Talk:Donation of Constantine

Byzantines

What is the source for the notion that this was forged to protect Papal interest against the "Byzantines'Italic text"? True, it was first used by the Papacy in its arguments against Patriarch Michael Cerularius in 1054 and the events surrounding that schism, but it was already a couple of centuries old by then. There's no hint among the competing theoris as to its origin in the Catholic Encyclopedia of it having been composed for this purpose. Now, admittedly the public domain Catholic Encyclopedia is rather out of date and there may have been new research on the subject. If that's the case, where can we read about it? TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The Donation was issued exactly when the Pope first began claiming autonomous ecclesiastical authority over the Church of Rome as well as Italy. See the second section of Byzantine Empire article. The sudden crowning of Charlemagne in 800 as well as the disputes with Byzantium over the issue of Roman imperial authority primary papal interests, that the Donation legitimized. The Holy Roman Empire and the Frankish kings allied with the Pope to enforce it. Colossus 13:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, but can you point us to an independent source? See, the problem is that the Papacy didn't actually use the document in the 9th century, but waited until the disputes of the 11th. That's quite a span of time. If you have credible information sources that say differently, please cite them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

But how are you so certain that it wasnt used before the Schism? I'm not a specialist but I find it difficult to believe they forged it in the 8th century without reason and then left it on a dusty shelf for 2 centuries before they actually used it. I'm not aware of any sources stating excplicitly that it was not used prior to the Schizm, but a quick search in Google suggests that the dispute between Byzantium, the Pope and Charlemagne was the motive behind the forgery. These are some sites from a Google search:

• http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.html
• http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/donation.html
• http://www.baronyofvatavia.org/articles/medcul/donation032002as36.php
• http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/donation_of_const.htm Colossus 21:34, :10 August 2005 (UTC)

The first of these is simply the text of the document, and there's nothing in the rest that can really justify such a definitive statement as you've made here. There's at least as good a chance that it was made by some Frankish cleric as Roman since it was they who first quoted it, and however it was later employed Rome did not use it in the disputes involving Charlemagne. (In fact, it seems to have been written to back up some land grants from Pepin a generation earlier.) The Catholic Encyclopedia article actually does a pretty good job of presenting all sides of the argument over its exact origin. (No possibility is mentioned there of the document being genuine.) It is not at all a simple problem. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

But the grants from [[Pepin]] are part of the dispute with Byzantines. The Pope allied with Pepin in hope that Byzantine influence in Italy can be appeased, and in fact, had him named Patrician for his services, a precursor to Rome's policy to Charlemagne and his successors later on. Here's a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia showing that at worst its still a possibility:

"The writers mentioned have shown that the chief aim of the forgery was to prove the justice of the translatio imperii to the Franks, i.e. the transfer of the imperial title at the coronation of Charlemagne in 800." The coronation of Charlemgne was part of a longer lasting conflict on the translatio imperii that continued with his successors, and all of the above sites I posted accept if not as fact, at least as a possibility. Colossus 09:35, :11 August 2005 (UTC)

That's right, but that means the document was intended to bolster the claims of the Carolingians, not the Papacy as you wrote, and goes further to support a Frankish rather than a Roman origin. Furthermore, it's just one possibility among several for the original purpose of the document. I have no objection to it being mentioned, but if it's going to be brought up at all I think it should be discussed more fully. I'll see if I'm able to devote any attention to it over the next week or so. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

But the Carolingians had no claims over Italy or Byzantium, and were interested in the Donation only to the extent that it sustained an alliance with the Pope. For the Pope on the other hand, Byzantine presense in southern Italy, political and ecclesiastical, constested Rome's presence in the region and undermined his authority. The Donation provided a theoretical alibi for the Pope, but required material backing that the Carolingians were willing to provide. I'm not aware of any other reason that may have motivated its conception. Colossus 01:24, :12 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a plausible theory. If there was ever any evidence that the Papacy used it in this way, I'd agree with you. But there isn't. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Its better than the alternate - that it remained on a shelf for 300 years until 1054. Colossus 22:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, when facts conflict with theories, it's the facts that must prevail no matter how attractive the theory is. The fact is that the Papacy did not use this document until 1054. Others may have, but not the Pope, and to advance Carolingian claims and not the Papacy's. All the sources agree on this fact, and the article should reflect that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Just because the earliest surviving record in our possesion dates from 1054 doesnt mean the earliest use of the forgery by the papacy dated from that time also. The middle ages is an era of relative poorness in data keeping and often historians have to draw conclusions from incomplete records. The dispute between Byzantines and the Pope over Italy isnt just a theory. Its a fact. And its too much of a coincidence that when the forgery was conceived at the same time the Byzantines got into a conflict with Rome over exactly the matters discussed in the Donation. 300 idle years is too much to neglect on the grounds of lack of evidence and conveniently accept 1054. Besides, most sources agree that the donation was used earlier despite the lack of hard evidence. Anyway, feel free to edit the main article. I just think that dismissing the years between the 8th and 11th century in any conclusion due to insufficient recording is wrong. Colossus 22:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how you could interpret either me here or the available sources to as if they were saying the document "sat on a shelf" for 300 years. No one said the document went unused, only that the Papacy made no use of it. Yes it was used, but not by the Pope and not for the reasons you give: on that the sources all agree. And yes, it was probably in a dispute with the "Byzantines", and yes, over the Imperial titles to which the Carolingians had no rights, strictly speaking. All this militates much more strongly toward the Franks than to Rome. The sources all agree on that too.

