A Background information for the Ignorant
The Donation of Constantine is a document used extensively by the Catholic Church throughout the Middle Ages to help justify the power of the papacy over temporal rulers (Holy Roman Emperor, Kings, etc.). In a nutshell, the document details the Roman Emperor Constantine giving all the lands of the Roman Empire to the Pope. The argument of the Catholic Church is that because of the Donation, the papacy should have the rights to rule over the lands of the Roman Empire. Unfortunately for the papacy, the document was proven to be a forgery. One notable flaw which exposed its forged status to early historians is the description of Emperor Constantine holding the bridle of the Pope’s horse. When riding a horse, another man could show inferiority by holding the bridle of the rider’s horse. By leading the Pope’s horse, Constantine was showing his subservience to the Pope. The only problem is that this was a custom of France during the Middle Ages, not the Roman Empire. This cultural anachronism was hard for the church to sidestep once exposed. To those interested, the Donation of Constantine can be found at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.html.
Aberration of the Roman Clergymen
An excellent source, although misleading, the Donation of Constantine has several notable flaws. Other than just looking like a forgery, there is plenty of evidence in the source to demonstrate it was a forgery. The author’s vain attempt to cover up his motive to magnify the Pope’s spiritual authority by adding a few cute anecdotes about Constantine’s conversion in the beginning, allude to the author’s intentions. Despite the evidence that the Donation of Constantine is a forgery, the real question deals with who authored it. Certainly a motive to increase the Pope’s power can be found in many places, but there is more than motive in the document. There are subtle hints leading to the type of person who is most likely to have written the document. The Donation of Constantine was most likely written by two or more upper level clergy members in the Roman Church, because of their thorough understanding of Christian doctrines, their access to historical accounts of Constantine, as well as their erudition as displayed in the document.
One of the first indicators of an upper level clergymen or two having forged this document one might notice, other than the consistent use of plural possessive terms such as “we” or “our” throughout the document, is found in the acute awareness of Christian doctrines by the authors. Throughout the text, the authors copiously reinforce Christian doctrines over and over again. It gets to the point where anyone reading this begins to sense that whoever wrote the text was spilling over with theological knowledge and saw fit to vomit their scholarship all over the Donation of Constantine. One such example can be found in the third paragraph, which stands alone in the text and is quite out of place. In fact, the third paragraph would find better company in a systematic theology text book than an imperial decree. It reads,
There are therefore three forms but one power. For God, wise in all previous time, gave forth from himself the word though which all future ages were to be born; and when, by that sole word of His wisdom, He formed the whole creation from nothing, He was with it, arranging all things in His mysterious secret place.[1]
This paragraph has little to do with the content of the document itself, unless of course we confess that a bunch of bored old Bishops had nothing better to do on weekends than to forge imperial documents while swamping them in elaborate Christian doctrines.
Another indicator of the author’s palpable office within the western church can be found in their finishing just about every paragraph is the constant reiteration of the doctrine of the Trinity. So proud are the authors of their knowledge of both the Trinity and the many anti-Trinitarian heresies of Constantine’s day which were in fierce competition with each other, that they spout the doctrine of the Trinity wherever they feel a paragraph could use a little inflation.[2] This use of the Trinity is interlaced everywhere from the first sentence of the first paragraph and sporadically through the rest of the paragraph. References to and explanations of the Trinity are also scattered throughout the second, third, fourth, and seventh paragraphs. Then they get to the meat of the text and throw the Trinity out the window for a while. It would appear that the authors knew about the severity of the heresies of Constantine’s day as well as a thorough enough knowledge of the Trinity to describe the individual roles of its members.
Another indicator within the text of the Donation of Constantine that points to it being formed by upper-level clergymen in the Roman Church is its use of primary sources. [3] Much like the monks, Roman clergy, especially within the Vatican, had and still have a plethora of documents that could be accessed. They appear to have plagiarized the Liber Pontificalis for some of their information. The Liber Pontificalis speaks of Pope Silvester, who was in exile through “Constantine’s persecution,” and later “returned in glory and baptized the Emperor Constantine, whom the Lord cured from leprosy by baptism.”[4] The Donation of Constantine, on the other hand, says, “the wave of salvation purified me there with a triple immersion. For there I, being placed at the bottom of the font, saw with my own eyes a hand from Heaven touching me; whence rising, clean, know that I was cleansed from all the squalor of leprosy.”[5] One can justifiably infer from the evidence in both texts that the Donation of Constantine was influenced by the Liber Pontificalis.[6] The Liber Pontificalis, being a record of papal biographies, would likely have been readily accessible to the clergy of the Roman church.
