General Editor
Robert J. Bast
Knoxville, Tennessee
In cooperation with
Paul C.H. Lim, Nashville, Tennessee
Eric Saak, Liverpool
Christine Shepardson, Knoxville, Tennessee
Brian Tierney, Ithaca, New York
Arjo Vanderjagt, Groningen
John Van Engen, Notre Dame, Indiana
Founding Editor
Heiko A. Oberman
VOLUME 172
By
Edited by
Patrick Baker
Christopher S. Celenza
Patrick Baker
LEIDEN BOSTON
2014
Cover illustration: Detail of Filippino Lippi (ca. 1457-1504), Triumph of St. Thomas Aquinas over
the Heretics, fresco, 1489-1492 (Cappella Carafa, Santa Maria sopra Minerva, Rome), depicting the
equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius in front of the Lateran (courtesy of Scala Archives).
This publication has been typeset in the multilingual Brill typeface. With over 5,100 characters
covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the
humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.
ISSN 1573-5664
ISBN 978-90-04-26196-9 (hardback)
ISBN 978-90-04-26197-6 (e-book)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
List of Illustrationsxi
Note on the Translation xiii
Acknowledgementsxv
Bibliography317
Index331
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Patrick Baker
Rome, 2013
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Christopher S. Celenza
1See Francesco Ciabattoni and Susanna Barsella (eds.), The Humanists Workshop:
Special Issue on Salvatore I. Camporeale, special issue of Italian Quarterly, vol. 46 (179182 =
Winter to Fall, 2009), entire issue (there see Susanna Barsella, Biocritical Note, 1517 and
Bibliography, 1921, for a list of Camporeales publications); Walter Stephens (ed.), Studia
Humanitatis: Studies in Honor of Salvatore Camporeale (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2004), supplement to Modern Language Notes 119 (2004); and a section of
the Journal of the History of Ideas 66 (2005): 477556: Salvatore Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla,
Humanism, and Theology, edited by Melissa Meriam Bullard, with essays by Bullard, The
Renaissance Project of Knowing: Lorenzo Valla and Salvatore Camporeales Contributions
to the Querelle between Rhetoric and Philosophy (47781); Christopher S. Celenza,
Lorenzo Valla and the Traditions and Transmissions of Philosophy (483506); Brian
P. Copenhaver, Valla Our Contemporary: Philosophy and Philology (50725); Mariangela
Regoliosi, Salvatore Camporeales Contribution to Theology and the History of the
Church (52739); and Nancy S. Struever, Historical Priorities (54156). There are profiles
of Camporeale posted by Villa I Tatti (accessed 12.17.2012: http://www.itatti.it/camporeale
_memoriam.htm) and Santa Maria Novella (accessed 12.17.2012: http://www.smn.it/
convento/campo.htm).
2 christopher s. celenza
and philosophical works proved influential, both in his own epoch and,
more noticeably, after their rediscovery in the twentieth century.
Camporeale took part in that wave of rediscovery (indeed he was one of
its prime movers), and his work served to introduce serious analysis of
Valla into the then highly specialized scholarly conversation on the intel-
lectual history of Renaissance Italy. Little of Camporeales work has
appeared in English, despite his international reputation; and now that
study of Lorenzo Valla has grown, aided by new editions and translations
of his work as well as by recent scholarship, the time has come to present
in book form the two monographs that Camporeale believed best encap-
sulated his life-long work on this important Renaissance thinker.2 To set
these studies in context, it is worthwhile to spend a little time with Valla
and on the two main works under discussion in this volume before mov-
ing on to Camporeales own background and guiding assumptions.
Lorenzo Vallas key preoccupations lay in the realms of the Latin lan-
guage, Christianity, and culture. He saw those three areas as linked, believ-
ing them mutually interdependent. Both of the texts on which Camporeale
focuses here, Vallas treatise on the Donation of Constantine and his
Encomium of Saint Thomas Aquinas, serve as keystones to Vallas thoughts
and to Camporeales vision of Vallas importance. Both texts, especially
that on the Donation, have had traditional interpretations that are accu-
rate on the surface but that, in light of Camporeales examination, reveal
much more: about Valla, about the history of philology, and about the his-
tory of institutional Christianity.3
The basic contours of Vallas life and work are easy enough to sketch, at
least in broad outline.4 Roman in origin, he was raised in the environment
of the papal court, and he spent part of his youth in the company of an
uncle, Melchior Scrivani, himself a curialist.5 Valla spent much of his life
trying to become part of the papal court. It was not until 1447 that he suc-
ceeded, when he obtained a position at the court of Nicholas V (the for-
mer Tommaso Parentucelli), a great supporter of humanistic studies.6 In
the intervening years, Valla spent a significant amount of time at the
Neapolitan Court of Alfonso of Aragon, and it was there that he drafted
most of his major works, the treatise on the Donation of Constantine
among them. Other works that date from this period include Vallas
Annotations on the New Testament, in which he applies his knowledge of
the Greek language to the Latin Vulgate translation of the New Testament,
which Valla argues does not always reflect adequately the meaning of the
Greek text; a dialogue On Pleasure, in which Vallas interlocutors take dif-
ferent positions regarding the place of pleasure in Christian life; a dialogue
On Free Will, in which Valla confronts the classic question of the relation-
ship between divine omniscience and human free will; his On the
Profession of the Religious, a dialogue in which Valla, through his interlocu-
tors, argues that sincere Christian religiosity cannot be measured by the
taking of religious vows; his Pruning, or Re-digging up, of all Dialectic, an
ambitious attempt on Vallas part to reframe the way logic was studied
and conceived in the late middle ages; and, among other works, his
Schrift gegen die Konstantinische Schenkung, De falsa credita et ementita Constantini dona-
tione: Zur Interpretation und Wirkungsgeschichte. Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen
Instituts in Rom, 44 (Tbingen: Niemeyer, 1975); Johannes Fried, Donation of Constantine
and Constitutum Constantini: The Misinterpretation of a Fiction and its Original Meaning
(Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007); Alfred Hiatt, The Making of Medieval Forgeries: False Documents
in Fifteenth-Century England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 13674; and
for the Encomium, see the edition of Cartei, as in previous note.
4The most complete biography is still Girolamo Mancini, Vita di Lorenzo Valla (Firenze:
Sansoni, 1891). In a vast sea of studies, for basic orientation, see, in addition to the cited
studies, Jill Kraye, Lorenzo Valla and Changing Perceptions of Renaissance Humanism,
Comparative Criticism 23 (2001): 3755; Maristella Lorch, Lorenzo Valla, in Renaissance
Humanism: Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, ed. Alfred Rabil, 3 vols. (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), 1:33249. For a recent discussion on the meaning
of Vallas philosophical work, see W. Scott Blanchard, The Negative Dialectic of Lorenzo
Valla: A Study in the Pathology of Opposition, Renaissance Studies 14 (2000): 149189; and
Lodi Nauta, William of Ockham and Lorenzo Valla: False Friends, Semantics, and
Ontological Reduction, Renaissance Quarterly 56 (2003): 613651.
5W. von Hofmann, Forschungen zur Geschichte der kurialen Behrden vom Schisma bis
zur Reformation, 2 vols. (Rom: Loescher, 1914), 1: 232, 2:111; Mancini, Vita di Lorenzo Valla,
124.
6Mancini, Vita di Lorenzo Valla, 22678.
4 christopher s. celenza
Elegances of the Latin Language, a guide to Latin usage that became Vallas
one major success in the early modern period (at least in terms of the
number of extant manuscript copies and early printed editions), adopted
as it was by many late fifteenth- and sixteenth-century educators as a
reference work for teaching and learning correct Latin usage.7
Yet it is certainly his De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione
declamatio (Declamation on the falsely believed and lying Donation of
Constantine) that has earned Valla his modern reputation. For it was in
this treatise, so the story goes, that Valla used his knowledge of the Latin
language to unmask a forgery, showing that some of the language used in
the Constitutum Constantini (the document that represented the Donation
of Constantine in written form) derived from a later period than that of
the document itself. If Valla appears in textbooks of western history, it is
this unmasking for which he is centrally featured, with his linguistic skill
seen as a predecessor of scientific philology. Yet there is so much more to
be said about this work and about Camporeales interpretation thereof,
that it is worthwhile stepping back and examining the constituent parts,
as it were.
The first of these parts is the document of donation itself. The Donation
of Constantine refers to the notional gift of the Emperor Constantine,
whereby, converted to Christianity and ready to transfer the seat of impe-
rial power from Rome to Byzantium, he decided to donate the western
territories of the Empire to Pope Sylvester. The consensus of modern
scholarship is that the document in which this gift was formalized (the
Constitutum) was produced in the environment of the Papal Court in the
eighth century; in other words, almost five centuries after the putative
event.8 It is often indicated, therefore, as a forgery, which at the most
literal level it surely is. Yet it is productive to reflect on what a forgery
might mean, not only in the pre-modern world but also in the pre-print
world. Suppose that consensus emerged, in the eighth-century curial envi-
ronment whose members went on to produce the document, that
Constantine had indeed ceded the rights to the western territories to the
7On the Annotations, with literature, see Celenza, Lorenzo Vallas Radical Philology;
for the editorial state of play with respect to the other works mentioned, see Regoliosi
(ed.), Pubblicare il Valla.
8Fried, Donation of Constantine and Constitutum Constantini, has made the important
step of separating, conceptually, the Donation from the document, showing that each
had, in a sense, a separate existence in different intellectual and cultural communities
throughout the middle ages. This and the succeeding paragraph follow his emphasis; see
also Hiatt, Making of Medieval Forgeries, 13642, whose approach to the Donation has also
informed what follows.
introduction: salvatore camporeale and lorenzo valla5
9Bernhard Bischoff, Latin Palaeography: Antiquity and the Middle Ages, tr. Dibh
Crinn and David Ganz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 3437.
10See, e.g., M.T. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record: England, 10661307 (Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), 295329.
11Fried, Donation of Constantine and Constitutum Constantini, 13.
12Ibid., 19.
6 christopher s. celenza
13The quotation comes from Valla, On the Donation of Constantine (tr. Bowersock), 12.
14The quotations come from ibid., 16 and 21, respectively.
15Ibid., 39.
16Ibid., 45, 42, 47, respectively.
introduction: salvatore camporeale and lorenzo valla7
The Pope himself makes war on peaceful nations and sows discord among
states and rulers. Christ lies dying of starvation and exposure among so
many thousands of poor.17
It is true that when Valla wrote this text he was in the employ of a ruler,
Alfonse of Aragon, who was at odds with the then Pope, Eugenius IV. But
the incisiveness, range, and sheer amount of Vallas criticisms belie the
notion that this text was little more than the product of a paid rhetorician.
There is a vision behind the text about Christianity, Latinity, and culture,
a vision also manifested in Vallas Encomium of Saint Thomas, the second
of the two texts around which Camporeales two studies revolve.
Valla delivered the Encomium, an oration, on 7 March 1457, the feast
day of St. Thomas Aquinas, at the seat of the Dominican Order in Rome,
Santa Maria sopra Minerva.18 As it turned out, this was his last work, and
it stands as a small masterpiece of restrained reflection: restrained for
Valla, that is. For here too, Valla launches a critique, but it is a subtler cri-
tique than those to which readers of Valla are accustomed. He had been
asked, after all, to speak at a commemorative occasion honoring Thomas
Aquinas, and in so far as it was possible for him to do, given his guiding
assumptions concerning philosophy and theology, he took the obligation
seriously. As is often the case, his critique emerges not against an auctori-
tas, in this case Aquinas, but rather against those who make uncritical use
of the authority. Valla followed the same procedure, for example, when
dealing with Aristotle in the Preface of his Repastinatio totius dialecticae,
where it is not Aristotle himself but his uncritical followers who bear the
brunt of critique.19
The entire Encomium, in fact, represents an attempt to put Aquinas in
his proper place, in the most literal sense of that expression. Valla notes
the difference, for example, between martyrs, who died because of their
faith, and confessors (confessores), who lived a chaste and spotless life
accompanied by divine signs and miracles.20 Aquinas is a confessor,
and as such possessed innumerable virtues, but he was not a martyr,
Valla reminds his audience, and he should not be accorded that sort of
17Ibid., 96.
18In addition to Camporeales own study, for context see the important work of John
W. OMalley, Some Renaissance Panegyrics of Aquinas, Renaissance Quarterly 27 (1974):
17492; idem, The Feast of Thomas Aquinas in Renaissance Rome: A Neglected Document
and Its Import, Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia 35 (1981): 127.
19See Valla, Dialectical Disputations, 213.
20The quotation is from Lorenzo Valla, Encomium of Saint Thomas, ed. and tr. Patrick
Baker (in this volume, pp. 297315), 2 (cited according to paragraph number).
8 christopher s. celenza
21Ibid., 9.
22Ibid., 13.
introduction: salvatore camporeale and lorenzo valla9
23Ibid., 15.
24Ibid., 16. Modes of signifying = modi significandi. Valla is referring to philosophers
of the thirteenth and fourteenth century who studied the specialized ways that different
words acquired meaning in propositions and sentences. Martin of Dacia and Boethius of
Dacia are most commonly named when studying this tendency, though they profited from
the earlier work of twelfth-century speculative grammarians like William of Conches
(the term speculative grammarians is often used to refer to both groups). See Costantino
Marmo, Semiotica e linguaggio nella scolastica: Parigi, Bologna, Erfurt, 12701330 (Roma:
Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo, 1994); Jan Pinborg, Speculative Grammar, in
The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, ed. Norman Kretzmann, Anthony
Kenny, and Jan Pinborg (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 25469; idem, Die
Entwicklung der Sprachtheorie im Mittelalter (Mnster: Aschendorff, 1967); and Irne
Rosier, La grammaire spculative des Modistes (Lille: Presse universitaires de Lille, 1983).
25Valla, Encomium of Saint Thomas (tr. Baker), 18.
10 christopher s. celenza
ultimately, in the Greek language. Even if latterly coined Latin words exist
to reflect certain Greek concepts (concepts around which much discus-
sion in metaphysics and dialectic revolve, such as the ten categories of
Aristotle), they are not organic to the Latin language and thus not organic
to the kind of thinking and writing about religion that the Church Fathers
prized. The Latin Fathers dreaded words which the great Latin authors
never used.26 Once again one observes that uncontaminated Latin,
meaningful Christianity, and human culture are linked for Valla, a presup-
position he takes with him into his evaluation of the Fathers and their
exemplary value.
The Fathers mentioned are so important that Valla uses them to end his
oration, arguing that, to understand Aquinas, if he is indeed to be consid-
ered as having the kind of status that a Father should have, he must be
paired with a Greek Father, the way one might pair the older Latin Fathers
with Greek counterparts. And after suggesting that Aquinas should be
considered above a series of medieval theologians (St. Bernard, Peter
Lombard, Gratian, and Albert the Great, among others), this is precisely
what Valla does. Ambrose is paired with Basil, Jerome with Gregory
Nazianzen, Augustine with John Chrysostom, Gregory the Great with (for
us pseudo) Dionysius the Areopagite, and Aquinas with John Damascene.
Though Valla does not expatiate on these pairings beyond a few words
each, there is a rationale to them. Ambrose considered himself a rival to
Basil; Jerome claimed to have been a pupil and disciple of Nazianzen;
Augustine often followed and emulated John Chrysostom; and Gregory
the Great (Pope from 490504) is the first to have mentioned Dionysius
the Areopagite (Valla mentions that Gregory is the first of the Latins to
mention Dionysius and notes that Dionysius was unknown to the Greeks
as well).27 As for Aquinas and John Damascene, Valla writes that their
pairing is justified, because John wrote many logical and well-nigh meta-
physical works.28
All things considered, one observes a restrained and balanced Valla. Yet
Valla adds what could be read as another note of ambiguity. Sacred writers
26Ibid., 19.
27For Vallas part in the story of the interpretation of ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite, see
John Monfasani, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite in mid-Quattrocento Rome, in
Supplementum Festivum: Studies in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller, ed. James Hankins, John
Monfasani, and Frederick Purnell, Jr. (Binghamton: MRTS, 1987), 189219, reprinted with
the same pagination as essay IX in John Monfasani, Language and Learning in Renaissance
Italy (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1994).
28Valla, Encomium of Saint Thomas (tr. Baker), 23.
introduction: salvatore camporeale and lorenzo valla11
always make music in the sight of God, and each pair has its part to play
in the musical group Valla outlines: The first pair is Basil and Ambrose,
playing the lyre; the second, Nazianzen and Jerome, playing the cithara;
the third, Chrysostom and Augustine, playing the psaltery; the fourth,
Dionysius and Gregory, playing the flute The fifth? John Damascene
and Thomas, playing the cymbals, which are, Valla says, an instrument
emitting happy, cheerful, and pleasing music.29 What sort of praise is
this? Happy, cheerful, and pleasing are positive attributes. But do
they imply the requisite gravity, holiness, and depth due on the occasion
of Thomass feast day? Valla does not address these questions and closes
his oration piously.
These and other moments in Vallas oeuvre demand interpretation, and
there was no finer interpreter of Valla than Salvatore Camporeale. To
understand Camporeales scholarship, two aspects come to the fore:
Camporeales work with his mentor, Eugenio Garin, and his attention to
language. Eugenio Garin (19092004), twentieth-century Italys leading
historian of Italian philosophy, had a powerful imprint on the many schol-
ars who studied with him.30 After a period teaching in Italian secondary
schools Garin was Professor at the University of Florence from 1949 onward,
and then from 197484 at the Scuola normale superiore di Pisa, Italys equiv-
alent to Frances cole normale. Garin was also a generous correspondent
and, both through his letters and through his tenure as President of Italys
National Institute for the Study of the Renaissance (198088), advised a
wide array of informal students. Camporeale was proud to have had
Garin as his mentor for his laurea (then Italys highest academic degree),
and it was Garin who encouraged Camporeale to publish his thesis, even
writing a preface to Camporeales Lorenzo Valla: Umanesimo e teologia.31
Garin believed that the Italian Renaissance gave birth to a distinct type
of philosophy, rooted in detailed attention to history, that had not been
given its due in the historiography of philosophy.32 Heir to the work of
29Ibid., 24.
30On Garin, see Michele Ciliberto, Eugenio Garin: Un intellettuale nel Novecento (Roma:
Laterza, 2011); Rocco Rubini, The Last Italian Philosopher: Eugenio Garin (with an
Appendix of Documents), Intellectual History Review 21 (2011), 209230; Luciano Mecacci,
Contributo alla bibliografia degli scritti su Eugenio Garin, Il Protagora 38 (2011), 519526;
Christopher S. Celenza, The Lost Italian Renaissance: Humanists, Historians, and Latins
Legacy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004), 1657; and Garins autobiograph-
ical statement in Eugenio Garin, La filosofia come sapere storico (Roma: Laterza, 1990).
31(Firenze: Istituto nazionale di studi sul Rinascimento, 1972).
32See Eugenio Garin, History of Italian Philosophy, ed. and tr. Giorgio Pinton, 2 vols.
(Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2008).
12 christopher s. celenza
33The fullest statement of these views can be found in Eugenio Garin, Lumanesimo
italiano: filosofia e vita civile nel Rinascimento (Bari: Laterza, 1957), which originally
appeared in German as Der italienische Humanismus (Bern: Francke, 1947) at the behest of
Ernesto Grassi; there is an English translation by Peter Munz: Italian Humanism: Philosophy
and Civic Life in the Renaissance (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965). See Ciliberto, Eugenio Garin,
34; Rocco Rubini, Humanism as Philosophia (Perennis): Grassis Platonic rhetoric
between Gadamer and Kristeller, Philosophy and Rhetoric 42 (2009), 24278; idem,
Philology as Philosophy: the Sources of Ernesto Grassis Postmodern Humanism, in
Humanisms, Posthumanisms, and Neohumanisms, a special issue of Annali ditalianistica 26
(2008), 22348; Celenza, Lost Italian Renaissance, 3036; and Stphane Toussaint,
Humanismes / Antihumanismes: De Ficin Heidegger (Paris: Belles Lettres, 2008).
34Garin, Italian Humanism (tr. Munz), 4.
introduction: salvatore camporeale and lorenzo valla13
35See e.g., Albert Soboul, A Short History of the French Revolution, 17891799, tr. Geoffrey
Symcox (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977); and for the most trenchant critique
of this approach, Franois Furet, Interpreting the French Revolution, tr. Elborg Forster
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).
36For a general account of Marxist historiography, with bibliography, see Matt Perry,
Marxism and History (New York: Palgrave, 2002).
37This theory ran throughout Gramscis prison notebooks, which enjoyed wide circula-
tion among many who came of age in Camporeales generation; see Antonio Gramsci,
Quaderni del carcere, ed. Valentino Gerratana, 4 vols. (Torino: Einaudi, 1975); see also his Il
materialismo storico e la filosofia di Benedetto Croce (Torino: Einaudi, 1966); and Thomas
R. Bates, Gramsci and the Theory of Hegemony, Journal of the History of Ideas 36 (1975),
35166.
introduction: salvatore camporeale and lorenzo valla15
38For one example of Luther on Valla (after reading Vallas treatise on the Donation of
Constantine), see Martin Luther, Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, part 4:
Briefwechsel, vol. 2, ed. J. Ficker (Weimar: H. Bhlaus Nachfolger, 1931), 28.
LORENZO VALLA AND THE DE FALSO CREDITA DONATIONE:
RHETORIC, FREEDOM, AND ECCLESIOLOGY
IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
Salvatore I. Camporeale
(translated by Patrick Baker)
1Wolfram Setz, Lorenzo Vallas Schrift gegen die Konstantinische Schenkung, De falsa
credita et ementita Constantini donatione: Zur Interpretation und Wirkungsgeschichte.
(Tbingen: M. Niemeyer, 1975), 123: Rationes autem, quibus Valla non certe omnino
indocte motus est, nemo unquam medulitus evacuabit, nisi pontificium ius et veram
theologie cognitionem adeptus fuerit.
18 salvatore i. camporeale
2Lorenzo Valla, Epistole. Ed. Ottavio Besomi and Mariangela Regoliosi (Padova:
Antenore, 1984), 125f., 215f. Poggio Bracciolini, Lettere. Ed. Helene Harth. 3 vols. (Firenze:
Olschki, 19841987), 2:178ff.: it is the first letter (to Guarino Veronese, Roma 17 October
1433) in which Bracciolini sets forth in strongly polemical terms his critique of Valla and his
early writings (denouncing his loquendi arrogantia, 178.9); in fact, the letter contains in
nuce what Poggio will explain more fully, both in form and in content, in his Orationes in
L. Vallam, at the height of his controversy in the 1450s with Valla and his school.
Cfr. Salvatore I. Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo e teologia (Firenze: Istituto nazio-
nale di studi sul Rinascimento, 1972), passim and especially 31146; idem, Poggio Bracciolini
contro Valla. Le Orationes in L. Vallam, in Poggio Bracciolini: 13801980: nel VI centenario
della nascita (Firenze: Sansoni, 1982), 137161.
3The text of Traversaris letter to Valla is in Luciano Barozzi and Remigio Sabbadini, Studi
sul Panormita e sul Valla (Firenze: Le Monnier, 1891), 64ff.: Liberum [est] semper cuique et
tueri et constanter asserere opiniones suas; non itaque improbo si quid contra philosopho-
rum sentiamus inventa, si modo nostra probabilibus verisque rationibus muniamus.
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione19
4[The Constitutum Constantini is the legal privilege supposedly stipulating the Emperor
Constantines grant of the Western Empire to Pope Sylvester I, i.e. the document com-
monly known as the Donation of Constantine. Eds.]
The reinterpretation of Vallas Oration proposed in this essay assumes familiarity with
the following fundamental works: Setz, Lorenzo Vallas Schrift; and Setzs critical edition of
the Oration: Lorenzo Valla, De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione, ed. Wolfram
Setz (Weimar: Bhlau, 1976) (hereafter cited as Valla, De falso, page and line number [with
the corresponding paragraph numbers of the edition and English translation in the I Tatti
Renaissance Library in parentheses: Lorenzo Valla, On the Donation of Constantine, tr.
G.W. Bowersock (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007); all English transla-
tions of the Oration are Bowersocks]), together with Valla, Epistole, 176, n. 2; also important
are Vincenzo De Caprio, Retorica e ideologia nella Declamatio di Lorenzo Valla sulla
donazione di Costantino, Paragone-Letteratura 29, n. 338 (1978): 3656; Riccardo Fubini,
Papato e storiografia nel Quattrocento. Storia, biografia e propaganda in un recente stu-
dio, Studi medievali, III s., 18, fasc. I (1977): 321351; Joachim W. Stieber, Pope Eugenius IV, the
Council of Basel, and the Secular and Ecclesiastical Authorities in the Empire. The Conflict
over Supreme Authority and Power in the Church (Leiden: Brill, 1978).
20 salvatore i. camporeale
6[In the sense of deriving from the Evangelium, i.e., the Gospel. Eds.]
7Valla, De falso, 147.16 (76), 162.10ff. (86), 163.17ff. (87), 65f. (9), 7375 (1718), 78.12,
163167 (8789), with Setzs notes and commentary.
8[The formal Document of Privilege supposedly authorizing the Donation of
Constantine. Eds.]
9Valla, De falso, 90f. (33), 158f. (83), 160f. (84); cf. as well Setz, Lorenzo Vallas Schrift,
1824.
22 salvatore i. camporeale
10[Literally the Greek truth, i.e., the original Greek text. In the Adnotationes in Novum
Testamentum (Annotations on the New Testament) Valla compared the Latin of the Vulgate
with the Greek found in the manuscripts at his disposal in order to show problems in the
traditionally accepted text and thus to arrive at a more truthful understanding of the New
Testament, i.e. one based on a more solid philological foundation. Eds.]
11[Repastinatio dialecticae et philosophiae (The Rentrenching of Dialectic and
Philosophy). The work was revised by Valla several times and subsequently became known
under the title Dialecticae disputationes (Dialectical Disputations). Eds.]
12For an overall look at Vallas method both in theory and in practice, see Camporeale,
Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo e teologia, 31208; idem, Lorenzo Valla tra Medioevo e
Rinascimento. Encomion s. Thomae 1457, Memorie Domenicane, n.s., 7 (1976): 11194
(reprinted in idem, Umanesimo, riforma e controriforma. Studi e testi [Roma: Edizioni di
Storia e Letteratura, 2002], 121330, and translated in the present volume, 145296); idem,
Lorenzo Valla. Repastinatio, liber primus: retorica e linguaggio, in Lorenzo Valla e
lumanesimo italiano. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi umanistici (Parma, 1819 otto-
bre 1984), ed. Ottavio Besomi and Mariangela Regoliosi (Padova: Antenore, 1986), 217239
(along with other important contributions in the same volume concerning the relation-
ship between philology and methodology in Valla). More recent studies include: Maristella
De Panizza Lorch, A Defense of Life: Lorenzo Vallas Theory of Pleasure (Mnchen: Fink,
1985); Brian Vickers, Vallas Ambivalent Praise of Pleasure: Rhetoric in the Service of
Christianity, Viator 17 (1986): 271319; Riccardo Fubini, Richerche sul De voluptate di
Lorenzo Valla, Medioevo e Rinascimento 1 (1987): 189239; Lorenzo Valla, De professione
religiosorum, ed. Mariarosa Cortesi (Padova: Antenore, 1986) (in addition to the critical
edition itself, Cortesis ample introduction and full and accurate commentary are funda-
mental); Richard Waswo, Language and Meaning in the Renaissance (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1987), 88113 and passim.
13Valla, De falso, 62.9 (6): quasi in contione regum et principum.
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione23
conflict between the Roman curia, papal government, and his status as
a citizen of Rome. This conflict slowly intensified, and it expanded
not only in the arena of Vallas own intellectual work and the circle of the
best-known curial humanists, but also in that of the dominant culture of
scholasticism. His inquisitorial trial at the hands of the scholastics in
Naples in the 1440s, and the polemics of Poggio Bracciolini and his sup-
porters in the 1450s, ultimately constituted the furthest and thus the
most evident extremes of this clash of opposed positions.
This constant and forced wandering, this intellectual journey, this frus-
trating relationship with Eugenius IV, for whom Valla would not only nur-
ture a sense of friendship and esteem but to whom he would also direct
(as did other humanists like Bruni and Flavio Biondo) his appeals for an
effective promotion of the new cultural renaissance all these form, it
would seem, the biographical background and the rather personal ratio-
nale, perhaps the true motivation, for Vallas consideration of and dis-
course on the Donation of Constantine.22
This is the source of Vallas determination to investigate what he him-
self calls a matter of canon law and theology, and he therefore directs his
attack against all canonists and theologians.23 Hence his exordium,
which is dominated by that I dissent with which the Oration begins.24
This dissent is an ecclesiological awareness contrary to tradition and a
manifest expression, within the very context of Christendom, of a new
paradigm of criticism that is at once theological and political. It is differ-
ent from the classic paradigm of heresy, which is a stance contrary to
dogma.25 In line with this dissent Valla rejects and denounces what he
calls the new tyranny of the Pope, the hypocrisy (in the strong, original
sense of the word) by which the vicar of Christ behaves as a despot in the
persona of Caesar instead of acting in the persona of Christ. Such rule is
characterized as tyranny because the Roman pope presents himself as
the historical heir of the very imperial power which had violated the
political and civil freedom of the Roman Republic. Now it reveals itself as
22Cf. Setz, Lorenzo Vallas Schrift, 5975; and Eugenio Marino, Eugenio IV e la storiogra-
fia di Flavio Biondo, Memorie Domenicane, n.s., 4 (1973): 240287.
23Valla, Epistole, 192f.: res canonici iuris et theologie; contra omnes canonistas atque
omnes theologos; Setz, Lorenzo Vallas Schrift, 5159.
24Valla, De falso, 55.6 (1): dissentio [translation modified].
25Salvatore I. Camporeale, Giovanmaria dei Tolosani O.P.: 15301546. Umanesimo,
Riforma e teologia controversista, Memorie Domenicane, n.s., 17 (1986): 145252, passim
(reprinted in idem, Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo, riforma e controriforma, 331461), on Valla
and heresy as a stance contrary to tradition; John M. Headley, The Reformation as Crisis
in the Understanding of Tradition, Archiv fr Reformationsgeschichte 78 (1987): 522.
26 salvatore i. camporeale
26Valla, De falso, 78.1114 (21): vicarius Christi; 134f. (65): hypocritam; 166f. (89):
novam pape tyrannidem [translation modified]. For the expression christiana respublica,
cf. idem, Dialogue sur le libre-arbitre, ed. Jacques Chomarat (Paris: Vrin, 1983), 27.9.
27Valla, Epistole, 145149. The Apologia ad papam Eugenium IV (Apology to Pope
Eugenius IV) is in idem, Scritti filosofici e religiosi, ed. Giorgio Radetti (Firenze: Sansoni,
1953). See in particular Gianni Zippel, La Defensio quaestionum in philosophia di L. Valla e
un noto processo dellInquisizione napoletana, Bullettino dellIstituto Storico Italiano per il
Medio Evo e Archivio Muratoriano 69 (1957): 319347; idem, Lautodifesa di Lorenzo Valla
per il processo dellInquisizione napoletana (1444), Italia medievale e umanistica 13 (1970):
5994.
28Valla, De falso, 172176.
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione27
31Valla, Epistole, 246248: Hoc tantum consideres velim, non odio pape adductum, sed
veritatis, sed religionis, sed cuiusdam etiam fame gratia motum, ut quod nemo sciret, id
ego scisse solus viderer (cf. ibid., 227ff.). For the term religio in Valla, see the index verbo-
rum and Cortesis corresponding notes in idem, De professione religiosorum.
32Valla, De falso, 61f. (5) (emphasis added): But before I come to refuting the Donation
document, which is the sole authority those people have, something that is not only false
but even rude, structure demands that I go back farther. First, I shall assert that Constantine
and Sylvester were not such men as, with the former, to want to make a donation, to be in
a legal position to do so, and to have in his power the ability to hand over these territories
to someone else, and, with the latter, to want to receive them and be in a legal position to
do so. Second, even if these points were other than absolutely true and very clear, I shall
assert that the one did not accept and the other did not hand over the possession of the
things that are said to have been donated, but that they remained forever under the juris-
diction and authority of the Caesars. Third, I shall assert that nothing was given by
Constantine to Sylvester, but rather to the previous pontiff before he received baptism,
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione29
and that these were modest gifts of places where the Pope could spend his life. Fourth,
I shall assert that it is falsely claimed a copy of the Donation was found among the emper-
ors decrees or was extracted from the Story of Sylvester, because it is neither found in that
story nor in any other, and because in it are contained various contradictions, impossibili-
ties, stupidities, barbarisms, and absurdities. Furthermore I shall speak about donations of
certain other emperors whether fictitious or worthless and there I shall add from abun-
dant evidence that if Sylvester ever had taken possession, once he or some other pontiff had
been deprived of it, after so great an interval of time it could not be recovered by any legal
claim, human or divine. Lastly, I shall assert that the supreme pontiffs current possessions
could not, in the course of time, have been administered under his authority. (Verum ante-
quam ad confutandam donationis paginam venio ordo postulat, ut altius repetam.
Et primum dicam non tales fuisse Constantinum Silvestrumque: illum quidem, qui donare
vellet, qui iure donare posset, qui, ut in manum alteri ea traderet, in sua haberet potestate;
hunc autem, qui vellet accipere quique iure accepturus foret. Secundo loco: si hec non
essent, que verissima atque clarissima sunt, neque hunc acceptasse neque illum tradidisse
possessionem rerum, que dicuntur donate, sed eas semper in arbitrio et imperio Cesarum
permansisse. Tertio: nihil datum Silvestro a Constantino, sed priori pontifici, antequam
etiam baptismum acceperat, donaque illa mediocria fuisse, quibus papa degere vitam pos-
set. Quarto: falso dici donationis exemplum aut apud decreta reperiri aut ex historia Silvestri
esse sumptum, quod neque in illa neque ulla in historia invenitur, in eoque quedam con-
traria, impossibilia, stulta, barbara, ridicula contineri. Preterea loquar de quorundam alio-
rum Cesarum vel simulata vel frivola donatione, ubi ex abundanti adiiciam: si Silvester
possedisset, tamen sive illo sive quovis alio pontifice a possessione deiecto post tantam
temporis intercapedinem nec divino nec humano iure posse repeti. Postremo: ea, que a
summo pontifice tenentur, nullius temporis longitudine potuisse prescribi.) In the B manu-
scripts, this section is glossed (at the first line) Divisio (i.e. Plan of the work): ibid., 61.30.
33On the expression causa veritatis, see Gregorio Tifernates letter to Valla regarding
the Oration, in Setz, Lorenzo Vallas Schrift, 84. On the technical use of the term causa in the
Oration, cf. Quintilian, Institutio oratoria: III.3.15; III.4.1ff.; III.6.27; III.10.13; III.11.5; IV.1.40.
30 salvatore i. camporeale
reputation . I know that for a long time people have been waiting to hear
the accusation I would bring against the Roman pontiffs: a massive accusa-
tion assuredly, of either supine ignorance or monstrous avarice, which is
enslavement to idols [Eph. 5:5], or pride of rule, which is always accompa-
nied by cruelty. Already for several centuries they either did not realize that
Constantines Donation was a lie and a fabrication, or else they invented it
themselves. Their descendants, following the deceitful path of earlier gen-
erations, defended as true what they knew to be false dishonoring the maj-
esty of the pontificate, dishonoring the memory of the pontiffs of old,
dishonoring the Christian religion . For, as I shall show, that Donation,
from which the supreme pontiffs want to derive their legal right, was
unknown to Sylvester and Constantine alike.34
The dissent put forward in the Oration is aimed at the papacy and its
authority in the realm of Christendom. More precisely, Vallas criticism is
directed against the historical ecclesiology surrounding the Roman
papacy and the exercise of papal authority, as well as how both have been
jointly theorized and put into practice on the foundation of the Donation
of Constantine.
The course of the argument proceeds as follows. The validity of a doc-
trine, as well as of any political, juridical, or spiritual authority, depends
on the (historically and/or theoretically verifiable) origin and premises to
which it is reducible. But the Donation (from which the supreme pontiffs
want to derive their legal right) is an historical and ideological forgery.
Therefore the basis of Constantinian ecclesiology and the consequent his-
torical development of the Roman papacy is invalid. In reality, both con-
stitute a perverse heterogeneity of ends in the history of the papacy, the
vicariate of Christ, and of the Christian religion (dishonoring the
Christian religion).
Again, by expressing the purpose of his dissent in these terms, Valla
also affirms and it is made quite explicit in the Oration that tradition in
itself alone can guarantee neither theological orthodoxy nor canonical
he has already recognized the truth, to move back voluntarily from a house
that is not his own into the one where he belongs and into a haven from
irrational tides and cruel storms . I wish, how I wish that one day I might
see indeed, I can scarcely wait to see, particularly if it is carried out on my
initiative that the Pope is the vicar of Christ alone and not of Caesar as well
. At that time to come the Pope will be called, and really will be, Holy
Father, father of all, father of the church. He will not provoke wars among
Christians but, through apostolic censure and papal majesty, bring an end to
the wars provoked by others.35
The abrogation of the Constitutum, together with the evangelical renewal
of the church of God (ecclesia Dei) to which the Oration, declaimed in
the forensic space of all Christendom, specifically aspires would no
doubt result primarily and immediately in a different historical and spiri-
tual role for the papacy.
Valla repeatedly maintains that the Roman papacys practice of politi-
cal power has made it the de facto political model for Christians. And since
the politics of the papacy has been one of dominion, of conquest, and of
subjection even of Christian peoples and communities such has
become the standard politics of Christian nations and their rulers: wicked
men find an excuse in the Pope. For he and his companions furnish an
example of every kind of misdeed.36 This would certainly not be the case
if the papacys politics had been of a different character, i.e. evangelical
and properly Christian. The only proper political practice for the pope as
vicar of Christ is administering Christ and the Gospels, there in the place
where Christ took bodily form, among the poor and the weak: as Christ
lies dying of starvation and exposure among so many thousands of poor.37
This means, moreover, that the papacys (spiritual and ecclesiastical)
power and rule should be executed through the communication of the
message and through the administrative practice that are proper to it: the
reconciliation of peoples, especially of Christian peoples with one another
35Ibid., 175.18f.-176ff. (97): Verum ego in hac prima nostra oratione nolo exhortare prin-
cipes ac populos, ut papam effrenato cursu volitantem inhibeant eumque intra suos fines
consistere compellant, sed tantum admoneant, qui forsitan iam edoctus veritatem sua
sponte ab aliena domo in suam et ab insanis fluctibus sevisque tempestatibus in portum se
recipiet . Utinam, utinam aliquando videam nec enim mihi quicquam est longius quam
hoc videre, et presertim meo consilio effectum ut papa tantum vicarius Christi sit et non
etiam Cesaris . Tunc papa et dicetur et erit pater sanctus, pater omnium, pater ecclesie,
nec bella inter christianos excitabit, sed ab aliis excitata censura apostolica et papali
maiestate sedabit [translation modified].
36Ibid., 174.1416 (96): impii homines a papa sumunt excusationem, in illo enim comi-
tibusque eius esse omnis facinoris exemplum.
37Ibid., 174.7f. (96): cum Christus in tot milibus pauperum fame ac nuditate moriatur.
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione33
(He will not provoke wars among Christians but bring an end to the
wars provoked by others). This is the politics that behooves the pope and
to which he is bound by duty. Only thus will he be the Holy Father, the
one destined by vocation to evangelize. Only thus will he be the father of
all, the shepherd of all believers. Only thus will he be the father of the
church, the bringer of peace to Christendom if necessary even by means
of the apostolic censure that is his due, invested as he is with papal maj-
esty as the Bishop of Rome, the successor to St. Peter.
