Talk:Donation of Constantine

Byzantines
What is the source for the notion that this was forged to protect Papal interest against the "ByzantinesItalic 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 Now, admittedly the public domain Catholic Encyclopedia is rather out of date and there may have been new research on the subject.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. [|here]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.32.5.229 (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What's this article about?
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: [] 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)
 * Thanks for your question. Perhaps this is what you missed, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5, 119: "Constantine, the document continues, rendered to the pope the service of a strator, i.e. he led the horse upon which the pope rode. Moreover, the emperor makes a present to the pope and his successors of the Lateran palace, of Rome and the provinces, districts, and towns of Italy and all the Western regions (tam palatium nostrum, ut prelatum est, quamque Romæ urbis et omnes Italiæ seu occidentalium regionum provincias loca et civitates). The document goes on to say that for himself the emperor has established in the East a new capital which bears his name, and thither he removes his government, since it is inconvenient that a secular emperor have power where God has established the residence of the head of the Christian religion. The document concludes with maledictions against all who dare to violate these donations and with the assurance that the emperor has signed them with his own hand and placed them on the tomb of St. Peter." That should be sufficient, but there's more, and I'll track it down. This reference is cited in the Free Inquiry article but not specifically quoted. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a word in this about ninth-century Catholic soldiers under papal command doing anything! Still less about them taking the city of Rome (ruled by the popes since the previous century) from "Italy", to which it would be "returned" in the nineteenth century.  Your quotation mentions the Lateran, which was the papal residence for most of the history of the papacy, but not the Vatican, which became the papal residence only in 1377.  Must your insertion be simply deleted from Wikipedia?  Esoglou (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that simply a description of what the document says? There's no suggestion that it was invoked by Catholic soldiers to justify claiming the city of Rome. That same article you're quoting also says:
 * "At Rome no use was made of the document during the ninth and the tenth centuries, not even amid the conflicts and difficulties of Nicholas I with Constantinople, when it might have served as a welcome argument for the claims of the pope. The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood."
 * DoctorKubla (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately all my books (including that issue of Free Inquiry) are boxed up right now, moving to a new home, and won't be delivered for another week. I have removed the "ninth century" claim from the WP article, and once I find the proper citation I'll restore it with proper footnotes. Thank you for your research and cooperation and patience.Geĸrίtzl (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Pope Paul I as alleged forger of the document
An editor says that unspecified "scholars" have pointed to Paul, younger brother of Pope Stephen II, as likely to be the forger of the Donation document ("a likely suspect"). As source for this statement, he cites an unspecified part of the 1922 book by Christopher B. Coleman, The Treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of Constantine. What seems to be an extract from the same book given here does not support the statement. In the extract, Coleman does not attribute the forgery to Paul himself. He says the style of the document recalls that of the chancellery of Pope Stephen and, "more particularly", of Pope Paul I, and adds: "In short, the language of the Donation seems to point to the papal chancellery as the place of its origin, and the pontificate of Paul I (757-767) as the most probable time." Coleman says nothing of the view of "scholars" (plural), but only gives his own view, declaring it most probable that the forgery belongs to Paul's papacy, not to when he was only the younger brother of Pope Stephen. Coleman says "it may well have been under (Pope Paul I's) influence that this document came into existence" - not that Paul himself forged it either before or after becoming pope. If the extract is indeed from the book given as basis for the statement inserted into the article, as it seems to be, the statement requires revision. Esoglou (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The above comment suggests incorrectly that Coleman points only to the time of Paul's papacy, and not to Paul as an individual as the perpetrator. In fact, Coleman writes here "The first part of #4 [of the Donation] is very similar to part of a letter of Paul I's in 757" (page 7). Clearly Coleman mentions this by way of suggesting that the author of the Donation and of Paul's letter were the same person. Assuming that Paul wrote his own letter, this means that Coleman is putting this similarity forward as evidence that Paul may himself have been the writer of the Donation -- which is also consistent with Paul's personal devotion to Sylvester, as mentioned by Coleman on page 8.Herbsttag (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Herbsttag, please cease and desist from adding trivia about a recent novel to this article. It is undue. See WP:UNDUE, thanks. Note that it is irrelevant what material other articles may contain. Numerous articles contain inappropriate or trivial material that should be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * FreeKnowledgeCreator, your "cease and desist" message is a legalism intended to represent yourself as some kind of Wikipedia overlord, which I don't believe exists. You say that my post is "undue" and refer to the entry on due and undue weight. That paragraph concerns itself only with undue ideas or theories, such as the idea that the Earth is flat. My edit contains no ideas or theories but simply mentions a recent book that treats the Donation in a fictional mannner. If you think this is inappropriate you are out of line with huge numbers of wikipedia editors who add relevant mentions of literary or artistic treatments of historical persons or events -- entries that are not deleted and that, I'm guessing, many Wikipedia users find interesting and useful. Particularly so