Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

DONATION OF CONSTANTINE (Donatio Cons...

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V08, Page 410 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
» Make a correction to this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

DONATION OF See also:

CONSTANTINE (Donatio Constantini) , the supposed See also:grant by the See also:emperor Constantine, in gratitude for'his See also:conversion by See also:Pope See also:Silvester, to that pope and his successors for ever, not only of spiritual supremacy over the other See also:great patriarchates and over all matters of faith and See also:worship, but also of temporal dominion over See also:Rome, See also: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 See also:time between the See also:middle and end of the 8th See also:century, was included in the 9th century in the collection known as the False See also:Decretals, two centuries later was incorporated in the Decretum by a See also:pupil of See also:Gratian, and in See also:Gibbon's See also:day was still " enrolled among the decrees of the See also:canon See also:law," though already rejected " by the tacit or modest censure of the See also:advocates of the See also:Roman See also:church." It is now universally admitted to be a See also:gross See also:forgery.' In spite, however, of Gibbon's characteristic See also:scepticism on this point, it is certain that the Constitutum was regarded as genuine both by the See also: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 loth centuries, it was quoted as authoritative by eminent ecclesiastics of the Frankish See also:empire (e.g. by See also:Ado of See also:Vienne and See also:Hincmar of See also:Reims), and it was employed by two Frankish popes, See also:Gregory V. and Silvester II., in urging certain territorial claims. But not till 1o5o was it made the basis of the larger papal claims, when another Frankish pope, See also: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 See also:powers. It is, however, as See also:Cardinal See also:Hergenrother points out, possible to exaggerate its importance in this respect; a See also:charter purporting to be a grant by an emperor to a pope of spiritual as well as temporal See also:jurisdiction was at best a See also:double-edged weapon; and the popes generally preferred to See also:base their claim to universal See also:sovereignty on their See also:direct See also:commission as vicars of See also:God. By the partisans of the Empire, on the other See also:hand, the Donation was looked upon as the f ons et origo malorum, and Constantine was regarded as having, in his new-See also:born zeal, betrayed his imperial See also:trust. The expression of this See also:opinion is not uncommon in See also:medieval literature (e.g.See also:Walther von derVogelweide, See also:Pfeiffer's edition, 188o, Nos. 85 and 164), the most famous instance being in the Inferno of See also:Dante ()See also:fix. 115): " Ahi, Costantin, di questo mal fu matre Non la tua conversion, ma quella dote Che da to prese it primo ricco patre ! " The genuineness of the Constitutum was first critically assailed by See also:Laurentius See also:Valla in 1440, whose De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione declamatio opened a controversy that lasted until, at the See also:close of the 18th century, the See also:defence was silenced. In See also: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 See also:place of origin.

The efforts of Roman See also:

Catholic scholars have been directed (since See also:Baronius ascribed the forgery to the Greeks) to proving that the See also:fraud was not committed at Rome. Thus Cardinal Hergenrother holds that it was written by a See also:Frank in the 9th century, in See also:order to prove that the Greeks had been rightfully expelled from Italy and that See also:Charlemagne was legitimate emperor. This view, with See also:variations, was maintained by the writer of an See also:article in the Civilta catlolica in 1864 (Serie v. vol. x. pp. 303, &e.) and supported by Grauert, who maintains that the document was concocted at the See also:abbey of St See also:Denis, after 84o. The See also: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 Dellinger among others,3 that the Constitutum is referred to in ' Dr See also:Hodgkin's See also:suggestion (Italy and her Invaders, vii. p. 153) that the Constitutum may have been originally a See also:mere pious See also: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 See also:critical See also:analysis of the See also:text. 2 Leo of See also:Vercelli, the emperor See also:Otto III.'s See also:chancellor, protested that the Constitutum was a forgery, but without effect. The attacks upon it by the heretical followers of See also:Arnold .of See also:Brescia (1152) convinced neither the partisans of the pope nor those of the emperor. 2 So See also:Langen (1883) and E. See also:Mayer (1904).the See also:letter of Pope See also:Adrian I. to Charlemagne (778), is now indeed largely rejected; there is nothing in the letter to make such an See also:assumption safe, and the same must be said of See also:Friedrich's See also:attempt to find such reference in the letter addressed in 785 by the same pope to Constantine VI., emperor of the See also:East, and his See also:mother See also:Irene. Still less safe is it to ascribe the authorship of the forgery to any particular pope on the ground of its See also:style; for papal letters were See also:drawn up in the papal See also:chancery and the style employed there was See also:apt to persist through several pontificates.

