Lorenzo Valla and the Donation of Constantine in Historical Context, 1439–40

Lorenzo Valla’s refutation (1440) of the forgery The Donation of Constantine (ca. 757-800) has been variously interpreted as a rhetorical and philological exercise, an attack on papal temporal power in general or the Papal States in particular, an invective against Pope Eugenius IV, an apology for Alfonso V, a proposal for clerical reform, a satire on the clergy, a defense of the Council of Basel. But little attention has been given to the role of Emperor Frederick III in Valla’s implied suggestions for the improvement of circumstances in warring Italy. It is argued here that Valla wrote the Declaration in part to encourage greater imperial involvement in the papal schism and especially in the affairs of Italy and the City of Rome. The Donation of Constantine is the most influential forgery in Western history. Lorenzo Valla’s refutation of the document is the most famous debunking of any literary fraud. The renown of the humanist’s Discourse stems from the historical fact that it was the first systematic refutation of the Donation of Constantine, itself widely cited in 1200–1400. Although the Donation was probably composed in the second half of the eighth century, it did not become the subject of intense discussion until the twelfth century, when it was cited by the defenders of the pope’s claim to crown German kings (after being elected Kings of the Romans) with the title of Emperor of the Romans and retain some degree of control of the emperor and the empire. By the time of Popes Innocent III and IV, the Donation’s claims were extended to the Papal States and the pope’s temporal authority in general, particularly in the right to intervene indirectly in imperial elections and jurisdiction. According to some modern scholars, by the time of Lorenzo Valla, the Donation was not taken very seriously, although Valla thought—or pretended to think—otherwise. In general, the past century of scholarly investigation of Valla’s Discourse has concentrated more on his literary technique—his use of rhetoric and philology—than on his attempt to make his rebuttals relevant to his own day. (He seems to have written the bulk of the Discourse in April-May 1440, although he may have started the work in late 1439.) Much less attention has been given to the historical context of the writing of the Discourse, except to note Valla’s apparent support of the Council of Basel, Pope Felix V, and, above all, his antagonism to Pope Eugenius IV. In particular, Valla’s defense, often unstated in the Discourse, for King Alfonso V of Aragon, the nemesis of Eugenius IV, is emphasized. At times the references in modern Lorenzo Valla and the Donation of Constantine 2 studies to contemporary events are merely recited, as if the connections with Valla’s comments are self-evident. Modern historians often praise the Donation as a compelling work which definitively demolished the counterfeit document. In fact, the piece is sometimes a rambling collage of disparate arguments only loosely connected. The odd choice of formula—a quasicourtroom dialogue held at royal courts—seems to support those modern critics who emphasize the Discourse as largely a rhetorical exercise, albeit replete with contemporary allusions. Perhaps the reason for the unwieldy, composite character of the work is that Valla wrote it for several reasons and for several audiences. In the opinion of the present author, some of the misunderstandings of the treatise are the result of focusing too narrowly on the antipapal rhetoric and not enough on the German emperor. By neglecting the latter, the reader may be misled by Valla’s use of the literary device of the “straw man,” especially Pope Eugenius IV, who must be assessed within the context of the time Valla was writing. This concentration on Eugenius is understandable, since Valla himself virtually ignores contemporary emperors (Frederick III is not even mentioned) or near contemporaries (Albert II is missing; Sigismund III is mentioned just once) This is not, of course, to suggest that the Discourse is a tract on empire or that it is primarily a reform proposal for the ills of society. The work is, after all, about an event (or non-event, since Constantine, Valla assures us, never made such a donatio) and its subsequent evil effects. Hence Constantine and Pope Sylvester get more attention, with allusions to later emperors and pontiffs, only to show how naively uncritical they could be in accepting the Donation’s genuineness. Strangely, Valla does not speculate on the circumstances of the forgery itself, except to imply that it was made some centuries after the time of the first Christian emperor. The role of the Western emperor in 1440, however, was of great concern to Valla, who, it is argued here, placed more hope in the new emperor than in his patron, Alfonso V of Aragon, to restore sanity to Christendom. The Discourse is not, to be sure, a reform program or a speculum principum for Frederick III. The Discourse is a difficult work to assess as a historical source not only because of the relative paucity of references to external events, but also because of Valla’s too few allusions to contemporary circumstances in his other writings, including his letters. Holy Roman Empire and Italy, 1436–39 Valla in fact wrote the Discourse in part, we contend, to induce Frederick III and his supporters to intervene in Italy. Our humanist—never the optimist—did not envision imperial troops marching over the Alps. Those days were gone. Rather, he sought to convince Frederick—who seemed to be content with the neutrality of his Electors—and Italian leaders that a greater role for the emperor (as yet uncrowned) was required to resolve the conflicts in Italy. For Valla the settlement of the Basel-Vatican standoff was but a means to an end. He envisioned Frederick and Eugenius working together to achieve peace south of the Alps. Valla wrote the Discourse partially to promote the short-term gain of restraining the expansionist impulses of Filippo Maria