These are the objective dimensions of Vallas dissent as outlined in
the exordium and peroration of the Oration. But the subjective dimen-
sions of that dissent are also made explicit in these very same sections.
This is another aspect of Vallas initial motive that helps to explain better,
as if from within, the complexity of the goal towards which he strives in
this composition.
As a text, the Oration brings historical and ecclesiological criticism to
bear on the jurisdictional, political, and spiritual rule assumed and exer-
cised by the Roman papacy over the course of centuries. This exercise of
power was taken up in accord with the Constitutum, from which, accord-
ing to the exordium, the supreme pontiffs want to derive their legal right,
and which in the peroration is called the principle of papal power.38
The position that Valla adopts as the ultimate justification for his criti-
cism of the pope his dissent towards the Bishop of Rome, the successor
to Peter is that he (Valla) is imitating Paul.39 After having made refer-
ence to the conflict between Peter and the Apostle of the Gentiles in
Galatians 2:11 a reference that he will use again in his letter of defense
to Serra regarding the Oration Valla writes:
But I am not a Paul who can reproach a Peter: I am rather a Paul who imi-
tates Paul in such a way which is something much greater as to become
one spirit with God, since I scrupulously obey his mandates. Personal status
does not make anyone safe from attacks. It did not do so for Peter and for
many others endowed with the same rank .40
38Ibid., 60.2061.1 (4): unde natum esse suum ius summi pontifices volunt; 173.1f. (96):
principium potentie papalis.
39Ibid., 58.4ff. (2), and Setzs notes.
40Ibid., 58.7ff. (2): At non sum Paulus, qui Petrum possim reprehendere: immo Paulus
sum, qui Paulum imitor, quemadmodum, quod multo plus est, unus cum Deo spiritus effi-
cior, cum studiose mandatis illius optempero. Neque aliquem sua dignitas ab increpationi-
bus tutum reddit, que Petrum non reddidit multosque alios eodem preditos gradu . [The
letter to Giovanni Serra is available in idem, Epistole, 193209 and in English translation in
idem, Dialectical Disputations, ed. and tr. Brian P. Copenhaver and Lodi Nauta, 2 vols.
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012), 2:436447; the reference to Gal. 2:11 is
found in idem, Epistole, 204.241243 and Dialectical Disputations, 2:444 (par. 26). Eds.]
34 salvatore i. camporeale
As Paul clashed with Peter over the necessity of circumcising the Gentiles
converted to the new faith, thus Valla clashes with the Roman papacy over
the assumption of the Constitutum as the political and spiritual norm
for the government of the Christian community. The opposition to Peter
in the first case, and the criticism of his successor in the second, are both
raised in the name of evangelical freedom, which is the sole foundation of
the community of believers in Christ. It is precisely in this similarity of
intentions between the apostles action and his own Oration that Valla
sees himself as an imitator of Paul. In the exordium, where this compari-
son is made, Valla elaborates upon his Pauline imitation. To the citation of
Galatians 2:11, Valla adds Pauls confession (Acts 23:1ff.) to the high priest
Ananias and his ensuing punishment: to be struck on the mouth. Valla
cites another similar instance from the Bible, this time from Jeremiah
20:1ff., when the priest Phasur has Jeremiah imprisoned for his outspo-
kenness.41 Therefore Valla despite the certainty of a political and spiri-
tual anathema from the papacy will openly take up the part of
opposition to the new priesthood of the Law in the name of evangelical
liberation from the Law. By thus obeying the Gospels mandates, by giving
evidence and an open declaration (with the Oration) of his dissent, he
will become similar to the apostle Paul and to the prophet Jeremiah. The
imitation of Paul which Valla adopts as both a justification and a the-
matic motivation for his dissent towards the papacy thus becomes a
normative criterion for his argument in the Oration.
Having followed in the footsteps of the Apostle in the defense of evan-
gelical liberation from the Law, Valla wants to continue along the same
path in his method of argumentation. This procedure consists in using
demonstrative rhetoric, in the realms of both preaching and theology.
This, according to Valla, was Pauls method of theologizing, as he would
eventually argue in more explicit terms in his later Encomion s. Thomae
(Encomium of St. Thomas).42
Vallas Pauline imitation advances on several levels in the Oration.
First, as Paul argued against Peter by revealing the (implicit and explicit)
contradictions in the latters behavior (on the one hand liberation from
the Law, on the other making a distinction between Jews and Gentiles),
thus Valla lays bare the papacys theoretical and operative contradictions
with respect to its necessary role as vicariate of Christ for an evangelical
church. Second, Valla explicitly reaffirms (in the exordium) that his ora-
tion should not be understood as a Philippic, that is as a speech of a
persecutory juridical character whose aim is to convict the pope.43 He has
no intention of appealing to the Christian community, nor to any member
of it, to employ the force of violence or of right against the pope or to
deprive him of the rule usurped on the basis of the pseudo-Constitutum.
Indeed, no one, neither a community nor a single member of a commu-
nity, could have such authority or juridical competency. Valla is an anti-
conciliarist, as can be seen clearly by this section of the Oration (and as
Wolfram Setz has emphasized with great perspicacity).44
To Vallas mind the Oration is, let us repeat, a demonstrative mode of
argumentation, not a judicial one. He wants to persuade the papacy and
induce it to dismiss the donation, not by force but by dint of its own
awareness of the ecclesiological and historical contradictions in which the
Constitutum has placed the Roman church:
I am not acting to satisfy a desire to harass anyone and to write Philippics
against him may I not be guilty of such a heinous deed , but to eradicate
error from peoples minds, to remove persons from vices and crimes by
admonition and reproof. I would not dare say that others, instructed by me,
should prune with steel the papal seat vineyard of Christ which is teem-
ing with undergrowth, and force it to bear plump grapes instead of emaci-
ated berries.45
In this passage Valla makes it clear that the protest included in his dis-
sent is no different in intention or in form from Pauls confession, which
is manifestly critical towards Peter.
Finally, although aware that his Oration also undermines the spiritual
power employed by the papacy to condemn transgressors to proscription
from the Christian community,46 Valla refuses to behave politically and
intellectually in the manner of the Roman orator Asinius Pollio. That emi-
nent political personage and grand orator, whom his contemporaries
were wont to call a man for all seasons, had said, I am unwilling to write
against those who have the power to proscribe. Valla alludes to Pollio in
order to take a stance diametrically opposed to him.47 Driven by his search
for truth and justice, Valla feels that he must opt for the one posture
towards the Christian political community that seems to guarantee
authentic virtue in deed:
But there is no reason why this double threat of danger [political and eccle-
siastical proscription] should trouble me or keep me from my plan. For the
supreme pontiff is not allowed to bind or release anyone contrary to human
and divine law, and giving up ones life in the defense of truth and justice is
a mark of the greatest virtue, the greatest glory, the greatest reward .
Anxiety be gone, let fears retreat far away, and worries disperse! With a
bold spirit, great confidence, and good hope, the cause of truth, the cause
of justice, and the cause of God must be defended. No one who knows
how to speak well can be considered a true orator unless he also dares to
speak out.48
Thus Valla contrasts Roman virtue (virtus romana), which he had sub-
jected to criticism in De vero bono (On the True Good),49 with the courage
(fortitudo) of a Christian. This virtue constitutes the only mode of acting,
i.e., the sole praxis possible on the ethical plane, that exhausts the full
semantic pregnancy of the word virtus.50 And it is precisely along these
ethical lines that the freedom of the orator without which there can be
no art in oratory becomes the freedom of the Christian orator (orator
47On Gaius Asinius Pollio, see Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, VI.3.110ff. ( a man for all
seasons [ esse eum omnium horarum]; Erasmus will use this expression in the prefa-
tory letter to Thomas More in his Praise of Folly, and he will also dedicate one of his Adages
to it: Desiderius Erasmus, Opera omnia (Amsterdam: North Holland, 1969-), ord. 2, tom. 1
(1993), 286 (= pp. 389390). Cf. Wolfgang Buchwald, Armin Hohlweg, and Otto Prinz (eds.),
Tusculum-Lexicon griechischer und lateinischer Autoren des Altertums und des Mittelalters
(Mnchen: Artemis, 1982), sub voce, 659. [Vallas allusion to Pollio (Valla, De falso, 56.9f. [1]:
nolo scribere in eos, qui possunt proscribere) is adapted from Macrobius, Saturnalia,
II.4.21. Eds.]
48Valla, De falso, 57.812/1520 (2): Verum non est causa, cur me duplex hic periculi
terror conturbet arceatque a proposito. Nam neque contra ius fasque summo pontifici licet
aut ligare quempiam aut solvere, et in defendenda vertitate atque iustitia profundere ani-
mam summe virtutis, summe laudis summi premii est . Facessat igitur trepidatio, procul
abeant metus, timores excidant. Forti animo, magna fiducia, bona spe defendenda est
causa veritatis, causa iustitie, causa Dei. Neque enim is verus est habendus orator, qui bene
scit dicere, nisi et dicere audeat.
49[A revised version of De voluptate. Eds.]
50Valla, Repastinatio, 408422, 7398. Cf. Lorch, A Defense of Life, 119130; Fois, Il pen-
siero cristiano di Lorenzo Valla, 476481.
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione37
christianus). All this is similar to Paul, writes Valla, who made his confes-
sion to Ananias in line with his own good conscience (bona conscientia).
Later, in a letter to Cardinal Landriani in defense of the Oration, Valla
will confirm that he had been directed by his conscience to write what
he did.51 These words confirm the comprehensive sense, both objective
and subjective, of that I dissent that is asserted programmatically in the
very first lines of the Oration and fully elaborated from the exordium to
the peroration.
The first section of the Oration deals with the relationship between impe-
rium (rule or empire) and evangelium (the Gospel). This relationship is
characterized by radical conflict and extreme opposition and is resolvable
only through the reciprocal negation of the two terms. This theme is a
constant that runs throughout the Oration. In section I and also in sec-
tion II, which is actually an extension of the first this theme is treated
specifically and is taken up as an historical and theoretical premise to the
overall argument against the Constitutum Constantini.
Section I is composed of four parts made up of speeches given by the
dramatis personae involved in Constantines supposed donation of the
empire to the papacy. In the manuscript tradition of the Oration, each part
is glossed with a heading. These are indicated in Setzs critical apparatus
and in all likelihood are attributable to Valla himself.
The first part of the section begins with a question posed by the Orations
author himself to kings and princes, those seasoned in the wielding of
power, regarding the Donations supposed historical possibility: would
Constantine have ever given the empire to another?52 The question
posed to the wielders of power constitutes the authors own direct dis-
course; it is the oration of the orator Valla himself. How could the Donation
of Constantine ever have occurred, when all of history teaches that he
who conquers and exercises rule can never cede his own power without
falling into an absurd repudiation of himself?
I speak to you, kings and princes. Since it is hard for a private person to form
any idea of a royal disposition, I probe your mind, I examine your con-
science, I ask for your testimony: Would any one of you, had he been in
this! You can indeed do what you want with your empire and even with us,
with one exception, which we will fiercely uphold unto death we shall not
desist from the worship of the immortal gods and shall serve as a great
example to others, so that you may know what your vaunted largesse does
for the Christian religion .55
The third part of the section is the speech of the Roman people to
Constantine.56 The Senatus Populusque Romanus claim for themselves
the right of directing the affairs of the respublica and the imperial govern-
ment of the city. They beg Constantine in the name of romana libertas not
to subject Rome and its empire to a barbarian, a worshiper of a religion
foreign and adverse to the cult of the household gods.
Caesar, if you are unmindful of your own family and even of yourself , nev-
ertheless the Senate and the People of Rome cannot be unmindful of its
right and its reputation. For how can you arrogate to yourself so much of the
Roman empire, which was brought forth from our blood, not yours? You,
Caesar, will look after yourself, but this matter concerns us just as much as
you. You are mortal. The empire of the Roman people must be immortal
and, insofar as lies with us, it will be not only the empire but our sense of
honor as well. But shall we accept an empire of those whose religion we
scorn? And shall we, as princes of the world, be subservient to this most
contemptible creature? And, since you force us to speak rather candidly
in support of our right, you need to realize that you have no legal claim on
the empire of the Roman people: Julius Caesar seized rule by force, Augustus
took over the crime and made himself the ruler by wiping out the opposing
factions. Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasianus
and all the rest plundered our freedom by the same or a similar route. You
too became ruler after expelling or exterminating others, and I forbear to
mention that you were an illegitimate child. Therefore, to make our mind
known to you, Caesar, if you do not care to keep the government of Rome,
you have sons, one of whom you may put in your place with our permission,
and on our proposal, in accordance with the law of nature. Otherwise it is
55Valla, De falso, 68.1769.7/69.2570.2 (14): Ita ne, pater antehac filiorum amantis-
sime, filios privas, exheredas, abdicas? Nam, quod te optima maximaque imperii parte
exuere vis, non tam querimur quam miramur. Querimur autem, quod eam ad alios defers
cum nostra et iactura et turpitudine. Quid enim cause est, quod liberos tuos expectata suc-
cesione imperii fraudas, qui ipse una cum patre regnasti? Quid in te commisimus? qua in
te, qua in patriam, qua in nomen Romanum ac maiestatem imperii impietate digni vide-
mur? Utinam nos, Cesar, salva tua dignitate atque victoria in bello contigisset occum-
bere potius quam ista cernamus. Et tu quidem de imperio tuo ad tuum arbitratum agere
potes atque etiam de nobis uno duntaxat excepto, in quo ad mortem usque erimus contu-
maces: ne a cultu deorum immortalium desistamus magno etiam aliis exemplo, ut scias
tua ista largitas quid mereatur de religione christiana .
56Marginal manuscript heading (Valla, De falso, 70.17): oratio populi romani ad
Constantinum.
40 salvatore i. camporeale
our intention to defend the public interest together with our own personal
reputation. For this is no less an affront to the descendants of Romulus than
was the rape of Lucretia, nor will a Brutus be wanting to offer himself as a
leader to this people against Tarquinius in the restoration of our freedom.57
The final part of the section contains Sylvesters speech to Constantine.58
Pope Sylvesters discourse is entirely made up of quotations, and corre-
sponding interpretations, from New Testament passages, mostly taken
from the Gospel of Matthew and the Letters of Paul.
Caesar, my excellent liege and son, I am a priest and a pontiff, who has to
determine what I may allow as an offering at the altar, to protect against the
offering of an animal that is not just impure but a viper or a snake. So con-
sider this. Suppose you had the right to hand over to someone other than
your sons a part of your empire containing Rome, the reigning capital of the
world something I do not at all believe ; suppose this people, suppose
Italy, suppose all the other nations, seduced as they are by worldly attrac-
tions, would agree, against all plausibility, that they preferred to be subject
to those whom they hate and whose religion they have hitherto spat upon.
Even so, my most loving son if you think you owe me some credence
I could still not be induced by any argument to agree with you unless
I wished to be untrue to myself, forget my station, and almost deny my Lord
Jesus. Your gifts, or, as you prefer, your remunerations would stain and imme-
diately wipe out the glory, innocence, and sanctity of myself and of all those
who will come after me, and they would block the way for those who will
come to know the truth [1 Tim. 2:4] . Should I be for others, Caesar, both
an example and a cause of wrongdoing? I who am a Christian man, priest of
God, Roman pontiff, vicar of Christ? I know that when Peter was asked by
the Lord from whom the kings of the earth received tribute or tax, whether
from their sons or from foreigners, He declared, when Peter answered from
foreigners, Therefore their sons are free [Matt. 17:2427]. But if all people
are my sons, Caesar, as they surely are, all of them will be free, no one will
pay anything . Our power is the power of the keys, as the Lord says: I shall
give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [Matt. 16:19] . Nothing can be
added to this power, nothing to this rank, nothing to this kingdom. Whoever
is not content with this is demanding something else for himself from the
devil, who dared to say even to the Lord: I shall give you all the kingdoms of
the world, if you fall on the ground and worship me [Matt. 4:9]. Therefore,
Caesar allow me to say this without offense do not play the devil for me,
you who tell Christ, namely me, to accept kingdoms of the world that are
given by you. I prefer to repudiate them than to possess them; and to speak
of unbelievers but, I hope, future believers do not turn me from an angel of
light into an angel of darkness for those whose hearts I want to draw into
piety, whose necks I do not want to bring under the yoke. I want to subject
them to myself with the sword that is the word of God [Eph. 6:17], not with
a sword of iron, so that they may not become worse, kick back, gore me, and,
vexed by my error, blaspheme the name of God . Finally, to come to an
end, on this matter hear that remark which He uttered as if directed to you
and me: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things
that are Gods [Matt. 22:21]. Wherefore it turns out that neither you, Caesar,
should give up what is yours nor should I accept what is Caesars. Even if you
should offer it a thousand times, I would never accept.59
61Cf. Giulio Giannelli and Santo Mazzarino, Trattato di storia romana, 2 vols. (Roma:
Tumminelli, 1962), vol. 2: LImpero Romano, in particular part V: Il basso impero e la pros-
pettiva carismatica, I. Dal Milvio al Frigido (312394), (pp. 421490); Andreas Alfldi,
Costantino tra paganesimo e cristianesimo, tr. Augusto Fraschetti (Bari: Laterza, 1976)
(English edition: The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome, tr. Harold Mattingly
[Oxford: Clarendon, 1948]); Arnaldo Momigliano, Il conflitto tra paganesimo e cristianesimo
44 salvatore i. camporeale
nel secolo IV: saggi, tr. Anna Davies Morpurgo (Torino: Einaudi, 1968) [English edition = The
Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century: Essays (Oxford: Clarendon,
1963)].
62[A private affair, as opposed to the republic (respublica), which is the public affair
par excellence. Eds.]
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione45
63Setz, Lorenzo Vallas Schrift, 59ff.; Valla, De falso, 64, n. 43; 74, n. 70.
64Valla, De falso, 64.48 (7) and Setzs n. 43: Ipse sibi nihil effecisse videbatur, nisi et
occidentem et omnes nationes aut vi aut nominis sui auctoritate sibi tributarias reddidis-
set. Parum dico: iam Oceanum transire et, si quis alius orbis esset, explorare ac suo subi-
cere arbitrio destinaverat [translation modified].
65Ibid., 65.911/1921 (9): hominem, qui cupiditate dominandi nationibus bella
intulisset, socios affinesque bello civili persecutus imperio privasset ; qui se meminisset
more aliorum Cesarum non electione patrum consensuque plebis, sed exercitu, armis,
bello dominatum occupasse .
46 salvatore i. camporeale
Therefore, Valla argues, power is nothing other than the human lust for
rule far and wide. Such was its origin, and such is thus its nature. The
advent of power and its self-manifestation throughout history are deter-
mined by the constants of its own internal logic, by the requirements nec-
essary for its subsistence and survival. Power can perpetuate itself only by
reaffirming itself, which is possible only to the degree that it expands itself
in depth and in breadth in the direction of absolute and total rule. Since
power is by its nature identified with rule, it had to rise to the forms and
strategies of imperial rule: expanding to the greatest extent possible by
means of the force of arms and territorial conquest. Its very survival was
necessarily determined by its own increase and by the destruction of every
other competing power.
It was first the use of force against the civitas founded on the senatus
populusque romanus with the resulting rule over the Roman Republic,
and then the subjection of other peoples outside of Rome and Italy, that
established Caesar and Caesarism, the emperor and the Roman Empire.
Through their conquest of power, those who suppressed the Republic
gained full control over civil and political liberties: the Roman people
lost its true Romanness. That conquest went on to be gradually consoli-
dated through the mass of power that flowed to the Caesars from the politi-
cal subjugation of other peoples and the territorial extension of the empire,
which was executed by the military force the emperor himself had created.
Here Valla reinterprets Jeromes statement that it is the army that makes
the emperor, making it so that its truth is understood adequately only if
the terms of the proposition are taken as reciprocally convertible. That is to
say that it is true that the army makes the emperor, but it is equally true,
and perhaps historically more precise, that it is the emperor who creates
the army and establishes his rule, the emperor who executes the conquest
of power and the destruction of civil and political liberties.66
Vallas argument is continuously unfolded along lines of historical
induction the specific method of composition in section I, as should
now be evident from what has been said. If power is essentially the effort
to increase empire, and such turns out to be historically true, then the
Donation can be nothing other than an historical absurdity. It would be an
event in no way in agreement with the nature and existence of Roman
66Ibid., 74, n. 70 (the quotation who suppressed the Republic [qui oppressere
Rempublicam] is from the Elegantie, IV.70 suffragia, in Lorenzo Valla, Opera omnia, ed.
Eugenio Garin, 2 vols. [Torino: Bottega dErasmo, 1962], 1:145) and 165.14f. (88); 174.22 (96):
populus Romanus veram illam Romanitatem perdidit; 65, n. 46.
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione47
power, which with the advent of Constantine had risen to the apex of
imperial power. The Donation would have brought about the very nega-
tion and self-destruction of the power that Constantine had established
for himself and greatly reinforced with conquests on the borders of the
empire and victories over his rivals.
Hence according to Valla the attempt of the Constitutum and the
Legenda Silvestri (Legend of Sylvester) to posit the strictest of ties between
Constantines abdication of the Western Empire in favor of the papacy
and his conversion to Christianity. Because he had become a Christian
is the response to whoever objects to the Donation and considers impos-
sible such an imperial gesture towards the papacy.67 But the evidence of
the document of donation, counters Valla, testifies against itself; indeed,
it would stress with greater force the falseness of the Donation. The irrec-
oncilable relationship between imperium and evangelium would sink the
imperial gesture deeper into the void of inexplicability. If Constantines
conversion to Christianity had indeed been authentic, he should not
have abdicated his imperial power but rather put it in the service of
Christians:
In fact, if you wish to show yourself a Christian, to demonstrate your piety,
to provide for I do not say the Roman church, but the church of God you
should now, now above all, play the prince, to fight for those who cannot
and must not fight, to keep safe through your authority those who are sub-
ject to plots and injuries.68
Valla proceeds insistently, with greater urgency and still in accordance
with his historical criticism of the imperial regime. If Constantine had
become a Christian, then in conformity with his evangelical faith he
should have restored civil and political liberty to the people of Rome and
to all the other peoples subject to the empire. In direct contrast to what
the Constitutum purports, Constantine, if he had remained faithful to his
Christian duty, should have restored freedom to the cities, not replaced
their lord with the vicar of Christ!69
What is more, it was in such an actual liberation from imperial domina-
tion that the sacrament of truth could have been revealed, the sacrament
that the God of Israel had demanded for the Hebrew people from their
ancient masters and imperial conquerors:
God wanted the sacrament of truth to be made manifest to Nebuchadnezzar,
Cyrus, Ahasuerus, and many other princes, and yet he demanded of none of
them to withdraw from empire or to make a gift of part of his realm, but only
to give back freedom to the Hebrews and to protect them from hostile
neighbors. This was enough for the Jews. This will be enough for the
Christians too. Did you become a Christian, Constantine? Yet it is most
improper for you now as a Christian emperor to have a smaller dominion
than you had as an unbeliever. Dominion is a certain special gift of God, for
which even pagan princes are thought to be chosen by God.70
The transfer of the (Western) Empire to the papacy (after Constantines
victory at the Milvian Bridge) would also have encountered the opposi-
tion of the Roman Senate; it would have entered into full conflict with the
will of the highest legitimate authority of the Roman civitas. This is the
other historical reference central to Vallas argument about the effectual
impossibility, in right and in fact, of the Donation of Constantine.
How could the Roman Senate have accepted the further deprivation of
its autonomy, of its political and civil power, and allowed itself to be
reduced to conditions still worse than those imposed by the emperors?
The loss of civil and political freedom, which the Senate of Rome had suf-
fered at the hands of the Caesars, was now to be perpetuated by
Constantine in favor of a Christian, a worshiper of a divinity foreign to the
Roman civitas:
But shall we accept an empire of those whose religion we scorn? And shall
we, as princes of the world, be subservient to this most contemptible crea-
ture? turn over the very capital of the kingdom to a foreigner of the lowli-
est kind?71
The Senates opposition to Constantines deed (the Constitutums sup-
posed donation) would have been voiced, as far as Valla is concerned, in
terms necessarily and consistently in accordance with the political power
that was technically still its legitimate right under Roman law, although at
this point only partially and formally. The Senate had to act resolutely
towards Constantine in defense of its power as a last attempt to recover
its strength on its deathbed, which would in fact happen during the fourth
century and claim its former republican freedom to the extent still
possible.
In other words, for Valla particularly in this first section if Constan
tine had actually instituted the Constitutum, he would have acted in con-
tradiction with the very nature of his imperial power. Similarly, if the
Senate had quietly suffered the transfer of the empire, it would have repu-
diated itself. It alone would have deprived itself of its authority and ancient
republican liberty, soiled by Caesar and gradually usurped by his succes-
sors. Therefore Valla has the Senates speech to the emperor end with the
lapidary assertion: you have no legal claim on the empire of the Roman
people.
With the first three speeches (of the orator, of Constantines kinsmen,
and of the Senate), Valla aimed to expose the Donations historical unreal-
ity by demonstrating its irreconcilability with the historical reality of
Roman power generally and especially of Constantines imperial power.
The nature and logic of imperium brought forth by Valla through his
analysis of the historical phenomenology of power cannot lead to an act
like the Donation without slipping into the self-negation both of imperium
and of whoever enjoys its power. With the final speech, of pope Sylvester,
the humanist goes on to treat the other and not dissimilar historical
and ideological irreconcilability of the donation and its acceptance: the
irreconcilability of imperium with the evangelium of the vicar of Christ.
Sylvesters assent to the transfer of the (Western) Empire to the papacy
would have entailed the negation of his own position as the vicar of
Christ, as head of the Church (caput ecclesiae) in the apostolic adminis-
tration of the pontifical office (munus pontificale). Just as Constantine
would have repudiated his own status as the supreme wielder of Roman
power if he had ceded the empire an absurdity thus Pope Sylvester
would have committed the greatest possible betrayal of his evangelical
faith also an absurdity in the context of Christianity in its first few cen-
turies. But, Valla reaffirms, Pope Sylvester was fully aware of being at the
head of that Christian army an army in stark contrast to the Roman
legions in which the convert Constantine, general of the Roman mili-
tary, was a mere recruit.72
72Ibid., 78.12f. (21); 83.16 (26); 76.16 (21): in christiana militia tiro.
50 salvatore i. camporeale
the gift than that Constantine wanted to make it. A benefaction cannot be
bestowed upon someone who does not want it. [Digest 50, 17, 69]78
Vallas argument here as in the whole of the Oration is rather complex
and variously elaborated, even with a view to its form. It will suffice to
emphasize one particular aspect of it: the rhetorical and forensic strategy
of irony. Valla uses irony, which will play an important role throughout
the Oration, from the very beginning of his discourse both to reveal the
internal contradictions of the opponents case and to unmask the latters
ignorance and guilty conscience with regard to the case at hand. Consider
the following witticisms and their immediate context, all taken from this
section:
we do not know anything about this, you answer [i.e., about the signs and
practices judicially required in a transaction of delivery and possession]. So
I imagine that everything was accomplished in the dead of night, and that is
why no one saw anything. All right, Sylvester had possession: Who deprived
him of it? For neither he nor any of his successors remained in possession in
perpetuity, at least down to Gregory the Great What an amazing episode!
The Roman empire, acquired with so much effort and with so much blood,
was acquired or lost by Christian priests so calmly and so quietly and no
one at all knows by whom this was done, when, how, and for how long. You
would think that Sylvester ruled in the woods among trees, not in Rome
among men, and was expelled by winter rains and chills, not by people.79
No greater evidence is needed for section II. It will suffice to quote from its
concluding passage, as illustrative as any of Vallas rhetorical use of irony:
You do not perceive that, if the Donation of Constantine is true, the
emperor I am speaking of the one in the Latin West has nothing left.
What sort of Roman emperor or king will he be, if any holder of his kingdom
78Ibid., 85.2086.6 (28): Age porro, ut credamus istam donationem, de qua facit pagina
vestra mentionem, debet constare etiam de acceptatione Silvestri. Nunc de illa non con-
stat . Nec quia in pagina privilegii de donatione fit mentio, putandum est fuisse accepta-
tum, sed e contrario, quia non fit mentio de acceptatione, dicendum est non fuisse
donatum. Ita plus contra vos facit hunc donum respuisse quam illum dare voluisse, et ben-
eficium in invitum non confertur.
79Ibid., 87.24ff. (3031); 88.189.2 (31): nihil horum scimus, respondetis; ita puto noc-
turno termpore hec omnia gesta sunt et ideo nemo vidit. Age, fuit in possessione Silvester.
Quis eum de possessione deiecit? Nam perpetuo in possessione non fuit neque successo-
rum aliquis, saltem usque ad Gregorium Magnum O admirabilem casum! Imperium
Romanum tantis laboribus, tanto cruore partum tam placide, tam quiete a christianis sac-
erdotibus vel partum est vel amissum et per quos hoc gestum sit, quo tempore, quo-
modo, quandiu prorsus ignotum. Putes in silvis inter arbores regnasse Silvestrum, non
Rome et inter homines, et ab hibernis imbribus frigoribusque, non ab hominibus
eiectum.
54 salvatore i. camporeale
who lacks another kingdom has absolutely nothing at all? But if therefore it
is plain that Sylvester did not have possession, in other words that
Constantine did not hand over possession, there will be no doubt that, as I
have said, he did not even give the right to possess, unless you assert that the
right was given but that for some reason possession was not assigned. Thus
did he clearly give what he realized would not at all come into being? Did he
give what he could not assign? Did he give what could not pass into the
hands of the recipients before it ceased to exist? Did he give a gift that would
not be valid until five hundred years later or never? To talk or think like this
is lunacy.80
80Ibid., 92.821 (33): Non cernitis, si donatio Constantini vera est, Cesari de Latino
loquor nihil relinqui? en qualis imperator, qualis rex Romanus erit, cuius regnum si quis
habeat nec aliud habeat, omnino nil habeat? Quod si itaque palam est Silvestrum non pos-
sedisse, hoc est Constantinum non tradidisse possessionem, haud dubium erit ne ius qui-
dem, ut dixi, dedisse possidendi, nisi dicitis ius quidem datum, sed aliqua causa
possessionem non traditam. Ita plane dabat, quod minime profuturum intelligebat? dabat,
quod tradere non poterat? dabat, quod non prius venire in manus eius, cui dabatur, pos-
sibile erat, quam esset extinctum? dabat donum, quod ante quingentos annos aut nun-
quam valiturum foret? Verum hoc loqui aut sentire insanum est.
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione55
Gospel bars, indeed proscribes, all alien terms, every foreign tongue (lin-
gua peregrina). Indeed, the language of the Christian city would deterio-
rate in specificity and meaning if philosophical discourse were made use
of in the theological language of Christianity. In such a case theological
language would be forced into an impossible marriage; it would be unable
to discourse in evangelical speech, but rather would have to make due in
a barbarian tongue (lingua barbara) that is devoid of sense and in itself
false (falsa) in the context of the Gospel. Such is the case in the text of
the Constitutum. It is an ideological statute that has been utilized to intro-
duce the political language of the kingdom of Caesar into the Christian
polis. As a result the Christian message is expressed there in a foreign
language, i.e. in a language alien to the Gospel.
Setting aside metaphors, the situation can also be described historically.
If the vicar of Christ had also become the vicar of Caesar, the papacy
would have introduced into the community of believers and right from
the first centuries of the diffusion of the new religion the will to power of
the kingdom of Caesar in place of the Christian message. Thus the evan-
gelical praxis of Christendom would have transformed into its opposite,
into the praxis of the power of rule the power of the Roman Empire.
Thus Valla identifies an historical and ideological convergence between
the Constitutum and the advent of scholastic theology. Let us now see how
he describes that convergence in the first section of the Oration and in
parallel passages in other works. The assumption of philosophy into
theological discourse (according to De libero arbitrio) had acted as the
seedbed (seminarium) for heresy within Christendom, and the reception
of the precepts of philosophy (praecepta philosophiae), or rather the
doctrines of the philosophers (dogmata philosophorum), had distorted
evangelical wisdom (folly). Similarly, the Constitutum had moved the
foundation of the Church away from Christ and apostolic praxis and
toward worldly power and the politics of rule, corrupting the pastoral duty
of the vicar of Christ and of the community of believers. In this way the
praxis of charity and evangelical freedom was perverted into a rule of
imperial power that was both political and spiritual.
Valla sees the Constantinian ecclesiology that emerges from the
Constitutum, both for its ideological meaning and for the chronology of its
origins, as an integral part of medieval scholasticism. For Valla, the scho-
lasticism which began with Boethius flourished in his own day in the form
of the absolute cultural hegemony of metaphysical and theological
thought. He considered this thought at length and quite incisively in the
first book of his Repastinatio.
56 salvatore i. camporeale
destined to govern the evangelical Church. The Roman pontiff can be the
vicar of Christ and of him alone, but not also of the Roman emperor.
As a result of his critical analysis of the political and anti-evangelical lan-
guage of the Constitutum, Valla concludes first the ideological and second
the historical falseness of the document of donation. Its (pseudo)-origins
simply cannot be found in a time when Christendom was still expanding
along evangelical lines. Its Christian inauthenticity and the anachronism of
its origins thus lead Valla to state and this is the central theme of the
Oration that the Constitutum is an ideological and historical imposter
(falso creditum), flimsily attributed to early Christianity, and a juridico-
canonical forgery (ementitum). It is a legal counterfeit tailored to the papal
theocracy of the Constantinian Church of medieval Christendom.
With the first section of the Oration together with the second, which is
an extension of Pope Sylvesters speech we have seen how Valla falsi-
fies the Constitutum by demonstrating it to be unsuitable to, indeed
incompatible with, its ostensible immediate context. Covering the entire
range of the imperial donations supposed context, Vallas argument
reveals Constantines act to be an inauthentic event in light of the histori-
cal and ideological dimensions of imperium and evangelium, dimensions
which are personified in the Oration by Constantine and Pope Sylvester.
In other words, Valla falsifies the Constitutum by falsifying its referents.
The imperial power (Constantine) and the papacy (Sylvester) the refer-
ents assumed as the real agents of the Constitutum would have contra-
dicted (or negated) themselves if the donation had actually occurred. And
this means that the reference of the document of donation is in and of
itself absurd, and thus not true. Therefore, as the title of the Oration claims,
the Constitutum is falsely believed and forged.82
The continuation of Vallas analysis in sections III, IV, and V is respec-
tively dedicated to the early church, to the true and proper text of the
Constitutum, and to the Pactum Hludovicianum (Pact of Louis the Pious).
These sections seem, in the context of the Orations overall structure, to
constitute its body of the text. This is the part of his discourse in which
Valla fully elaborates the philological procedure that he pioneered and
82On falsification of reference and textuality, see the essential analysis on language in
Ennio Floris, Sous le Christ, Jsus: mthode danalyse rfrentielle applique aux vangiles
(Paris: Flammarion, 1987), especially 41219.
58 salvatore i. camporeale
that has justifiably made his Oration famous. But this part is also marked
by a change in argumentation with respect to the preceding sections
that is decisive for understanding the work as a whole.
Indeed, in the body of the Oration, Vallas argumentation shifts from
the context of the Constitutum to its text. The analysis moves to the con-
tent of the document to the text of the document of donation and
subjects it to an enarratio, a form of morphological and semantic criti-
cism that Valla derived from Quintilians Institutio oratoria and fully re-
elaborated himself. His rhetorical argumentation (as a critical analysis of
language) therefore takes on a strictly philological character. It neverthe-
less retains the aim, which is the aim of the whole Oration, of exposing
the explicit and implicit contradictions in the text of the Constitutum.
Let us further refine the foregoing considerations on Vallas argumenta-
tion and on the way it changes in the transition between sections I and II
and the body of the Oration. Valla bases his rhetorical strategy, which
examines the truth and falseness of the relationship between res (things)
and verba (words) (in this case between the donation and the Constitutum),
on intertextuality. The change, or new direction, therefore, in argumenta-
tion travels along the same path as the correlation between text and con-
text (precisely of intertextuality). Valla believes this correlation to be
inseparable. In section I (and II) of the Oration Valla had proceeded from
the context to the text of the Constitutum. Starting from the context of
imperium and evangelium, that is from the nature and historical phenom-
enology of each, he had arrived at the text (and an evaluation) of the
Constitutum and concluded by induction from the historical reality and
nature of imperium and evangelium the logical absurdity of the dona-
tion and thus its historical unreality. Within these boundaries of inter
textuality, Vallas analysis seems to have proceeded from the truth of the
context the historical reality and the awareness of imperial power and
the Christian Gospel to the falseness of the text in consideration. And
since the context and the text of the Constitutum turned out to be in
mutual conflict and negation, the supposed reality of the donation was
revealed as false: it contradicted the effectual (historical) truth of impe-
rium and the essence of evangelium.
Valla uses quite a different method of argumentation in the Orations
body. He reverses direction, so to speak, and proceeds from the text of the
Constitutum to its context. But the context to which Valla refers, it must
be noted immediately, is not the one presumed by the Constitutum (in the
intentions of its forger), but rather its authentic historical context, the
context of its real origins. Thus, Valla proceeds along intertextual lines
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione59
83The following works should be added to Setzs ample bibliography: Pietro De Leo,
Ricerche sui falsi medievali, I. Il Constitutum Constantini. Note e documenti per una nuova
lettura (Reggio Calabria: Meridionali Riuniti, 1974); Giuseppe Martini, Traslazione
dellImpero e Donazione di Costantino nel pensiero e nella politica dInnocenzo III,
Nuova Rivista Storica 65 (Jan.-Apr., 1981), fasc. I-II (Scritti di Giuseppe Martini): 372; idem,
Regale Sacerdotium, ibid.: 73156; idem, Per la storia dei pontificati di Niccol IV e
Bonifacio VIII, ibid.: 157190; idem, Alcune considerazioni sulla dottrina gelasiana, ibid.:
282292, at 291; Walter Ullmann, Il papato nel medioevo (Bari: Laterza, 1975), esp. 84ff., 121,
124, 142 [English ed. = A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (London: Methuen,
1972)]; Gerhart B. Ladner, The Concepts of Ecclesia and Christianitas, and their Relation
to the Idea of Plenitudo Potestatis from Gregory VII to Boniface VIII, in idem, Images and
Ideas in the Middle Ages. Selected Studies in History and Art, 2 vols. (Roma: Edizioni di storia
e letteratura, 1983), 487515; Stanley Chodorow, Christian Political Theory and Church
Politics in the Mid-Twelfth Century. The Ecclesiology of Gratians Decretum (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1972); Michele Maccarrone, Il Papa Vicarius Christi. Testi e
dottrina dal sec. XII al principio del XIV, in Miscellanea Pio Paschini: Studi di Storia
Ecclesiastica, 2 vols. (Roma: Facultas Theologica Pontificii Athenaei Lateranensis, 1958),
1:427500; Arsenio Frugoni, Incontri nel Medioevo (Bologna: Il mulino, 1979), 73177; and
finally, Pietro De Leo, Gioacchino da Fiore. Aspetti inediti della vita e delle opere (Soveria
Mannelli: Rubbettino Editore, 1988), 2550; Giovanni Farris and Benedetto Tino Delfino
(eds.), Jacopo da Varagine, Atti del I Convegno di Studi (Varazze, 1314 aprile, 1985)
(Cogoleto: Edizioni SMA, 1987).
