The Donation of Constantine is one of the most famous forgeries of the Middle Ages, used for centuries to justify sweeping claims of Church authority. Yet in a medieval world where truth, power, and legitimacy were understood differently, the document’s influence was far more complex than a simple act of deception.
By Jo’anne van Ooijen
If the myth of Emperor Constantine’s Donation were to be uncovered today, the headlines all over social media would be, “Fake news exposed!” And this time, they would be right on the mark. Or would they? Just like today, medieval views on what is fact, what is truth, and what is fake are not always as straightforward as they would seem.
The myth of the Donation of Constantine was spread widely throughout the medieval European world. Its claim to authenticity was backed up by a forged manuscript, allegedly drawn up and signed by the Roman emperor Constantine the Great in the fourth century. In the manuscript, Constantine bestowed authority, privileges, and possessions upon the Roman Church. It provided legitimisation for the popes of Rome’s claim to near-imperial powers. The content of the Donation was invoked in the power struggles between the Church and various worldly powers, as well as between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Claims based on the Donation were put forward in the dispute that led to the East–West Schism of 1054.
A Transfer of Gratitude?
A 9th century copy of the Donation of Constantine as part of the False Decretals by Pseudo-Isidore. The heading in red reads “Epistola Constantini Imperator ad Silvestrum Papam,” or “Letter of Emperor Constantine to Pope Sylvester.” – St. Gallen Stiftbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 670
What would have persuaded Constantine, the Roman emperor from 306 to 337, to transfer that much power? In the first part of the manuscript, Constantine explains how he was introduced to Christianity by Pope Sylvester I (314–35). This account is based on the Acts of St. Sylvester (the Acta or Gesta Sylvestri), which relates how Constantine, desperate to be cured from leprosy, was instructed by Peter and Paul in a dream to turn to Pope Sylvester for help. Sylvester baptised Constantine and, by doing so, miraculously healed him. This was supposed to make plausible the second part of the document, which constitutes the actual grant or Donatio Constantini.
In gratitude for his conversion, baptism, and cure, Constantine confers upon the Roman Catholic Church supremacy over the four Orthodox patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople (which were in effect independent), together with supremacy over all churches and many worldly possessions. To Sylvester and his successors was granted authority over all bishops in the world, as well as the right to wear symbols of power comparable to those of the emperor, such as a crown and a purple cloak. Finally, Constantine supposedly transferred to the Church worldly authority over Rome and a large part of the Roman provinces and regions.
This would imply that Constantine had not in effect moved the capital of the whole Roman Empire to Constantinople, but had split the Empire and relinquished the Western half to the Church.
As we now know, all this was a hoax avant la lettre. The precise date and place of the creation of the manuscript is unknown, but most scholars believe the document was drawn up in the eighth century. Its first emergence was not in Rome, however, but in Frankish collections. This gives rise to the question of whether the author, and the motivation for its creation, must be sought in the circles of the Carolingians rather than in Rome.
Whatever the case, its content was widely known and believed for many centuries. Sometimes a critical view was voiced (such as by Dante Alighieri, who remarked in his Inferno that “evil was born from that donation”, canto 19:115–117), but its authenticity was not called into question. Various copies still exist, the oldest of which survive from the ninth century (now in the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris, MS. Latin 2777).
An Elaborate Hoax Exposed
Portrait of Valla made for Jean-Jacques Boissard’s Icones quinquaginta virorum illustrium in 1597–1599
Serious doubts were not voiced until the fifteenth century. Nicholas of Cusa, a German humanist and cleric, first cast doubts around 1433. The text of the Donation was convincingly exposed as a forgery by Lorenzo Valla, an Italian humanist and priest, around 1440. He reached his conclusion through close textual analysis, pointing out that the document contained many stylistic and idiomatic anachronisms. He laid down his findings in an essay entitled De falso credita et ementita Constantini Donatione declamatio. As a result, he was brought before the Inquisition, but he was protected from further prosecution by his then employer, King Alfonso V of Aragon (1396–1458). Shortly after, Valla’s findings were confirmed by the English bishop Pecocke of Chichester.
However, even after the démasqué of the authenticity of the text, the Church persisted in holding to the legitimacy of its content for another century and a half. Only after Cesare Baronio, a well-respected Catholic historian and cardinal, judged it to be a forgery around 1600 in his sweeping Annales Ecclesiastici was the Donatio widely conceded to be a “constructed reality.”
Looking back, the myth of the Donation of Constantine seems to have been cleverly and deliberately masterminded with the specific intent to deceive and manipulate. However, our present-day understanding of the truth as based on historically or scientifically verifiable facts is somewhat different from the medieval concept of truth. Although the document is undeniably a forgery, it may well have been believed to reflect an actual situation, and merely to have provided legitimisation of what was already reality. It may even have been believed to reflect a desirable situation for which justification existed. But then again, are such views of truth and fact really so different from today’s?
Jo’anne van Ooijen studied Art History at Leiden University and International Law at Maastricht University. While working for the Dutch judiciary, she pursued a PhD in Architectural History in Leiden, writes on medieval Mediterranean architecture, and travels to her heart’s content.