As I said, you have an interesting theory, but as you present it here it's both speculative and falls under the rubric of original research which ought not be here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

First usage of the Donation

According to Norman Cantor, the first record of and the first usage of the Donation is in the 750's. It was presented by the Pope to Pepin III to legitimize the Pope's coronation of Pepin to replace the Merengovian kings. The Papacy hoped to thus establish the doctrine that earthly kings were subject to the approval or approbation of the Church. The Donation of Pepin (the land claims discussed earlier) were payback from Pepin to the Papacy for placing him on a throne he had no legitimate claim to under the doctrine of personal inheritance that was then the norm. Elde 07:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Nicolaus Cusanus

I think Ncholas of Cusa should be named as well for giving the first philologic arguments which showed that it was a falsification (see e.g. [[1]]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.32.5.229 (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What's this article about?

Resolved

Generally an encyclopedia article gives more than an offhand clue what the article is about within the first paragraph, the lead section or the first sentence. Reading just the first paragraph of this article the reader will take away nothing about what was forged. Please, if you are en editor of this article, at least give the reader information about what was forged in the first paragraph. It's actually important. --KP Botany (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Vatican took Rome in 9th century!

A claim was posted in the article on 19 October 2012 that, "using the forged document as their authority, Catholic soldiers under papal command claimed Rome for the Vatican in the ninth century, and the city 'was not returned to Italy until the nineteenth century.'" Would the poster please explain what historical 9th-century event this is supposed to refer to. In the previous century, the city of Rome remained part of the Byzantine Empire (capital Constantinople) even when the Lombard Aistulf took Ravenna, the capital of the Byzantine exarchate in Italy, in 751. Soon after, Frankish troops, under the command of Pepin the Short (not "under papal command"), defeated the Lombards and founded the Papal States, which lasted until the 19th century. And this was still the 8th century. So what was the 9th-century event by which the city of Rome is supposed to have been then taken from "Italy" and "returned to Italy" in the 19th century? Besides, the Vatican was not the papal residence in the 9th century. Esoglou (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

See the original Free Inquiry article cited, as well as Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 8, 234 ("...finally, on 20 September, 1870, Rome, having been taken by force of arms, declared its union with the Kingdom of Italy...") in its article on Italy, also available online: [[2]] Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing -- "Not until 20 September, 1870, was Rome taken from the popes and made the actual capital of the Kingdom of Italy" (Catholic Encyclopedia vol. 13, 169). Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this struck me as a little odd as well. I've asked User:Gekritzl to comment. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Gladly. Refer to the Free Inquiry article cited, which you can get at the library, or go to Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5, 118-119, which is available in print at university libraries, and most of which is also on the internet, see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm which says "This document [the "Donation"] is without doubt a forgery, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850..." and "As early as the 15th century its falsity was known and demonstrated... its genuineness was yet occasionally defended, and the document still further used as authentic..." Geĸrίtzl (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That's ok, but where does it say that the Vatican used it to take Rome and didn't return it until the 19th century?Farsight001 (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

See above, Catholic Encyclopedia reference, vol. 8, 234.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)

Gekritzl, please quote the words with which, you say, the Catholic Encyclopedia declares that, "using the forged document as their authority, Catholic soldiers under papal command claimed Rome for the Vatican in the ninth century". I can't find that statement where you claim it exists. Nobody doubts that Rome became part of the Kingdom of Italy in 1870, but it is a curious claim to say that this was a "return", since the entity from which the city was taken and placed under papal sovereignty (in the 8th, not the 9th century) was the Byzantine Empire

In view of your ability to see in the Catholic Encyclopedia article what I cannot see, I must ask you also to quote the words with which, you say, Michael B. Paulkovich makes the same declaration. Esoglou (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)