60 salvatore i. camporeale
immediately preceded Sylvester, and this is what he says: The Church has
reached the point when not only peoples but even Roman emperors, who
held sway over the whole world, might join together in the faith of Christ
and its sacraments. Of these emperors, Constantine, a highly religious man,
first openly espoused faith in the truth and made it permissible for those
who lived anywhere in the world under his rule not only to become
Christians but to build churches, and he arranged for the assignment of
properties. Finally the aforementioned emperor provided immense largesse
and started the construction of the first basilica of the see of St. Peter, so that
he gave up his own imperial residence and granted it to St. Peter and his suc-
cessors for their future use [Decretum C. XII q. 1 c. 15]. You see that
Melchiades says Constantine gave nothing except the Lateran palace and
the properties that Gregory very often mentions in his register. Where are
those who do not allow us to question the validity of the Donation of
Constantine, when the actual donation took place before Sylvester and con-
sisted solely of private properties?84
Section IV is entirely dedicated to a linguistic, morphological, and seman-
tic analysis of the Constitutum. It is the longest section of the Oration. Here
are laid down, indeed laid bare, the foundational materials for Vallas
treatment of the historical and ecclesiological question of the Donation of
Constantine. His critical epistemology, together with his philological and
historical methodology, reveal here the full measure of the original argu-
mentation that he pioneered.
Valla proceeds concentrically from a direct and indirect analysis of the
Constitutum considering its implicit and explicit sources along with the
84Valla, De falso, 93f. (34) and Setzs notes: Sed iam tempus est cause adversario-
rum iam concise atque lacerate letale vulnus imprimere et uno eam iugulare ictu. Omnis
fere historia, que nomen historie meretur, Constantinum a puero cum patre Constantio
christianum refert multo etiam ante pontificatum Silvestri, ut Eusebius, ecclesiastice
scriptor historie, quem Rufinus, non in postremis doctus, in Latinum interpretatus duo
volumina de evo suo adiecit, quorum uterque pene Constantini temporibus fuit. Adde
huc testimonium etiam Romani pontificis, qui his rebus gerendis non interfuit, sed pre-
fuit, non testis, sed auctor, non alieni negotii, sed sui narrator. Is est Melchiades papa, qui
proximus fuit ante Silvestrum, qui ait, Ecclesia ad hoc usque pervenit, ut non solum
gentes, sed etiam Romani principes, qui totius orbis monarchiam tenebant, ad fidem
Christi et fidei sacramenta concurrerent. E quibus vir religiosissimus Constantinus pri-
mus fidem veritatis patenter adeptus licentiam dedit per universum orbem suo degenti-
bus imperio non solum fieri christianos, sed etiam fabricandi ecclesias, et predia
constituit tribuenda. Denique idem prefatus princeps donaria immensa contulit et fabri-
cam templi prime sedis beati Petri instituit, adeo ut sedem imperialem relinqueret et
beato Petro suisque successoribus profuturam concederet. En nihil Melchiades a
Constantino datum ait, nisi palatium Lateranense et predia, de quibus Gregorius in reg-
istro facit sepissime mentionem. Ubi sunt, qui nos in dubium vocare non sinunt, donatio
Constantini valeat nec ne, cum illa donatio fuerit et ante Silvestrum et rerum tantum-
modo privatarum?
62 salvatore i. camporeale
document itself to the individual lexemes of its text. Hence the opening
passage of the section:
Although this issue [the Constitutum] is clear and obvious, we must never-
theless discuss the document itself, which those blockheads keep putting
forward. First of all, not only must we charge with dishonesty the person
who wanted to pose as Gratian by making additions to Gratians work, but
we must also charge with ignorance those who think that the text of the
document was included in Gratians collection.85
This is the point of departure not only for the section in consideration, but
also for a kind of analysis that must indubitably be classified as decon-
structionist literary criticism, to use a modernist term of our own day.
What better analytical tool, what more fitting type of literary criticism
could Valla have employed to expose a text like the Constitutum as a
forgery?
Valla maintains first off that the text of the grant (pagina privilegii)
does not belong to Gratians original Concordantia discordantium cano-
num (Concordance of Discordant Canons). On the contrary, it is a later edi-
torial addition inserted by another hand (Paucupalea) into the collection
of canons. There is no trace whatsoever of the text of the grant in any of
the oldest manuscripts of Gratians Decretum. What is more, its text
stands in utter contradiction to everything else collected by the renowned
jurist Gratian, whom Valla describes as learned in civil law. Furthermore:
it is highly demeaning to suggest that the compiler of decrees [Gratian]
either did not know what this man [Paucupalea] added or valued highly and
considered it authentic.86
Actually, Valla maintains, the text of the grant was taken from the
Legenda Silvestri, and it is there that it has its origin. And since the Legenda
Silvestri is just that a legend, or fabula the text of the grant (pagina
privilegii, i.e. the Constitutum), as an integral part of that Legenda, is itself
also a fabula.
Now, in the received text of the Decretum, and more precisely in the
brief introduction to the text of the grant (Decretum Gratiani, Dist. XCVI
85Ibid., 95.17 (35): Que res quanquam plana et aperta sit, tamen de ipso, quod isti
stolidi proferre solent, privilegio disserendum est. Et ante omnia non modo ille, qui
Gratianus videri voluit, qui nonnulla ad opus Gratiani adiecit, improbitatis arguendus est,
verum etiam inscitie, qui opinantur paginam privilegi apud Gratianum contineri .
86Ibid., 95.8f. (35): in vetustissimis quibusque editionibus; 13 (Gratianus, doctus in
iure civili is quoted from the Adnotationes in Novum Testamentum, Rom. 15:29); 96.25
(35): indignissimum est credere, que ab hoc adiecta sunt, ea decretorum collectorem
aut ignorasse aut magnifecisse habuisseque pro veris.
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione63
cap. 13), two references are made to it and its tradition: one from the
Decree of Gelasius, and the other from the Gesta Silvestri (Acts of Sylvester).
This double reference is supposed to sustain: (1) that the Constitutum
comes directly from the Gesta Silvestri; (2) that the Gesta Silvestri is
respected as authentic by the Decree of Gelasius; and (3) that consequently
the Constitutum must also be respected as an authentic text, since it is said
(by the Decretum) to be an integral part of the Gesta Silvestri.87
But, Valla objects, this double reference, brought forth to prove the
authenticity of the original source (the Gesta Silvestri) from which the
text of the grant is supposed to derive, is belied by its ambiguity. Indeed,
the Gesta Silvestri to which Gelasius Decree refers and to whose existence
it testifies together with its liturgical reading current in the Roman
Church and in others as well is not to be identified with the Legenda
Silvestri. The two hagiographic texts are different. While the Gesta does
not contain the Constitutum, the Legenda does. Valla writes:
Gelasius testifies that it [the Gesta Silvestri] was read by many Catholics, and
Voragine mentions it. We too have seen thousands of copies written long ago,
and they are read out in almost every cathedral on Sylvesters birthday. Yet
no one says that he has read there what [i.e., the Constitutum] you put in it.
No one says he has heard of it, or dreamt of it.88
So far Valla has made the following points. First, the insertion of the
Constitutum into Gratians Decretum is inauthentic, since it was actually
added later by a fellow canonist, Paucupalea. Not only is it an editorial
addition, it is in conflict (almost dysfunctionally so) with the original
ordering and juridico-canonical systematics of the Concordance as they
were established and understood by its author. Second, the Constitutum
does not come from the Gesta Silvestri but from another source or text.
Valla identifies this other source as the homonymous Legenda.
As a result of these conclusions and of the Constitutums being an
integral part indeed the most significant and prominent part of the
Legenda Silvestri, Valla is ready to proceed to his own reading and evalua-
tion of the Legenda. At the same time, he is able to conduct his philologi-
cal and historical analysis of the Constitutum within the investigation of
the Legenda. Therefore, ascending and descending along an analytical
89Ibid., 97.2198.5 (37): At videte, quantum inter meum intersit vestrumque iudicium:
ego ne si hoc quidem apud gesta Silvestri privilegium contineretur pro vero habendum
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione65
Valla concludes that the Legenda Silvestri and the Constitutum share a
relationship of what can certainly be called infratextuality. With this term
we clarify that, for Valla, the Constitutum is not only an integral part of the
Legenda in the sense that the latter contains the former and is thus its
original source, but also that the Constitutum gives structure to the text
and (literary and ideological) meaning of the Legenda. This infratextual
relationship of the Legenda to the Constitutum, and the corresponding
structural relationship of the Constitutum to the Legenda, necessarily
result in the following conclusion: the fictional aspect of the hagiography
of Sylvester its evangelical inauthenticity and historical falseness
makes the Constitutum equally fictional.
The Roman nationalists of Arnold of Brescias revolution had called
the Constitutum a lie and an heretical fabula (mendacium et fabula heret-
ica, as Wezel reported to Frederick Barbarossa in a letter of 1152). Now
Valla uses the same phrase to characterize the Constitutum, on the grounds
that the perverted Legenda Silvestri itself is a very brazen fabula.90
Thus the humanist proceeds from a consideration of the whole literary
composition of the Legenda to its structural component, the Constitutum.
Then he continues in the opposite direction from the Constitutum to the
Legenda, since the latter stands in infratextual relation to the former. For
Valla, then, the Legenda is the true and specific infratext that governs the
entire (formal and semantic) textuality of the Constitutum; in the same
way, the inauthentic text of the Constitutum is the buttress stabilizing the
historical falseness of the pseudo-Donation of Constantine.
Following on what has just been said, it is necessary to highlight two of
Vallas observations on the Constitutum. Here is the first:
But this Donation of Constantine, so splendid and so unexampled, can be
proven by no document at all, whether of gold or on silver or on bronze or
on marble, or finally, in books, but only, if we believe that man, on paper or
parchment.91
putarem, cum historia illa non historia sit, sed poetica et impudentissima fabula ut pos-
terius ostendam nec quisquam alius alicuius duntaxat auctoritatis de hoc privilegio
habeat mentionem. Et Iacobus Voraginensis, propensus in amorem clericorum ut archi-
episcopus, tamen in gestis sanctorum de donatione Constantini ut fabulosa nec digna, que
inter gesta Silvestri poneretur, silentium egit, lata quodammodo sententia contra eos, si
qui hec litteris mandavissent [translation modified].
90Martini, Traslazione dellImpero e Donazione di Costantino, 65f.
91Valla, De falso, 100.37 (39): Ista vero tam magnifica Constantini et tam inaudita
donatio nullis, neque in auro neque in argento neque in ere neque in marmore neque
postremo in libris, probari documentis potest, sed tantum, si isti credimus, in charta sive
membrana.
66 salvatore i. camporeale
created and then buttressed the entire theocratic ideology of the papacy,
formulated over time and eventually canonized by the Constitutum.
Valla intends with his Oration, then, to overturn the Constitutum by
means of the most radical historical criticism of it ever dared. He hopes
therewith to spark a renaissance of pre-Constantinian Christianity and a
renewal of the Christian and patristic evangelism that preceded the Edict
of Milan and the Codex Theodosianus. More generally, the Oration aims to
restore Christianity to the state it was in before the rise of the Christian-
Roman Empire of the fourth century.
Let us now turn to sections V and VI, the sections that conclude the
body of the Oratio. After having identified (in section III) the texts of
Eusebius and Rufinus, Pope Melchiades, and Gratian as the documents
that are historically valid for a critical-philological analysis of the Legenda
Silvestri and the Constitutum (carried out in section IV), Valla turns in sec-
tion V to a consideration of the so-called Pactum Hludovicianum, a pact
drawn up in 817 between the emperor Louis the Pious (814840) and Pope
Paschal I (817824). Valla uses the text of the Pactum as it appears in
Gratians Decretum, Dist. LXIII cap. 30.
The Pactum Hludovicianum was the first explicit historical confirma-
tion of the Constitutum, illustrating for the first time the Roman Churchs
effective use of the document. On account of its historical and canonical,
ecclesiastical and jurisdictional importance, Gratian included the text of
the agreement between pope and emperor in his Concordantia discordan-
tium canonum. And it was as such, on account of its juridical and ecclesio-
logical significance, that Valla read the Pactum Hludovicianum.
The Pactum provided a juridical norm and theoretical basis for policy as
well as for diplomatic relations between the Empire and the papacy. Such
was the case as much for the papacys political and ecclesiological praxis
in the past as for the canonistic and scholastic ecclesiology contemporary
with Valla. It is precisely in consideration of these political and ecclesio-
logical premises, brought to light by the Pactum, that Valla conducts his
critical analysis in section V. And again, in accordance with the modes and
objectives of his peculiar argumentative procedure, he attempts to iden-
tify and highlight the internal contradictions that invalidate both the
Pactums juridical validity in civil and canon law and its use in governing
relations between pope and emperor.
The sections opening passage is indicative of Vallas argumentative cri-
teria, as well as of his tone (sharp irony), in this section of the Oration:
Louis, are you really making an agreement with Paschal? If all this belongs to
you, in other words the Roman empire, why are you granting it to someone
70 salvatore i. camporeale
else? If it belongs to Paschal and is his possession, what is the point of the
confirmation? How much Roman empire will you have left, if you lose the
capital itself? The Roman emperor is so called from the name of Rome. Tell
me, is everything else you possess yours or Paschals? Yours, I suppose you
will say: therefore the Donation of Constantine is invalid if you are the
owner of what he gave the pontiff. If it is valid, by what right does Paschal
turn all the rest over to you after retaining for himself only what he already
possesses? What is the sense of such largesse involving the Roman empire,
either yours to him or his to you? You therefore rightly speak of an agree-
ment as if it were a kind of collusion.98
In section V together with section VI, its continuation Valla does not
change his style of argumentation, at least in the sense that he sticks to the
fundamental modality of his critical analysis. Nevertheless, in these two
final sections of the body he seems to turn his discourse with a direct
comparison and extremely explicit language more towards the canonis-
tic and scholastic ecclesiology of his own day. Valla aims his criticism spe-
cifically at the Constantinian rule and corresponding praxis (based on
the Constitutum) of the contemporary papacy, still in full force in the fif-
teenth century with Pope Eugenius IV, the actual addressee of the Oration.
Hence, again, Vallas fully articulated response in section VI (the last
before the peroration) to the final objection of those who would defend
the Constitutum on the basis of the right of prescription:99
Our adversaries, who have been kept from defending a donation that never
was and, even if it had been, would have collapsed over the course of time,
resort to another form of defense, and, as if they had retreated from their
city, gather themselves into the citadel, which they are compelled to surren-
der just as soon as the food runs out. The Roman church, they say, has
exercised its authority in those territories it possesses.100
98Valla, De falso, 156.16157.7 (82): Tu ne, Ludovice, cum Pascale pacisceris? Si tua,
idest imperii Romani sunt ista, cur alteri concedis? si ipsius et ab eo possidentur, quid
attinet te illa confirmare? Quantulum etiam ex imperio Romano tuum erit, si caput ipsum
imperii amisisti? A Roma dicitur Romanus imperator. Quid, cetera que possides, tua ne an
Pascalis sunt? Credo, tua dices: nihil ergo valet donatio Constantini, si ab eo pontifici
donata tu possides. Si valet, quo iure Pascalis tibi cetera remittit retentis tantum sibi que
possidet? Quid sibi vult tanta aut tua in illum aut illius in te de imperio Romano largitio?
Merito igitur pactum appellas quasi quandam collusionem.
99[In Roman law, the right of prescription (longe possessionis prescriptio) is a right to
property that one does not technically own based on authority over that property over a
long and established period of time. Eds.]
100Valla, De falso, 167.5ff. (90): Exclusi a defendenda donatione adversarii quod
nec unquam fuit et, si qua fuisset, iam temporum condicione intercidisset confugiunt
ad alterum genus defensionis, et velut relicta urbe in arcem se recipiunt, quam statim
deficientibus cibariis dedere cogerunt: prescriptsit, inquiunt, Romana ecclesia in iis que
possidet .
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione71
Thus section VI concludes the body of the Oration by denying the papacys
ability, on the basis of the Constitutum, to appeal to the right of prescrip-
tion in defense of powers supposedly devolving to the Roman Church
from the pseudo-Donation of Constantine.
This last consideration on section VI still concerns only its formal
aspect and structural placement in the Orations literary composition. Let
us remember, however, that Vallas writing has its motivations and origin
in an assault, against the papacy in general and Eugenius IV in particular,
in defense of the Aragonese succession to the Kingdom of Naples, and that
it is thus an issue of Alfonso the Greats chancery. From this point of view,
section VI enjoys a nearly absolute preeminence, whether it is considered
in and of itself or viewed within the scope of a decidedly relativistic inter-
pretation of the Oration (a type of interpretation, by the way, that would
be more than legitimate).
Indeed, the Oration was born, drafted, and developed in a complex
articulation of theoretical and historical arguments. It is a political, juridi-
cal, and canonistic discourse aimed at radically criticizing contemporary
papal power (potestas papalis), especially as that power was manifested in
the political and ecclesiological praxis of Pope Eugenius IV. Valla is quite
explicit about all this right in section VI, which constitutes the final and
definitive conclusion of his whole discourse. Therefore, this section
becomes a paradigmatic and formal expression of his chief intention, and
thus of the primary and determining purpose of the Oration as a whole.
Here are Vallas most significant and prominent statements:
The Roman church has exercised its authority [Codex 7, 3335]: Why, there-
fore, is it so often concerned that this right be confirmed by the emperors?
Why does it boast of the donation and the imperial confirmation, if just one
of these would suffice? How can it have done this, when it is based on no
title but only on possession in bad faith? If you deny possession in bad faith,
you certainly cannot deny in stupid faith. Or, in a matter so great and so
conspicuous, ought ignorance of fact and law to be excused? Fact because
Constantine did not give Rome and the provinces: an ordinary person might
be unaware of this but not the supreme pontiff. Law because those places
could not have been given or accepted: one could scarcely be a Christian
and not know this. Will stupid credulity give you a right to what would never
have been yours, had you been more prudent? Now at least, after I have
demonstrated that you had possession through ignorance and stupidity, will
you not forfeit that right, if you ever had it? But if you persist in keeping
possession, your ignorance is straightaway transformed into malice and
deceit, and you plainly become a possessor in bad faith.
The Roman church has exercised its authority: You transfer to man an
authority that is exercised over mute and mindless objects. The longer a
72 salvatore i. camporeale
man is kept in slavery, the more detestable it is. Birds and wild animals do
not want to be subject to authority, but however long they have been con-
fined, as soon as the occasion presents itself, they escape as they like. Will a
man, when possessed by a man, not be free to escape? But the Pope, as
may be observed, assiduously plots against the liberty of peoples. Therefore,
as the occasion arises, they rebel in turn every day look at Bologna recently.
If any of them ever voluntarily consented to papal rule which can happen
when some danger is threatening from another quarter, it must not be imag-
ined that they consented to make themselves slaves, that they could never
pull their necks out from under the yoke, that afterwards they and their off-
spring would have no jurisdiction over themselves. This would be foully
unjust. Voluntarily, supreme pontiff, we came to you to govern us: volun-
tarily we now go away from you, lest you govern us any longer . As for you,
look after your sacral duties. Do not enthrone yourself in the North and
thunder from there as you hurl bolts of lightning against [the Roman] peo-
ple and all others.101
The preceding excursus has served as an overview of sections III, IV, V, and
VI of the Oration. The following pages will be dedicated to highlighting
certain aspects and nodal points that are essential for fully comprehend-
ing Vallas investigation into and meditation on the Constitutums pseudo-
donation. The following essential aspects and themes will be treated:
(1) Vallas philological study of the Constitutum within the context of
101Ibid., 167.1416 (91); 167.20168.15 (92); 169.713 (94); 170.18171.9 (94); 172.11ff. (95):
Prescripsit Romana ecclesia: cur ergo ab imperatoribus totiens curat sibi ius confirman-
dum? cur donationem confirmationemque Cesarum iactat, si hoc unum satis est? Et
quomodo potest prescripsisse, ubi de nullo titulo, sed de male fidei possessione constat?
Aut si male fidei possessionem neges, profecto stulte fidei negare non possis. An in tanta re
tamque aperta excusata debet esse et facti et iuris ignorantia? facti quidem, quod Romam
provinciasque non dedit Constantinus quod ignorare idiote hominis est, non summi
pontificis , iuris autem, quod illa nec donari potuere nec accipi quod nescire vix chris-
tiani est. Ita ne stulta credulitas dabit tibi ius in iis, que, si prudentior fores, tua nunquam
fuissent? Quid, nonne nunc saltem, postquam te per ignorantiam atque stultitiam posse-
disse docui, ius istud, si quod erat, amittes? Quod si adhuc possidere pergis, iam inscitia
in malitiam fraudemque conversa est planeque effectus es male fidei possessor.
Prescripsit Romana ecclesia: Prescriptionem, que fit de rebus mutis atque irratio-
nabilibus, ad hominem transfers, cuius quo diuturnior in servitute possessio eo est detest-
abilior. Aves ac fere in se prescribi nolunt, sed quantolibet tempore possesse, cum libuerit
et oblata fuerit occasio, abeunt: homini ab homine possesso abire non licebit? At papa,
ut videre licet, insidiatur sedulo libertati populorum. Ideoque vicissim illi quotidie oblata
facultate ad Bononiam modo respice rebellant. Qui si quando sponte quod evenire
potest aliquo aliunde periculo urgente in papale imperium consenserunt, non ita accipi-
endum est consensisse, ut servos se facerent, ut nunquam subtrahere a iugo colla possent,
ut postea nati non et ipsi arbitrium sui habeant, nam hoc iniquissimum foret. Sponte ad te,
summe pontifex, ut nos gubernares, venimus: sponte nunc rursus abs te, ne gubernes diu-
tius, recedimus . Tu vero, que sacerdotii operis sunt, cura, et noli tibi ponere sedem ad
aquilonem et illinc tonantem fulgurantia fulmina in hunc populum ceterosque vibrare
[translation modified].
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione73
completely valid. But, one step at a time, he ends up arguing against the
whole of scholastic ecclesiology, which is based on the same premise.
The papacys ecclesiological attributes are said to be inconsistent with the
premise (the pope is the vicar of Christ) from which they were derived.
Some are even judged to be in clear contradiction from a strictly evan-
gelical point of view with the very nature of the papacy, insofar as it is
the primary apostolic see of the other Christ (alter Christus) on earth. It
might be noted, by way of digression, that Vallas writings often show
affinities with the evangelical ecclesiology of Wycliffe and Hus.
Valla reaches his ecclesiological conclusions in the following way. First
he reduces every religious title (high priest, successor of Peter, Bishop of
Rome, to whom all kings ) that with the passage of time was tacked
onto the syntagma the pope is the vicar of Christ, or which was devel-
oped on the basis of that syntagma, to the one authentic attribute of the
bishopric of Rome, the one on account of which the papacy exists, always
and only, as the vicariate of Christ. Then he reinterprets and reconfirms
the statement the pope is the vicar of Christ in a strictly evangelical
sense: the pope, since he has the preeminent claim to apostolic succes-
sion, is the perfect personification of the christianus homo, and thus he is
always (and only) the vicar of Christ par excellence.
Once again, it may be observed that in the Oration Valla follows the
very same argumentative procedures with respect to the ecclesiological
language of scholasticism as he does in the Repastinatio with respect to
scholasticisms philosophical and theological language. In the first book of
the Repastinatio, Valla uses philological, morphological, and semantic
analysis in a two-step operation. First, he reduces the transcendentals (for
example) to the single concept of res (thing), or the predicaments (another
example) to the category of qualitas-actio (quality-act). Then he reinter-
prets those basic terms to which the theoretical language had been
reduced by charging them with new meanings.104 Here, in the Oration,
Valla follows the same procedure and repeats the same operation. First he
reduces the multiple ecclesiological attributes of the papacy developed by
scholastics and canonists to one fundamental affirmation: the pope is the
vicar of Christ. Then he reinterprets that affirmation according to a mean-
ing that it could have in the light either of the New Testament scriptures
(restricted to the evangelical books) or of a spiritual and reforming tradi-
tion, which had often emerged in Christianitys history in the form of
radical evangelism.
Let us now see exactly how and in what sense Valla executes in
section IV his critique of the ecclesiological language of medieval and con-
temporary scholasticism and canon law. He begins his philological and his-
torical critique with the Constitutum the text of the grant or document
of donation and finishes with the Legenda Silvestri taken as a whole, that
is as the comprehensive whole of the Constitutum. It should be added
that Valla develops his analysis, both of the Constitutum and of the Legenda,
at various levels. These are pursued distinctly one after another, but they
are always correlated within the individual texts under consideration.
6.1.The Constitutum
Valla first uses his grammatical study to reveal the barbarity of language
(loquendi or sermonis barbaries) typical of the document of donation. He
conducts this study on the text of the Constitutum by subjecting it to a
linguistic analysis based on fourth-century Latin, the language that the
document has as a referent and in which it most often presumes to
express itself.105
According to Valla, the linguistic analysis of the Constitutum reveals
inelegant and often inexact syntactical structures:
He is so enchanted by the sound of turgid vocabulary that he repeats the
same things and regurgitates what he has already said . A fine reason to
speak like a barbarian, to make your utterance go more prettily, as if any-
thing pretty could be found in such coarseness.106
The composer (or forger) of the Constitutum is revealed as endowed with
no literary taste. He is unworthy of being the scribe of the Caesars, and
he is far, far from the eloquence of a Lactantius, whom he pretends to have
as both his contemporary and his model.107 There is therefore a difference
between the Latinity of the Constitutum and the neo-classical Latinity of
the fourth century, the Latin used by Constantine and Lactantius:
Who ever heard of a Phrygian tiara in Latin? Although you talk like a bar-
barian, you apparently want me to think this is the language of Constantine
or Lactantius. In his play Menaechmi [426], Plautus used the word phrygio
for a clothesmaker, and Pliny [Nat. hist. VIII 106] calls embroidered gar-
ments phrygions because the Phrygians invented them. But what would a
Phrygian tiara signify?108
And again,
A style worthy of Constantine, an eloquence worthy of Lactantius, not only
in other places but also in that phrase be mounted on mounts! May God
destroy you, wickedest of mortals, for ascribing barbarous speech to an age
of learning.109
Still using the criterion of Latinity (and with particular reference to fourth-
century Latinity), Valla continues on to the morphological, semantic, and
pragmatic analysis of the lemmas and syntagmas of the whole Constitutum:
Should I attack the foolishness of ideas more than words? You have heard
about the ideas. Here is the foolishness of words.110
He devotes the rest of section IV to this analysis in order to leave no doubt
that the Constitutum lies outside of Constantines historical context.111
As linguistic analysis shows the Constitutum to be contrary to proper
Latinity, thus an analysis of the Christian religion based on the New
Testament shows it to be contrary to the evangelical ecclesia. The
Constitutum makes the claim, which it even reaffirms in several ways, that
as a result of the Donation of Constantine the Romans became a people
subject to the rule of the Church of Rome.112 But this is unheard-of, pro-
tests Valla. How could an imperial decree, in only three days, obliterate
that Romanitas (Romanness) consisting of civil and political autonomy
and the governance of other peoples on the basis of law which was under-
stood as the special historical destiny of Rome and of the Roman people?
108Ibid., 117.13118.4 (51): quis unquam phrygium latine dici audivit? Tu mihi, dum
barbare loqueris, videri vis Constantini aut Lactantii esse sermonem? Plautus in Menechmis
phrygionem pro concinnatore vestium posuit, Plinius phrygionas appellat vestes acu
pictas, quod earum Phryges fuerint inventores: phrygium vero quid significet?
109Ibid., 124.16f. (56), 120.20ff. (53): dignus Constantino sermo, digna Lactantio fac-
undia cum in ceteris tum vero in illo equos equitent . Deus te perdat, improbissime
mortalium, qui sermonem barbarum attribuis seculo erudito.
110Ibid., 123.12ff. (55): utrum magis insequar sententiarum an verborum stoliditatem?
Sententiarum audistis, verborum hec est (emphasis added).
111The most important passages are ibid., 123125 (5556), 126f. (57), 129133 (6164),
138f. (70), 143 (73).
112Ibid., 102.13ff. (42): populo imperio Romane ecclesie subiacenti.
78 salvatore i. camporeale
What people is this? The Roman people? Why not say Roman people rather
than subject people? What is this new insult to the Quirites, whom the best
of poets eulogized: You, Roman, take care to rule over peoples with your
imperial power [Virgil, Aeneid 6.851]. So the people that rules over other
peoples is itself called a subject people. This is unheard of. For, as Gregory
attests in many of his letters, the Roman emperor differs from all other rulers
in this particular point: he alone is the leader of a free people. But even if
what you claim be granted, are not other peoples also subject? Or do you
also have other people in mind? How could it happen in three days that all
peoples subject to the rule of the Church of Rome were on hand for that
decree?113
As a result of the donation Valla notes again the papacy would have
risen to the absolute and total imperium of the Roman Empire. The Roman
pope would have been invested by Constantine with its power and abso-
lute rule, which would now have a priestly nature to boot. What is more,
the neo-Christian emperor whom Valla deprecates as made to take over
epithets of God and to effect an imitation of the language of Sacred
Scripture, which he had never read114 would have converted the pope
from the successor of Peter to the vicar of Peter. Pope Sylvester would
thus appear to have been called to the primacy of the Roman see by the
will and deliberation of the emperor Constantine:
He calls the Roman pontiffs vicars of Peter, as if Peter is still alive or all the
others are of lesser eminence than Peter was. Although the Roman see
received its primacy from Christ, and the Eighth Synod [Constantinople,
869/70] declared it, according to Gratian and many of the Greeks, it is said
[in the Constitutum] to have received this from Constantine, who was barely
a Christian, as if from Christ . In honor of blessed Peter, as if Christ were
not the most important cornerstone on which the temple of the Church has
been built, but Peter . He not only makes Constantine similar in office to
Moses, who adorned the High Priest on the order of God, but he makes him
an expounder of secret mysteries something extremely difficult even for
those who have long been immersed in sacred texts. Why did you not also
make Constantine the chief pontiff, as indeed many emperors were, so that
113Ibid., 104.19105.5 (42) (and Setzs note 191): Et quis iste est populus, Romanus ne? At
cur non dicitur populus Romanus potius quam populus subiacens? Que nova ista contu-
melia est in Quirites? de quibus optimi poete elogium est: Tu regere imperio populos,
Romane, memento. Qui regit alios populos, ipse vocatur populus subiacens, quod inaudi-
tum est. Nam in hoc, ut in multis epistolis Gregorius testatur, differt Romanus princeps a
ceteris, quod solus est princeps liberi populi. Ceterum ita sit ut tu vis: nonne et alii populi
subiacent? an alios quoque significas? Quomodo fieri istud triduo poterat, ut omnes populi
subiacentes imperio Romane ecclesie illi decreto adessent?
114Ibid., 107.1214 (43): titulos Dei sibi arrogare fingitur et imitari velle sermonem
sacre scripture, quem nunquam legerat.
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione79
115Ibid., 106.12ff (43), 108.1114 (44), 126.1820 (57), 128.15129.3 (60): Et pontifices
Romanos appellat vicarios Petri, quasi vel vivat Petrus vel minori dignitate sint ceteri,
quam Petrus fuit . quod cum a Christo primatum acceperit Romana sedes et id Gratiano
testante multisque Grecorum octava synodus declararit, accepisse dicatur a Constantino
vixdum christiano tanquam a Christo . Pro honore beati Petri, quasi Christus non sit
summus angularis lapis, in quo templum ecclesie constructum est, sed Petrus .
Constantinum non tantum officio similem Moysi, qui summum sacerdotem iussu Dei
ornavit, sed secreta mysteria facit exponentem, quod difficillimum est iis, qui diu in sacris
litteris sunt versati. Cur non fecisti etiam Constantinum pontificem maximum ut multi
imperatores fuerunt , ut commodius ipsius ornamenta in alterum summum pontificem
transferrentur? Sed nescisti historias.
116Ibid., 115.15116.1, 116.35 (49): O Romani pontifices ita ne vestimenta, apparatus,
pompa, equitatus, omnis denique vita Cesaris vicarium Christi decebit? Que communica-
tio sacerdotis ad Cesarem! Sceleratissimi homines non intelligunt Silvestro magis vestes
Aaron, qui summus Dei sacerdos fuerat, quam gentilis principis fuisse sumendas.
117Ibid., 114.49 (49): beato Silvestro, eius vicario tradimus verum etiam chlamy-
dem purpuream atque tunicam coccineam et omnia imperialia indumenta (emphasis
added).
80 salvatore i. camporeale
above) have the same meaning, and thus that his repetition of them
results in banal pleonasm. However, Valla continues ironically, maybe the
forger wanted to conflate in his composition, as if to endow it with a
devout scriptural resonance, the texts of Matthew 27:28 and John 19:2,
where the two evangelists describe the burlesque regalia placed upon
Christ by the Roman soldiery.118 But it is precisely these perverted scrip-
tural resonances, it is this treacherous and faithless language employed by
the forger in the Constitutum the barbarous language of this most mon-
strous of men (improbissimi mortalium sermo barbarus) that amplifies
the sharp dissonance between the document of donation and the Gospel
and the Christian community:
Would that very modest emperor [Constantine] have been willing to say
this, and that very pious pontiff [Sylvester] to hear it? What is more idiotic
than to say that all the emperors vestments are appropriate for a pontiff?
There is nothing emptier, nothing more inappropriate for a Roman pontiff
than this.119
To repeat, according to the Constitutum the imperial investiture effected
by Constantine involves the pope directly and immediately. Indeed, the
pope is the successor of Peter who presided over the Roman see, and as
such he is first and foremost the vicar of Peter, even before being the vicar
of Christ. Yet the imperial investiture is not limited to the pope or to his
person but is extended to the entire Roman clergy. This is said explicitly
in the Constitutum, and it is particularly emphasized during the descrip-
tion of the ceremonial for imperial investiture. Valla, who penetrates to
the deepest level of meaning of this ceremonial, glosses the text thus: But
how great is your generosity, Emperor, who are not content to have
adorned the pontiff without adorning the entire clergy as well.120
But if Constantine confers the imperial insignia and vestments on all
members of the Roman clergy (bestowing the decorations of a general
on clerics as a whole), he places them at the highest grade of political and
civil status in Rome (they are made patricians and consuls). He gives
them a place at the pinnacle of exceptional authority and prominence.
He elevates the Roman pope and his curia both to the supreme hierarchy
of the universal Church and to the equally supreme rule of the Western
Empire.121
Further glosses on the many and dire inconsistencies of such an absurd
text lead Valla to reaffirm sarcastically, yet again, the Constitutums false-
ness on every level:
Will servants in the employ of the Roman church be assigned the rank of
general? Who fails to see that this fiction was concocted by persons who
wanted complete license for themselves to dress up? I would imagine that if
somewhere various games took place among the demons who live in the air,
those creatures would be engaged in copying the ritual of clerics, their pag-
eantry, and their luxury, and they would derive their greatest pleasure from
this kind of theatrical competition.122
Beyond the list of imperial insignia and vestments (the Constitutums
repeated insistence on which, notes Valla, is highly inappropriate),
Constantine sees to the luxurious furnishing of St. Peters and St. Pauls
basilicas, the churches (ecclesiae) built on the confession-tombs of the
two Apostles. But at the time of the Constitutum those basilicas did not yet
exist. Valla must gloss these blatant anachronisms before going deeper
into a more relevant ecclesiological critique. He does so by bringing into
relief the term ecclesiae, used in the text of the Constitutum to indicate the
Roman basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul. But the Roman basilicas, Valla
observes, are templa sacred places designated for worship while the
Greek word ecclesia signifies a gathering place for people, or an assembly
of human beings (coetus hominum) who are fellow-citizens (concives).
Such citizens are constituted in the polis, i.e., endowed with civil and nat-
ural freedom, and at the same time are constitutive of the polis, since they
possess the capacity to deliberate on it effectively. Hence the adoption
and the transposition of the term ecclesia with all its proper and specific
semantic pregnancy to indicate the evangelical gathering of the faith-
ful (congregatio fidelium). Hence the use in a religious context by Paul
and the Koine Greek of the New Testament of a classical term with polit-
ical and civil connotations.
121Ibid., 12223 (54): imperialia vestimenta universis clericis; effici patricios con-
sules; culmen singularis potentie et precellentie.
122Ibid., 123.1f./611 (54): Ministri, qui Romane ecclesie servient, dignitate afficientur
imperatoria? Et quis non videt hanc fabulam ab iis excogitatam esse, qui sibi omnem
vestiendi licentiam esse voluerunt? ut existimem, si qua inter demones, qui aerem incol-
unt, ludorum genera exercentur, eos exprimendo clericorum cultu, fastu, luxu exerceri et
hoc scenici lusus genere maxime delectari.
82 salvatore i. camporeale
Valla outlines a path from the political ecclesia of Athens (and of the
Roman respublica) to the religious ecclesia of the Gospel. It is a develop-
ment, at once semantic, political, and theological, to which he will often
refer in his writings, from the Elegantiae to the Adnotationes on the New
Testament.123 Here in the document of donation, he seems to hope to
secure the most authoritative testimony to the perversion of that term,
which was established by apostolic and New Testament linguistic usage to
mean above all evangelical communion and the community made up (in
the various cities) of the first Christians. Valla makes the parallel clear: as
the evangelium had been institutionalized as an imperium divided among
secular and religious, juridical and cultural hierarchies of power, thus the
evangelical ecclesia had mutated from a communion of believers into a
construction of walls and arches (stones that were in no way living).
From a community of the faithful it was changed into a templum (in no
way built on the foundation of apostolic faith). According to Valla, the
Constitutum was responsible for this utterly profound historical and
semantic degradation of ecclesiology. It provided the essential testimony,
as it was the original act of canonical institution and standardization.
Hence the tone of sarcasm in Vallas comment:
You miserable dog, did Rome have ecclesiae, or rather templa, dedicated to
Peter and Paul? Who built them? Who would have dared to build them?
After all, as history tells us, nowhere was there any place for Christians apart
from secret places and hidden dens. If there had been any templa at Rome
dedicated to those apostles, they would not have required great lamps to be
lit inside them. They were little shrines, not buildings; chapels, not templa,
places of prayer in private dwellings, not public places of worship. No one
therefore had to worry about temple lamps before there were the templa
themselves. What are you talking about when you make Constantine speak
of Peter and Paul as blessed, but Sylvester, when he is still alive, as most
blessed, and his own ordinance as sacred when he had been a pagan shortly
before? Does so much have to be provided for keeping up the lamps that the
whole world is worn down?124
123On the semantics of ecclesia, see Lorenzo Valla, Collatio Novi Testamenti, redazione
inedita a cura di Alessandro Perosa (Firenze: Sansoni, 1970), 169 (Acts 19:39); idem,
Elegantiae, IV, 47 (cited in Valla, De falso, 111, n. 218); Adnotationes in Novum Testamentum
(Acts 19:39) in Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo e teologia, 297.
124Valla, De falso, 111.417 (47): O furcifer, ecclesie ne, idest templa Rome erant Petro et
Paulo dicate? Quis eas extruxerat? quis edificare ausus fuisset? cum nusquam foret, ut his-
toria ait, christianis locus, nisi secreta et latebre. Aut si qua templa Rome fuissent illis
dicata apostolis, non erant digna, in quibus tanta luminaria accenderentur, edicule sacre,
non edes; sacella, non templa; oratoria intra privatos parietes, non publica delubra: non
ergo ante cura gerenda erat de luminaribus templorum quam de ipsis templis. Quid ais tu,
qui facis Constantinum dicentem Petrum et Paulum beatos, Silvestrum vero, cum adhuc
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione83
Valla penetrates ever deeper with his critico-philological analysis into the
dense textual thicket of the Constitutum. He clearly perceives that it is
impossible to offer an adequately comprehensive exegetical reading of
the heap of contradictions rising up from the document of donation.