with a topic like the Donation, which up until now has been an arcane topic discussed only by medievalists. If you're a medievalist yourself with an interest in the Donation, then I'd think you'd also be interested by LeVay's effort to bring the topic to the attention to a wider audience.Herbsttag (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken in your understanding of the principle of due weight. It covers all article content. I will be removing the reference you added to a novel, since it is trivial and inappropriate. Please don't edit war to restore that material. You are the editor who wants to include it, and it's up to you to establish a consensus in its favor. If you can't do that, it stays out. Note that WP:NPOV states that, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." A novel is not a reliable source, and the views of its author don't count as significant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * FreeKnowledgeCreator, NPOV has to do with value judgments, not with which facts to include. That's made clear by the five stated principles for achieving NPOV: 1) Avoid stating opinions as facts. (My edit states no opinions.) 2) Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. (You haven't contested that my edit is factually correct.) 3) Avoid stating facts as opinions. (My edit doesn't do that.) 4) Prefer non-judgmental language. (My edit doesn't express any judgments.) 5) Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. (My edit doesn't express any views. Stating that a fictional work lays out a certain plot is not espousing the view that this plot corresponds to historical reality.) Besides the issue of NPOV, you say that the edit is trivial and that I need to establish a consensus that it should be there. But the idea that the edit is trivial is your value judgment. I haven't heard that an editor needs to establish a consensus in favor of his or her edits, any more than an editor needs to establish a consensus to remove an edit. Consensus is the ideal, yes, but in the absence of consensus your personal judgments as to the triviality of edits (absent any factual inaccuracies) should not sufficient grounds for removing them. If you look at entries for notable persons (e.g. Constantine, Charlemagne) you'll see that they include cultural references such as fictional treatments, and the same is true for notable events. In fact, some events, such as the Battle of Waterloo, have so many cultural references that they are farmed off into a separate entry. (Obviously that's not appropriate in the case of the Donation.) I'm not going to continue a playground edit war, but I ask you to reconsider your reasons for removing this edit.98.154.238.18 (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I stand by my position that the content you wish to include is trivial and inappropriate. I hope you are not seriously contesting the principle that some content might be trivial and inappropriate for articles, and therefore undeserving of inclusion. It would be impossible to edit at all if one did not accept that principle. Plainly, editors must use their judgment about what is trivial and what is not. In cases of disagreement, consensus is certainly necessary to include material: WP:CONSENSUS. You clearly don't have consensus at present. You are welcome to try to establish consensus for your edits if you wish. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that you're mistaken when you say that "[I] don't have consensus at present." According to the page WP:Don't revert solely due to "no consensus" "Consensus is not unanimity, and is thus not canceled by one editor's objection." I'm not aware that any other editor supports your position: The only other editor who has weighed in, Esoglou, shortened my entry and placed it under a separate heading (which I think was an appropriate edit), but s/he did not suggest that it was inappropriate on account of triviality. You've cited several WP pages WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:CONSENSUS, but none of them provide justification for reverting my edit.98.154.238.18 (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that removing material on grounds of triviality is indeed permitted by Wikipedia's policies. You certainly seem to have a way of interpreting everything so that it supports your position, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * User at IP 98.154, I put your edit under the heading "In fiction" because I did not want to impose my sole opinion against your insistence on having this trivial unscholarly information in the article. It is no longer my sole opinion.  I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator.  Get even one editor to agree with you before you again insert matter on the basis of your sole opinion of its suitability.  Esoglou (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Esoglou, I respect your and FreeknowledgeCreator's opinions and I won't repost the edit unless legions of editors come to my defense. I do think you're mistaken, however. If by "scholarly" you mean "accurate" I agree with you 100%. But I suspect you mean "academic", and that is not a criterion that Wikipedia holds to -- if it did, few people would be qualified to edit it and even fewer would be interested in reading it. BTW, is there some kind of record for the ratio of talk to text that we may have broken? :)Herbsttag (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

= Donation of Constantine = Should it be named the Pseudo-Donation of Constantine since it's not geniune? [user:uknown]
 * I hope to prove soon, that The Donation of Constantine, was indeed a truth, and not a forgery as someone stated. philipofBVMPhilipofBVM (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC) PhilipofBVM (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)+

Good. When you've finished that you can set about squaring the circle and inventing a perpetual motion machine.

The Historical "Donation of Constantine"
Reading through Eusebius, one sees that Constantine did restore a number of churches and properties that had been confiscated from the Church. It may be helpful to include in this article what was actually given by Constantine to the Church (as testified by historical witness) in order to contrast it with the contents of the document to which this article pertains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.101.92.14 (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

= Baronius Citation = Does anyone know which volume of the Annals contains the forgery denunciation of the Donation? There are well over 10 volumes, so narrowing down the citation would be useful. Sylvesterjay (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)