The Donation of Constantine is one of the most famous forgeries of the Middle Ages, used for centuries to justify sweeping claims of Church authority. Yet in a medieval world where truth, power, and legitimacy were understood differently, the document’s influence was far more complex than a simple act of deception.
By Jo’anne van Ooijen
If the myth of Emperor Constantine’s Donation were to be uncovered today, the headlines all over social media would be, “Fake news exposed!” And this time, they would be right on the mark. Or would they? Just like today, medieval views on what is fact, what is truth, and what is fake are not always as straightforward as they would seem.
The myth of the Donation of Constantine was spread widely throughout the medieval European world. Its claim to authenticity was backed up by a forged manuscript, allegedly drawn up and signed by the Roman emperor Constantine the Great in the fourth century. In the manuscript, Constantine bestowed authority, privileges, and possessions upon the Roman Church. It provided legitimisation for the popes of Rome’s claim to near-imperial powers. The content of the Donation was invoked in the power struggles between the Church and various worldly powers, as well as between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Claims based on the Donation were put forward in the dispute that led to the East–West Schism of 1054.
A Transfer of Gratitude?
What would have persuaded Constantine, the Roman emperor from 306 to 337, to transfer that much power? In the first part of the manuscript, Constantine explains how he was introduced to Christianity by Pope Sylvester I (314–35). This account is based on the Acts of St. Sylvester (the Acta or Gesta Sylvestri), which relates how Constantine, desperate to be cured from leprosy, was instructed by Peter and Paul in a dream to turn to Pope Sylvester for help. Sylvester baptised Constantine and, by doing so, miraculously healed him. This was supposed to make plausible the second part of the document, which constitutes the actual grant or Donatio Constantini.
In gratitude for his conversion, baptism, and cure, Constantine confers upon the Roman Catholic Church supremacy over the four Orthodox patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople (which were in effect independent), together with supremacy over all churches and many worldly possessions. To Sylvester and his successors was granted authority over all bishops in the world, as well as the right to wear symbols of power comparable to those of the emperor, such as a crown and a purple cloak. Finally, Constantine supposedly transferred to the Church worldly authority over Rome and a large part of the Roman provinces and regions.
This would imply that Constantine had not in effect moved the capital of the whole Roman Empire to Constantinople, but had split the Empire and relinquished the Western half to the Church.
As we now know, all this was a hoax avant la lettre. The precise date and place of the creation of the manuscript is unknown, but most scholars believe the document was drawn up in the eighth century. Its first emergence was not in Rome, however, but in Frankish collections. This gives rise to the question of whether the author, and the motivation for its creation, must be sought in the circles of the Carolingians rather than in Rome.
Whatever the case, its content was widely known and believed for many centuries. Sometimes a critical view was voiced (such as by Dante Alighieri, who remarked in his Inferno that “evil was born from that donation”, canto 19:115–117), but its authenticity was not called into question. Various copies still exist, the oldest of which survive from the ninth century (now in the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris, MS. Latin 2777).
An Elaborate Hoax Exposed
Serious doubts were not voiced until the fifteenth century. Nicholas of Cusa, a German humanist and cleric, first cast doubts around 1433. The text of the Donation was convincingly exposed as a forgery by Lorenzo Valla, an Italian humanist and priest, around 1440. He reached his conclusion through close textual analysis, pointing out that the document contained many stylistic and idiomatic anachronisms. He laid down his findings in an essay entitled De falso credita et ementita Constantini Donatione declamatio. As a result, he was brought before the Inquisition, but he was protected from further prosecution by his then employer, King Alfonso V of Aragon (1396–1458). Shortly after, Valla’s findings were confirmed by the English bishop Pecocke of Chichester.
However, even after the démasqué of the authenticity of the text, the Church persisted in holding to the legitimacy of its content for another century and a half. Only after Cesare Baronio, a well-respected Catholic historian and cardinal, judged it to be a forgery around 1600 in his sweeping Annales Ecclesiastici was the Donatio widely conceded to be a “constructed reality.”
Looking back, the myth of the Donation of Constantine seems to have been cleverly and deliberately masterminded with the specific intent to deceive and manipulate. However, our present-day understanding of the truth as based on historically or scientifically verifiable facts is somewhat different from the medieval concept of truth. Although the document is undeniably a forgery, it may well have been believed to reflect an actual situation, and merely to have provided legitimisation of what was already reality. It may even have been believed to reflect a desirable situation for which justification existed. But then again, are such views of truth and fact really so different from today’s?
Jo’anne van Ooijen studied Art History at Leiden University and International Law at Maastricht University. While working for the Dutch judiciary, she pursued a PhD in Architectural History in Leiden, writes on medieval Mediterranean architecture, and travels to her heart’s content.
Further Readings:
Fried, Johannes, editor. Donation of Constantine and Constitutum Constantini: The Misinterpretation of a Fiction and Its Original Meaning. Walter de Gruyter, 2007.
MacCulloch, Diarmaid. A History of Christianity. Penguin, 2009.
The Catholic Encyclopedia. New Advent, 2021, www.newadvent.org/cathen/
A good English translation of the Donatio can be found on the website of Fordham University: sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ source/donatconst.asp
Top Image: A 13th-century fresco of Sylvester I and Constantine the Great, showing the purported Donation (Santi Quattro Coronati, Rome)
Subscribe to Medievalverse
Related Posts