Thus he observes:
But why do I attack one individual point after another? I should run out of
time if I try to mention, to say nothing of discuss, all of them.125
Nor will it be possible for us to follow Vallas whole discourse in its particu-
lars. It is far too complex, even if we were just to consider the details of its
philological analysis. Let us then limit ourselves to a consideration of a
final, insightful annotation, with which it seems Valla hopes to underline
the fundamental contradiction of the whole Constitutum and of its corre-
sponding Constantinian ecclesiology. First Valla cites from the text of the
Constitutum:
Before all else, however, we assign to the blessed Sylvester and to his succes-
sors, according to our indiction [sc. the Constitutum], the right to name any-
one he wishes to the clergy at his pleasure and by his own decision and to
include that person in the pious ranks of the pious clergy, and that no one
whatsoever should consider that he is acting arrogantly.
And later, at the very end of the Constitutum:
If, moreover, anyone which we believe likely emerges as a falsifier in this
context, let him be condemned and subjected to eternal damnation. Let him
know that his enemies are the holy apostles of God, Peter and Paul, in the
present and in the life to come, and let him be burned in the lower reaches
of hell and waste away together with the devil and all who are wicked.126
Valla immediately points out the dreadful inelegance of the Latin. In a few
sentences the text piles up a heap of absurdities that are not only graceless
but also and this is much more injurious heterodox. Constantine,
vivit, beatissimum et suam, qui paulo ante fuisset ethnicus, iussionem sacram? Tanta ne
conferenda sunt pro luminaribus continuandis, ut totus orbis fatigetur? [translation
modified].
125Ibid., 125.1012 (56): Verum quid ego in singula impetum facio? Dies me deficiat, si
universa non dico amplificare, sed attingere velim (emphasis added).
126Ibid., 125.1317 (57); 134.711 (65): Pre omnibus autem licentiam tribuimus beato
Silvestro et successoribus eius ex nostro indictu, ut, quem placatus proprio consilio cleri-
care voluerit et in religioso numero religiosorum clericorum connumerare, nullus ex
omnibus presumat superbe agere . Si quis autem, quod credimus, in hoc temerator exti-
terit, eternis condemnationibus subiaceat condemnatus, et sanctos Dei apostolos Petrum
et Paulum sibi in presenti et in futura vita sentiat contrarios, atque in inferno inferiori
concrematus cum diabolo et omnibus deficiat impiis [translation modified].
84 salvatore i. camporeale
127Ibid., 125.1822 (57); 134.1215 (65); 134.25135.3 (65): Quis est hic Melchisedech, qui
patriarcham Abraam benedicit? Constantinus ne vix christianus facultatem ei, a quo bap-
tizatus est et quem beatum appellat, tribuit clericandi, quasi prius nec fecisset hoc Silvester
nec facere potuisset? Hic terror atque hec comminatio non secularis principis solet esse,
sed priscorum sacerdotum ac flaminum et nunc ecclesiasticorum: itaque non est
Constantini oratio hec, sed alicuius clericuli stolidi . Quod si mine he execrationesque
Constantini forent, invicem execrarer ut tyrannum et profligatorem rei publice mee et illi me
Romano ingenio minarer ultorem (emphasis added) [translation modified].
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione85
Constitutum as a part of that entirety. In line with this premise, Valla con-
ducts his analysis as if by expansion and contraction: from the Constitutum
to the Legenda and then back again. That is, the analysis proceeds in oppo-
site directions along lines of infratextuality. These link, on the one hand,
the pseudo-Donation of Constantine as it appears in the text under con-
sideration in Vallas Oration, with the Legend of Sylvester on the other,
which, since it contains the Constitutum as part of its structure, underlies
it at the same time as an infratext.
Valla writes:
I shall say something about the fabula of Sylvester, because the entire issue
turns on this, and for me it will be fitting to speak above all about the Roman
pontiff, since my discourse is concerned with Roman pontiffs, with a view to
facilitating inferences about the others from this one example. Of the many
absurdities that are told, I touch only upon the one about the dragon, in
order to show that Constantine never had leprosy. For the acts of Sylvester
were written down by a certain Eusebius, a Greek man according to the tes-
timony of the translator. That nation is always highly inclined to mendacity,
as Juvenal says in a satirical assessment [Sat. X 174f.]: whatever the lying
Greeks make bold to claim as history.128
In this passage we must note the reappearance of the distinction (first
made in section III) between fabula (legend) and historia (history) as
different narrative genres, and then we must turn our attention to the
explanation of this distinction that is provided here and further on in
section IV. The distinction between legendary narrative and historical
narrative comes from book II, chapter 4 of Quintilians Institutio oratoria.
Valla reinterprets this text by rather cogently modifying the meanings of
its terms, as can be seen from his glosses of it contained in the autograph
manuscript in the Bibliothque Nationale in Paris (Lat. 7723, f. 19 and ff.).129
128Ibid., 144.414 (74) and Setzs notes: Disputabo de fabula Silvestri, quia et omnis in
hoc questio versatur et mihi, cum sermo sit cum pontificibus Romanis, de pontifice Romano
potissimum loqui decebit, ut ex uno exemplo facile aliorum coniectura capiatur. Et ex multis
ineptiis, que ibi narrantur, unam tantum de dracone attingam, ut doceam Constantinum
non fuisse leprosum. Etenim gesta Silvestri ab Eusebio quodam Greco homine, ut interpres
testatur, composita sunt, que natio ad mendacia semper promptissima est, ut Iuvenalis
satyrica censura ait: quidquid Grecia mendax audet in historia (emphasis added) [trans-
lation modified].
129On the autograph glosses on the Institutio in the Parisian manuscript, see:
Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo e teologia, 8f., 120; Alessandro Perosa, Ledizione
veneta di Quintiliano coi commenti del Valla, di Pomponio Leto e di Sulpizio da Veroli, in
Miscellanea Augusto Campana, 2 vols. (Padova: Antenore, 1981), 575610; Lucia Cesarini
Martinelli, Le postille di Lorenzo Valla allInstitutio Oratoria di Quintiliano, in Besomi
and Regliosi (eds.), Lorenzo Valla e lumanesimo italiano, 2150. The text of Vallas glosses
on Institutio oratoria, II.4.2: [Quintilian] did not agree with Cicero that fabula is that in
86 salvatore i. camporeale
For Valla, fabula takes on a double meaning. The first is that of a fic-
tional narrative that is in and of itself false, being an account or discourse
totally devoid of factual events (res gestae) either present and contempo-
rary or handed down in memory from the past. It stands in contrast to
historical narration, which, being an authentic account or discourse
reporting factual events, is in and of itself true. The second meaning of
fabula is that of a narrative (narratio) that is in itself false but nevertheless
still capable of taking on, and indeed of bearing in itself, a certain verisi-
militude towards accounts or discourses reporting factual events. In this
way it is portrayed or offered to the reader as a true and authentic history.
The typical kind of verisimilar fiction narratio is for Valla the hagio-
graphic legend, which developed as a sacred fictionalization in the sphere
of Christianitys origins, spanning from the apocryphal Gospels to the
Legenda Silvestri. The defining characteristic of this type of sacred fiction-
alization or hagiographic legend is the constant interweaving of the
miraculous (the thaumaturgical) into the narrative, or rather of divine
intervention in events and worldly reality as the object (as if they were
factual events) of narration. The verisimilitude of such fictional narratives
comes, in this case, from the (supposed) similarity and even intended (at
least implicitly) assimilation of the miraculous and the thaumaturgical to
the apparently similar canonical scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
Hence Vallas attempt in section IV to demonstrate the falsities contained
in the Legenda Silvestri, the hagiographic legend that contains and deter-
mines the documentary act of the Constitutum and thus the whole event
of the Donation of Constantine.
Valla takes two aspects in particular of the Legenda into consideration.
The first is the healing of Constantines leprosy, which occurs at the
which there is neither truth nor anything resembling truth [De inventione, I.27 and
Rhetorica ad Herennium, I.13], since, to give only one example, comedies are fabulae but
nevertheless resemble the truth. As Terence says, [the poet] should compose the kind of
fabulae that would please the public [Andria, prol. 3]. Likewise, [Quintilian] did not say
that historia is comprised of events remote from our own time, since again to name
only one example of many Sallust refers to the works he himself composed as histories
[cf. Cat. 14]. Nor did [Quintilian] say that argumentum is a fiction that nevertheless could
have happened, since only in comedies is argumentum a fiction. (Non dixit quemadmo-
dum Cicero, fabula est in qua nec vere nec verisimiles res continentur, quia, ne alia dicam,
comediarum fabule sunt, et tamen verisimiles. Ut apud Terentium: populo ut placerent
quas fecisset fabulas. Item, non dixit: historia est gesta res ab etatis nostre remota, cum hic
quoque plura non dicam, ipse Sallustius historias de se compositas dicat. Nec dixit: argu-
mentum est ficta res, que tamen fieri poterit, quia non nisi in comediis argumentum est
ficta res) [f.19r]. On Quintilians text (lib. II.iv.2), cf. Wesley Trimpi, The Quality of Fiction:
the Rhetorical Transmission of Literary Theory, Traditio 30 (1974): 1118, at 47 and
passim.
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione87
132Valla, De falso, 144.14146.15 (7475): Unde draco ille venerat? Rome dracones non
gignuntur. Unde etiam illi venenum? Unde preterea tantum veneni, ut tam spatiosam
civitatem peste corrumperet ? Cur ergo, ut Daniel illum dicitur occidisse, non et Silvester
hunc potius occidisset, quem canabaceo filo alligasset, et domum illam in eternum per-
didisset? Ideo commentor fabule noluit draconem interimi, ne plane Danielis narratio
referri videretur. Quod si Hieronymus, vir doctissimus ac fidelissimus interpres,
Apollinarisque et Origenes atque Eusebius et nonnulli alii narrationem Beli fictam esse
affirmant, si eam Iudei in veteris instrumenti archetypo non agnoscunt, idest si doctissimi
quique Latinorum, plerique Grecorum, singuli Hebreorum illam ut fabulam damnant, ego
non hanc adumbratam ex illa damnabo, que nullius scriptoris auctoritate fulcitur et que
magistram multo superat stultitia? [translation modified]. The reference to Jerome is
found in Commentariorum in Danielem libri III, ed. Franciscus Glorie (Turnhout: Brepols,
1964), 773, 774.
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione89
133Paris, Bibl. Nat., Lat. 7723, f.19v: Hoc queri potest etiam in rebus sacris, ut de
Susanna, de Tobia, de Iudit, item de historiis recentioribus, ut Sancti Georgii, ut aliorum
multorum, ubi plura sunt argumenta ad improbandum. [Camporeales reading of the
manuscript differs slightly from that found in Lorenzo Valla, Le postille allInstitutio orato-
ria di Quintiliano, eds. Lucia Cesarini Martinelli and Alessandro Perosa (Padova: Antenore,
1996). Eds.]
90 salvatore i. camporeale
only not true, but not even plausible [see Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, II.4].
But, they say, demons gained this power among the pagans to mock those
who served the gods. Be quiet, you utterly ignorant people, not to say crimi-
nals, who invariably draw a veil like this over your fabulae. Christian candor
has no need to shelter under falsehood. It is defended enough and more
than enough on its own through its light and truth without those lying and
flashy tales that are profoundly insulting to God, to Christ, and to the Holy
Spirit. Had God so turned over the human race to the will of demons that
they would be seduced by such obvious, such imperious miracles, to such an
extent that he could almost be accused of injustice for having entrusted
sheep to wolves, and men would have a signal excuse for their errors? But if
the demons had so much license before, they would have even more now
among the infidels. We see that this is not at all the case, and no fabulae of
this kind are advanced by them. I shall say nothing of other peoples: I shall
speak about the Romans, among whom very few miracles are reported, and
these both ancient and uncertain.134
It need arouse no wonder, Valla continues, that pre-Christian peoples cre-
ated various myths about their origins and told their prehistory in epic
language, where human actions are muddled with heroic and divine inter-
vention. He reminds us of Livys statement that the traditions of extraordi-
nary events concerning Romes origins, diversely found in ancient
recorders of Roman affairs, must be used by historians to construct fables
that will establish an epic version (epos) of the peoples roots. Historians
must create a poetic (mythic) fiction of a past that has been lost in prehis-
tory. Valla quotes two passages of Livys text:
This allowance is granted to antiquity, that by commingling the human
with the divine it may make the origins of cities more grandiose, and else-
where: But in such ancient history I would be satisfied if whatever is like the
truth be accepted as truth. All this is more suited to theatrical spectacle,
134Valla, De falso, 147.15148.18 (76): Pudeat nos, pudeat harum neniarum et levitatis
plus quam mimice, erubescat christianus homo, qui veritatis se ac lucis filium nominat,
proloqui, que non modo vera non sunt, sed nec verisimilia. At enim, inquiunt, hanc
demones potestatem in gentibus optinebant, ut eas diis servientes illuderent. Silete,
imperitissimi homines, ne dicam sceleratissimos, qui fabulis vestris tale semper velamen-
tum optenditis. Non desiderat sinceritas christiana patrocinium falsitatis, satis per se
superque sua ipsius luce ac veritate defenditur sine istis commenticiis ac prestigiosis fabel-
lis in Deum, in Christum, in Spiritum sanctum contumeliosissimis. Siccine Deus arbitrio
demonum tradiderat genus humanum, ut tam manifestis, tam imperiosis miraculis sedu-
cerentur? ut propemodum posset iniustitie, accusari, qui oves lupis commisisset, et homi-
nes magnam errorum suorum haberent excusationem? Quod si tantum olim licebat
demonibus et nunc apud infideles vel magis liceret, quod minime videmus, nec ulle ab eis
huiusmodi fabule proferuntur. Tacebo de aliis populis, dicam de Romanis, apud quos pau-
cissima miracula feruntur eaque vetusta atque incerta (emphasis added) [translation
modified].
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione91
135Ibid., 149.1420 (77): Datur hec venia antiquitati, ut miscendo humana divinis pri-
mordia urbium augustiora faciat, et alibi: Sed in rebus tam antiquis, si qua similia veri
sunt, pro veris accipiantur, satis habeam, hec ad ostentationem scene gaudentis miraculis
aptiora quam ad fidem, neque affirmare neque refellere est opere pretium. [The passages
of Livy are Pref. 7 and 5.21.9.]
136Valla, De falso, 151.326 (78): At vero nostri fabulatores passim inducunt idola
loquentia, quod ipsi gentiles et idolorum cultores non dicunt et sincerius negant quam
christiani affirmant. Apud illos paucissima miracula non fide auctorum, sed veluti sacra
quadam ac religiosa vetustatis commendatione nituntur; apud istos recentiora quedam
narrantur, que illorum homines temporum nescierunt. Neque ego admirationi sanctorum
derogo nec ipsorum divina opera abnuo, cum sciam tantum fidei, quantum est granum sina-
pis, montes etiam posse transferre. Immo defendo illa et tueor, sed misceri cum fabulis non
sino. Nec persuaderi possum hos scriptores alios fuisse quam aut infideles, qui hoc agerent
in derisum christianorum, si hec figmenta per dolosos homines in manus imperitorum
delata acciperentur pro veris, aut fideles habentes quidem emulationem Dei, sed non
secundum scientiam, qui non modo de gestis sanctorum, verum etiam Dei genitricis atque
92 salvatore i. camporeale
the apocryphal and canonical Gospels: the former subvert the latter
because they deny the properly evangelical truth of specifically Christian
historia. Regarding the apocryphal Gospels, then, one must not only con-
fess to not knowing their authorship. One must also affirm, and without
reservation, their falseness, which was propagated in an anti-evangelical
and anti-Christian way. The apocrypha are then pseudo-scriptures,
impious pseudo-Gospels.
Therefore Valla blames Pope Gelasius for not condemning in the least
an indubitably legendary and apocryphal hagiography like the Actus
beati Silvestri presulis (the title of the book recording the gesta Silvestri, or
acts of Sylvester). The failure to take such a position had the effect of
according to the Actus and other hagiographic legends (like the apocry-
pha of the Old and New Testaments) an official sanction of credibility. It
is as if such pseudo-scriptures, while they do not have to be recognized as
canonical, can instead be regarded as if they were sacred and served to
strengthen religion (emphasis added). Let us not forget here Vallas posi-
tion. He goes beyond even Jeromes skepticism and his cautionary princi-
ple regarding the entire body of Old Testament apocrypha/hagiography.
Jerome, for his part, stands in direct contrast to Augustine, who consid-
ered the deuterocanonical books as accepted along with the canonical
ones and having equal authority. On the contrary, Jerome reduced the
apocryphal/hagiographic parts of Scripture to the following general prin-
ciple, which is of a wholly pastoral order: these books are read by the
church to edify the people, not to strengthen the authority of ecclesiastical
doctrines.139
Valla, instead, with his criticism of the papacy vis--vis the credibility of
apocryphal and hagiographic texts, goes well beyond Jeromes position.
He peremptorily indicts both the authors of such writings and above all
the papacy for having inserted such anti-Scriptural fabulae into the
Christian tradition and thus for having counterfeited the true faith:
The supreme pontiff calls these books Apocrypha, as if there nothing wrong
with an unknown author, as if the stories told were believable, as if they
were sacred and served to strengthen religion, so that now whoever [i.e., the
pope] approves something bad is no less culpable than the person [i.e.,
the author] who made it up.
139Augustine, De doctrina christiana, lib. II, cap. 8 (PL 34: 4041): aequalis auctoritatis,
in auctoritatem recipi meruerunt; Jerome, Praefatio in libros Salomonis, PL 28:12411244,
at 1243: ad edificationem plebis, non ad authoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confir-
mandam (emphasis added). Cf. Camporeale, Giovanmaria dei Tolosani, 170174 (= idem,
Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo, riforma e controriforma, 363367).
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione95
He continues:
We detect spurious coins, we separate them out and throw them away: shall
we not detect spurious teaching, but rather hold on to it? Shall we mix it up
with good teaching and defend it as good?140
Therefore the acceptance of apocryphal hagiographic literature into the
religious tradition and into Christian piety corresponds, in Vallas meta-
phor, to putting counterfeit currency (nummos reprobos) into circulation.
The creation of that literature, then, is to be compared to the act of coun-
terfeiting money, which constitutes an almost fatal attack on the civil life
of the community, since it corrodes the structure of commercial, eco-
nomic, and social transactions. The sacred and hagiographic fictionaliza-
tion of the apocryphal Gospels, of the Legenda Silvestri (including the
Constitutum), and of the entire Golden Legend together with their respec-
tive author-forgers is thus the coining of a linguistic usage that is, con-
trary to its common appearance, illegal and false. Indeed, it is by its very
nature a non-scriptural and false language, because it does not say the
revealed truth. Worse still, it is the sheer reversal of the truth of the
Scriptures and evangelical faith.
The metaphor of language (and literature) as money is taken directly
from Quintilian, who in his Institutio oratoria writes, authoritative cus-
tomary usage is the sure guide for speaking, and language is clearly to be
used like money: as common currency.141 Now, both Quintilians concep-
tion of language as authoritative customary usage and his related meta-
phor of language as money were first used explicitly by Valla, and at the
same time revised by him, in the first version of the Repastinatio. There
Valla quotes Quintilians text directly and modifies it by clarifying further
the nature and function of language. Indeed, one could say and we have
argued as much elsewhere that this passage from the Institutio provided
the origin and foundation, chronologically as well as analytically and the-
oretically, for the whole gnoseological and epistemological spectrum
developed throughout the Repastinatio. Here we refer to Vallas
140Valla, De falso, 151.26152.2 (78): et summus pontifex hos libros appellat apocry-
phos, quasi nihil vitii sit, nisi quod eorum ignoratur auctor; quasi credibilia sint, que nar-
rantur; quasi sancta et ad confirmationem religionis pertinentia, ut iam non minus culpe
sit minus penes hunc [sc. pontificem], qui mala probat, quam penes illum [sc. auctorem],
qui mala excogitavit. Nummos reprobos discernimus, separamus, abiicimus: doctrinam rep-
robam non discernemus, sed retinebimus? sed cum bona miscebimus? sed pro bona defen-
demus? (emphasis added).
141Institutio oratoria, I.6.3: Consuetudo certissima est loquendi magistra, utendumque
plane sermone ut nummo, cui publica forma est.
96 salvatore i. camporeale
nations and peoples, thus there are various languages, and among each their
own is sacred and inviolate. This language is therefore sanctioned by the
usage of the most reputable authors and by a kind of public approval of the
people. It is treated like law and right.
Later, in the second version of the Repastinatio (bk. 2, ch. 4), he would add:
Nor should we accord any mercy to the jurists and theologians of our time,
the dialecticians and philosophers who do not obey the words of their own
discipline. Rather, with their debased manner of speaking they seem to have
conspired and, like a group of daughter cities, to have sworn an oath against
their own metropolis.142
In section IV of the Oration, Valla borrows Quintilians language-money
metaphor in a similar way. Nevertheless, he deploys its terms for a differ-
ent, specific end. In the Repastinatio, Valla has his eye on the counterfeit-
ing of philosophical language in the realm of Aristotelian-scholastic
speculation. Here in the Oration, he deploys the metaphor against a differ-
ent kind of linguistic counterfeiting, one that is more properly ecclesiologi-
cal and which took the form of sacred and hagiographic fictionalizations
like the deuterocanonical books, the apocryphal Gospels, the legends of
the saints, and thus also the Legenda Silvestri. An integral part of the
Legenda is of course the Constitutum, the sacred fiction par excellence.
For Valla, then, all parabiblical literature (of the New and Old
Testaments) and all of medieval hagiography is false money that has
been treacherously introduced into the civitas christiana. It constitutes
the coining of a vile and false linguistic usage that is fatal to the church
(ecclesia), which is founded on faith (fides) and pervaded by the language
(sermo) of the Gospel. Such literature is the fruit of sacred, pseudo-
evangelical story-telling and is thus of necessity a pseudo-ecclesiological
language. Its most outstanding exemplar is the Constantinian language of
the Constitutum. Thus Vallas argument continues:
For my part, to speak candidly, I deny that the Gesta Silvestri is apocryphal,
because, as I have said, a certain Eusebius is alleged as author, but I consider
142Valla, Repastinatio, 475 and 198: [A consuetudine loquendi] siquis desciverit, non
secus a choro litteratorum repellendus, quam legum morumque contemptor a civitate
expellendus est. Et ut sunt varii mores varieque leges nationum ac populorum, ita varie
linguarum, apud suos unaqueque intemerata et sancta. Hec itaque usu clarissimorum auc-
torum et publico quasi populi consensu sancita, inter leges ac iura reponuntur; Quominus
danda venia est iurisperitis ac theologis recentibus, dialecticisque ac philosophis nostris
qui verba scientie sue non audiunt, sed in prave loquendo nescio quomodo conspiraver-
unt et quasi diverse civitates in suam metropolim coniurarunt.; Camporeale, Lorenzo
Valla. Repastinatio, 228ff.
98 salvatore i. camporeale
it false and not worth reading, not only in other points but particularly in
what is related about the dragon, the bull, and the leprosy, which I have done
so much to refute. If Naaman was a leper, we shall not say straightaway that
Constantine was too. Many authors have mentioned the former case, but
about the latter, involving the ruler of the world, no one, not even one of his
own citizens, has written, unless some foreigner did.143
Writings like the Actus beati Silvestri (whether including the document of
donation or not), and even more so those which subsequently, according
to Valla, make up the Legenda Silvestri, are without a doubt false litera-
ture. As texts they are unfit for reading in the context of a Christian litur-
gical assembly, especially (as attested by Pope Gelasius) in the liturgical
assemblies of the Roman church. The hagiographies of Pope Sylvester are
singularly false and unworthy, both and above all for what is said about
Sylvesters miraculous healing of Constantines leprosy, and for the con-
nection they posit between the miracle, the emperors conversion to
Christianity, and the donation. Here is the core of the fabula of Pope
Sylvester and Constantine. Here is the foundation and the origin of the
donations status as a legend. Here is the source from which springs Vallas
Oration, the source which I have done so much to refute. This sentence
contains the key both to understanding Vallas procedure and to reading
his text.
All in all, Vallas thesis can be summed up as follows. The Donation of
Constantine is a legend because it can be distilled to the legendary status
or inauthentic account of Pope Sylvesters miraculous healing and conver-
sion of the emperor. And it was the sacred and hagiographic fictionaliza-
tion about Pope Sylvester (the Legenda Silvestri) that simultaneously
forged and contained the pseudo-Donation of Constantine.
Let us now conclude by returning to our reading of this section of Vallas
discourse. It continues:
But why should I be surprised that the pontiffs did not understand these
things, when they are ignorant about their own name? They claim that Peter
was called Cephas because he was the head of the apostles, as if this word
were Greek from kephal, and not Hebrew or rather Syriac. The Greeks write
Kphas, which among them is translated as Petros [John 1:42] not head.
143Valla, De falso, 152.312 (79): Ego vero, ut ingenue feram sententiam, gesta Silvestri
nego esse apocrypha, quia, ut dixi, Eusebius quidam fertur auctor, sed falsa atque indigna
que legantur existimo, cum in aliis tum vero in eo, quod narratur de dracone, de tauro, de
lepra, propter quam refutandam tanta repetii. Neque enim, si Naaman leprosus fuit, con-
tinuo et Constantinum leprosus fuisse dicemus. De illo multi auctores meminerunt, de hoc
principe orbis terrarum nemo ne suorum quidem civium scripsit, nisi nescio quis alien-
igena (emphasis added) [translation modified].
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione99
144Ibid., 153.3154.6 (80) and Setzs notes: Sed quid mirer hec non intelligere ponti-
fices, cum nomen ignorent suum: Cephas enim dicunt vocari Petrum, quia caput apos-
tolorum esset, tanquam hoc vocabulum sit Grecum apo tou kephal et non Hebraicum seu
potius Syriacum, quod Greci Kphas scribunt, quod apud eos interpretatur Petrus, non
caput. Est enim Petrus et petra Grecum vocabulum stulteque per etymologiam Latinam
exponitur petra quasi pede trita. Et metropolitanum ab archiepiscopo distinguunt vol-
untque illum a mensura civitatis dictum, cum Grece dicatur non metropolis, sed
mtropolis, idest mater civitas sive urbs; et patriarcham quasi patrem patrum, et multa
alia similia, que transeo, ne culpa aliquorum omnes summos pontifices videar insectari.
[Valla does not himself identify the etymologists he attacks in his text; their names have
been supplied here in square brackets from Setzs apparatus. Eds.] See also Francisco Rico,
Nebrija frente a los brbaros. El canon de gramticos nefastos en la polmica del humanismo
(Salamanca: Universidad, 1978), 2227.
145[Valla, Elegantiae, book II, preface: primus indoctorum arrogantissimus; indoc-
tiores Hebrardus, Hugutio, Catholicon, Aymo magna mercede docentes nihil scire.
Eugenio Garin, Prosatori latini del quattrocento (Milano: R. Ricciardi, 1952), 602, n. 1, identi-
fies three of the teachers and texts as Ebehrard of Bethune, Graecismsus, Huguccio of Pisa,
Magnae derivationes, and Giovanni Balbi of Genoa, Catholicon. Aymo might refer to Nicola
de Aymo, whose Interrogatorio (1444) was a Latin-vernacular grammar; see La grammatica
latino-volgare di Nicola de Aymo (Lecce, 1444), ed. Maria dEnghien (Galatino: Congedo,
2008). Eds.]
100 salvatore i. camporeale
147Valla, De falso, 154.7155.2 (81): Hec dicta sint, ut nemo miretur, si donationem
Constantini commenticiam fuisse pape multi non potuerunt deprehendere, tam et si ab
aliquo eorum ortam esse hanc fallaciam reor.
102 salvatore i. camporeale
148Ibid., 155.4156.5 (82) and Setzs notes: At, dicitis, cur imperatores, quorum detri-
mento res ista cedebat, donationem Constantini non negant, sed fatentur, affirmant, con-
servant? Ingens argumentum, mirifica defensio! Nam de quo tu loqueris imperatore? Si de
Greco, qui verus fuit imperator, negabo confessionem, sin de Latino, libenter etiam con-
fitebor: etenim quis nescit imperatorem Latinum gratis factum esse a summo pontifice, ut
opinor, Stephano? qui Grecum imperatorem, quod auxilium non ferret Italie, privavit
Latinumque fecit, ita ut plura imperator a papa quam papa ab imperatore acciperet. Sane
Troianas opes quibusdam pactionibus soli Achilles et Patroclus inter se partiti sunt. Quod
etiam mihi videntur indicare Ludovici verba, cum ait . Vallas marginal manuscript
heading (156.6.): Verba pactionis Lodoici imperatoris cum Papa Paschale.
149The Sermo de sancto Silvestro can be found in PL 217:481484 (= Sermo VII. In festo
d. Silvestri pontificis maximi); it is referred to by Martini, Regale Sacerdotium, 141. It is
difficult to prove that Valla knew Innocents text, but a comparative reading of section IV
of the Oration and the Sermo shows that the same nodal points of the Constitutum/Legenda
Silvestri are highlighted in each, and that from them the pope and Valla reach diametrically
opposed conclusions. It seems as if Valla intends his critical and historico-philological
analysis as a direct, point-for-point response to Innocent IIIs Sermo.
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione103
power to create the Western emperor. And it was this very power that the
pope, according to his claim, had received from Constantine with the
Constitutum! Finally and here we arrive at the height of juridical absur-
dity in this case the papacy bases on the Donation its claim to the right
and the power of imperial election and coronation. But electing and
crowning the emperor in Rome are the sole and exclusive right of the
respublica romana and, more precisely, of the Senate and the People of
Rome. Valla writes:
What is more contradictory than for someone to be crowned a Roman
emperor when he had renounced Rome itself? And to be crowned by a man
whom he acknowledges and, to the extent it lies with him, makes the lord of
the Roman empire? And to consider valid a donation which becomes true
only if the emperor has nothing left of his empire? In my view, not even
children would have done such a thing. So it is hardly surprising if the Pope
takes upon himself the coronation of a Caesar, which ought to be the respon-
sibility of the Roman people. If you, Pope, can deprive the Greek emperor of
Italy and the western provinces and create the Latin emperor, why do you
make use of agreements? Why do you divide up Caesars property? Why do
you transfer the empire to yourself? Therefore anyone who is called emperor
of the Romans should know that in my judgment he is neither Augustus nor
Caesar nor emperor if he lacks full power at Rome, and that if he makes no
effort to recover the city of Rome he is clearly guilty of perjury. Those former
Caesars Constantine first among them were not forced to take the oath
by which todays Caesars are bound. As far as human resources allowed, they
would take away nothing from the size of the Roman empire and would zeal-
ously augment it. But this is not why they were called Augusti, because they
were supposed to augment the empire (as some [like Isidore and Accursius]
think in their ignorance of Latin), for Augustus is called, so to speak, sacred
from the gustatory habits of those avians that were customarily used in tak-
ing the auspices . Better for the supreme pontiff to be called Augustus,
from augmenting, except that in augmenting his temporal resources he
reduces his spiritual ones.154
154Ibid., 158.16160.7 (8384), and Setzs notes: Quid magis contrarium quam pro
imperatore Romano coronari, qui Rome ipsi renuntiasset? et coronari ab illo, quem et con-
fiteatur et, quantum in se est, dominum Romani imperii faciat? ac ratam habere donatio-
nem, que vera si sit nihil imperatori de imperio reliqui fiat? Quod, ut arbitror, nec pueri
fecissent. Quo minus mirum, si papa sibi arrogat Cesaris coronationem, que populi Romani
esse deberet. Si tu, papa, et potes Grecum imperatorem privare Italia provinciisque occi-
dentis et Latinum imperatorem facis, cur pactionibus uteris? cur bona Cesaris partiris? cur
in te imperium transfers? Quare sciat, quisquis est, qui dicitur imperator Romanorum, me
iudice se non esse nec Augustum nec Cesarem nec imperatorem, nisi Rome imperium
teneat, et, nisi operam det, ut urbem Romam recuperet, plane esse periurum. Nam Cesares
illi priores, quorum fuit primus Constantinus, non adigebantur iusiurandum interponere,
quo nunc Cesares obstringuntur: se quantum humana ope prestari protest, nihil imminu-
turos esse de amplitudine imperii Romani eamque sedulo adaucturos. Non ea re tamen
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione107
vocati Augusti, quod imperium augere deberent ut aliqui sentiunt Latine lingue
imperiti est enim Augustus quasi sacer ab avium gustu dictus, que in auspiciis adhiberi
solebant . Melius summus pontifex ab augendo Augustus diceretur, nisi quod, dum tem-
poralia auget, spiritualia minuit (emphasis added).
155Ibid., 160.7161.4 (84), and Setzs notes and commentary: Itaque videas, ut quisquis
pessimus est summorum pontificum, ita maxime defendende huic donationi incumbere,
qualis Bonifacius octavus . Hic et de donatione Constantini scribit et regem Francie pri-
vavit regnumque ipsum, quasi donationem Constantini exequi vellet, ecclesie Romane
fuisse et esse subiectum iudicavit .
108 salvatore i. camporeale
speak, from the gustatory habits of birds (quasi sacer ab avium gustu).
Valla treats both etymologies as more or less philologically plausible; they
are distinguishable only by their ideological charge.
Valla insistently criticizes both the etymologist Isidore and the jurist
Accursius as ignorant of Latinity and elegance (latinitas atque elegantia).
Both had made the imperial title Augustus derive directly from the verb
augere (to augment), thus indicating that the primary duty of the emperor,
as an augustus, was to extend (territorially) and to consolidate (politi-
cally) the imperium of Rome. With this double valence of meaning, the
imperial title was taken up by the papacy and later transferred along with
the empire to the Western emperor. At his coronation, then, the emperor
had to swear solemnly to the pope that he, as a new Augustus, would take
away nothing from the size of the Roman empire and would zealously
augment it in line with the formula of the imperial oath quoted by Valla.
Against Isidores interpretation (an etymology that might be original to
him), Valla takes up a piece of classical elegantia according to which the
lemmas augustus and sacer (sacred), whether said of a place or a person,
are related. More precisely, he connects the imperial title (assumed for the
first time by Octavian) to the immediate context from which it was taken:
the divination of the augurs. In Suetonius biography of Octavian Augustus,
which Valla follows on this point, the term augustus is said to come from
the increase or the movement or the gustatory habits of birds, as Ennius
teaches.156 Nevertheless, the semantic implications of Isidore and
Accursius (much more reliable than Valla would have thought) had been
established historically by the fact that the title of Augustus which initially
possessed a strong religious patina (like its Greek counterpart, sebastos)
came to be more and more associated with the enlargement (in extension)
and the consolidation (in sovereignty and unification) of the empire.
Vallas attack on Isidores etymology is harshly critical and bitterly
ironic: Better for the supreme pontiff to be called Augustus, from aug-
menting, except that in augmenting his temporal resources he reduces his
spiritual ones. This philological observation is attuned to both the remote
implications and the immediate consequences of the event (whether his-
torically true or false) of the Constantinian donation. He accuses it of hav-
ing led the papacy to the enlargement of its imperium in terms of temporal
156In addition to Setzs note 438, see: Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Leipzig: Teubner,
1900-), vol. 2, augustus, 13791413, at 13791392; ibid., vol. 2, augur, 13631367; Alois Walde,
Lateinisches etymologisches Wrterbuch (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1910), augeo, 73, augur,
73f.; Giannelli Mazzarino, Trattato di storia romana, 49.
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione109
157Valla, De falso, 161.612 (85): Verum quid sibi vult ista vestra, pontifices Romani, sol-
licitudo, quod a singulis imperatoribus donationem Constantini exigitis confirmari, nisi
quod iuri diffiditis vestro? Sed laterem lavatis, ut dicitur, nam neque illa unquam fuit, et
quod non est, confirmari non potest, et quicquid donant Cesares, decepti exemplo Constantini
faciunt, et donare imperium nequeunt (emphasis added).
110 salvatore i. camporeale
158Ibid., 162.16 (86): Age vero, demus Constantinum donasse Silvestrumque pos-
sedisse . Quid possum vobis magis dare, quam ut ea, que nec fuerunt nec esse potuerunt,
fuisse concedam?
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione111
To get the measure of divine law, Valla scans the Scriptures and runs
through the history of salvation as found in the Old and New Testaments.
To understand natural law and the law of nations, he reconsiders Roman
history, from the republic to the empire. Valla does not argue by means of
theoretical and philosophical analysis. That is, he does not use the analyti-
cal methods of philosophy, as he defines the term. Rather, and in confor-
mity with the procedure of rhetorical discourse, he unfolds his argument
along the lines of explicitly historical considerations. His method is to
rethink the history of salvation and the history of Rome as a unified
whole.159
Vallas discourse proceeds in short stints and makes direct reference to
indeed it mirrors Augustines historical reflections in books IV and V of
his City of God. This reference to Augustine was, incidentally, as unavoid-
able for Valla as it is unmistakable for his readers. Indeed, Valla explicitly
cites a particular passage of Augustines text. We shall have more to say
about this later. For now let us consider the following.
In books IV and V of the City of God, Augustine reflects on Roman his-
tory from a Christian perspective. He is especially interested in the origins
of the Republic and the formation of the Roman Empire. Augustine con-
siders the following issues in particular: the evolution and/or fall of the
republic in the context of its own ethical and political dimensions and
also of diverse historical situations; the expansion of Roman rule and the
transformation of the republic into an empire as a result of the military,
territorial, and political conquest of other peoples; the Roman empires
move towards Christianity with the coming of Constantine. His treat-
ment, which comes from an historico-Christian standpoint, is highly origi-
nal and critical, and it was just as formative for medieval ecclesiology.
For Augustine, the territorial and political expansion of Rome, as well
as the perverted imposition of its rule across the centuries up to the point
of becoming an empire, are the result of a double order of factors. And
although they are dissimilar indeed they stand on opposite sides of good
and evil they nevertheless remain strictly complementary in the (both
teleologically and theologically) providential economics of history.
According to one way of seeing things, Augustine attributes the expan-
sion of Roman rule to the pride (superbia) and the will to power of the
Roman people, which were sustained by military heroism and the desire
159Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla. Repastinatio, 222; idem, Lorenzo Valla tra Medioevo e
Rinascimento, passim (reprinted in idem, Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo, riforma e controri-
forma, 121330 and translated in the present volume, 145296).
112 salvatore i. camporeale
for glory. The conquest and subjection of other peoples was initially
imposed on the Romans by the necessity of self-preservation. But the
republics later wars of conquest were also brought on, Augustine argues
with a heavy tone of irony, by the specifically Roman will to subdue the
injustice of other peoples. Once conquered, they were then ruled and
governed with justice, and thus they were made fit to participate,
although always as subjects, in the Roman civitas.
According to another way of seeing things that is, from the Christian
viewpoint of the City of God Augustine retells the history of Rome along
the dimensions of the economics of salvation. Here his markers are the
divine order and the providential course of universal history and of
Roman history in particular. Rome creates its empire in the sphere of the
divine order the order of God and of the Sacred Scriptures and pursues
its hidden end (telos) within the salvific economics of the coming of
Christianity. This is the historical juncture at which the Roman empire of
the pagan gods is transformed into the Roman empire of the Christian God.
