales ecclesiastici (1588 to 1607) is widely known as the confessional response to the Protestant historical critique of the church laid out in the Magdeburg centuries (Pullapilly 1975; Gulia 2009; Zen 2010; Bollbuck 2021, pp. 28–37). Baronio acknowledged that the Donation was a forgery, and sought to show that the Donation did not provide the fundamental basis for papal primacy by turning to other documents that 'demonstrated' the special privileges of the Roman pontiff."

There's also this/these https://www.britannica.com/topic/Centur ... eburgenses