Friedrich's theory that the Constitutum is a composite document, See also:

part written in the 7th century, part added by See also:Paul I. when a See also:deacon under See also:Stephen IL, though supported by a See also:wealth of learning, has been torn to tatters by more than one critic (G. See also:Kruger, L. Loening). On one point, however, a See also:fair amount of agreement seems now to have been reached, a result due to the labour in collating documents of See also:Scheffer-Boichorst, namely, that the style of the Constitutum is generally that of the papal chancery in the latter See also:half of the 8th century. This being granted, there is See also:room for plentiful See also:speculation as to where and why it was concocted. We may still hold the opinion of Dellinger that it was intended to impress• the See also:barbarian See also:Pippin and justify in his eyes the Frank intervention in favour of the pope in Italy; or we may See also:share the view of Loening (rejected by See also:Brunner, Rechtsgeschichte) that the forgery was a pious fraud on the part of a cleric of the See also:Curia, committed under Adrian I.,' with the See also: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 See also: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. See also:Dollinger's view is supported and carried a step further by H. See also:Bohmer, who by an ingenious See also:argument endeavours to prove that the Constitutum was forged in 753, probably by the See also:notary See also:Christophorus, and was carried with him by Pope Stephen II. to the See also:court of Pippin, in 754, with an See also: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 See also:winter months of 754.

E. Mayer, on the other hand, denies that the Constitutum can have been forged before the See also:

news of the iconoclastic decrees of the See also:council of See also:Constantinople of 754 had reached Rome. He See also:lays stress on the relation of the supposed See also: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 See also:synod of Gentilly in 767 to detach Pippin from the cause of Rome and the See also:holy images. The forgery thus had a double See also:object: as a weapon against See also:Byzantine See also:heresy and as a defence of the papal patrimony. As the result of an exhaustive analysis of the text and of the See also: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 See also:reverse the policy by which in 774 he had confirmed the See also:possession of the duchies of See also:Spoleto and See also:Benevento to the pope. ' This is also W. Mayer's view in his later See also:work. In his See also:Die romische Frage (1881) he had placed the forgery in 805 or 806. Forschungen caber die Konst. Schenkung," i. ii. (Mitteilungen See also:des Instituts See also:fur osterr. Geschichtsforschung, x.

(1889), xi. (1890);. G. Kruger, " Die Frage der Entstehungszeit der Konst. Schenkung," in Theologische Literat+srzeitung, xiv. (1889); J. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, vol. vii. p. 135 (See also:

Oxford, 1899) ; article Konstantinische Schenkung," G. H. Bohmer, in See also:Herzog-Hauck, Realencykl. (1902); E. Mayer, " Die Schenkungen Konstantins and Pipins " in Deutsche Zeitschr. fur Kirchenrecht (See also:Tubingen, 1904).

Laurentius Valla's See also:

treatise was issued in a new edition, With See also:French See also:translation and See also:historical introduction, by A. Bonneau, La Donation de Constantin (See also:Lisieux, 1879). (W. A.

End of Article: DONATION OF CONSTANTINE (Donatio Constantini)

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML.
Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.

Links to articles and home page are always encouraged.

[back]
DONATIO MORTIS CAUSA (grant in case of death) 		[next]
DONATISTS

Site © 2006 - Net Industries