Talk:Donation of Constantine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Byzantines
What is the source for the notion that this was forged to protect Papal interest against the "Byzantines"? 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 Now, admittedly the public domain Catholic Encyclopedia is rather out of date and there may have been new research on the subject.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:
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)
[edit] 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)