The Christian historical turn occurred in the fourth century, with the
emperors Constantine and Theodosius. Constantine, after having con-
verted to the Christian religion, nevermore made supplications to
demons, but adored the one and true God. For this he had a long reign
and was the sole Augustus ruling over the entire Roman world. Theodosius
defeated the final resistance of the worshippers of pagan Rome, ordered
the demolition of the temples and images of the idols, and reconstituted
Roman law in favor of the religio catholica,160 which had by then ascended
to the status of the one and true religion of the empire. In return God
rewarded him with a vast and unified imperial rule. With this encomi-
astic exaltation of the fourth-century Christian turn and the advent of
Constantines and Theodosiuss empire, Augustine brings his historico-
providential reflection to a climax, wrapping it in highly charged terms.161
160[I.e., the Catholic religion, but with the the understanding that catholicus connotes
universality and orthodoxy. Eds.]
161Cf. Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo. A Biography (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1969), 287328.
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione113
162Codex Theodosianus XVI.x.21 20 August 399: qui profano pagani ritus errore seu
crimine polluntur. Cf. Storoni Mazzolani, SantAgostino e i pagani, 112ff.
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione115
163Valla, De falso, 162.114 (86): Age vero, demus Constantinum donasse Silvestrumque
aliquando possedisse, sed postea vel ipsum vel aliquem successorum a possessione deiec-
tum . Tamen dico vos nec iure divino nec iure humano ad recuperationem agere posse.
[1] In lege veteri Hebreus supra sextum annum Hebreo servire vetabatur, et quinquag-
esimo quoque anno omnia redibant ad pristinum dominum;
[2] tempore gratie Christianus a vicario Christi, redemptoris nostre servitutis, premetur
servitio eterno? quid dicam, revocabitur ad servitutem, postquam liber factus est diuque
potitus libertate? (empasis added) [translation modified].
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione117
164Ibid., 162.14163.2 (86) and Setzs note 448: Sileo, quam sevus, quam vehemens,
quam barbarus dominatus frequenter est sacerdotum. Quod si antea ignorabatur, nuper
est cognitum ex monstro illo atque portento Ioanne Vitellesco cardinale et patriarcha, qui
gladium Petri, quo auriculam Malcho abscidit, in christianorum sanguine lassavit, quo gla-
dio et ipse periit (emphasis added). With his reference to John 18:10, Valla seems to portray
Vitelleschis death as the fulfillment of Christs words to Peter.
165Ibid., 163.39 (86): An vero populis Israel a domo David et Salomonis, quos proph-
ete a Deo missi unxerant, tamen propter graviora onera desciscere licuit factumque eorum
Deus probavit: nobis ob tantam tyrannidem desciscere non licebit? ab iis presertim, qui nec
sunt reges nec esse possunt et qui de pastoribus ovium, id est animarum, facti sunt fures et
latrones (emphasis added).
166Ibid., 163.1020 (87): Et ut ad ius humanum veniam, quis ignorat nullum ius esse bel-
lorum aut, si quod est, tam diu valere quandiu possideas, que bello parasti? Nam cum
118 salvatore i. camporeale
violation of the right, guaranteed by natural law and the law of nations
(and first and foremost of Roman citizens), to natural and civil liberty.
To the orators denial of legitimacy, in the name of human law, to any
war of conquest, the pope, as heir to the empire, responds with
Augustines justification of Romes subjection of peoples: the Romans
justly waged war upon nations, and they justly deprived them of liberty.
As Setz has noted, this is a reference to book IV, chapter 15 of Augustines
City of God (Setz has also noted that this passage is used by Gratian in the
Decretum, C. XXII q. 2.).168 It seems worthwhile to dig deeper into the
meaning and the implications of this reference to Augustine, a reference
introduced as the objection of Vallas dramatic antagonist, the pope.
We should first observe that the phrase, the Romans justly waged war
upon nations ), is not a precise quotation but rather an abbreviated
formulation of what Augustine said in book IV (chapters 115) of the City
of God. What is more, although the phrase is a deduction based on what
Augustine wrote, it should have been precluded by Augustines state-
ments to the contrary in chapter 14 of the very same book. For Augustine
offers no defense whatsoever for the theoretical or actual lawfulness of the
war of conquest. In point of fact, he writes eloquently and profoundly
against it. He condemns all types of war in favor of the most peaceful
cohabitation possible among peoples and cities (for example, in chapter 7
of book XIX of the City of God). On the contrary, Augustine considers the
justification of the wars of conquest of the Romans in particular, who
were forced to conquer and rule other peoples on account of those peo-
ples injustice. Indeed, the Romans could not otherwise have defended
their own respublica founded on law and freedom, nor would it have been
possible to extend to the barbarian peoples Roman justice and law, the
bases of civil and political freedom and thus of romana libertas. Thus the
Roman empire sprang from the will to justice and freedom. Its expansion
was the inevitable product of its victories, of good fortune, and of the
destiny of the city of Rome. For into the Roman empires progressive jour-
ney Augustine inscribes the providential, divine plan for the coming of
Christianity.
Augustine concedes, however, that it would have been better had the
empire never existed. He would have preferred for concord among peo-
ples to have permitted a multiplicity, even of various forms, of autono-
mous and free kingdoms and cities, communities and states, none subject
to another. But such was not permitted by the goddess Injustice, who
held sway among the enemy peoples hostile to Rome. For their part, the
Romans were constrained almost by necessity whether considered
in the light of their own common good or that of the enemy peoples
themselves to conquer and rule other cities and nations, all for the pur-
pose of endowing them with Roman justice.
Augustines premises, when developed by Gratians canon law and the
political thought of scholasticism, had led to the thesis of just war. Valla
critiques these premises minutely, then, in order to combat the theory of
just war at its root. First, he argues that Romes expansionist wars were
not provoked by the hostilities of other peoples towards the Romans. The
true reasons for which the Romans waged wars of conquest are to be found
solely in the fault of a leading man or some great citizen in the respublica.
Valla, it is true, declares his intention not to overstep the bounds of his-
torical analysis: do not bring me into that debate, lest I be compelled to
speak against my fellow Romans. But this suspension of judgment is
purely formal. It is a rhetorical figure that actually functions to highlight
his own personal judgment. For Valla and these are his own terms no
matter why Romes wars (defensive or offensive) were waged and eventu-
ally won, they should never have led to the rule and subjection of con-
quered peoples. Nevertheless this is what happened, against the right of
nations: no offense could have been so serious as to warrant peoples
everlasting slavery.
Furthermore, Vallas formal reluctance to universally condemn Roman
military expansionism allows him to emphasize better the real reasons
that, according to his historical reflection, underlie the truer origins of the
wars of conquest and the subsequent rule over other peoples: they have
often waged wars through the fault of a leading man or some great
[Roman] citizen in the respublica and then, after being defeated, were
undeservingly penalized with slavery. The origins, therefore, of Romes
expansionism, of the foundation of the empire, and of the subjection of
other peoples, are for Valla to be found in the power acquired within the
civitas romana itself by historically identifiable leading men and great
citizens. This power was assumed in opposition to the Senatus Populusque
Romanus and was therefore subversive of the respublica and of civil lib-
erty. So, the subjection of peoples to the rule of Rome, and their resulting
loss of autonomy and civil liberty, were the direct political and historical
consequences of the subjection and destruction of the Roman republic. It
remains only to observe the historical reprisal of the law of nature itself,
which makes itself felt every time that law is broken by the violence of
power and rule.
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione121
Valla now elevates his discourse on the history of Rome to the theoreti-
cal level in order to incorporate further support for his personal judgment
of the citys military and political expansion:
Nor in truth is it assured by the law of nature that one people subjugate another.
We can instruct others and persuade them. We cannot rule over them using
force, unless, abandoning our humanity, we want to imitate the wilder beasts
which impose their bloody imperium upon the weaker, as the lion upon
quadrupeds, the eagle upon birds, and the dolphin upon fish. But even these
creatures do not make claims upon their own kind, but upon lesser breeds.
We ought to do this all the more, and a man should scrupulously respect
another man, since as Quintilian said, no creature on earth is so fierce that it
does not revere the likes of itself [ps.-Quintilian, Declamatio XII.27].169
Valla had written above that there is no baser crime than the subjection of
a community or a people. In the passage cited here, he reaffirms that it is
a crime against nature to subject a people to ones own rule and power,
depriving it of political independence and civil liberty. It violates the spe-
cific nature of humanitas.
Vallas discourse now takes the form of a clarification of the vast seman-
tic range he finds in the term humanitas. Here he continues a point made
in section I, where he quotes a relevant passage from Ciceros De amicitia
(13,48). For Valla, the meaning of humanitas can be understood by reflect-
ing on the binary opposition between praecipere/exhortari (instructing/
persuading) and imperare/vim afferre (ruling/using force). This binary
opposition evinces a contradiction between terms and correlative func-
tions concerning the essence of humanitas: the first element (praecipere/
exhortari) is a requirement of humanity, while the second (imperare/vim
afferre) is a negation and an annihilation of it. The two sides are utterly
and mutually exclusive.
It should be noted that persuasion, or exhortari (when practiced with
fellow humans), is understood as an integral component of instructing, or
praecipere. Thus Valla considers the art of rhetoric, as the technique or
strategy of persuasion, to be the supreme art of human communication
and learning. It is the (one and only) preferred instrument for transactions
169Ibid., 164.919 (88): Neque vero lege nature comparatum est, ut populus sibi popu-
lum subigat. Precipere aliis eosque exhortari possumus, imperare illis ac vim afferre non pos-
sumus, nisi relicta humanitate velimus ferociores beluas imitari, que sanguinarium in
infirmiores imperium exercent, ut leo in quadrupedes, aquila in volucres, delphinus in
pisces. Veruntamen he belue non in suum genus sibi ius vindicant, sed in inferius. Quod
quanto magis faciendum nobis est et homo homini religioni habendus, cum, ut M. Fabius
inquit, nulla supra terras adeo rabiosa belua, cui non imago sua sancta sit (emphasis
added) [translation modified].
122 salvatore i. camporeale
170Cf. Pierio Valeriano, Hieroglyphica, (Lugduni [Lyon]: Sumptibus Pauli Frelon, 1602)
(reprint = New York: Garland, 1976); and Percy Ernst Schramm, Herrschaftszeichen und
Staatssymbolik, 3 vols. (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 19541956), sub vocibus.
171[The phrase man is a wolf to man (homo homini lupus) is a Roman commonplace
first attested in Plautus, Asinaria, 495. Eds.]
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione123
these the first is, to some extent, honorable, the second less so, and the last
two in no way at all.173
Beyond stating an ethical and political position, expressed here so clearly
and firmly by Valla and almost a prelude to Erasmus Dulce bellum inex-
pertis (Adagia)174 this passage is meant to continue the critique of books
IV and V of Augustines City of God. Valla begins by barely admitting the
theoretical and political justifiability of wars for individual and collective
defense, and then extending it, although with less authority, to similar
defensive wars. Then he unleashes a firm condemnation on wars of con-
quest of any kind, whether directed by strategies for expanding territorial
and/or political rule, or motivated by the acquisition of riches and/or the
ambition for power and glory. Hence Vallas discourse proceeds:
In fact wars were frequently launched against the Romans, but after they
had defended themselves they waged wars against their enemies and others
too, and no nation has come under their domination without being con-
quered and subjected in war how rightly or for what reason is theirs to know.
I would not wish to condemn them for having fought unjustly, nor to acquit
them for acting justly. I would only say that the Romans made war on others for
the same reason as most peoples and kings, and that those who were attacked
and conquered in war had the same license to defect from the Romans as they
had from other masters, so that all authority not be assigned something no
one would accept to the most ancient peoples, who were the first masters,
in other words to those who first took away the property of others.175
Here, too, Valla observes his formal dictum: to suspend all value judg-
ments regarding Romes wars on other peoples. And he repeats here what
was said above in nearly the same exact terms. Valla does not want to
speak about the justice or injustice of Roman wars of conquest.
173Valla, De falso, 164.19165.2 (88): Itaque quattuor fere cause sunt, ob quas bella infer-
untur. [1] aut ob ulciscendam iniuriam defendendosque amicos, [2] aut timore accipiende
postea calamitatis, si vires aliorum augeri sinantur, [3] aut spe prede, [4] aut glorie cupidi-
tate. Quarum prima nonnihil honesta, secunda parum, due posteriores nequaquam honeste
sunt (emphasis added).
174See Desiderius Erasmus, Adagia. Sei saggi politici in forma di proverbi, ed. Silvana
Seidel Menchi (Torino: Einaudi, 1980), 195295 (Latin text with facing Italian translation),
with the introduction and commentary by Seidel Menchi.
175Valla, De falso, 165.314 (88): Et Romanis quidem illata fuere frequenter bella, sed,
postquam se defenderant, et illis et aliis ipsi intulerunt, nec ulla gens est, que dicioni
eorum cesserit nisi bello victa et domita, quam recte aut qua causa ipsi viderint. Eos ego
nolim nec damnare tanquam iniuste pugnaverint, nec absolvere tanquam iuste. Tantum
dicam eadem ratione Romanos ceteris bella intulisse qua reliqui populi regesque, atque ipsis,
qui bello lacessiti victique sunt, licuisse deficere a Romanis, ut ab aliis dominis defecerunt, ne
forte, quod nemo diceret, imperia omnia ad vetustissimos illos, qui primi domini fuere,
idest qui primi preripuere aliena, referantur (emphasis added).
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione125
176[The title of Biondos history of medieval Italy and Europe was Historiarum ab incli-
natione romani imperii decades (finished 1453), on which see Angelo Mazzocco, Decline
and Rebirth in Bruni and Biondo, in Paolo Brezzi and Maristella de Panizza Lorch (eds.),
Umanesimo a Roma nel Quattrocento (Roma: Istituto di Studi Romani, 1984), 249266;
Denys Hay, Flavio Biondo and the Middle Ages, Proceedings of the British Academy 45
(1960): 97128, reprinted in idem, Renaissance Essays (London: Hambledon, 1988), 3266;
and Riccardo Fubini, Biondo Flavio, Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 10 (1968): 536539.
Eds.]
126 salvatore i. camporeale
And yet the Roman people had a stronger claim over nations conquered in
war than the emperors who demolished the Republic. Accordingly, if it was
right for nations to revolt from Constantine and, even more, from the Roman
people, it will certainly be right to revolt from the man to whom Constantine
surrendered his authority. To speak too boldly, if the Romans were free to expel
Constantine as they did Tarquin or to kill him as they did Julius Caesar, all the
more will the Romans and the provinces be free to kill that man, whoever he
may be, who has taken Constantines place. True as this is, it goes beyond my
subject, and therefore I want to restrain myself and not exploit anything that
I have said except this: it is foolish to apply a verbal claim where there is
armed force, because anything acquired by force is lost by force.177
Vallas text, always extremely dense, here has particular need of explica-
tion, above all to highlight the shifts that shape the course of the Oration.
The Caesars, in Vallas view, were responsible for subduing the respublica
to their command and then suppressing it altogether. Now, if the people
subject to Rome had full right to claim their territorial and political auton-
omy from the republic, all the more so, Valla continues, could they exer-
cise that right to freedom by rising against the empire, based as it was on
the Caesars innovations in political and civil structures. Indeed, the
Caesars had appropriated for themselves the republics conquests (in
themselves already illicit) after stripping the autonomy and freedom from
the Senate and the People of Rome, the civil and institutional foundations
of the republic.
But these subject peoples, formerly in revolt against the empire, would
now have even greater reason to rebel against the papacy, to which the
last and most imperial of the Caesars (Constantine with his monarchism)
decided to bequeath, as if his own inheritance, the right to rule over Rome
and the Western Empire. And as it would have been fully licit for the
Romans to banish Constantine from their City for betraying the respublica
(as happened with Tarquinius Superbus) or rather to kill him (as hap-
pened with Julius Caesar, the founder of the Augustan clan), thus now it
would be licit and legitimate for the citizens of Rome and the Roman
provinces to banish or kill Constantines direct successor, the Roman
177Valla, De falso, 165.1427 (8889): Et tamen melius in victis bello nationibus populo
Romano quam Cesaribus rem publicam opprimentibus ius est. Quocirca si fas erat gentibus
a Constantino et, quod multo plus est, a populo Romano desciscere, profecto et ab eo fas erit,
cuicunque cesserit ille ius suum. Atque ut audacius agam, si Romanis licebat Constantinum
aut exigere ut Tarquinum aut occidere ut Iulium Cesarem, multo magis eum vel Romanis vel
provinciis licebit occidere, qui in locum Constantini utcunque successit. Hoc et si verum, tamen
ultra causam meam est, et iccirco me reprimere volo nec aliud ex his colligere que dixi, nisi
ineptum esse, ubi armorum vis est, ibi ius quenquam afferre verborum, quia quod armis
acquiritur, idem rursus armis amittitur (emphasis added) [translation modified].
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione127
pope: all the more will the Romans and the provinces be free to kill that man,
whoever he may be, who has taken Constantines place.
It should also be noted that this trenchant observation is introduced by
a qualifying to speak too boldly (ut audacius agam), with which Valla
emphasizes (and he will insist on it again in the peroration), that he in no
way intends to solicit violence from anyone against the pope. This is not
only because the force of violence does not establish (nor is it capable of
establishing) any right, but also, and above all, because anything acquired
by force is lost by force.
With this last declaration (because anything acquired by force is lost
by force), Valla has reused almost verbatim (from section I of the Oration)
the final words of the Senates speech dissuading Constantine from effect-
ing the Donation. He does so to make definitively explicit that the hypoth-
esis of the donation has by now become its thesis as a real event. It is a
reality brought about by history, and it took place in the fourth-century
shift also an historical occurrence marked by the political and religious
convergence between Christianity, the pope, and the empire.
Valla has thus called into question the very foundations, and more pre-
cisely the Christian premises themselves, of Augustines historical assess-
ment. Thus he has also radically de-theologized the Bishop of Hippos
historical retrospective. Augustine had posited an evangelical prepara-
tion (praeparatio evangelica) in Romes shift from republic to empire,
thus rendering it the providential juncture for the rise of Christianity,
constituted by the foundation of a Romano-Christian empire and the vic-
tory over paganism announced by Constantine and his successors. Valla
denies this is the case and in so doing arrives at the following conclusions.
First, the gospel can give rise only to a church of believers founded on
christiana libertas (saving grace) and thus a community of believers in
Christ that is constituted as a respublica christiana. Second, Constantines
conversion of the Roman empire into a Christian empire was in reality the
definitive historical fall both of the civil and political libertas of the Roman
republic and of the evangelical libertas of the new respublica christiana.
Third, the Bishop of Rome, from the succession from Christ (the apos-
tolic and evangelical vicariate of Christ) lapses into the succession from
Caesar, so that the pope is the new High Priest of imperial Rome and the
Augustus of the Western Empire.
These developments, in Vallas description, created a new historical
reality: the Roman papacy with its primacy and imperial hegemony, both
juridico-political and spiritual, over the West. But the papacys inheritance,
Valla goes on to reflect critically, was the inheritance of imperial Rome,
128 salvatore i. camporeale
to have his imperial hegemony accepted as well, and perhaps most of all,
by the Germanic peoples. He will also have to adduce the same reasons to
have his universal power recognized by all those cities and nations that, in
the process of the empires crumbling, had arrived at their own civil and
political freedom, their own autonomy and self-government, with the
installation of urban seignories or national monarchies. The West had
become a map of juridical and political autonomies, of communes, of cit-
ies and nations after the fall of the Roman Empire. They had set them-
selves up as sovereign states precisely for the purpose of defense from the
barbarian invasions that followed the collapse of the empire and of cen-
tral government at Rome.
Now, if the Germanic peoples who had inherited the empire, along with
the cities, nations, and states that had emerged from the wreck of imperial
government, had affirmed with a fresh will and energy and also often
with arms their personal autonomy and identity against the univer-
sal empire and absolute rule of the Caesars, then these same cities,
nations,and states were spurred to reaffirm, perhaps more steadfastly and
willfully, their freedom and sovereignty against the papacys imperial-
Christian rule, the new tyranny of the pope. Thus Valla writes:
It is foolish to apply a verbal claim [i.e. the Constitutum and its derivatives]
where there is armed force . All the more since other new nations (as we
have learned about the Goths), nations never subject to Roman rule, have
occupied Italy and many provinces after driving out the original inhabitants:
what is the justice in making them slaves, which they never were, particu-
larly since they are victors and would perhaps be slaves of the people they
conquered? At the same time, if any cities and nations which were deserted by
the emperor, as we know happened, considered it necessary, as the barbarians
were approaching, to choose a king under whose leadership they won a victory,
should they depose this man from his position? Should they order his sons,
esteemed as much for their fathers advocacy as for their own virtue, to be
reduced to private status? So that they might be once again subject to a
Roman emperor, particularly when they were in great need of the sons sup-
port and hoped for help from no other source?
If that emperor or Constantine were to come back to life or the Senate and
the Roman People were to summon them to a general tribunal, such as the
Amphictyons had in Greece, he would be immediately rebuffed on his first plea,
because he was calling back into dependence and slavery those who had been
formerly deserted by him as their protector, those who had been living for a long
time under another ruler, those who had never been subject to a foreign king,
those who were, in short, born to freedom and laid claim to their freedom by the
strength of their minds and bodies. Hence it is clear that if the emperor and the
Roman people are excluded from reclaiming their control, the Pope is excluded
much more decisively, and if other nations that were under Rome are free either
130 salvatore i. camporeale
to create their king or maintain a republic, the Roman people is much more
free, especially in opposition to the new tyranny of the Pope.178
This incisive passage constitutes the final part of section V, which should,
as I have already hinted, be considered the effective conclusion of Vallas
entire discourse on the Donation. The closing of section V encapsulates
the whole meaning of the Oration. It highlights (1) Vallas dissent (his
personal ethical stance) towards Constantinian ecclesiology, and (2) the
fundamental premise (his objective understanding of that ecclesiology)
underlying both his philologico-historical considerations and the course
of his rhetorical argumentation.
It must be added immediately, however, that Vallas personal dissent
comes to coincide, if not to be identified with, that fundamental premise of
the Oration. Indeed, this dissent is the very freedom posed by Valla the ora-
tor, the Roman citizen who stands up to contest the papal rule of Rome;
and the fundamental premise underlying the whole critical discourse on the
pseudo-Donation is itself also freedom: the romana libertas of the respublica,
destroyed by the empire of the Caesars, and the christiana libertas of the
Gospel (Evangelium), suppressed by the papacys Constantinian primacy.
In the final analysis, Vallas speech is revealed as a study of historical
retrospection and reflection with unquestionably critical aspects on
the fourth century and the major events that constituted its historical
significance: the coming of Constantine and his conversion, and the
resulting Constantinian foundation of the Christian empire in connection
178Ibid., 165.25167.3 (89): ineptum esse, ubi armorum vis est, ibi ius quenquam
afferre verborum . Eo quidem magis, quod alie nove gentes ut de Gothis accepimus
que nunquam sub imperio Romano fuerunt, fugatis veteribus incolis Italiam et multas pro-
vincias occuparunt, quas in servitutem revocari, in qua nunquam fuerunt, que tandem
equitas est, presertim victrices et fortasse a victis? Quo tempore si que urbes ac nationes, ut
factum fuisse scimus, ab imperatore deserte ad barbarorum adventum necesse habuerunt
deligere sibi regem, sub cuius auspiciis victoriam reportarunt: nunquid hunc postea a princi-
patu deponerent? aut eius filios tum commendatione patris tum propria virtute favorabiles
iuberent esse privatos? ut iterum sub Romano principe essent, maxime cum eorum opera
assidue indigerent et nullum aliunde auxilium sperarent?
Hos si Cesar ipse aut Constantinus ad vitam reversus aut etiam Senatus Populusque
Romanus ad commune iudicium, quale in Grecia Amphictyonum fuit, vocaret, prima statim
actione repelleretur, quod a se olim custode desertos, quod tam diu sub alio principe degentes,
quod nunquam alienigene regi subditos, quod denique homines libertati natos et in liberta-
tem robore animi corporisque assertos ad famulatum servitiumque reposceret, ut appareat, si
Cesar, si populus Romanus a repetendo exclusus est, multo vehementius papam esse exclu-
sum, et si licet aliis nationibus, que sub Roma fuerunt, aut regem sibi creare aut rem publicam
tenere, multo magis id licere populo Romano, precipue adversus novam pape tyrannidem
(emphasis added) [translation modified]. I would like to thank Charles Till Davis (cited
above in n. 103) for his attentive, pointed, and critical reading of my manuscript, which has
given me greater insight into the comparison between Augustine and Valla.
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione131
with the religio catholica and the Roman papacy. Vallas historical judgment
of these events comes, therefore, to stand in opposition to the one expressed
variously by the Christian writers and rhetoricians of that age and the next.
Specifically, Valla has his eye on the range of authors from Eusebius of
Caesarea and Rufinus (Ecclesiastical History), along with Lactantius (On the
Deaths of the Persecutors), down to Augustine (City of God).
Valla reaches his own historical and critical assessment of the fourth
century by means of a rhetorical argumentative strategy supplemented
by critical techniques. With his initial historico-philological reinterpreta-
tion of the Constitutum its immediate contextual and infratextual
dimensions Valla establishes the temporal dimension of the document
of donation down to the remote past, to the outer margins of its origins.
Panofsky assimilated Albertis geometric perspective (as the rediscovery
of the third dimension of space) to Vallas philological retrospective of his-
tory (as the rediscovery of the third dimension of time), which the human-
ist created through the morphological and semantic analysis of classical
literature (humanae litterae).179 And in fact, in his Oration on the Donation
of Constantine Valla does identify the Constitutums most proper histori-
cal place, and he reveals its origins openly in the most adequate and true
temporal dimension possible. By retracing the complex and multiform
tradition of Constantinian ecclesiology in canon law and theology, Valla
arrives at the impulse for that tradition: the fourth-century appropriation
of Christianity by Constantine and his successors.
The multiple aspects of the Orations overall meaning, which we have
tried to explain here, as well as the importance of its historico-philological
critique of the Constitutum, were fully understood by the canon lawyers
and scholastic theologians of Vallas time. Those of them who were
strongly critical of Valla, in addition to humanist writers and other atten-
tive readers of the text, reacted to specific sections of the Oration with
arguments that were often as insightful as they were erudite. The texts
greatest historical impact, however, was felt in the following century, in
the first decades of the Cinquecento with the coming of the Reformation.
The Oration was first printed and popularized by Ulrich von Hutten in
1518/19.180 Luther knew the text, profoundly absorbed it, and was busy
reworking it for his written manifestos already in 1520/21. Its presence can
179Cf. Erwin Panofsky, Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art (London: Paladin,
1970), 108.
180[Actually, the first printed edition was issued in 1506. It was, however, little noticed
and is now very rare (G.W. Bowersock, Introduction, in Valla, On the Donation of
132 salvatore i. camporeale
Constantine, vixv, at ix). For all intents and purposes, it was von Huttens edition that
secured the Orations fame. Eds.]
181Setz, Lorenzo Vallas Schrift, 151176.
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione133
This essay began with a letter sent by Ambrogio Traversari to Valla in 1433,
in which the Camaldolese monk responded to his reading of De voluptate,
which Valla had submitted to his judgment. There he expressed his admi-
ration for the young humanist and assented both to his freedom in criti-
cizing the philosophers of the past and to his willingness to take up an
equally critical consideration of contemporary ethics. I would like now to
conclude this study with the reinterpretation of two letters, both written
by Valla himself in defense of the Oration on the Donation of Constantine.
These pages from Vallas correspondence are of particular importance.
There we find his justification for refusing to recant even in the least
degree what he had written regarding the document of donation. We
read of the personal and cultural motivations that lie at the origin of his
text. And finally, we learn the profound and pregnant meaning that Valla
accorded to the work that he addressed with such frankness to the papacy
and Christendom of his age.
These two letters briefly mentioned in the opening pages of this
essay have a particular context that determines their importance for
Vallas personal and intellectual autobiography as it was written across
the whole of his correspondence. After years of exile from Rome, Valla
185See Paolo Prodi, Il sovrano pontefice. Un corpo e due anime: la monarchia papale nella
prima et moderna (Bolonga: Il Mulino, 1982) [English translation = The Papal Prince: One
Body and Two Souls. The Papal Monarchy in Early Modern Europe, tr. Susan Haskins
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987)].
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione135
requested permission from Eugenius IV and his court once again to enter
the city the place of his birth, which gave him the privilege of calling
himself a Roman citizen. His objective was to visit his mother, who at that
point was in difficult circumstances (not precisely identifiable from the text
of the letter, but probably related to her health). To this, Vallas umpteenth
request to enter Rome came a response naming the condition: he must
retract his writing on the Donation of Constantine, which he had com-
posed to aid King Alfonso of Aragon in his dispute with Pope Eugenius IV.
In the letters to Trevisan and Landriani both influential personages in
the Roman curia we are thus able to trace the issues and characteristics
of Vallas personal and emotional life, which intersect in his cultural devel-
opment and give shape to his biography. The letters provide us with the
clearest view of the most distinctive and original ideal of this humanist of
the early fifteenth century: critical intellectual study and radical freedom
of spirit.
Vallas letters are dated between the end of 1443 and the beginning
of 1444. The first was written from Naples to Cardinal Trevisan on
19 November (1443), the second, again from Naples, to Cardinal Landriani
on 21 January (1444).186 The central theme of both letters is the demand,
made by Eugenius IV and by several members of his curia, that Valla defin-
itively retract the Oration in its entirety. Valla pointedly refuses, and the
reasons he gives for doing so are quite illuminating for the composition
and contents of the Oration. Indeed, what Valla says here in his private
correspondence is as valuable for understanding that text as his Apologia,
published in response to his imminent inquisitorial trial in Naples (April,
1444), would be for his Repastinatio. In both his public apology and private
pleas, Valla refuses to retract any part of any of his works. He justifies such
action on the one hand with arguments exonerating himself from the
charge of heresy. On the other, he provides further evidence confirming
the validity of his writings, both on a strictly doctrinal level and on a
broader cultural and political plane.
In the sections of the letters that interest us, Valla highlights the funda-
mental dimensions, at once objective and subjective, of his writing on the
Constitutum. These can be summarized as human and Christian freedom.
This freedom must be understood on the one hand as the specific domain
of the intellectual in his critical and historical studies. On the other hand
it is the freedom to publicly proclaim ones insight and dissent regarding
We can also clearly see the contents of the Orations exordium and perora-
tion. Let us remember that in the Oration Valla had given dramatic expres-
sion to his dissent from the reigning cultural tradition in general and from
Constantinian ecclesiology in particular. And he had affirmed his stance
contesting the pseudo-Donation and the papacy, attacking the roots of
their juridical and ecclesial premises. In his letter to Landriani he uses
nearly exactly the same terms as in the Orations exordium. In their new
context, however, these arguments serve most of all to defend the Orations
validity, as well as its original motivations and fundamental themes.
Valla protests his right of conscience (directed by my conscience ):
it is from this principle, operating on the planes of morality and of
religion/Christianity, that Valla derives the right to communicate, pub-
liclyand for the benefit of the community of believers, the historical and
ecclesial truth he has discovered ( blessed with discoveries). Above all,
however, Valla is sure to guarantee Landriani that the Oration was born
and bred of that noble freedom of speech with and in which the orator,
and in the first place the Christian orator, fulfills his task in imitation of
the Apostle Paul, as he had written the Orations prologue.
In accordance with the original motivations for and results of his study,
as well as the freedom of speech he claimed within the Christian church,
Valla has absolutely no intention of justifying (so as to excuse) what he
had written in the Oration. His insight had never been invalidated, nor
would it ever be, by the jurisdictional and spiritual terror and power exer-
cised by hierarchical authority in the Church and in Christendom. Indeed,
once the papacy was declared to have usurped an illicit imperium over the
civil and political society of the community of believers, what sense could
it have to make retractions or to supplicate for absolution from heresy?
And what sense could such retractions and supplications have in the light
of that freedom of dissent by which Valla had charted his course? After all,
he had come to identify the Orations very historical study and critical
reflection with the freedom of conscience and of speech guaranteed
within Christendom. Thus Valla insistently informs Landriani that his
request (supplication) to reenter Rome after long exile is not spontane-
ous but rather forced upon him by his love for his mother (filial piety).
Valla seems to perceive at this moment in his life that his personal exis-
tence hangs, as if stretched between opposing forces, at the intersection of
the tensions that had stirred him most: the freedom of the orator and of
the intellectual, and the love of family and of his own origins. He feels like
a ship surprised by adverse winds and forced to strike the sails, a meta-
phor that he had previously employed in the proem to the second book of
138 salvatore i. camporeale
188Valla, Repastinatio, 448.2126 and 176.28177.2: rhetoric is arduous and by far the
most difficult, nor should it be engaged in by all. For it enjoys sailing amidst the waves over
the open sea, its sails billowing full, not giving way to the currents but ruling them: this is
the nature of the highest and perfect eloquence. Dialectic, on the other hand, is the friend
of safety, the ally of the coast; preferring to behold land rather than waters, it rows within
sight of shores and cliffs ( longe difficillima rhetorica est et ardua, nec omnibus capes-
senda. Nanque lato mari mediisque in undis vagari et tumidis ac sonantibus velis volitare
gaudet, nec fluctibus cedit, sed imperat: de summa et perfecta loquor eloquentia. Dialectica
vero amica securitatis, socia litorum, terras potius quam maria intuens, prope oras et
scopulos remigat) (emphasis added).
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione139
that you be yourself, that you behave as you always have. I want your true
feelings about how I stand with you and the supreme pontiff, even if it means
hearing that I am hateful to you and that I am not permitted [to return] to
my fatherland . Or does it seem to you too little that I suffer exile on account
of such a petty annoyance? Or are you determined to punish me further?189
With this passage together with what precedes it in the letter Valla
reaffirms first and in no uncertain terms what was already implicit in the
Oration, namely that his criticism of the pseudo-Donations tradition and
of the papacys Constantinian primacy throughout the ages was the
product of an historico-philological analysis and no mere personal attack
on Pope Eugenius IV.
Valla is able to support these declarations by recalling the familiarity
and friendship that he had enjoyed with Condulmer. Accordingly he
reminds Trevisan of the esteem the future pope had expressed for his De
comparatione Ciceronis Quintilianique, the first work he wrote as a young
man on classical literature. And he calls to mind how, many years earlier,
when he was barely a youth, he had attended the private lessons in Greek
that Condulmer had received from Giovanni Aurispa:
When still just a boy I felt great respect and love for Eugenius. This was
before he became pope, when we studied Greek with the same teacher ,
when he accorded high praise to my treatise.190
189Valla, Epistole, 247f.4073: Cur de Constantini donatione composui? Hoc est quod pur-
gare habeam, ut quod nonnulli optrectent mihi et quasi crimen intendant. Id ego tantum
abest ut malivolentia fecerim, ut summopere optassem sub alio pontifice necesse mihi
fuisse id facere, non sub Eugenio. Neque vero attinet hoc tempore libelli mei causam defen-
dere, nisi Gamalielis verbis: Si est ex hominibus consilium hoc aut opus, dissolvetur; sin
autem ex deo, non poteritis dissolvere. Opus meum conditum editumque est, quod emendare
aut supprimere nec possem si deberem, nec deberem si possem. Ipsa rei veritas se tuebitur aut
ipsa falsitas se coarguet. Alii de illo iudices arbitrique iam sunt, non ego. Si male locutus
sum, testimonium perhibebunt de malo; sin bene, non cedent me virgis equi iudices. Sed
opus illud in sua, queso, causa quiescere sinamus. Hoc tantum consideres velim, non odio
pape adductum, sed veritatis, sed religionis, sed cuiusdam etiam fame gratia motum, ut quod
nemo sciret, id ego scisse solus viderer. Multum etiam nocere potuissem, si alieno animo
fuissem in rebus que mentem animumque magis solicitant. Nam quod feci, hoc non modo
ad pudorem presentium, sed mortuorum etiam ac futurorom pertinet: qui enim nemini parcit,
nullum ledit. Verum cum non minus prodesse in posterum possim quam uno libello offendi,
ego te per superiorum temporum meam in summum pontificem benivolentiam pie-
tatemque obsecro id (quod, cum per se facile, tum vero tue virtuti facillimum): non benefi-
cum, non munus, non gratiam, non veniam, sed ut similis tibi sis, ut quod semper fecisti
facias, ne aliter ac sentis de animo erga me tuo summique pontificis rescribas, etiamsi me
tibi odio esse nec licere mihi in patriam [redire] dicas . An parum tibi videtur ob tantulam
noxam me exilium pati? an ulterior tibi ultio querenda est? (emphasis added).
190Ibid., 246f.2024: Ego Eugenium ante papatum dilexi atque amavi adhuc adoles-
centulus, cum eidem preceptori grecarum litterarum uterque operam daret cum
opusculum meum magnopere laudasset (emphasis added).
140 salvatore i. camporeale
After these allusions to his personal history with Eugenius IV, Valla sets
forth his arguments in defense of the Oration. They are of two kinds. The
first line of defense is to stress his clear opposition to contemporary con-
ciliarism and the conflict raging between Eugenius IV and the conciliarists
of Basel. Here again he refers to what he had said, at least implicitly, in the
Oration, even though his fundamental ecclesiological ideas were perhaps
more radical than those of the conciliarists. Indeed, his ideas attacked the
very foundations of the papacy and of traditional ecclesiology, and thus he
did not emphasize them in the letter to Trevisan. As for conciliarism, it is
noteworthy that Valla seems to have been impervious to the influence
even of Tudeschi, one of the greatest canon lawyers of conciliarism. And
this despite their close personal ties and the fact that Tudeschi repre-
sented Alfonso of Aragons interests at Basel.191 It is his theoretical and
political autonomy from the conciliarist struggle against Eugenius IV that
allows Valla to boast to Cardinal Trevisan obviously with the intention
of addressing the pope himself of never having written against the pope
like the conciliarists, in spite of their explicit solicitation:
I never went to Basel, although many people promised me great rewards;
nor did I write against the pope, although with respect to writing and every
kind of learning I was as capable, if I do say so myself, as anyone there past
or present.192
These declarations shed light on Vallas other line of defense, which is
based on his own person as the author of the Oration. He clearly places the
blame on the situation and the conditions within whose courtly and polit-
ical context the Oration had been prompted, written, and diffused. If he
had not been coerced by these circumstances, he never would have writ-
ten against Eugenius IV: I would have wished most of all to have had to
write under another pope, not under Eugenius. But what precisely does
this last statement mean? In what way should the hypothetical desire and
the necessity be understood? One place to search for and grasp the mean-
ing of this necessity is in the immediate context of the letter to Trevisan.
The other is against the background of what Valla had written in the
Orations exordium, about the orators autonomy and freedom when men-
aced with proscription by censors and men of power.
There is no doubt that Valla was commissioned to defend the Crown of
the Kingdom of Naples from the feudal power of the papacy. Nevertheless,
the exact methods and contents, and above all what we can call the rhe-
torical strategy of the work were fully of Vallas own independent will and
choosing. Therefore, his composition of the Oration ends up being config-
ured against an ample background, in which the defense of Alfonso is
situated according to relationships of continuity and discontinuity with
the political and ideological struggle that had always existed between the
Empire and the papacy. Indeed, in writing the Oration Valla was on the
one hand aligning himself with the tradition of the imperial chanceries
and jurists, employing their tried and true practice of claiming the
Constitutums inauthenticity. On the other hand he was taking up a novel
line, discontinuous with the past at least on an ideological level, and thus
his philological exegesis of the Constitutum and his rhetorical strategy
constitute something new and all his own.