The other shred of evidence, that could possibly attributed to monks as well, is the overwhelming erudition associated with the text. Given, Constantine had some pretty outlandish experience according to the authors, which could be considered a mark against them from a modern miracle-doubting perspective. Despite all of that, the authors were definitely educated. That rules out just about all but a few privileged women, and most men of the lower classes. Most merchants were probably not educated enough to compile something as intricate and authentic looking as an imperial memo to the Pope. Most monks, in their isolated worlds, would likely not be into the political side of the matter as much as priests and bishops would have been. Although monarchs and other political figures had the capacity to write like this[7], the overwhelming mass of theology which is kneaded throughout the document suggests that most secular rulers would not be able to produce such a document; they would at least need the aid of a priest or monk. The most likely candidate is not a knight either, but a member of the clergy who would be seeking to piggyback on whatever power could be established by the forgery. An example of writing specific to the clerical knowledge and scholarship can be found in paragraph four, in which a brain dump of intellectual theology is spewed into a six-inch paragraph. One such sentence reads, “He did not cease to be what He had been, but began to be what He had not been, perfect God and perfect man: as God, performing miracles; as man, sustaining human sufferings.”[8] Although theology is interlaced throughout the document, such deep theology, along which lines Nestorius argued, would most likely be inserted by a member of the clergy.
Whoever wrote the Donation of Constantine had power in mind when it was written. If one examines the document thoroughly, it becomes plain to see that the clergy were trying to gain more power. It reads, “…the clergy who serve, in different orders, that same holy Roman church, that they shall have the same advantage, distinction, power and excellence by the glory of which out most illustrious senate is adorned; that is, that they shall be made patricians and consuls…”[9] The apparent motive behind this selection is to gain power and dignity for the clergy, as if they did not already have enough.[10] Paragraph eleven speaks of a “gift of land” to the Pope “in the East as well as in the West; and even on the northern and southern coast.” The authors continue to describe the whole Roman empire, as it was in its prime, and that it was to “be administered by the hand of our most blessed father the pontiff Silvester and his successors. [11] This is not surprising, as control over land was frequently battled over (especially in Italy), between the Popes and secular rulers. Anyone who has read Dante can attest to the vicious power struggles between the church and the government which had been going on for hundreds of years before he wrote the Divine Comedy.
In conclusion, it is apparent that the real motive of the authors was really to gain power. Whether they were merely zealous about the western church or they figured they were due for a run at the Papacy and wanted to secure the authority they would be getting, power is the main motive of the document. The most likely candidates for that power, other than the Pope himself, would be the clergy serving beneath him. Because of their learning and guile, they were able to forge a document which survived in the Catholic Church for hundreds of years before being declared a forgery. Although the document was an apparent lie, it was likely justified as doing good for the Church and subsequently atoned for through excessive theology and exclamations of praise to God. Although possible, a clergyman is not necessarily the author, but the odds point to the schemes of a corrupt clergy more than anyone else.
Bibliography
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.html
Eusebius, Life of Constantine
The Donation of Constantine
The Liber Pontificalis
[1] The Donation of Constantine
[2] In no way am I suggesting that the doctrine of the Trinity is inflated, only that the author’s utilization of the doctrine of the Trinity unnecessarily inflates the text, adding to it mass that it otherwise would not have had.
[3] One could always argue that monks could have written the document because many monasteries had and made copies of primary sources. The issue then becomes a problem of motive, because a monk could not really go any higher than abbot unless he broke his vows to the monastery and became a priest instead (can they do that?), which makes for an unlikely suspect. But a bishop, priest or cardinal bent on climbing the spiritual ladder of the church would have more to invest in. Besides, why would an ambitious person join a monastery? Those seeking power would be more likely to use their guile in a place where they might actually gain some status. Not that ambitious people couldn’t find motives in a monastery, only that a forgery on such a scale seems more likely in a place where real power over more than monks or perhaps a small community around a monastery could be realized.
[4] The Liber Pontificalis
[5] The Donation of Constantine
[6] When contrasted with the text of the Life of Constantine by Eusebius, it is apparent that neither leprosy nor a “hand from Heaven” were ever a part of his baptism.
[7] If they couldn’t write like that, they could most definitely employ someone who could.
[8] The Donation of Constantine
[9] The Donation of Constantine
[10] It would be unfortunate if the clergy of that era engaged in such a sin, for that was the very reason the Ammonites sacrificed their children to Moloch. For all their erudition and learning in the ways of God, the clergy were blind or apathetic to their sin; lying being the least of it.
[11] The Donation of Constantine