In this context of tradition and originality, Vallas claim to necessity in
writing the Oration (to have had to write) cannot simply be reduced to
the necessity of courtly service and the fealty owed to a prince. Instead it
must be expanded and understood as conditions of necessity that
imposed themselves on his conscience and dignity as an intellectual. In
this sense he could not remain silent. In the name of truth he had to pub-
licize political and ecclesial ideas that put the Constantinian papacy in
crisis and dictated the emancipation of the nations of Christendom from
its feudal rule. The necessity, then, that gave rise to the Oration was the
singular challenge of high political and theological value that Valla could
not resist. Alfonso of Aragons commission coincided with the ecclesio-
logical and historical notions that Valla had been developing for some
time, both regarding the Constantinian Church, as lacking in evangelical
authenticity, and concerning the decline of the empire, as occasioned by
the emancipation of the subject peoples from Romes rule.
With his critique of the empires Caesarism and his exaltation of the
Roman respublica as a form of radical evangelism in the face of the
Constantinian pope, Valla gave an alternative (historical and ideologi-
cal) meaning to the insurrection of peoples against the rule of the Roman
empire as well as to their will to emancipation from the feudal and spiri-
tual rule of the Roman papacy. At stake in the first case was the conquered
barbarians recovery and reappropriation of their civil and political
142 salvatore i. camporeale
freedom in the face of Roman imperialism. In the second it was the citi-
zens of the respublica christianas recovery of their evangelical and eccle-
sial freedom, which the Rome of the popes had expropriated with the false
Donation of Constantine.
These are the very themes addressed in the Oration, the work whose
incrimination Valla laments (there are more than a few people who
regard it as a crime) and whose retraction had been demanded from him.
Hence the necessity of erecting a new defense both of dissent and of
rhetorical freedom (of speech) in the face of the Church. Valla accom-
plishes this task by drawing on Gamaliels response (in Acts 5:38f.) to the
Sanhedrins resolute condemnation of the new doctrine of the Apostles,
and by citing Christs words (in John 18:23) to the man who beat him
before the High Priest for having announced his new message. And he
offers a commentary. The truth or falsity of a doctrine or message, once it
is written, is perpetuated or destroyed without the necessity of outside
help, either from the original author or from censors. Every written work,
by the fact of having been reduced to the letter, has a life of its own. An
object of interpretation for both the present and the future, Vallas work is
already independent of its author and of its individual readers. It will
stand or fall only in virtue of its truth or falsity.
Valla concludes his defense of the Oration to Trevisan by reaffirming
that his writing is a civil and ecclesial witness to the truth and to the faith:
I was not moved by hatred of the Pope but acted for the sake of the truth, of
religion, and also of a certain renown to show that I alone knew what no
one else knew.
This declaration was quoted in the introduction to the present essay
because it is relevant for identifying the Orations highly original ideals
and for understanding them as a comprehensive whole, just as they had
formed a synchronic whole in the experience of Vallas everyday life. Now
I would like to return to this declaration to conclude my interpretive study
of Vallas Oration.
With this declaration Valla gathers and assembles into one phrase the
words and concepts that provided the solid foundation for the Oration:
truth, religion, and renown. Truth was the object of his philological and
critical study. Religion, that is faith in the Gospel, was the standard to
which he returned Christianity and its history. Renown was the essential
aim of the role he played as an intellectual, an orator, and a humanist
in the society and culture of his time, and more properly in the commu-
nity of the church, which recognized the Gospel as the primary font of
truth and of faith.
lorenzo valla and the de falso credita donatione143
Salvatore I. Camporeale
(translated by Patrick Baker)
1Paul Oskar Kristeller, Medieval Aspects of Renaissance Learning, ed. and tr. Edward P.
Mahoney (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1974); John W. OMalley, Some
Renaissance Panegyrics of Aquinas, Renaissance Quarterly 27 (1974): 174192. See also:
Angelus Walz, Saint Thomas dAquin, ed. Paul Novarina (Louvain: Publications universi-
taires, 1962); Cornelio Fabro, Breve introduzione al tomismo (Roma: Desclee, 1960); Daniel
Ols, Tommaso dAquino, in Enciclopedia delle Religioni, vol. V, (Florence: Vallecchi, 1973),
180925. For the immediate context of Vallas Encomium, see OMalleys decisive and inno-
vative study, The Feast of Thomas Aquinas in Renaissance Rome: A Neglected Document
and its Import, Rivista di storia della chiesa in Italia 35 (1981): 127.
2Innocenzo Taurisano, Discepoli e biografi di S. Tommaso. Note storico-critiche (Roma:
Societ Tipografica A. Manuzio, 1924), 45: licteratura canonizationis; an extract of Fra
146 salvatore i. camporeale
Giovannis disputation, utrum licite possit doceri Parisiis doctrina fratris Thomae quoad
omnes conclusiones suas, is given on p. 68. See also Fabro, Breve introduzione al tomismo,
5455. For the general context, see: Martin Grabmann, Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, 3 vols.
(Mnchen: Hueber, 19261956), 3:370410; idem, La scuola tomista italiana nel sec. XIII e
principio del XIV sec., Rivista di filosofia neoscolastica 15 (1923): 97155; P. Glorieux, Les
premires polmiques thomistes. Vol. 1: Le Correctorium corruptorii Quare (Kain: Revue
des sciences philosophiques et thologiques, 1927); idem, La premire pntration
thomiste et son problme, Revue dApologtique 53 (1931): 257275, 385510. See also
Eugenio Marino, La questione tomista nelle fonti giuridico-encomiastiche dellOrdine
Domenicano, 12441974 [Camporeale indicated in 2002 that this essay by Marino was
forthcoming in Memorie Domenicane, but it does not appear to have been published there,
nor has it been possible to locate it elsewhere. Eds.].
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance147
Let us consider, to take an example from the first decades of the four-
teenth century, the sensational case of Fra Uberto Guidi di Nepozzano,
the Dominican bachelor in the Studio Generale of Santa Maria Novella in
Florence. On the solemn and official occasion of a quodlibetal disputa-
tion in cathedra, Guidi impugned Aquinass teaching, arguing against his
lectors position (determinando contra determinationem sui lectoris). The
disputation was held in 1315, right at the time when efforts for Thomass
canonization were underway. It seems that his lector on that occasion
was Fra Remigio de Girolami (d. 1319), the authoritative promoter of the
most orthodox form of Thomism in the Florentine school. Guidi himself
appears to have been a person of some account in the Studio, thanks to
both his theological training and his reputation in the Tuscan city. The
death registry of Santa Maria Novella sings his praises, noting the course
of his studies (begun in Paris, where he was sent by the same Fra Remigio
de Girolami, then Provincial of the Roman Province) and his teaching in
various monastic Studi (Viterbo, Arezzo, Siena, Perugia, and especially
Florence). We also know that Bishop Francesco Silvestri commissioned
him in 1330 to redact the Statutes of the Santa Maria Nuova hospital in
Florence. The case of Guidis anti-Thomist thesis must catch our eye for
its noteworthy repercussions. The Provincial Chapter of the Dominicans,
held in Arezzo in that year, ordered the contradictor of the Florentine
Studio to retract his thesis, barred him from teaching for two years, and
transferred him to the monastery in Pistoia. The rehabilitation of this
leading Dominican exponent of dissent to Thomism would come only
years later. In the meantime the disputation of 1315 established a rigid con-
tinuity and fidelity to the Thomist tradition in the Roman Province of the
Order.3
Such conflicts, of which the case of the Florentine scholar is only one
example, are set on a larger stage where the debate over Thomism was
played out in various guises and scenes; their most intense period was
between the end of the thirteenth century and the first half of the four-
teenth. But beyond the scholastic controversy, the canonization of 1323
signals a decisive turn towards the consummation of the indissoluble
union between the Dominican Orders historico-ecclesial identity and
the cultural tradition of Thomism. The solemn declaration of 1323 materi-
alized in the Orders defining appropriation of Thomas as its doctrinal
3In addition to the bibliography in the previous note, see also Grabmann,
Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, 1:361369, 2:530547; Stefano Orlandi (ed.), Necrologio di
S. Maria Novella, 2 vols. (Firenze: Olschki, 1955), 1:276307, 502503, 522523.
148 salvatore i. camporeale
4Firenze, Archivio di Stato, Signori, Carteggi, Legazioni e Commissarie, Reg. 12, f. 16r-v:
Perch fra quelli di santa Reparata e di santa Maria Novella certa discordia per la solen-
nit del Corpo di Christo, voglamo che in nostro nome supplichiate al prefato pontefice
degni provedere per sua bolla decta festa si celebri a santa Maria Novella, assegnando che
sempre quivi fu usitato farla, et factone provedimento per pi nostre leggi. Et che sempre
va l, la Signoria et tucte lArti. Et finalmente come nobilissima chiesa nella quale sono
habitati pi pontefici. Et non ha altra festa solenne. Et etiandio per rispecto di molti nobil-
issimi citadini populari di decta chiesa. Et ancora per contemplatione di Santo Thomaso et
molti frati singularissimi theologi di quello Ordine.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance149
For I have already been able to devote three months to Aristotle, not so much
for the sake of learning at present as of reading and seeing what is contained
in each work. But this reading of mine is not altogether fruitless. I learn a lit-
tle something every day, even if only superficially, and this is the reason
why my love of Greek literature has come back so strong: I am becoming
acquainted, in his own language, with an author who is practically speech-
less and ridiculous in translation. For a commentator I have Thomas Aquinas,
a great man and a good scholar, as the seriousness of the subject demands.
The inventory of books in Bracciolinis possession confirms what is said
in this passage from the letter to Niccoli. The Florentine humanists per-
sonal library contained two of Aquinass most important commentaries
(expositiones) on Aristotles works: on the Metaphysics (In XII libros
Metaphysicorum) and on the Physics (In VII libros Physicorum).5
5Poggio Bracciolini, Epistolae, ed. Tommaso Tonelli, 3 vols. (Firenze: L. Marchini, 1832
61), 1:8 (p. 39) (also avaialble in Bracciolini, Lettere, ed. Helene Harth, 3 vols. (Firenze:
Olschki, 19841987), 1:1516) [English translation = idem, Two Renaissance Book Hunters:
The Letters of Poggius Bracciolini to Nicolaus de Niccolis, tr. Phyllis Walter Goodhart Gordon
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1974), 43]: Ego jam tribus mensibus vaco Aristoteli,
non tam discendi causa ad praesens, quam legendi ac videndi quid in quoque opere con-
tineatur: nec est tamen omnino inutilis haec lectio, disco aliquid in diem, saltem superficie
tenus, et haec est causa potissime, cur amor graecarum litterarum redierit, ut hunc virum
quasi elinguem, et absurdum aliena lingua, cognoscam sua. Expositorem habeo Thomam
de Aquino, virum egregium et facundum, prout patitur pondus rerum (tr. Gordon). Ernst
Walser, Poggius Florentinus. Leben und Werke (Leipzig: Teubner, 1914), 422: doc. 141, n. 71
and 72. Bracciolini often rebukes Valla for having dared to criticize Aquinas; see, e.g., his
Invectiva in L. Vallam V, where he writes, among our own, he criticizes Albert the Great
and Thomas Aquinas for ignorance of philosophy (e nostris Albertum Magnum et
Thomam Aquinatem ut ignaros philosophiae reprehendit), in Poggio Bracciolini, Opera
omnia, ed. Riccardo Fubini, 4 vols. (Torino: Bottega dErasmo, 19641969), 1:246.
6Fabro, Breve intoduzione al tomismo, 139. For a general view of the state of Thomist
historiography, see the Atti del Congresso internazionale (Roma-Napoli, 1724 aprile 1974):
Tommaso dAquino nel suo settimo centenario, 9 vols. (Napoli: Edizioni domenicane ital-
iane, 19751978).
150 salvatore i. camporeale
7Kristeller, Medieval Aspects, 40, who in n. 32 cites: Pierre Mandonnet, Frres Prcheurs
(la thologie dans lordre des), in Dictionnaire de thologie catholique (Paris: Letouzey et
An, 19231972), 6:863924, at 906907; Ricardo G. Villoslada, La Universidad de Paris
durante los estudios de Francisco de Vitorio (Roma: Aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1938),
279307; and Grabmann, Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, 3:411448.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance151
setting to which the Encomium was addressed, and, on the other hand, the
perspectives and breadth of the anti-Thomism underlying the humanist
problematic and polemic that emerged on the occasion of Vallas solemn
disputation.
The preeminence acquired by the Summa theologiae in the course of
the fifteenth century is a reliable indicator of the progressive expansion of
Aquinass doctrinal influence and of the Thomist traditions growing
autonomy in academic teaching. Eventually the Summa achieved cultural
hegemony over the theological tradition of writing commentaries to the
Sentences. In this process, Aquinas transcended his place within the his-
tory of medieval thought and became an autonomous norm of theological
and philosophical doctrine, a doctrine whose synthesis was inscribed in
exemplary fashion in the textbook of the Summa. What is more, the
Summas shift in theologico-cultural status seems to have occurred as a
movement that straddled Dominican Schools and academic institutions
independent of the Order, feeding on and motivated by the study of theol-
ogy (and philosophy) itself. Indeed, it is telling if we have not overlooked
anything in our direct consultation of the sources that the acts of the
Capitula Generalia of the fifteenth century lack even one explicit declara-
tion, imperative or exhortative, for the adoption of the Summa as a basic
text for theological instruction. And this despite the fact that it was up to
the general chapters, in practice at least, to assign and transfer the lectors
in the Orders major Studi throughout Europe.
At this point we can trace the boundaries that mark the clear beginning
and end of the Summas cultural shift in the fifteenth century, orienting
ourselves chronologically and qualitatively by the major writings of
Giovanni Capreolo (d. 1444) and Cardinal De Vio, commonly known as
Gaetano (d. 1534).8 Capreolos Defensiones theologiae Thomae Aquinatis
(Defenses of the Theology of Thomas Aquinas), which dates to around 1432,
is generally seen as concluding the grand controversy between Thomism
Among all the doctors of the church who have been declared saints, [Thomas
Aquinas] is called on as an authority even by those who oppose his teaching
in certain areas (which opposition reveals their ignorance). When disputing
or teaching the doctors were wont to say, such is the opinion of the holy
doctor, or, the holy doctor thought thus . Whoever does not admire or
praise the wisdom of this man is destitute of wisdom, or he is without a
doubt jealous and wicked. For with the rising of his sun, every mere shadow
of error and heresy was immediately chased away from the aspect of holy
mother church. Whatever doubt, whatever anxiety sprouts forth in the
church from the devils seed dissolves and vanishes at once when Thomas is
appointed judge. Through Thomas all of ecclesiastical dogma is strength-
ened, and its decrees receive confirmation. Who in our time, indeed who
since the rising of this sun, has become a logician, philosopher, or theolo-
gian of the highest caliber without seeking the support of divine Thomass
most constant wisdom? What learned and eloquent speaker ascends the
pulpit without borrowing from Thomas what instructs and moves the peo-
ple? What venerable doctor in cathedra (if, that is, he should teach the truth)
does Thomas not furnish with the certitude of his wisdom? Finally, who
braves a scholastic competition without first girding himself with the arms
of Thomas? Nor has any of the glory of this holiest doctor been lost to the
disturbances of any detractors whatsoever in our lifetime. On the contrary,
like gold tempered by fire, his wisdom prevails untarnished over the unwise,
shining forth from a distance. And the fame amassed everywhere by the
most holy doctor, being defended by the many with all vigor, has grown
beyond all proportion.
Spina sees the timelessness of Thomism with the Summas rise to pre-
eminence during the fifteenth century as the long route of the Dominican
theological tradition connecting the first Thomas, Aquinas, to the second,
Gaetano:
Thomas Gaetanus, coming much later, whose wisdom and exemplary life
were just about second to none in these days, like a living image of Aquinas
was inspired by the Lord to proceed with the work of this most incredible
man. His merits compel, and his perpetual monument induces, posterity to
imitate him . The doctrine which the divine Thomas had diffused through-
out the whole world was given a brighter sheen by this second Thomass
interpretations . Thus everyone can rightly recite these verses when burst-
ing into the praise of both princes: as the morning star in the midst of a
cloud, and as the moon at the full, and as the shining sun [Ecclus. 50:67],
thus they shine on the temple of God.11
11Bartolomeo Spina, preface to Cajetan, Prima Secundae Partis Summae, III, f. a2v-a3v:
[Thomas Aquinas] inter omnes ecclesiae doctores, sancti denominatione, ab his etiam,
qui doctrinae eius in aliquibus (ex hoc imperiti) adversantur, antonomasice vocitetur,
dum inter disputandum legendumve doctores dicere consueverunt: Haec est sancti docto-
ris sententia; vel, sic tenuit sanctus doctor . Sapientiam quoque illius qui non admiratur
154 salvatore i. camporeale
aut extollit, non nisi sapientia ieiunus est, vel certe invidens ac malignus. Sole nanque isto
suborto, omnes errorum ac haeresum umbrae, a sanctae matris ecclesiae facie protinus
effugatae sunt. Quicquid dubietatis, quicquid scrupuli satore diabolo pullulat in ecclesia,
Thoma iudice constituto, confestim dissolvitur ac vanescit. Omne per Thomam ecclesiasti-
cum dogma firmatur roborataeque sanctiones persistunt. Quis aevo nostro, imo quis post
solis huius ortum optimus logicus, philosophus, theologus evasit, qui non divi Thomae
firmissimae sapientiae auxilium imploraverit? Quisnam doctus ac facundus concionator
ambonem ascendit, qui non a Thoma mutuet, quae populum erudiant ac inflamment? Quis
cathedram venerandus doctor insedit, cui non Thomas (si tamen vera doceat) sapientiae
certitudinem subministret? Quis denique scholasticum certamen adoritur, qui non se prius
Thomae armis accinxerit? Neque tamen sanctissimi huius doctoris aliquid suae gloriae
deperit in hoc etiam nostrae peregrinationis tempore, ob quorumlibet etiam adversantium
infestationem. Quinimo veluti per ignem probatum aurum sapientia illius ab insipientibus
ex hoc impugnata praevalens, eminus fulget eiusdemque doctoris sanctissimi omnifariam
cumulata celebritas, dum a multis validissime defensatur, crevit in immensum.
Thomas Caietanus, postremus quidem tempore, sapientia vero ac vitae splendore his
diebus nulli forte secundus, a Domino quasi vivens Aquinatis imago suscitatus est Viri
huius singularissimi praeconia prosequi, eius compellunt merita, inducit monumentum
perpetuum, quo ad imitandum trahantur posteri . Doctrinam per divum Thomam in
mundo effusam, alter hic Thomas fulgidiorem reddit explanationibus suis ut merito
quisque in utriusque principis laudem prorumpens decantare possit: Quasi stella matu-
tina in medio nebulae, et quasi luna plena in diebus suis lucent, et quasi sol refulgens sic
hi refulgent in templo dei.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance155
12The text of the Encomion sancti Thomae was first printed by J. Vahlen, in
Vierteljahrsschrift fr Kultur und Litteratur der Renaissance 1 (1886): 384396 (facsimile
reprint in Lorenzo Valla, Opera omnia, ed. Eugenio Garin, 2 vols. [Torino: Bottega dErasmo,
1962], 2:339352). To the two manuscripts (Paris, Bibl. Nat., Lat. 7811 A and Rome, Bibl.
Angelica, 1500) mentioned and transcribed respectively by Vahlen and by G. Bertocci
(Roma, 1888) must be added Modena, Bibl. Estense alpha T 6, 15, which contains several
variants; this ms. was listed by Kristeller in Iter Italicum, 1:396b. A Spanish translation of
the Encomium with the Latin text, re-edited on the basis of the Parisian and Roman manu-
scripts, is available in Lorenzo Valla, Oraciones y Prefacios, ed. Francesco Adorno (Santiago:
Universidad de Chile, 1955), with introduction and notes, 290321. It is on the basis of this
edition that we shall conduct our analysis of Vallas text. An Italian translation of the
Encomium is also readily available in Lorenzo Valla, Scritti filosofici e religiosi, ed. Giorgio
Radetti (Firenze: Sansoni, 1953), 455ff., with introduction and notes. [A critical edition of
the Latin text is now available: Lorenzo Valla, Encomion sancti Thome Aquinatis, ed.
Stefano Cartei (Firenze: Polistampa, 2008); Carteis edition is the basis for the text and
translation of the Encomium in the present volume, pp. 297315, which is the source for all
citations of the Encomium throughout this essay (cited according to paragraph and, for the
Latin text, line number.] For bibliography on the Encomium, in addition to the indications
in Kristeller, Medieval Aspects, 6365 and notes, and in OMalley, Some Renaissance
Panegyrics of Aquinas, n. 1 and passim, we add Mario Fois, Il pensiero cristiano di Lorenzo
Valla nel quadro storico-culturale del suo ambiente (Roma: Libreria editrice dellUniversit
Gregoriana, 1969), 456469. Emblematic of a skewed reading of the Encomium is the article
by Michele Schiavone, Intorno allEncomion Thomae Aquinatis di Lorenzo Valla, Rivista di
filosofia neo-scolastica 47 (1955): 7379, where Valla is seen in a perspective quite different
from the more recent historiography, which considers him the theologian of the
Renaissance; thus Ekkehard Mhlenberg, Laurentius Valla als Renaissancetheologe,
Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche 66 (1969): 466480. On the celebration in honor of
St. Thomas in Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome, see the documentation referred to by
Kristeller, Medieval Aspects, 61, n. 114. The liturgical feast of St. Thomas was solemnly cele-
brated as a cappella cardinalizia until recent times (1967), just as it had been, with all prob-
ability, since Vallas day and earlier than the period indicated by Johannes Burckardus in
156 salvatore i. camporeale
the Liber notarum and in the Diarium, as cited by Kristeller, ibid., p. 61 [= Johann
Burchard, Liber notarum: ab anno 1483 usque ad annum 1506, ed. Enrico Celani, 14 fasc.
in 4 vols. (Citt di Castello: S. Lapi, 19071942); idem, Diarium, sive, Rerum urbanarum
commentarii (14831506), ed. L. Thuasne, 3 vols. (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 18831885); precise
references in Kristeller]. An historical profile of this celebration at Santa Maria sopra
Minerva is found in A. Zucchi (d. 1956), Il Collegio di S. Tommaso dAquino alla Minerva,
unpublished work held in the churchs archives (Arch. Conv.), ch. IX: La festa di
S. Tommaso e il Collegio della Minerva, ff. 6171. I owe my photocopies of this
unpublished work to Father Benedetto Carderi, whom I thank cordially. Cf. also Marie-
Hyacinthe Laurent, Autour de la fte de saint Thomas; Revue Thomiste 40 (1935): 257263;
see also B. Carderi, I Registri del Collegio S. Tommaso dAquino in Roma, conservati
nellarchivio del convento di S. Maria sopra Minerva, Memorie Domenicane, n.s., 7 (1976):
346358.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance157
13George Kaftal, Iconography of the Saints in Central and South Italian Schools of
Painting (Florence: Sansoni, 1965), 10881096, n. 395, figs. 12681277; idem, Iconography of
the Saints in Tuscan Painting (Florence: Sansoni, 1952), 977988, n. 217, figs. 10991113;
Stefano Orlandi, I libri corali di s. Maria Novella con miniature dei sec. XIII e XIV, Memorie
Domenicane 83 (1966): 5557. On the Cappellone degli Spagnoli: Richard Fremantle,
Florentine Gothic Painters. From Giotto to Masaccio (London: Secker & Warburg, 1975),
203204, esp. figs. 416 and 418 (with bibliography); Millard Meiss, Painting in Florence and
Siena after the Black Death: The Arts, Religion and Society in the Mid-Fourteenth Century
(London: Harper & Rowe, 1973), ch. 4: The Spanish Chapel, 94104; Pierre Francastel,
Studi di sociologia dellarte, tr. Andrea Zanzotto (Milan: Rizzoli, 1976), 116 (original French
ed. = tudes de sociologie dart [Paris: Denol/Gonthier, 1970]); but above all, for our theme,
Julius von Schlosser, Giustos Fresken in Padua und die Vorlufer der Stanza della
Segnatura, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhchsten Kaiserhauses 17
(1896): 13100 (the interpretive scheme of the series of the artes and scientiae and the cor-
responding auctoritates is found on p. 47). Schlossers proposed identification of the alle-
gorical figures of the scientiae and their corresponding personages (for the artes there are
no interpretive uncertainties) is partially dubious but seems at this point the most con-
vincing. Nevertheless, we believe that the iconographic series of the scientiae (and thus of
the related historical personages) must be reinterpreted in light of a long text of the
Council of Constance regarding the condemnation of Wycliffes 29th proposition (Giovan
Domenico Mansi [ed.], Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 53 vols. [Paris:
H. Welter, 19011927], 28:131137). In that text (of 1415, but actually a synthesis of the aca-
demic tradition of the late fourteenth century) we find the programmatic statute of the
medieval university for the artistic and scientific education of clerics. The scientific
one is given in tripartite form: law (civil and canon law), philosophy (natural philosophy,
ethics, and metaphysics), and theology (scriptural and dogmatic). But what must be par-
ticularly emphasized here is its reduction of the artes and the scientiae to the direct and
immediate service of the science of faith (scientia fidei). From this connection between
the text of the Council of Constance and the wall of the Cappellone we would conclude the
following: in Andrea di Bonaiutos triumph, Thomas is exalted for having effected the
greatest and most perfect synthesis (almost the incarnation of the medieval universitas
studiorum) of all the artes and scientiae, none excluded but with each one still retaining its
own specific function in relation to theoretical and practical sacra doctrina (cf. Eugenio
Marino, Umanesimo e teologia. A proposito della recente storiografia su Lorenzo Valla,
Memorie Domenicane, n.s., 3 (1972): 198218, at 209210). Also on the Cappellone del
Chiostro Verde, see J.-J. Berthier, Le triomphe de Saint Thomas, patron et protecteur des
158 salvatore i. camporeale
coles catholiques peint par Taddeo Gaddi dans la Chapelle des Espagnoles Florence. tude
dhistoire et dart (Fribourg [Switzerland]: Saint Paul, 1897). In that work, however, it is not
only necessary to correct the attribution of the pictorial cycle to Taddeo Gaddi, but also to
note the unlikelihood (apart from civil and canon law, represented by the first two sym-
bolic figures starting from the left) of the successive division of the scientiae into: moral,
dogmatic, scholastic, mystic, and apologetic, as well as the identification of the his-
torical personages alligned with the same division. Unfortunately, Berthiers iconographic
interpretation has found its way into popular works, e.g., Maria Baciocchi de Pon, Il
Chiostro Verde e la Cappella degli Spagnoli (Firenze: Lumacchi, 1900) and Stefano Orlandi
and Isnardo Grossi, Santa Maria Novella e suoi chiostri monumentali. Guida storico-artisica
(Firenze: Edizioni S. Becocci, 1974), 4377.
Among the many works on the Cappella Carafa in the Minerva in Rome, see in particu-
lar: Mary Pittaluga, Filippino Lippi, in Enciclopedia universale dellarte, vol. 8:623631, at
627631; Urbain Mengin, Les deux Lippi (Paris: Plon, 1932), 153171; Alfred Scharf, Filippino
Lippi (Vienna: A. Schroll, 1935), 3945, pls. 4555; Valerio Mariani, Larte di Filippino
Lippi, in Saggi su Filippino Lippi (Firenze: Arnaud, 1957), 7184; J.-J. Berthier, Lglise de la
Minerve Rome (Roma: Cooperativa tipografica Manuzio, 1910), 148196; Carlo Bertelli,
Appunti sugli affreschi nella Cappella Carafa alla Minerva, Archivum Fratrum
Praedicatorum 35 (1965): 115130. For what will be said later about the Minervan Cappella,
it is worth remembering that Gaetano dedicated his Commentarium on the prima pars of
the Summa Theologiae, finished in May, 1507 (cf. n. 10 above) and published in Venice in
1508, to cardinal Oliviero Carafa. Gaetanos dedicatory praefatio ends with the following
passage: Now I come to myself, who have always been loved by you with fatherly affec-
tion, increased with benefices, and decorated with high offices. I would rightly have to be
censured for the vice of ingratitude if I should offer these fruits of my studies to another
rather than to you, to whom I have also dedicated lesser works, especially since you most
of all encouraged me to hammer out this intepretation, and, when it was nearly well fin-
ished, you not only requested often but even violently demanded that it be published.
Receive now this gift of ours favorably, and accept it as a pledge and a monument to my
faith and regard for you. For all time, be well. (Commentarii in ImIIae Summae Theologiae
S. Thomae Aquinatis, p. *2v: Venio nunc ad meipsum, qui paterna charitate semper abs te
dilectus, beneficiis auctus, dignitatibusque ornatus, ingrati animi vitio iure damnandus
sim, si alii quam tibi hos quoque studiorum meorum fructus detulerim, cui minora etiam
dedicavi. Praesertim cum tu me ad hanc cudendam expositionem adhortatus maxime
fueris, vixque bene absolutam, publicari non solum saepe petieris, verum etiam flagi-
taveris. Cape igitur munus hoc nostrum benigna fronte, meaeque fidei atque observantiae
erga te pignus hoc monumentumque agnosce. In aevum, vale.) Finally, let us add that the
triumph of Thomas would later find a Counter-Reformation iconographic expression in
its figurative assimilation of ancient Roman heroes. For this aspect, see the design of
Giuseppe Passeri (16541714) in Anthony Blunt and Hereward Lester Cooke, The Roman
Drawings of the XVII and XVIII Centuries in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen at
Windsor Castle (London: Phaidon, 1960), 73 and 75, pl. 62. I would like to thank Prof.
Nicholas Turner for calling my attention to Passeris design.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance159
14[It has not been possible to identify the precise source of this quotation from Stefano
Orlandi. Eds.]
160 salvatore i. camporeale
Lombard). It makes use of civil and canon law and ecclesiology, takes up
the ancient Greek and Latin authorities (auctoritates), and comes to be
expressed, at the same time, in the divine rhythms of the Holy Spirit,
which breathes its gifts into the theologian. Corresponding in number and
pictorial space to the allegorical figures of the seven planets, which are
placed above the arts of the quadrivium and trivium, the seven gifts of the
Holy Spirit are represented by an equal number of allegorical figures, lined
up with the symbolic series of the sciences and a procession of the histori-
cal personages related to them.
It seems obvious that the synchrony of Thomass triumph is inserted
into an architectural and semantic arrangement with a specifically medi-
eval perspective: it is an integral part of a space and time that is structur-
ally Gothic and ideologically scholastic. The Cappellones vast mural cycle
is laid out and tied together in concentric circles: the triumph of Thomas
is set within the kerygmatic and apologetic function of the Dominican
towards God; (3) of Christ, who, as a man, is our way to God.17 The
Summas tripartite scheme is manifested in the Minervan Chapels walls
as follows: the dogmatic and philosophical disputation (with the sequence
of historical personages form the ranks of theological heresy and philo-
sophical error) corresponds to pars 1 of the Summa (the unity and trinity
of God, and the nature of man); the portrayal of Christian theological and
moral practice corresponds to pars 2 (the theological and cardinal virtues,
and their contrary vices); and the Annunciation, the initium Incarnationis
(beginning of the Incarnation) corresponds to pars 3 (dedicated to the
mystery of the God-man who is the way to salvation).
The pictorial cycle, which takes us back to the right wall from which it
began, is nothing other than the doctrinal illustration of the large Book,
open in all its fullness, in the large rose window inscribed at the apex of
the Renaissance arch. Above the Disputation scene, the arch majesti-
cally outlines the throne where Thomas is seated; gathered at the feet of
the throne in a grouping that is significantly reduced in comparison with
the triumph of the Florentine Cappellone are the allegorical figures of
Grammar and Dialectic on one side, Philosophy and Theology on the
other. The large book of the Summa theologiae (as identified by Berthier),
decorated with lilies and illuminated by a sun above it, is held up by two
putti: the work of the Angelic Doctor hovers in an almost divine and time-
less glorification that transcends its very author.18 Finally, the fresco runs
to the end of the high wall and continues through the entire curve of the
lunette. Here is depicted, in an uninterrupted sequence (as Bertelli has
noted), an event in Thomass life mocked by Valla in a long passage of
the Adnotationes that is directly related to the doctrine of his theological
work.19 Thomas deposits his Book at the feet of the Cross, and Christ gives
him the divine seal of dogmatic orthodoxy, saying: you have written well
of me, Thomas (bene scripsisti de me, Thoma).
If the triumph of Thomas in the Cappellone degli Spagnoli celebrates
Thomas as the greatest theologian of the universal church and as a thinker
profoundly organic to medieval Christianity, the triumph in the Cappella
Carafa is undoubtedly dedicated to the glorification of the Summa
theologiae.Is it not perhaps within this perspective which, incidentally,
17Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, prol. quae. 2, pars 1: Ad huius sacrae doctrinae
expositionem intendentes primo, tractabimus de Deo; secundo, de motu rationalis in Deum;
tertio, de Christo, qui, secundum hominem, via est nobis tendendi in Deum. Translation by
the Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Bros., 1948).
18[Berthier, Lglise de la Minerve, 167, 180.]
19[Bertelli, Appunti sugli affreschi nella cappella Carafa alla Minerva, 117, n. 11.]
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance163
Figure 2.Filippino Lippi (ca. 14571504), Triumph of St. Thomas Aquinas over
the Heretics, fresco, 14891492. Cappella Carafa, Santa Maria sopra Minerva,
Rome (courtesy of Scala Archives).
speculation of the Schools, and on the other hand the complex and sys-
tematic anti-humanist response of neo-Thomism. Vallas Encomium was a
programmatic call for a humanist theology, and in the early sixteenth cen-
tury it would yield Erasmuss theory or method of true theology (ratio
seu methodus verae theologiae). In the mid-fifteenth century, however, it
functioned as a critique of scholasticism, which saw in Thomism the ori-
gins of a timeless and normative theology.
Timelessness is semantically a very rich category of iconography. Zeri
based his Pittura e Controriforma on it, thereby reconstructing the origins
of timeless art. By transferring this concept to theology and we are
prompted to do so on account of analogical correlations we could
describe the critical objective of Vallas 1457 speech as identifying, in the
fifteenth-century scholastic-Thomist shift, the beginning of a zeitlose
Theologie, a timeless theology, that would remain a constant in Christian
culture.20 Indeed, precisely this seems to be the essential, contextual
nucleus of the Encomium of St. Thomas. We now offer as close a reading of
the text as possible in order to substantiate this position, which has been
stated here as a mere hypothesis in a purely formal way.
20We owe the phrase zeitlose Theologie (timeless theology) to Federico Zeri, Pittura e
Controriforma. Alle origini dellarte senza tempo (Torino: Einaudi, 1957). Our coinage zeit-
lose Theologie is based on his zeitlose Kunst (timeless art) (p. 84), which he defines as the
escape of a work (of art) from the fleeting frailty of taste and of style. His work also sug-
gested the subtitle to our introduction: at the origins of neo-Thomism in the fifteenth-
century, as it also effects a conceptual transfer from iconography (the iconography of
timeless art) to the history of theology. But we owe not only this to Zeri; indeed our debt
to him involves something much more important. Beyond the intentions of the author him-
self, our reading of Pittura e Controriforma leads us to conclude the existence of a strict
parallelism between the vicissitudes of timeless art and the multiform course of theologi-
cal study between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries although the relative periods
and corresponding chronological rhythms do not match up exactly. This proposition has
undoubtedly been stated too briefly for the observation that we would like to make in this
regard and that would require a fuller and more in-depth discussion. The reader, however,
will easily be able to comprehend it by rereading Zeris monograph from the point of view of
the history of theology and of the Church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. What Zeri
wrote on p. 113 finds clear confirmation here: the artistic thermometer is the most precise
indicator of societys values and meanings. This is what the Renaissance art historian Georg
Weise demonstrated and repeated on many occasions (also with regard to other, more com-
plex, aspects), in his Lideale eroico del Rinascimento e le sue premesse umanistiche (Napoli:
Edizioni scientifiche italiane, 1961), ch. 1: Il duplice concetto di Rinascimento, 178.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance165
21For the relationship between Valla and Quintilian, of which much will be said here in
the first section of the present essay, see Salvatore I. Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo
e teologia (Firenze: Istituto nazionale di studi sul Rinascimento, 1972), where Vallas
Quintilianism is amply treated and demonstrated with pertinent texts. See also Hanna-
Barbara Gerl, Rhetorik als Philosophie. Lorenzo Valla (Mnchen: Fink, 1974). References to
other sources in Vallas writings are discussed in two very important essays (made avail-
able by the generous courtesy of their author, although after our work was already com-
pleted) by Riccardo Fubini, Intendimenti umanistici e riferimenti patristici dal Petrarca al
Valla, Giornale Storico della Letteratura Italiana 151 (1974): 520578; and idem, Note su
Lorenzo Valla e la composizione del De voluptate, in I classici nel Medioevo e nellUmanesimo.
Miscellanea filologica (Genova: Universit di Genova, Istituto di Filologia Classica e
Medioevale, 1975), 1157. Vallas autograph glosses to the Institutio oratoria are found in the
ms. of Quintilians work in Paris, Bibl. Nat., Lat. 7723 (see Quintilian, Listituzione oratoria,
ed. and tr. Rino Faranda, 2 vols. [Torino: UTET, 1968], 1:3033). Vallas glosses have also
been collected in a ms. in Naples, Bibl. dei Gerolamini, M. XXVVII.2.15. For these two mss.,
see Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo e teologia, 119120. In this earlier work I made
an error which I would now like to correct: the ms. Paris, Bibl. Nat., lat. 6174 does not con-
tain glosses on Quintilian by Valla but only the autograph version of the Gesta Ferdinandi
regis Aragonum, now magisterially edited in a critical edition, with a full introduction,
based on this very codex, by Ottavio Besomi (Padova: Antenore, 1973). [For a critical edi-
tion of Vallas glosses on Quintilian, see Lorenzo Valla, Le postille allInstitutio oratoria di
Quintiliano, eds. Lucia Cesarini Martinelli and Alessandro Perosa (Padova: Antenore,
1996).]
166 salvatore i. camporeale
2.2.The narratio and the Liturgical Celebration of the Saint: The Testimony
of the Martyr/Confessor in the Army of Christ
After the exordium, or prologue (cf. Institutio oratoria, IV.1), the narratio
(cf. ibid., IV.2) begins with the words, although all who die in the Lord .
The theological nature of the orations opening is immediately felt. Indeed,
the celebrative-liturgical narration of the deeds accomplished by the
Christian hero, the saint, cannot be confined within the limits that cir-
cumscribe the encomium that genre of demonstrative rhetoric whose
aim is the exaltation of excellence (aret) within the realm of the polis.
This is the definition given by Aristotle (and used by Quintilian) in the
22Vallas gloss on Institutio oratoria, III.4.1314 is in ms. Paris, Bibl. Nat., lat. 7723, f. 32r,
right margin: as of Isocrates and of many others; and after Quintilian: Plinys de laudibus
Traiani, Latinus Pacatus de [sc. laudibus] Theodosii, Mamertinus de Juliani, Nazarius de
Constantini (ut Isocratis et aliorum nonnullorum; et post Quintilianum: Plinii de laudibus
Traiani, Latini Pacati de Theodosii, Mamertini de Juliani, Nazarii De Constantini). See the
(rare) Panegyrici veteres, ed. Jacobus De La Baune (Venice: Javarina: 1728), ad usum
Serenissimi Delphini, with notes by Christian Schwarz, where the panegyrics of the
Latin authors named in Vallas gloss are collected. For Plinys text, see Pliny the Younger,
Letters and Panegyricus, trans. Betty Radice, 2 vols. (London: Heinemann, 1969), 2:322324
(Panegyricus, I.16).
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance167
23[Aristotle, The Art of Rhetoric, tr. John Henry Freese (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1926), 101.]
24In his Antidota to Poggio Bracciolinis Invectivae, Valla describes the end of De vero
falsoque bono as the place where I defend the Christian cause, where I attack all pagans,
where I depict the joys of paradise. [Lorenzo Valla, Antidotum in Pogium IV, in idem,
Opera omnia, 1:343: ubi causam christianam ago, ubi gentiles cunctos impugno, ubi gaudia
depingo paradisi.]
25On the theme of the Christian army and book III of De vero bono, see respectively
Fois, Il pensiero cristiano di Lorenzo Valla, 476481; and Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla.
Umanesimo e teologia, 340341. On the Communion of the martyrs and the confessors, cf.
Herman A.P. Schmidt, Introductio in Liturgiam Occidentalem (Roma: Herder, 1960), 519
528; Aim Georges Martimort, La Chiesa in preghiera. Introduzione alla liturgia (Roma:
Descle, 1966), 900937.
168 salvatore i. camporeale
32On the iconographic theme under discussion, cf. Stefano Orlandi, Beato Angelico
(Firenze: Olschki, 1964), pl. VII and p. 24, pl. XLIII and p. 97, pl. LIII and pp. 104105;
L. Ferreti, Un trionfo di S. Tommaso nella chiesa dei Domenicani in Tivoli, in San
Tommaso dAquino O.P. Miscellanea storico-artistica, ed. Innocenzo Taurisano (Roma:
A. Manuzio, 1924), 299301. On hyperbole: Aristotle, Rhetoric, 3,11, 1413b; Quintilian,
Institutio oratoria, VIII.6.7376; cf. A.D. Leeman, Orationis ratio. Teoria e pratica stilistica
degli oratori, storici e filosofi latini, ed. Elio Pasoli, tr. Gian Carlo Giardina and Rita Cuccioli
Melloni (Bologna: Societ editrice il Mulino, 1974), 413414 [English ed. = Orationis ratio:
The Stylistic Theories and Practices of the Roman Orators, Historians, and Philosophers
(Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1963); unless otherwise noted, all references to precise page
numbers are to the Italian edition]. For the encomiastic attributes regarding Thomass
virtus and scientia, Valla certainly has in mind the liturgical texts of the divine office
recited for the saints feast: Breviarium iuxta ritum Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Michael
Browne, 2 vols. (Roma: Sabina, 1962), in die, 1:947ff.
33For the argumentative structure of the probatio-refutatio, keep in mind chs. 811 of
book V of Institutio oratoria, which Valla follows to the letter in the final section of book 20
of his Dialecticae disputationes.
34Valla, Encomion, 7.9496.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance171
albeit in a qualitatively different way, the telos of the theios anr (divine
man). But in this he was merely following medieval scholasticism, in
which the Christian saint had been repeatedly and at times systematically
theorized on the typology of the Hellenic hero.
Thomass birth is foretold to his mother according to the typology of
the messianic prophet, reference to which is expressly made:
God, whenever he has resolved to give something extraordinary and new to
the world, is wont to announce it with signs or prophecies. There are very
many examples of this .35
The typological model is here reflected in Dominic de Guzmn (St.
Dominic), the founder of this family [of brothers],36 to whom Thomas is
then compared. The text claims to pass over many examples for the sake
of brevity; it is content with one from the family.37 And yet the asym-
metrical pair of father and son (pater/filius) need not entail a subordina-
tion in value either concerning the foretelling of the birth of one or the
other, or regarding their respective lives. And so much is expressly
confirmed:
Let the prophecies about each man be equal, equal the merits of both their
lives. Let neither be placed before the other . We must honor them with
equal veneration, both of them renowned for all the virtues, both for mira-
cles without number.38
Then Valla introduces another, typically literary or humanist, pairing
that sees the two saints like two consuls, the highest of magistracies.39
Nonetheless, it is the asymmetric pair of father and son that underlies the
parallelism of the lives and works of the two men, of Dominic and Thomas.
The biographical sketch is thus executed, rapidly and concisely, by way of
the convergences of parallel lives but always in a series of asymmetrical
relations. Here they are set off against one another in the order of the text,
so as to make Vallas comparatio immediately clear:
Dominic founded the house of the Preachers
Thomas covered its floors with marble.
Dominic built its walls
Thomas decorated them with the finest paintings.
35Ibid., 7.99101.
36Ibid., 8.103.
37Ibid., 7.101102.
38Ibid., 8.106109.
39Ibid., 8.107108.
172 salvatore i. camporeale
40Ibid., 9.114123.
41Ibid., 1011.128138.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance173
that was supposed to be simple and almost unadorned (in accord with
the simple and plain brevity called for by Cicero).42 So much is confirmed
by Valla himself before he moves on to the discussion of Thomass knowl-
edge (scientia), the Encomiums other thematic unit:
I have spoken of Thomass virtues and miracles briefly and simply, having
made no use of exaggeration (amplificatio) and embellishment (exornatio)
. I believe you would now like me to say something about this saints
knowledge, which I proposed to treat second, saying whom I would set him
above and whom I would call his equal.43
42On comparatio, see Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, II.4.21; on ornatus and amplificatio,
see ibid., VIII.3 and 4; simple and almost unadorned: ibid, VIII.6.41 (nuda et velut
incompta); simple and plain brevity: Cicero, De oratore, 2.84.341 (brevitatem nudam
atque inornatam).
43Valla, Encomion, 12.142146. (emphasis added). The use of comparatio in the praise of
illustrious men can take the form of describing the respective merits of two characters.
This is of course a very similar theme to the preceding, but involves a duplication of the
subject matter and deals not merely with the nature of virtues and vices, but with their
degree as well, Institutio oratoria, II.4.2021, tr. E.H. Butler, 4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 19201922). Moreover, contraries (contraria), examples (exem-
pla), and comparisons (similitudines) (Institutio oratoria, V.10 and 11; VIII.3.72ff.) are the
three types of arguments (rationes: a ratio is that by which whatever has clearly hap-
pened is defended, ibid., III.11.4) made use of in argumentative rhetoric. [On this point, see
also p. 249 below. Eds.] The phrase with which the Encomium begins its comparison of
Thomas and Dominic because the rule of the Preachers is that the brothers go in
twos is a reference to the Rule of St. Augustine, which as is known was adopted by the
Dominicans: cf. Humbertus De Romanis, De vita regulari, ed. J.J. Berthier, 2 vols. (Torino:
Marietti, 1956), 1:244248. For all the biographical and hagiographic references, the
Encomiums principal source (although not direct) is Guglielmo da Tocco (d. 1323),
Vita S. Thomae Aquinatis, fasc. 2 of Fontes vitae S. Thomae Aquinatis, ed. D. Prmmer
(Saint Maximin, Var: Libr. Saint-Thomas-dAquin, 1924); for a more recent edition, see
S. Thomae Aquinatis vitae fontes praecipuae, ed. Angelico Ferrua (Alba: Edizioni domeni-
cane, 1968).
174 salvatore i. camporeale
44Uberto Guidi also expressed his opposition to the Thomist current during a disputa-
tion held in the church of S. Maria Novella, in 1315, in the presence of religious clerics and
learned laymen: Taurisano, Discepoli e biografi, 29. Cf. Kristeller, Medieval Aspects, 62 and
nn. 117 and 118. [See also p. 147 above. Eds.]
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance175
46Ibid., 14.157164.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance177
him culturally and a most loyal friend), he was considered by all (even by
his adversaries) to be a qualified member of the papal curia. And what is
most important to stress here, he enjoyed close friendships (partly on
account of common philological interests) with Dominicans then living in
Rome. The invitation extended to Valla by the Minervan friars had to
mean that they were taking a contrary position in the celebrative debate
on the life and works of Thomas Aquinas.
Now, if Vallas teaching in Rome and his constant polemic against scho-
lasticism, which was gaining force in the 1450s (under the pontificates of
Nicholas V and Callixtus III), had reached the dimensions and the intel-
lectual importance that we believe should be attributed to them, and if
Vallas work and extremely eccentric personality provoked reactions,
albeit of all different kinds, at the highest levels of political culture, it must
be concluded that the author of the Encomium had by then acquired a
position of prestige that could no longer be underestimated, particularly
within the context of the controversy between Thomism and anti-
Thomism. Nor could this fact have escaped the interests of a cultural cen-
ter like the Dominican monastery of the Minerva. In Rome, in March of
1457, the opposite occurred of what had happened in Naples in April 1444.
In Naples Valla had been subjected to an inquisitorial trial by influential
Dominicans of the Aragonese Province. In Callixtus IIIs Rome, he was
personally invited by the Dominicans of the Minervan congregation to
participate in a public debate as an authoritative critic of the Thomist
renewal. At the conclusion of Vallas oration, they would not have been
surprised. Nor would they have reacted this we can only suppose, but
with a high degree of probability like Cardinal dEstouteville, who, as
Gaspare da Verona reports, after hearing Lorenzo Valla speak in praise of
the most saintly Thomas Aquinas here, in the church of S. Maria sopra
Minerva, believed the orator to be insane.47
47Gaspare da Verona, De gestis tempore Pauli II, in idem, Le vite di Paolo II di Gaspare da
Verona e Michele Canensi, ed. Giuseppe Zippel (Citt di Castello: S. Lapi, 1904), 33: quum
audivisset L. Vallam de laudibus sanctissimi Thomae Aquinatis oratorem hic, in templo
sanctae Mariae supra Minervam, illum insanire iudicavit (emphasis added). For the inquis-
itorial trial in Naples, see: Fois, Il pensiero cristiano di Lorenzo Valla, 373382; Camporeale,
Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo e teologia, 201202; and above all Giovanni Di Napoli, Lorenzo
Valla. Filosofia e religione nellUmanesimo italiano (Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura,
1971), 279312. On the Dominican bishop Giovanni Garca, whom Valla mentions in rela-
tion to his trial (beyond the indications in Fois, Il pensiero cristiano, passim), see Acta
Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, in Monumenta Ordinis fratrum
Praedicatorum historia, t. VIII, vol. III (13801498), ed. Benedictus Maria Reichert (Roma: In
domo generalitia, 1900), 195. Concerning the composition of the Dominican community in
the Minervan convent, an important notarial document of 1449 was discovered and
178 salvatore i. camporeale
published by Innocenzo Taurisano, Beato Angelico (Roma: Fratelli Palombi, 1955), 148149;
but cf. also Gilles Meersseman, La bibliothque des Frres Prcheurs de la Minerve la fin
du XVe sicle, in Mlanges Auguste Pelzer (Louvain: Bibliothque de lUniversit, Bureaux
du Recueil, 1947), 605631.
48Valla, Encomion, 15.165172.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance179
49Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, X.1.78: subtilis atque elegans et quo nihil, si oratori
satis sit docere, quaeras perfectius; nihil enim est inane, nihil arcessitum, puro tamen fonti
quam magno flumini propior.
180 salvatore i. camporeale
50Ibid., IV.2.11618: summa diligentia in verbis; for Asinius Pollio, see ibid., X.2.113;
2.25.
51Cicero, De finibus, II.3.10: verborum sumenda copia est et varietas figurarum.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance181
Confirmation of what has been said about the stylistic and doctrinal
descriptions of Thomass works is found in Vallas significant mention of
lectio as a tool and as a source of learning and methodology in Aquinass
theological study. Lectio, or close, detailed reading, is the engine of philo-
logical study, the analytical foundation for the examination and compre-
hension of the auctoritates (authorities). It is therefore the methodological
basis and the guiding principle for the acquisition of knowledge, both for
the orator, according to Quintilian (Institutio oratoria, I.8), and for the
theologian, according to the humanist Valla (cf. the prefaces to the
Elegantiae and the Disputationes).
But there is more and this observation comes much closer to the idea
undergirding the passage in question of Vallas Encomium. Lectio deter-
mines and defines the cultural education, the paideia, proper to the ora-
tor. Through lectio, conducted along the didactic lines traced by Quintilian,
the orator recovers, assimilates, and appropriates for himself the entire
cultural tradition (literary, historiographical, philosophical, and rhetori-
cal) of Greek and Roman classical antiquity. The whole of book X of the
Institutio is dedicated precisely to this program of reading indispensable
to the future orator. For Valla (who in this respect follows in the footsteps
of the best tradition of early Italian humanism), the erudition of
Quintilians rhetoric is constitutive of culture in general and of theology in
particular. According to Valla, without the proper erudition the theolo-
gian falls into formalism and exhausts himself in the course of his own
speculation. Following the example of Aquinas, the theologian ought
instead to effect an almost ancillary integration of all the arts and sciences
in support of the theological disciplines. It should be noted that Valla con-
stantly insisted on this cultural foundation for the scientia rerum divina-
rum (the science of divine truths, i.e. theology) as part of his polemic
against contemporary scholasticisms conceptualism and strict reliance
on logic. This point will receive greater clarity and definition in the follow-
ing section of the Encomium.52
52Subtilitas and sermo humilis: cf. Leeman, Orationis ratio (1974), 2330 (Rhetorica ad
Herennium), 126128 and 188193 (Cicero), 431ff. (Quintilian); W. Peterson (ed.), Quintiliani
Institutionis oratoriae liber X (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), 5556 (notes to ch. 1.78); Erich
Auerbach, Lingua letteraria e pubblico nella tarda antichit e nel Medioevo (Milano:
Feltrinelli, 1974), 3179 [English ed. = Literary Language and its Public in Late Latin Antiquity
and in the Middle Ages (New York: Pantheon Books, 1965)]; Henri-Irne Marrou, Saint
Augustin et la fin de la culture antique (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1958), 505545. Diligentia:
Leeman, Orationis ratio (1974), 207212, 251, 4048; Peterson (ed.), Quintiliani Institutionis,
74 (ch. 1.113). Copia: Leeman, Orationis ratio (1974), 123, 138, 158, 172174, 432434. Doctrina:
Leeman, Orationis ratio (1974), 57, 27173, 42630 and 499ff. In the liturgical texts for the
182 salvatore i. camporeale
saints feast, Thomass writing is described thus: his style is concise, his eloquence pleas-
ing: his thought is lofty, intelligible, and powerful (stilus brevis, grata facundia; celsa clara
firma sententia), Breviarium Ordinis Praedicatorum, in die. Erasmus will take up the
same line: Moreover, Thomas Aquinas was a great man not only for his times. For to my
mind none of the modern theologians possesses equal carefulness, a greater soundness of
mind, or a firmer erudition: and he clearly would have been capable of mastering lan-
guages and the other aspects of the good arts, since he was so well acquainted with the
ones available in his time (Desiderius Erasmus, Annotationes in Novum Testamentum,
Rom. 1:5, in idem, Opera omnia, ed. Joannes Clericus [Jean LeClerc], 10 vols. (Lugduni
Batavorum [Leiden]: cura et impensis Petri Vander Aa, 17031706) [facsimile reprint =
Hildesheim: Olds, 1962], VI, col. 554: Thomas Aquinas, vir alioqui non suo tantum seculo
magnus. Nam meo quidem animo nullus est recentium theologorum, cui par sit diligentia,
cui sanius ingenium, cui solidior eruditio: planeque dignus erat, cui linguarum quoque
peritia, reliquaque bonarum litterarum supellex contingeret, qui iis que per eam tempes-
tatem dabantur tam dextre sit usus).
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance183
signifying (modi significandi), and the like.55 But in doing so they trans-
gressed the specific and irreducible boundaries of the things and the lan-
guage that constitute the proper object of Christian faith; their endeavor
was just as useless for this seems to be the meaning of Vallas compari-
son as the attempt to correct the internal incoherence of geocentric cos-
mology by theorizing the ninth sphere and planetary epicycles. It might
be mentioned that Vallas words curiously echo the polemics found in the
Byzantine Cosmas Indicopleustess Topographia christiana, a work (prob-
ably written between 547 and 549) that was similarly critical of
Aristotelianism (that of John Philoponus) and that sharply rejected any
kind of synthesis between Greek science and Christian revelation. The
immediate source for Vallas scientific and astronomical knowledge, how-
ever, was certainly Johannes de Sacroboscos treatise De sphaera mundi
(On the Sphere of the World), an elementary text of the quadrivium.56
55Cf. the parallel passages of the Dialecticae disputationes cited in Camporeale, Lorenzo
Valla. Umanesimo e teologia, 178 and 229; and Alfonso Maier, Terminologia logica della
tarda Scolastica (Roma: Ateneo, 1972), passim (index sub voce modi significandi). For a
general view of the question: Eugenio Garin, Leducazione in Europa 1400/1600. Problemi e
programmi (Bari: Laterza, 1976), 329.
56On Cosmas Indicopleustes: Salvatore Impellizzeri, La letteratura bizantina (Firenze:
Sansoni, 1975), 186189. For the scholastic use of De sphaera mundi and De modis significandi
seu grammatica speculativa, cf. Armando F. Verde, Lo Studio Fiorentino 14731503. Ricerche e
documenti, 6 vols. in 9 (Firenze: Istituto nazionale di studi sul Rinascimento, 1973), 2:641.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance185
The Fathers of the first centuries of Christianity rejected not only the
categories of classical philosophy but also philosophical language itself,
despite the excellent quality of their Latin (they were latinissimi) and
their close acquaintance with Greek. They stand in contrast to modern
(recentes) theologians, who, regarding classical languages, do not know
Greek and in Latin are nearly all barbarians.57 But how to explain,
how to understand the Fathers rejection of philosophical theory and
language?
Why, then, should they not have treated these subjects? Because they were
not supposed to be treated, and perhaps they were not even supposed to be
known and this for two reasons: one having to do with their contents (res),
the other with their words (verba).58
We immediately note that Vallas argument runs along the axis of the rhe-
torical relationship between res (contents) and verba (words). The polar-
ization of the two terms is by no means merely formal; on the contrary, it
underlies a precise line of argument, in which a particular historiographi-
cal interpretation of the Church Fathers is offered and then infused into a
humanist principle of theology, which is presented as an alternative to
scholasticism.
Let us first consider the formulation of Vallas critique of scholasticism
in relation to divine truths, the object of theological science:
Regarding their contents: because these subjects did not seem to lead to the
knowledge of divine truths. Such also seemed to be the case to the Greek
theologians Basil, Gregory, John Chrysostom, and the others of that age.
They did not think that the sophisms of dialectics, the obscurities of meta-
physics, or the trifles of the modes of signifying should be mixed in with
sacred questions. Nor did they even lay the foundations of their disputa-
tions in philosophy, for they heeded Pauls exclamation: not through phi-
losophy and vain deceit [Col. 2:8]. This we know from experience as
well.59
Philosophy, then, is defined once again on the basis of dialectics, meta-
physics, and the modes of signifying. And it is as such, according to Valla,
that it was rejected not only by the Latin Fathers named earlier but also by
the greatest figures in the Greek patristic tradition: Basil, Gregory, and
John Chrysostom (the same trio of Greek Fathers that recurs in identical
thematic contexts in other passages in Vallas corpus). Let us note in
60Bk. III, ch. 9: Valla, Scritti filosofici e religiosi, 197; cf. Fois, Il pensiero cristiano di
Lorenzo Valla, 166 and n. 272.
61De vero falsoque bono, bk. III, ch. 12: Valla, Scritti filosofici e religiosi, 204; Fois, Il pen-
siero cristiano di Lorenzo Valla, 188192 and 511. On Col. 2:8: O. Michel, Philosophia, phi-
losophos, in Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), Theologisches Wrterbuch zum
Neuen Testament, 10 vols. (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 19311979), 9:169185; Heinrich
Schlier, Il tempo della Chiesa. Saggi esegetici (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1968), 330372.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance187
its scope the whole of ethics, which as we have shown are essential to the
very existence of oratory .63
The reduction of philosophy to rhetoric, as the omni-comprehensive sci-
ence of res et verba, is thus absolute and radical in Quintilian. In the sec-
tions omitted from the passage cited, Quintilians discourse descends into
the particulars of the various branches and disciplines of philosophy in
order to demonstrate rhetorics epistemological and methodological
primacy.64
63Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, XII.2.720: Ego illum, quem instituo, Romanum quen-
dam velim esse sapientem, qui non secretis disputationibus, sed rerum experimentis atque
operibus vere civilem virum exhibeat. Sed quia deserta ab his, qui se ad eloquentiam con-
tulerunt, studia sapientiae non iam in actu suo atque in hac fori luce versantur, sed in
porticus et in gymnasia primum, mox in conventus scholarum recesserunt: id, quod est
oratori necessarium nec a dicendi praeceptoribus traditur, ab iis petere nimirum necesse
est, apud quos remansit, evolvendi penitus auctores, qui de virtute praecipiunt, ut oratoris
vita cum scientia divinarum rerum sit humanarumque coniuncta . Utinamque sit tempus
unquam, quo perfectus aliquis, qualem optamus, orator hanc artem superbo nomine et
vitiis quorundam bona eius corrumpentium invisam vindicet sibi ac, velut rebus repetitis,
in corpus eloquentiae adducat. Quae quidem cum sit in tris divisa partes, naturalem,
moralem, rationalem, qua tandem non est cum oratoris opere coniuncta? Nam ut ordinem
retro agamus, de ultima illa, quae tota versatur in verbis, nemo dubitaverit, si et proprie-
tates vocis cuiusque nosse et ambigua aperire et perplexa discernere et de falsis iudicare et
colligere ac resolvere quae velis oratorum est . Jam quidem pars illa moralis, quae dicitur
Ethice, certe tota oratori est accommodata . Pars vero naturalis, cum est ad exercitatio-
nem dicendi tanto ceteris uberior, quanto maiore spiritu de divinis rebus quam humanis
eloquendum est, tum illam etiam moralem, sine qua nulla esse, ut docuimus, oratio potest,
totam complectitur (tr. E.H. Butler) (emphasis added).
64Leeman, Orationis ratio (1974), 395424; Gerl, Rhetorik als Philosophie, 8497. Here
we cite Vallas glosses to ch. 2, book XII of the Institutio oratoria contained in ms. Paris, Bibl.
Nat., lat. 7723, ff. 142v.-144r. [N.B. Not all the glosses transcribed by Camporeale are reported
in Valla, Le postille allInstitutio oratoria, and sometimes Camporeales readings differ from
those in the edition.] On the basis of clear graphic evidence it seems obvious that the
glosses were written at different times. Among other things, they constitute a series of
statements and references that are illuminating for a comparative reading of the preface to
book I of the first redaction of the Dialecticae disputationes. (We have printed the text of
the preface from ms. Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Urb. lat. 1207 in
Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo e teologia, 405408). Vallas glosses are transcribed
here with the incipits of Quintilians text in italics and the standard paragraph numbers in
brackets.
Quando igitur orator est vir bonus si forte accedamus iis [XII.2.12]: nature alone does
not establish mores (non constare sola natura mores). // Ad illud sequens [4]: the orator
must learn wisdom through and through (penitus perdiscendam oratori sapientiam). // Ac
philosophos cum ea [5]: this must be sought or obtained from the philosophers (hanc esse
petendam seu reperiendam a philosophis). // Quod Cicero pluribus libris [6]: as in the pref-
ace to the first book of the Tusculans and On Fate (ut in proemio primi libri Tusculanarum
et De fato). // Quapropter hec exhortatio [6]: the orator should not be a philosopher but a
truly civic wise man of the Roman type. Lactantius, Book III [Div. inst., ch. 14: PL 6:38990]
writes against Cicero: But how you confessed the truth about philosophy when instructing
your son, advising that he should know the precepts of philosophy, but that he should live
190 salvatore i. camporeale
as a citizen (non philosophum sed romanum quendam sapientem ac vere civilem esse
oratorem debere. Lactantius Li III in Ciceronem: At quam fessus fueris philosophie verita-
tem docens ad filium composita precepta, quibus mones philosophie quidem precepta
noscenda, vivendum autem esse civiliter). // Quis denique in ipsa [7]: Macrobius, from the
Somnium Scipionis [II.17,8]: Greece was as full of men wholly given to wisdom as Rome was
bereft of them (Macrobius de Somnio Scipionis: soli enim sapientie [otio] deditos ut
abunde Grecia tulit, ita Roma nescivit). // Atque ego illum, quem instituto [7]: this means
that the philosophers did not treat of the republic completely, since they lacked experi-
ence of it (hoc significat non perfecte philosophos de re publica tradidisse, quam experti
non fuissent). // Evolvendi penitus [8]: the orator should read the philosophers (evolvendi
oratori philosophos). // Que ipse quanto maiores [9]: the same material can be treated bet-
ter by orators than by philosophers, and if only it were treated such that it not be so hateful
on account of the vices of the philosophers and their reputation for pride. From this it is
clear that neither Aristotle nor Plato were eloquent enough (eandem materiam tractari
posse ab oratoribus melius quam a philosophis, et utinam tractetur ne tantopere sit invisa
propter vitia philosophorum et superbum illorum nomen. Ex hoc constat nec Aristotelem
nec Platonem satis eloquentes esse). // Superbo nomine et vitiis [9]: because philosophers
want to be the only lovers of wisdom, as their name indicates (quia philosophi solos se
sapientie volunt esse amatores, ut ipsorum nomen indicat). // De ultima illa, que tota ver-
satur in verbis [10]: on dialectics (de dialectica). // Quanquam ea non tam [11]: how the
orator uses it (quomodo ea utatur orator). // Ita, si totum sibi vindicaverit [13]: pure dialectic
is inconsistent with the forum (abhorret a foro mera dialectica [N.B. Camporeales text
reads: meram dialecticam; this gloss is not reported in Valla, Le postille allInstitutio orato-
ria; the editors of the present volume have not consulted ms. Paris, Bibl. Nat., Lat. 7723.
Eds.]). // Iam pars illa moralis [15]: on moral philosophy [ethics] (de morali). // Sed ille vir
bonus [17]: orators speak more easily and better about moral philosophy than philosophers
(oratorum facilius ac melius moralem loqui quam philosophorum). // Profecto nemo dubi-
tabit [18]: regarding general questions in philosophy (de generalibus questionibus in phi-
losophia). // Pars vero naturalis [20]: on natural philosophy [physics] (de naturali). //
Siquidem, ut nobis placet [21]: this is clear, for example, from the experience of the greatest
orators (hoc constare vel experimento summorum oratorum). // Vim tamen quandam [22]:
Aristophanes and Eupolis, Plato in the Phaedrus, Thucydides book I, in the letters of
Demosthenes (Aristophanes Eupolisque, Plato in Phedro, Thucydides libro 1o, in epistolis
Demosthenis). // Nam M. Tullius [23]: in The Orator, in Partitiones oratoriae (in Oratore, in
Partitionibus). // Pyrron quidem [24]: Aulus Gellius, book 11: Those philosophers whom we
call Pyrronists are called skepttai in Greek, which means something like searchers and
considerers: for they decide nothing, determine nothing, but they are always busy search-
ing and considering what of all things in the world it is possible to decide or determine. Nor
do they think that they see or hear anything clearly, but rather that they sense or are
affected only as if they saw and heard, etc. Although the Pyrronists and the Academics say
very similar things about this, they were thought to differ amongst themselves for several
reasons but mostly on this account: that the Academics determine as it were that nothing
itself can be determined, while the Pyrronists say that not even this seems to be at all true,
since nothing seems to be true. (A. Gellius libro XIo: Quos pyrrones philosophos vocamus
ii greco cognomine skepttai appellantur, id ferme significat quasi quesitores et considera-
tores: nihil enim decernunt, nihil enim constituunt, sed in querendo semper consideran-
doque sunt, quidnam sit omnium rerum de quo decerni constituique possit ac ne videre
quoque quidem plane quicquam, neque audire sese putant, sed id pati afficique quasi
videant vel audiant, etc. Cum hec autem ita consimiliter tam Pyrronei dicant quam
Academici, differe tamen inter sese et propter alia quedam et vel maxime propterea exis-
timati sunt, quod Academici quidem ipsum illud nihil posse decerni quasi decernunt,
Pyrronei ne id quidem ullo pacto verum videri dicunt quod nihil esse verum videtur.) //
Sed hec inter ipsos [26]: the task of the orator is greater than that of the philosopher, and
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance191
This passage is the source (as is also clear from textual similarities, as
noted in italics) for the Encomiums statement:
For what is there in philosophy? I do not mean dialectics, the whole of which
lies in words; I have already spoken about it and will do so again. No, I mean
moral and natural philosophy. What is there in them that is indubitable and
settled except the things discovered in natural philosophy through the
observations (experimenta) of physicians and others?65
Clearly, this criticism of contemporary scholasticism must be understood
along Quintilians lines, and in the direct light of the Institutios book XII,
chapter 2. Nevertheless, Valla does not simply follow Quintilian, and we
would not understand the originality and the essence of his thought
should we fail to specify its relationship to Quintilians text and to differ-
entiate it from the ancient rhetoricians theme. For here Valla goes far
beyond indeed, he proceeds in a divergent (if not a contrary) direction
from Quintilians classical theory of rhetoric. Quintilian wholly reduced
the philosophical disciplines to rhetoric essentially on the basis of the
omni-comprehensiveness of language, on account of which the totality of
res and verba is the proper sphere of eloquence. Valla, on the other hand,
although accepting this principle for dialectics, invokes a different one for
moral and natural philosophy: the absolute (extra-philosophical) princi-
ple of observation, or experience (experimentum). Indeed, it is empiricism
and praxis on which the humanist Valla will base his critique of the
Aristotelian-scholastic Physics and Ethics in his Dialecticae disputationes.
Thus in Vallas work rhetoric receives a new significance and equipage:
the ars rhetorica comes to be defined as the method of philological criti-
cism, a new episteme articulated and distinguished by its own principles
and instruments of study.
thus he should not cleave to any one sect of philosophy (maius esse opus oratoris quam
philosophi, ideoque non debere se ad sectam aliquam philosophie astringere). // Quare in
exemplum [27]: which philosophers he should especially read (quos precipue philosophos
legat). // Exercitatione quidem [28]: in which parts of philosophy he should train himself
(in quibus se partibus philosophie exerceat). // Neque ea solum que [29]: even more than
the teachings of the philosophers he should read the famous words and deeds of the
ancients (magis etiam quam precepta philosophorum, legenda dicta et facta veterum pre-
clara). // Quantum enim greci [30]: this is in no way the same opinion as the one found in
book III [ch. 34:137] of Ciceros De oratore: For as examples of virtue are to be sought in our
own people, thus examples of learning are to be sought in them (non est hec eadem
omnino sententia que apud Ciceronem in IIIo De Oratore: Nam ut virtutis a nostris sic
doctrine sunt ab illis exempla repetenda).
65Valla, Encomion, 18.195198 (emphasis added).
192 salvatore i. camporeale
66Ibid., 19.199207 (emphasis added). [On the scholastic terminology in this passage,
see n. 9 on p. 311 below. Eds.]
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance193
67The preface to Thucydides History will be treated in part III, section 5 below. For the
Oratio in principio sui studii, cf. Fois, Il pensiero cristiano di Lorenzo Valla, 441448;
Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo e teologia, 103104; Gerl, Rhetorik als Philosophie,
235250. A critical edition of the Oratio is available in: Lorenzo Valla, Orazione per
linaugurazione dellanno accademico 14551456. Atti di un seminario di filologia umanistica,
ed. S. Rizzo (Roma: Roma nel Rinascimento, 1994), 192200. [Camporeale does not actually
discuss the Oratio in principio sui studii in this essay; instead, he treats the preface to the
fourth book of Vallas Elegantiae as a third important parallel text for the Encomium. Eds.]
68[Leeman, Orationis ratio (1963), 296.]
194 salvatore i. camporeale
For Valla, then, patristic theology constitutes the historical renewal the
imitation of the rhetorical method that is characteristic of Pauls theol-
ogy and that originates with it. He is the founder, the prince and mas-
ter, of the Fathers speculation and theological discourse in the first
centuries of Christianity.
The apostle Paul is the model of style and method for theological writ-
ing. He is the greatest rhetorician of Christian culture, just as Demosthenes
was for classical Greece (according to a parallel formulated by Valla him-
self in his Adnotationes). Indeed, his manner of speaking (modus disse-
randi) and Paul was of all the apostles the most expert at speaking
(dicendi peritus) sublimely embodied the word of God that he desired
to announce to the Hellenistic world. In addition to evangelic preaching,
the Apostle of the Gentiles also established the specific and distinctive
methodology of Christian speculation, i.e. the theology of the word (logos-
sermo), to which every later development in theology thus ought to
adhere. But whereas the ancient theologians had remained faithful to
Pauls speculative principle and rejected even the theoretical possibility of
a synthesis between theology and philosophy, modern theologians
behaved in exactly the opposite way. They saw patristic theology, at least
on the level of method, as an immature phase of Christian thought.
Vallas text, which will now be cited, possesses a surprising lucidity. We
have here the measure and precise meaning of what has been called (but
in the past in a rather restrictive, if not misleading, sense) Vallas Paulinism.
It is in this Paulinism in the precise sense just now explained along
with the radical Quintilianism of the Dialecticae disputationes (i.e. the
other methodological axis of his thought) that the uniqueness and origi-
nality of Lorenzo Vallas humanist theology lies.
This [i.e. Pauls] is the true and, so to speak, the genuine mode of theologiz-
ing. This is the true law of speaking and writing, and those who pursue it
doubtless pursue the very best manner of speaking and theologizing.
Therefore the ancients, the true disciples of Paul, should not be criticized by
modern theologians or placed second to our Thomas on account of not hav-
ing mixed theology with philosophy.70
70Ibid., 20.216221. For the general context of Vallas Paulinism and the renewal of
patristic theology, one should keep in mind Foiss whole book and particularly the
passages cited in his index under the entry Padri della Chiesa; but see also the other recent
studies on Valla, and above all those of Di Napoli and of the present writer, as well as
Franco Gaeta, Lorenzo Valla. Filologia e storia nellUmanesimo italiano. (Napoli: Istituto
italiano per gli studi storici, 1955), with the earlier bibliography indicated there.
196 salvatore i. camporeale
71Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, VIII, pr. 11: aut memoriam refici aut animos moveri.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance197
of historical assessments, especially when they are read in the light of par-
allel passages from Vallas oeuvre in which the cultural and theological
contributions of the same individuals are discussed and critiqued.72
Aquinas is given a position of privilege (I place him before) within the
monastic tradition of theology and biblical exegesis. He is placed before
John Cassian (whom St. Dominic is said to have been in the habit of read-
ing as if the best doctor), Anselm (the sharpest and most refined),
Bernard (a learned, sweet, eloquent, and sublime doctor), Remigius
(the most learned man of his age), Bede (more learned than all of
them), and Isidore (whom his admirers deny is second to anyone).
Thomas is also preferred to Peter Lombard and Gratian, who deserve
more to be called assiduous compilers than true authors.73
No differently is Thomas judged within the sphere of high scholasti-
cism: he is given absolute primacy among modern theologians, both those
who preceded and those who followed him. Thus the great figures of the
main mendicant orders are named, from the Dominicans to the
Franciscans to the Augustinians: Albert the Great, Giles of Rome,
Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure and Duns Scotus, and still others of the
same orders, whose members exalt their own theological giants to the
point of denying their equivalence with the ancients, who in their
minds had by then been decisively surpassed.
Once again, in a third comparison, Aquinas is placed above others on a
level of superiority, at least from the point of view of the theological tradi-
tion. Thus he is accorded preeminence over Lactantius and Boethius,
although only in theology, for in other areas [i.e. erudition and literary
culture] there is no comparison.74 The same theological primacy is
granted over Cyprian, as well as over Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, but with
qualification: I add, albeit unwillingly, Hilary as well; for what, finally, is
holier, more learned, more eloquent than his writings?75
In the triple comparison delineated above, the status of Thomas and his
theological corpus is determined on the basis of elements that are of indu-
bitable significance in the Christian cultural tradition. Nevertheless, they
are not original, essential elements of that literary and theological tradi-
tion but rather constitute later, secondary developments. The decisive
72On this point, see the observations of Fois, Il pensiero cristiano di Lorenzo Valla,
464467.
73Ibid., 21.224231.
74Ibid., 21.235236.
75Ibid., 21.236238.
198 salvatore i. camporeale
76Ibid., 22.240241.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance199
I barely know which of them to prefer to whom, as each one had his own
extraordinary gift. For although Augustine is commonly preferred to all,
because he treated more theological questions and is in many respects indu-
bitably to be preferred, nevertheless, if Ambroses writings were compared
with an equal number of Augustines, I do not think they would be ranked
second. Nor does Jerome yield in any way to Augustines intellect; he is so
much the greater in all areas of learning that Augustine seems to me like the
Mediterranean, Jerome the ocean, upon which few of our contemporaries
set sail. Gregory lags far behind all in erudition, but he equals them in care-
fulness and diligence and is possessed of such great sweetness and holiness
that he seems to speak like an angel.77
Valla then undertakes an analogous comparison with the greatest Doctors
of Greek (Eastern) Christianity:
I would compare them [the Latin Fathers] with the same number of Greeks:
Ambrose with Basil, whose rival I see he was; Jerome with Gregory
Nazianzen, whose pupil and disciple he claimed to have been; Augustine
with John Chrysostom, whom he often followed in his writings and rivaled
in the number of his books; Gregory with Dionysius the Areopagite, because
he is the first of the Latins, as far as I know, to mention him (for the works of
Dionysius were unknown to the others I named, not only the Latins but the
Greeks as well).78
In what relation, then, does Valla see Aquinass philosophical and theo-
logical works (and those of his school) with respect to the patristic thought
represented by the greatest Greek and Latin Doctors of the Church?
Turning once again to traditional themes and reasoning, he introduces a
final pairing: Thomas, the Latin, with John Damascene, the Greek.
Closest to these comes John Damascene, a most famous author among the
Greeks, as Thomas is amongst us. It will therefore be perfectly right for John
and Thomas to be paired together, and all the more so because John wrote
many logical and well-nigh metaphysical works.79
The heavenly choir before the throne of God and the Lamb,80 according
to the celestial vision of the Apocalypse of John (Apoc. 45), is now fully
described. The five pairs of princes of theology accompany the twenty-
four elders of the Apocalypse in their eternal choral praise: for the writers
of holy things always make music in the sight of God.81 And to complete
77Ibid., 22.243252.
78Ibid., 23.254261.
79Ibid., 23.261264.
80Ibid., 24.265266.
81Ibid., 24.266267.
200 salvatore i. camporeale
his fresco of the triumph of Thomas, Valla describes, using medieval and
Renaissance iconographic references, the orchestral and hierarchical
distribution of musical instruments among the five pairs: the lyre is
assigned to Basil and Ambrose, the cithara to Gregory Nazianzen and
Jerome, the psaltery to John Chrysostom and Augustine, the flute to
Dionysius and Gregory the Great, and the cymbals to John Damascene
and Thomas. Valla then adds immediately:
And it will not be unharmonious for their number to be five now instead of
four since for musicians there are five tetrachords, not four nor to have
Thomas playing the cymbals. For as the name Thomas means twin, and as
he enjoyed playing equally in the twin tones of theology and philosophy,
thus the cymbals are a double instrument emitting happy, cheerful, and
pleasing music.82
Valla forcefully reaffirms the Encomiums central thesis of the difference
between the theology of Aquinas (and scholasticism) and that of the
Church Fathers. To this end, and in line with Quintilians rhetorical pre-
cepts (Institutio oratoria, bk. I, ch. 10), Valla adorns his speech with norma-
tive references to music theory and musical instruments. Such references
were easily accessible to his listeners, who were certainly familiar (having
learned them in their study of the quadrivium) with the theoretical and
practical fundamentals of the harmonic relationships (from the octave to
the tetrachord) of the Greek Pythagorean musical system, as well as with
the three categories of musical instruments (wind, stringed, and percus-
sion). Furthermore, reference to works like Boethiuss De institutione
musica (On Musical Education) (which Valla certainly has in mind, espe-
cially book I) and Isidores De musica (On Music) (cf. book III in particular)
is implicit in Vallas discourse. We might also note that the combination of
polyphonic choir and contrapuntal or supporting instrumentation, to
which Valla alludes here, echoes the musical (and liturgical) shift brought
about by the Florentine ars nova. The theoretical and instrumental notions
of music stressed here, however, are the traditional ones derived from clas-
sical Greece.83
82Ibid., 24.271276.
83Important for this point, and also for what will be said below, are Vallas glosses on
Quintilian in ms. Paris, Bibl. Nat., lat. 7723, cited in n. 21 above. In particular, see the annota-
tions to Institutio oratoria, bk. I, ch. 10, 533: ff. 14v-15v, and bk. XII, ch. 10, 68: ff. 150v-151r.
They give significant information on Vallas kowledge of music theory and his reading of
related ancient (Greek and Latin) and medieval texts. Here we confine ourselves to quoting
the gloss on I.10.5 (f. 14v): Quintilian associates these arts [sc. music and geometry] with
the orator better than Plato does with defenders of the fatherland, or Columella with
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance201
Now what did Valla mean by attributing the melodic function of the
fifth tetrachord to the pair Damascene-Aquinas, and, in his distribution
of instruments, by assigning the cymbals the percussion instrument to
Thomas?
The tetrachord, the core from which all Greek music theory developed,
consisted of four successive sounds descending in a diatonic line and
composed, therefore, of a series of two tones and a semitone, in an interval
of a perfect fourth: la, sol, fa, mi. An octave resulted from the duplication
in ascendant succession (mi, re, do, ti) of the diatonic tetrachord (let us
confine ourselves here to the Dorian or Hellenic tetrachord, omitting the
variations in the Lydian and the Phrygian). With the addition, finally, of
two further tetrachords, one above and one below the octave already
composed, a series of two octave scales resulted, a melodic whole com-
posed of four diatonic tetrachords. Thus was constructed the general scale
of the Greek musical system, known as the Greater Perfect System. The
fifth tetrachord of which Valla speaks (with the quite technically precise
statement, for musicians there are five tetrachords, not four) did not
consist in yet another numerical addition to the general scale of the
Perfect System, but in a modulational variation (the ti natural became ti
flat in the higher octave) within the numerically unchanged structure of
the series of four tetrachords.
Without going further into the technical aspects of the Perfect
System of the Greek musical scale, we can use the few elements described
here to understand the meaning of Vallas text. Greek patristic theology,
farmers, or Vitruvius with architects (Melius has artes oratori Quintilianus attribuit
quam aut Plato propugnatoribus patrie, aut Columella agricolis, aut Vitruvius architectis).
Of authors who treated music theory and musical instrumentation, Valla cites and quotes
the texts of, among others, (ibid., f. 150v) Boethius, De musica, bk. I (PL 63:118392) and
Vitruvius, De architectura, bk. V (ch. 4, 68). These passages of Boethius and Vitruvius are
the direct sources for the Encomiums statement, for musicians there are five tetrachords,
not four (apud musicos quinque sunt tetrachorda non quattuor). Cf. Franco Abbiati,
Storia della musica, 4 vols. (Milano: Garzanti, 19671974), 1:8693, 151161, 316327; Andrew
Hughes, Music: the Sixth Liberal Art (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974); Nan Cooke
Carpenter, Music in the Medieval and Renaissance Universities (Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press, 1958), chs. 1 and 2; Emanuel Winternitz, On Angel Concerts in the 15th
Century: A Critical Approach to Realism and Symbolism in Sacred Painting, in idem,
Musical Instruments and their Symbolism in Western Art, New York: W. W. Norton, 1967,
137149; idem, Secular musical practice in sacred art, Early Music 3 (1975): 221226;
Edmund Addison Bowles, La Hirarchie des instruments dans lEurope fodale, Revue de
Musicologie 42 (1958): 155169; D.P. Walker, Musical Humanism in the 16th and early 17th
centuries, Music Review 2 (1941): 113, 111121, 220227, 228308; 3 (1942): 5571. I would like
to thank Profs. Carla Nolledi Martini and William Prizer for these bibliographical
references.
202 salvatore i. camporeale
84Valla, Encomion, 25.277281. In ms. Rome, Bibl. Angelica, 1500 (see n. 12 above), the
closing ( nobis concedat qui vivit et regnat in saecula benedictus. Amen) is followed by
this addition (printed in Valla, Oraciones y Prefacios, 321): Oration of Lorenzo Valla, a most
learned and eloquent man, which he held in praise of St. Thomas Aquinas in the Church of
Santa Maria sopra Minerva, in the city of Rome, a.d. 1457, the seventh day of March. He
died in the same year on the first day of August (Doctissimi viri ac eloquentissimi
Laurentii e Valle Oratio, quam habuit in laudem Sancti Thomae Aquinatis in Ecclesia
Sanctae Mariae Minervae, in urbe romana a.d. 1457, VII die Martii, obiitque eodem anno
die primo Augusti).
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance203
3.1.Philosophy/Theology
The Encomium of 1457 will have found its proper historical and theoretical
place if it is understood as the organic summary and the definitive state-
ment of Vallas critique of scholasticism. Indeed, it contains the two essen-
tial features of that critique: the rejection of the fundamental premise of
scholasticism, which had informed the renewal of Thomism in the second
half of the fifteenth century; and the proposal of an alternative to Thomism,
a humanist principle for the epistemic refounding of theology. Within the
cultural and historiographical space of Vallas oration, these two features
have theoretical and normative value. On the one hand, the Encomium
identifies the epistemic principle underlying the restoration of Thomism:
that no one can become a theologian without the teachings of the dialec-
ticians, metaphysicians, and the other philosophers. On the other hand,
it reproposes the mode of theologizing that had been fully elaborated by
Greek and Latin patristics and that was derived from the apostle Paul, the
normative model for Christian speculation.
Since these appear to be the two poles between which the Encomium
runs, it would seem worthwhile to deepen the analysis of them beyond
what was said in the first part of the present essay. Comparing the
Encomium with certain parallel and otherwise essential texts of Vallas
corpus will aid in understanding its deeper significance, as well as in situ-
ating its most original aspects within the context of the most important
moments and phases in Vallas intellectual development. We shall confine
ourselves to carefully chosen parallel passages, namely the opening pages
of De libero arbitrio, chapter 12 of book III of De vero falsoque bono, and the
preface to book IV of the Elegantiae.87
87These texts are available in the following editions: De libero arbitrio, in Prosatori latini
del Quattrocento, Latin text and Italian translation, ed. Eugenio Garin (Milano: R. Ricciardi,
1952), 523565; De vero falsoque bono, ed. Maristella De Panizza Lorch (Bari: Adriatica,
1970), 111113; Elegantiae, Book IV, Preface in Garin (ed.), Prosatori latini, 612622, and in
Valla, Oraciones y Prefacios, 228246, with Latin text and Spanish translation. [An English
translation of De libero arbitrio by Charles Trinkaus, which has been used here, appears in
The Renaissance Philosophy of Man, eds. Ernst Cassirer, Paul Oskar Kristeller, and John
Herman Randall (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), 155182. De vero falsoque
bono has also been translated into English: Lorenzo Valla, On Pleasure, De voluptate, tr. Kent
Hieatt and Maristella Lorch (New York: Abaris Books, 1977).] An Italian translation of De
libero arbitrio and De vero falsoque bono is available in Valla, Scritti filosofici, 253282, and
3ff. (ch. 12, bk. III is found on 202205). For the text of the preface to bk. IV of the Elegantiae,
the following mss. (sec. XV) have also been consulted: Florence, Bibl. Laur., Conv. soppr. 187
(ff. 58v-60r); Vatican City, Bibl. Apost. Vat., Pal. lat. 1759 (ff. 89v-92r). See Jozef Ijsewijn and
Gilbert Tournoy, Un primo censimento dei manoscritti e delle edizioni a stampa degli
Elegantiarum linguae latinae libri sex di Lorenzo Valla, Humanistica Lovaniensia 18 (1969):
2541; idem, Nuovi contributi per lelenco dei manoscritti e delle edizioni a stampa delle
Elegantiae di Lorenzo Valla, Humanistica Lovaniensia 20 (1971): 13; [and Francesco Lo
Monaco and Mariangela Regoliosi, I manoscritti con opere autentiche di Lorenzo Valla,
in Pubblicare il Valla, ed. M. Regoliosi (Firenze: Polistampa, 2008), 6797, at 94].
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance205
For in this work Valla sees the functional use of philosophy as actually
displacing theological discourse proper, and this with regard to a singular
and deeply significant issue: the problem of the praxis and freedom of a
Christian.
Hence the fact that Vallas (very) first attack on philosophy takes the
form of a critical examination of the Consolation. De voluptate (like the
successive redactions that will converge in De vero falsoque bono) and De
libero arbitrio are directed against the series of arguments that underlies
Boethiuss text. Valla himself says as much, openly and programmatically,
in the opening pages of De libero arbitrio:
Here we want to show that Boethius, for no other reason than that he loved
philosophy excessively (nimis philosophiae amator), argued incorrectly
about free will in the fifth book of his Consolation of Philosophy. We have
replied to the first four books in our De vero bono. Now I shall exert myself as
far as possible in the discussion and solution of this problem, and, so that it
will not seem purposeless after so many other writers have held forth on this
subject, I shall add something of my own.88
It would go beyond the boundaries of the present study to consider the
multiple aspects of Vallas critique of Boethius, which, it should be noted,
was an original and defining aspect of the humanists polemic against
scholasticism and Aristotelianism.89 Here our object is rather to clarify
the terms and implications of Vallas critique of Boethius as a critique of
philosophy, undertaken in the service of a humanist alternative to the the-
ology of medieval and Renaissance scholasticism.
In De libero arbitrio, Valla defines the fundamental premise of scholasti-
cism that will be the focus of his examination and critique of philosophy.
In fact, the definition that he gives of that premise has close textual paral-
lels with what he will say in the Encomium of 1457. In De libero arbitrio,
when treating human freedom and divine predestination, his goal is to
demonstrate the falsity of scholastic theologys methodological assump-
tion that no one can become a theologian unless he knows the precepts
of philosophy and has learned them most diligently and thoroughly, and
thus to refute the position that those of former times who either did not
know or did not want to know them [the teachings of philosophy] were
stupid.90 Roman law, Valla continues, prohibited the speaking of foreign
languages (lingua peregrina) in senatorial assemblies, even in the official
reception of embassies, and stipulated that only the language of Rome
(vernacula Urbis) could be used. Scholastic theologians, in violation of the
laws of the evangelical church (ecclesia), introduced the language of
paganism (sermo gentilis) into the community of believers (respublica
christiana).
By attacking what has been called the methodological premise of scho-
lastic theology in this way, Vallas critique actually rejected an entire tradi-
tion of theological thought. Although that tradition achieved its greatest
and most comprehensive systematization in Thomas Aquinas, it had its
origins in Augustine, who employed it not only for basic apologetic pur-
poses but also, in a methodologically more sophisticated form, in his De
doctrina christiana (On Christian Doctrine). It is no accident that Vallas
critique of Boethiuss theology also involves Augustine and Thomas and
groups them all into the same historical perspective, both in De libero arbi-
trio and, especially and quite explicitly, in the Adnotationes.91
For Valla, the Christian religion (christiana religio) unlike the theo-
logical tradition that converged in scholasticism, from Boethius to Abelard
and then to Thomas and Thomism has no need of the protection of
philosophy (praesidium philosophiae). It is therefore necessary to con-
demn scholasticism absolutely, for it is a systematic theology contrary to
the preaching of the Apostles and thus to the normative model of theo-
logical study. The Apostles, although (or perhaps because) they were
ignorant and weaponless, preached the Gospel so effectively that they
reduced so much of the world to their authority. Hence the fact Valla
says with the Church Fathers in mind that men emerged at the origins of
Christianitys theological tradition who were truly pillars in the temple of
God and whose writings have now been extant many centuries. The
Fathers are at the head of the whole ecclesial community precisely
because they were in every way imitators of the Apostles. These men,
who were the first to proceed into theological study, took the imitation of
apostolic preaching, in contradistinction to philosophical doctrines, as a
premise and a methodological principle for that study. For they were
90Valla, De libero arbitrio, 524: neminem posse theologum evadere nisi qui praecepta
philosophiae teneat eaque diligentissime perdidicerit, stultosque eos qui antehac vel
nescierunt haec vel nescire voluerunt (tr. Trinkaus, modified).
91See, e.g., Valla, Opera omnia, 1:808a: Adnotationes in Matthew 4:10.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance207
convinced that not only does philosophy not aid the holiest religion, but
she also does it great violence.92
That the Greek and Latin Fathers prejudice against philosophy was
fully justified, Valla argues (again in the opening pages of De libero arbi-
trio), is clear from the fact that heresies, beginning in the first centuries
of Christianity, had their origins in philosophy. This is the exact oppo-
site of what scholastic theologians think:
But they of whom I speak consider [philosophy] a tool for weeding out her-
esies, when actually it is a seedbed of heresy. They do not realize that the
most pious antiquity, which lacked the arm of philosophy in combating her-
esies, and which often fought bitterly against philosophy itself driving it
forth like Tarquin into exile, never to allow its return is thus accused of
ignorance.93
Scholasticism, on the contrary, rejected this inheritance handed down
from the Fathers. It refused to recognize in it any authority, preferring
to enter upon a new path and behaving like a sailor who prefers to hold
an uncharted course.94 The ancients imitation of the Apostles was as if
turned on its head by the modern theologians of scholasticism, in their
constant, enormous effort to pursue the study of all dogmatic philosophy.
92Valla, De libero arbitrio, 524: Male enim sentire mihi videntur de nostra religione,
quam putant philosophiae praesidio indigere; quod minime illi fecerunt quorum iam mul-
tis saeculis opera exstant, apostolorum imitatores et vere in templo Dei columnae. Ac qui-
dem, si probe animadvertamus, quidquid illis temporibus haeresum fuit, quas non parum
multas fuisse accepimus, id omne fere ex philosophicorum dogmatum fontibus nasceba-
tur, un non modo non prodesset philosophia sanctissimae religioni, sed etiam vehementis-
sime obesset . Itane imperiti fuerunt illi et inermes? Et quomodo tantum orbis terrarum
in ditionem suam redegerunt? (tr. Trinkaus, modified).
93Ibid., 524: eam [sc. philosophiam] isti, de quibus loquor, natam esse ad extirpandas
haereses iactant, quarum potius seminarium est, nec intelligunt se imperitiae accusare
piissimam antiquitatem, quae in expugnandis haeresibus philosophiae arma non habuit,
et saepe contra ipsam philosophiam depugnavit acerrime et tamquam Tarquinium in
exilium eiecit, neque redire passa est (tr. Trinkaus).
94Ibid., 524: Si minus ratio, certe auctoritas illorum effectusque inducere debuit, ut se
imitaremini potius quam novam viam ingrederemini . Et nautam qui mavult insuetum
iter tenere, quam id per quod ceteri salva navi ac mercibus navigarunt (tr. Trinkaus,
modified).
208 salvatore i. camporeale
95Jean Isaac, Le Peri hermeneias en Occident de Boce saint Thomas. Histoire litteraire
dun trait dAristote (Paris: Vrin, 1953), 4449.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance209
96Peter Damian, On Divine Omnipotence, in Peter Damian: Letters 91120, tr. Owen J.
Blum (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1998), 356: Videat ergo
imperitia sapientium et vana quaerentium caeca temeritas, quasi haec, quae ad artem per-
tinent disserendi, ad Deum procaciter referant . Qui nimirum, quia necdum didicerunt
elementa verborum, per obscuras argumentorum suorum caligines amittunt clarae fidei
fundamentum, et, ignorantes adhuc quod a pueris tractatur in scholis, querelae suae
calumnias divinis ingerunt sacramentis! Et, quia inter rudimenta discentium, vel artis
humanae, nullam apprehendere periciam, curiositatis suae nubilo perturbant puritatis
ecclesiasticae disciplinam! Haec, plane, quae ex dialecticorum vel rhetorum prodeunt argu-
mentis, non facile divinae virtutis sunt aptanda mysteriis (emphasis added).
97[Isaac, Le Peri Hermeneias, 47: par une charmante ironie du sort, entre sous la plume
de lennemi le plus virulent des artes libraux dans lhistoire de la thologie mdivale.]
210 salvatore i. camporeale
Marie-Dominique Chenu, La Thologie comme science au XIIIme sicle (Paris: Vrin, 1943),
2532.
212 salvatore i. camporeale
Valla yet again identifies moments of cultural rupture and assaults the
theoretical foundations of his contemporaries (in this specific case, the
neo-Thomists of the fifteenth century). He achieves this complex opera-
tion by working on two levels. On one, he revaluates Thomass work per se
in an historiographic retrospective. On the other, he illustrates its unique
character, thus showing that its revival under wholly different circum-
stances is not valid. To Vallas mind, Thomass thought was organically
related to the historical circumstances of the thirteenth century. Lacking
new investigatory tools, it was unsuitable for resolving new problematics.
In this sense, the cultural break on which Valla insists appears as the clear
reversal of the theoretical arguments underlying the restoration of
Thomism in the fifteenth century.
100For the text, we follow the critical edition: Thomas Aquinas, Expositio super librum
Boethii de Trinitate, ed. Bruno Decker (Leiden: Brill, 1965). For the dating of the work, cf.
ibid., p. 44. [English translations are based on those of Rose Emmanuella Brennan in
Thomas Aquinas, The Trinity and the Unicity of the Intellect, tr. R.E. Brennan (St. Louis:
B. Herder, 1946), from the on-line text (accessed 03.09.2013): http://dhspriory.org/thomas/
BoethiusDeTr.htm#23.]
101Aquinas, Expositio super librum Boethii de Trinitate, quae. II, art. 1: divina
investigando tractare; art. 4: divina velanda novis et obscuris verbis (tr. Brennan,
modified).
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance213
102Ibid., quae. II, art. 2: de divinis esse aliqua scientia; art. 3: utrum in scientia fidei,
quae est de Deo, liceat rationibus philosophicis uti (tr. Brennan, modified).
214 salvatore i. camporeale
the Apostle, too, often made use of Greek poetry in his preaching
(Epimenides in Tit. 1:22; Menander in 1 Cor. 15:22; Aratus in Acts 17:28).
What is more, in the same letter Jerome reviewed the major representa-
tives of (Greek and Latin) Christian culture from the first centuries of the
Church, including his own contemporaries, to emphasize the universal
and explicit use of ancient philosophy and rhetoric on the part of the
Fathers and doctors of Christianity. Cyprian and Origen, Clement of
Alexandria and Gregory Nazianzen as Jerome says
fill their books so full with the teachings and judgments of the philosophers
that you would not know what is more amazing, their secular erudition or
their knowledge of the Scriptures.105
There was an uninterrupted tradition of using Greek and Latin culture for
Christian apologetics and theology, constantly pursued even by those
closest in time to Jeromes cultural context. Thus, with a view to their liter-
ary style, Jerome characterizes Lactantius as Ciceronian and Hilary of
Poitiers as Quintilianesque. To those who took a stand against pagan
culture, Jerome was therefore able to respond in defense of his own works:
What is so amazing if I, too, desire to turn secular wisdom, on account of the
charm of its eloquence and the beauty of its aspect, from a slave and pris-
oner into an Israelite?106
Here Jerome makes metaphorical use of the precept found in Deuteronomy
(21:1014) regarding the beautiful prisoner, the woman captured in war
and made a bride, but only after having been stripped of her foreign orna-
ments and returned, liberating her, to Israelite beauty. Jeromes inter-
pretation of this scriptural passage would become a classic of Latin
ecclesiastical literature, a slogan in defense of the re-appropriation of
Greco-Hellenistic wisdom on the part of a Christianity that reigns victori-
ous over the pagan world. In practice, however, this re-appropriation
would take many various forms, assuming modalities often opposed to
one another and covering the most variegated positions. Even a thinker
like Peter Damian would believe that he respected the validity of Jeromes
criterion for cultural mediation within Christianity. In any case, the Letter
to Magnus and other parallel texts of Jerome (like his Letter to Pammachius,
107[Jerome, Epistola ad Pammachium (ep. 66), 644 Sin autem adamaveris captivam
mulierem, id est, sapientiam saecularem, et ejus pulchritudine captus fueris, decalva eam,
et illecebras crinium atque ornamenta verborum cum emortuis unguibus seca. Lava eam
Prophetali nitro, et tunc requiescens cum illa, dicito: Sinistra ejus sub capite meo, et dex-
tra illius amplexabitur me [Cant. 2:6], et multo tibi foetus captiva dabit, ac de Moabitide
efficietur Israelitis.]
108[Alfred L. de Sadous, Sancti Augustini de doctrina Christiana libri exponuntur, seu de
rhetorica apud Christianos disquisitio (Paris: apud Joubert Bibliopolam, 1847); Marrou,
Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique.]
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance217
obscures Augustines specific solution for reducing Greek and pagan phil-
osophical knowledge to Christian preaching. Augustines text continues:
For just as the Egyptians had not only idols but also vases and ornaments
of gold and silver and clothing which that people [sc. the Israelites], when
leaving Egypt, secretly claimed as its own so as to put them to better use ,
thus the combined teachings of the pagans not only include false and super-
stitious images and heavy burdens of superfluous toil, which each of us,
departing the community of pagans with Christ as our guide, ought to
despise and avoid; but they also contain liberal disciplines that are quite
suited to the service of the truth as well as certain very useful moral teach-
ings . What is perversely and unjustly abused in obedience to demons, a
Christian ought to carry away and apply to the just employment of preach-
ing the Gospel.110
In the same ecclesial tradition as Jerome in his Letter to Magnus, Augustine
also validates the historical possibility of harnessing philosophy to evan-
gelical preaching and thus to theological knowledge. As doctrinal models
he adduces the greatest figures of Christian literature and evangelical pas-
toral practice, making reference to the early Church Fathers both Greek
(innumerable Greeks) and Latin (Cyprian, Lactantius, Hilary, and oth-
ers). But what is distinctive in Augustines proposition the claim, or
redemption (in the strong sense of the term in Roman law), of aspects of
culture, such as ethical and social forms as well as civil institutions, for use
within Christianity was derived from a doctrinal premise that had origi-
nally been elaborated by the Judeo-Alexandrian school and was widely
diffused in the West (as restated, for example, by Ambrose). It consisted in
the belief that pagan philosophy, and in particular Greek philosophy
(especially Platonism), was derived from the most ancient Old Testament
Scriptures and subsequently misappropriated for a use contrary to Judeo-
Christian revelation. Thus it is both legitimate and necessary Augustine
argues in book II, chapters 4142 of De doctrina christiana to claim for
Christianity that which had belonged to it by ancient right: to redeem
what had been carried away into slavery in foreign lands, to lead
110Ibid., II.40.423: Sicut enim Aegyptii non tantum idola habebant sed etiam vasa
atque ornamenta de auro et argento et vestem, quae ille populus exiens de Aegypto sibi
potius tamquam ad usum meliorem clanculo vindicavit , sic doctrinae omnes gentilium
non solum simulata et superstitiosa figmenta gravesque sarcinas supervacanei laboris
habent, quae unusquisque nostrum duce Christo de societate gentilium exiens debet
abominari atque vitare, sed etiam liberales disciplinas usui veritatis aptiores et quaedam
morum praecepta utilissima continent et, quo perverse atque iniuriose ad obsequia dae-
monum abutuntur , debet ab eis auferre christianus ad usum iustum praedicandi
Evangelii.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance219
d octrines and institutions that had been deformed and abused back to
their country of origin, purifying them and restoring them to freedom.
All this follows the example of Christ, who had redeemed man and the
world from the rule of evil and had restored the spirit and the cosmos to
the freedom of the Gospel.111
111On the traditional double reference to Jerome and Augustine and related texts, cf.:
Ernst Robert Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages (London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul, 1953), 3942, 7274, 446450; R.R. Bolgar, The Classical Heritage and its
Beneficiaries (London: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 4558; Henri de Lubac, Exgse
Mdivale. Les quatre sens de lEcriture, 2 vols. (Paris: Aubier, 1959), 1:290304. In the appa-
ratus to the text of the Expositio super librum Boethii de Trinitate, Decker did not note the
missing especially the Platonists (maxime Platonici) in the text of Augustine cited by
Thomas in Sed contra 5. Praeterea (p. 93.15). For a critical text of De doctrina christiana,
see the edition of Josef Martin in Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 32 (Turnhout:
Brepols, 1962) (p. 73: bk. II, ch. 40 = PL 34: 63). Augustines especially the Platonists is not
missing from Aquinass quotation of the same passage in his Contra impugnantes Dei cul-
tum et religionem (1255/56): Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia, Leonine ed., vol. 41 (Roma:
St. Thomas Aquinas Foundation, 1970), ch. 11.135140, p. A133; on the opuscules origin and
polemical aims, see H.-F. Dondaines introduction in ibid., pp. A513. But it is necessary to
say more on this topic. Ch. 11 (de hoc quod religiosi studio vacant) and the successive ch.
12 (de hoc quod religiosi verbum Dei ornate et gratiose proponunt) of Contra impugn-
antes (pp. A13134, A13437) constitute an extremely pregnant correlative passage to
Article 3, Question II of the Commentary on Boethius. These two chapters of Contra impug-
nantes prove to be, in the very structure of their argumentative procedure to say nothing
of their contents the literary precedent (regardless of the precise order of composition)
of Article 3, Question II of the Commentary on Boethius. If in the Commentary Augustine
and Jerome are introduced as authorities to determine the theoretical foundations of the-
ology, in Contra impugnantes the same patristic citations (including the quotation of
whole passages, used more fully than in the Commentary) are adduced to provide a foun-
dation and defense, in opposition to the anti-mendicant criticisms of the Paris university
world, of the very practice of theological study and teaching and of the kerygmatic praedi-
catio. Hence Aquinass insistence in affirming that it is suitable for doctors of sacred
Scripture to use secular eloquence and wisdom (ch. 12.14446, p. A136: quod doctoribus
sacrae Scripturae convenit eloquentia et sapientia saeculari uti). He further insists, reveal-
ing its full historical meaning, on both the compossibility and the necessity of synthesizing
the study of secular literature (studium litterarum saecularium) with the study of
sacred literature (studium litterarum sacrarum); he subscribes to the dictates of Jeromes
Letter to Pammachius and recommends continually making time (vacatio) for the study
of classical and Judeo-Christian texts (ch. 11.119ff., p. A133). Nevertheless, from the overall
context it seems clear not only that secular wisdom and eloquence are understood as
providing immediate and direct service to theology (sacra doctrina), but also, and more
importantly we highlight this in relation to our subject that the following points of
theological methodology are put forward. The first consists in the fact that the primacy
ofwisdom (as the handmaiden to theological science) over eloquence, that is of phi-
losophy over rhetoric, remains absolute and clear. The second is that eloquence is con-
ceived and viewed along the lines (and within the limits) of ornamentation (ornatus) (for
the ornamentation of words, after the manner of the rhetoricians, ch. 12.204f., p. A136: ad
ornatum verborum ut rhetores faciunt). Now, both the first and the second points, or bet-
ter both together, characterize and describe what Seigel has called the Ciceronian model;
indeed, they are the constants of the rhetorical tradition of Ciceronianism. See Jerrold
220 salvatore i. camporeale
E. Seigel, Rhetoric and Philosophy in Renaissance Humanism. The Union of Eloquence and
Wisdom, Petrarch to Valla (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968), 330; and
Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo e teologia, 7687. It has not been possible to con-
sult Edward Kennard Rand, Cicero in the Courtroom of St. Thomas (Milwaukee: Marquette
University Press, 1946). This means that also from the perspective of the use of secular
literature (litterae saeculares) within the realm of the study and the teaching of theology
(academic and pastoral), a profound difference distinguishes Valla from Thomas: rheto-
ric, as it is employed by Valla in the service of theological science, is placed outside of
Ciceronianism and, differently from Thomass conception, is essentially inscribed in
the Quintilianesque model. But this topic will be fully treated in the fourth part of the
present essay. Here it is important to cite a passage from ch. 12 of Contra impugnantes,
significant for its theoretical denseness and synthesis, which must be kept in mind during
the discussion of Vallas Quintilianesque rhetoric and theological investigations.
Thomass text reads: It should be known that the use of secular wisdom and eloquence
in theology is in a certain way to be approved, in another to be blamed. It is to be blamed
when someone uses them for boastful ostentation or when he is chiefly interested in
secular wisdom and eloquence: for then he thinks it necessary either to be silent about or
to reject what is not approved by secular knowledge, such as articles of faith that are
above human reason. And likewise whoever is chiefly interested in eloquence has as his
object to lead his listeners to admiration not of the subject of his speech, but of the
speaker himself; this is the way that worldly wisdom and eloquence were used by the
pseudo-apostles, against whom the Apostle spoke in his letter to the Corinthians . It is,
however, to be approved when someone uses secular wisdom and eloquence not for the
display of his own vanity but for the utility of his audience, who are thus at any moment
more easily and more effectively taught or, if adversaries, convinced; and likewise when
someone does not treat them chiefly as ends but uses them as means in the service of
sacred doctrine, which is his chief interest, just as he takes up all other things in its service
; it was thus that the apostles, too, used eloquence. Hence Augustine in bk. IV [ch. 7] of
De doctrina christiana says that in the words of the Apostle wisdom was the guide with
eloquence following as its fellow, and wisdom in the lead did not cast off eloquence fol-
lowing behind. But nevertheless later doctors have since made greater use of secular wis-
dom and eloquence, and this is the reason why earlier it was not philosophers and
rhetoricians who were chosen to preach but common folk and fishermen, who then con-
verted the philosophers and orators: the reason is so that our faith would not consist in
human wisdom but in the power of God (ibid., ch. 12.14787, p. A136: Sciendum est
quod uti sapientia et eloquentia saeculari in sacra doctrina quodammodo commendatur
et quodammodo reprehenditur. Reprehenditur quidem quando aliquis ad iactantiam eis
utitur et quando eloquentiae et sapientiae saeculari principaliter studet: tunc enim opor-
tet quod illa vel taceat vel neget quae saecularis scientia non approbat, sicut articulos
fidei qui sunt supra rationem humanam. Et similiter qui eloquentiae principaliter studet,
homines non intendit ducere in admirationem eorum quae dicit sed dicentis; et hoc
modo mundana sapientia et eloquentia pseudoapostoli utebantur contra quos Apostolus
loquitur in epistola ad Corinthios . Commendatur autem quando non ad se ostentan-
dum sed ad utilitatem audientium, qui sic quandoque facilius et efficacius instruuntur
vel convincuntur adversarii, utitur aliquis sapientia et eloquentia saeculari; et iterum
quando aliquis non principaliter eis intendit sed eis utitur in obsequium sacrae doctrinae
cui principaliter inhaeret, ut sic omnia alia in obsequium eius assumat et ita etiam
apostoli eloquentia utebantur. Unde Augustinus in IV De doctrina christiana dicit quod
in verbis Apostli erat dux sapientia et sequens comes eloquentia, et sapientia praecedens
eloquentiam sequentem non respuebat. Sed tamen posteriores doctores adhuc magis usi
sunt sapientia et eloquentia saeculari propter eandem rationem qua non prius philoso-
phi et rhetores sunt electi ad praedicandum, sed plebei et piscatores qui postmodum
philosophos et oratoresconverterunt: ut scilicet fides nostra non consistat in sapientia
hominum sed in virtute Dei).
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance221
112Aquinas, Expositio super librum Boethii de Trinitate, quae. 2, art. 3: Sicut autem sacra
doctrina fundatur supra lumen fidei, ita philosophia fundatur supra lumen naturale ratio-
nis; unde impossibile est quod ea, quae sunt philosophiae, sint contraria his quae sunt
fidei, sed deficiunt ab eis. Continent autem aliquas eorum similitudines et quaedam ad ea
praeambula, sicut natura praeambula est ad gratiam. Si quid autem in dictis philosopho-
rum invenitur contrarium fidei, hoc non est philosophia, sed magis philosophiae abusus ex
defectu rationis. Et ideo possibile est ex principiis philosophiae huiusmodi errorem refell-
ere vel ostendendo omnino esse impossibile vel ostendendo non esse necessarium. Sicut
enim ea quae sunt fidei non possunt demonstrative probari, ita quaedam contraria eis non
possunt demonstrative ostendi esse falsa, sed potest ostendi ea non esse necessaria. Sic
ergo in sacra doctrina philosophia possumus tripliciter uti (tr. Brennan).
113Ibid., quae. 2, art. 3: preambula fidei ad notificandum per aliquas similitudines
quae sunt fidei, sicut Augustinus in libro de Trinitate utitur multis similitudinibus ex
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance223
116Ibid., quae. 2, art. 3: ut scilicet propter eam [sc. doctrinam philosophorum] veritas
fidei credatur.
117Ibid., quae. 2, art. 3: quantum ad eius veritatem (ad secundum), propter rationem
dictorum (ad octavum), in obsequium fidei (ad quintum), solum in errorem ducit (ad
sextum) (tr. Brennan, modified).
118The fundamental study, also because it uses the earlier work of Mandonnet, Congar,
Chenu and others, is Martin Grabmanns ample analytical and historical work, Die theolo-
gische Erkenntnis- und Einleitungslehre des hl. Thomas von Aquin, auf Grund seiner Schrift In
Boethium de Trinitate, in Zusammenhang der Scholastik des 13. und beginnenden 14.
Jahrhunderts dargestellt (Freiburg, Switzerland: Paulus, 1948). In particular see ch. 1 (pp.
132) and ch. 4 (pp. 101186), for the contemporary cultural context and the analysis of
Question II, Article 3. Important are the references to the doctrinal theses against which
Aquinas argues, and the study of the developments given rise to by the discourse on theo-
logical method elaborated by Thomas in his Expositio. A direct reading of Chenu, La
Thologie comme science au XIIIe sicle, is still useful.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance225
For just as those things which are of faith cannot be demonstratively proved,
so certain things contrary to them cannot be demonstratively shown to be
false, but they can be shown not to be necessary. (emphasis added)
Thus the distinctions already underlined on the gnoseological and episte-
mological level are repeated on the methodological level as well. From a
logico-argumentative point of view, the two sciences diverge without a
continuous solution, and thus neither interference nor immediate trans-
fer between them is possible. Such an argumentative procedure as has
already been seen with Aquinass responses to the objections prefacing
the article in question would lead either to a type of philosophical ratio-
nalism (the reduction of theology to philosophy) or to its contrary (the
reduction of philosophy to theology): a theological syncretism that, only
when used ideologically, can succeed in establishing immediate implica-
tions and univocally apodictic (demonstrative) connections between
qualitatively different levels. But beyond these procedures of reduction,
which in one direction favor theology and in the other philosophy a
most disagreeable mixture of water and wine (ad quintum) Aquinas
sees a deeper, intrinsic relationship between classical philosophy and
Christian theology: a subordinate relationship (in subordinatione), in
which the principle of analogy directs the use of philosophical categories
within the language that is specific and proper to faith. The ontological
foundation for such a logical and cognitive transfer and not only on the
theoretical level, as Augustine noted in De doctrina christiana is
expressed in the formula nature is the preamble to grace. Thomas thus
takes up and expands Augustines proposition for resolving the antinomy
between Christian faith and classical culture, but at the same time he
moves it onto a theoretical plain informed by ontological and theological
principles.119
120Mandonnet, Siger de Brabant et lAverroisme latin au XIIIme sicle, 1:33, n.1: Sunt
aliqui qui bene linguam spiritualem didicerunt, id est theologiam, sed tamen in ea barba-
rizant, eam per philosophiam corrumpentes; qui enim metaphysicam didicit semper vult
in sacra Scriptura metaphysice procedere: similiter qui geometriam didicit semper loqui-
tur de punctis et lineis in theologia. Tales induunt regem vestibus sordidis et laceratis; item
spargunt pulverem in lucem et inde nascuntur cyniphes.
230 salvatore i. camporeale
It is reprehensible for the theological faculty, which is and is called the city
of the sun of truth and understanding, to strive to speak in the language of
the philosophers. That is, those who study and teach in the theological fac-
ulty try to furnish it with authority from the sayings of the philosophers, as if
such had not been handed down by the highest wisdom, which is the font of
all other wisdom . Many almost despise the words of theology and of the
saints but think those of philosophy and of the pagans to be the best, and
they sell themselves to the sons of the Greeks, that is to the philosophers.121
The passages by these two figures (who were mentioned before the exami-
nation of Thomass text) have been reproduced here almost in their
entirety, as they are exemplary and indicative of the polemic against phi-
losophy that was waged by Parisian theologians in the first half of the thir-
teenth century. Above all they are emblematic of the context in which
Aquinas outspokenly proffered his response to such sentiments. For
Thomas, philosophy is the indispensable instrument (organon) for creat-
ing a new theoretical foundation for theology. And philosophy, precisely
as secular wisdom and despite the (Pauline) antinomy between it, on the
one hand, and the folly of the Cross and divine wisdom, on the other
remained the noblest and historically the most fully developed cultural
fruit, the most scientifically structured episteme, the most perfect model
of rationality that Christendom could derive or receive from Greek and
Hellenistic antiquity. Furthermore, this philosophy came to be identified
precisely with Aristotelianism, which was taken up and reassessed in
Thomass time as the synthesis of Greek culture and the richest source of
analytical tools for the study of the material world. Nature (natura), hav-
ing been rediscovered, was now studied and understood by way of the
Aristotelian concept of physis.122
121Ibid., 1:32, n. 3: Reprehensibile est quod facultas theologiae, quae est et vocatur
civitas solis veritatis et intelligentiae, nititur loqui lingua philosophorum, id est illi qui
in facultate theologiae student et docent conantur ei praebere auctoritatem e dictis philos-
ophorum, ac si non fuerit tradita a summa sapientia, a qua est omnis alia sapientia .
Multi, verba theologica et verba sanctorum quasi nihil habentes, verba philosophica,
verba ethnicorum optima arbitrantur, et seipsos vendunt filiis Graecorum, id est
philosophis.
122Cf. Grabmann, Die theologische, 147149.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance231
126Valla, De libero arbitrio, 562: Fugiamus igitur cupiditatem alta sapiendi, humilibus
potius consentientes; christiani namque hominis nihil magis interest quam sentire humi-
liter; de ista quaestione, quod ad me attinet, amplius curiosus non ero, ne maiestatem
Dei vestigans, obscurer a lumine (tr. Trinkaus).
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance233
between them. Here we see the profound cultural divide between the
Middle Ages and the Renaissance, as well as a characteristic expression of
how the circumstances have changed and not only with respect to the
exigencies of the Christian faith.
In Article 1 of Thomass Question, the objector maintains the position
that it is not permissible to investigate divine things by the arguments of
reason127 by citing the well-known text of Dionysius (the end of De coelesti
hierarchia, PG 3, 340B), where a final limit to theological discourse is
imposed in the form of absolute silence before the arcanum of the mys-
tery, the unutterable secret of God. Aquinass response (ad sextum)
with a distinction (distinguo) that is actually made in stark opposition to
the absolute mysticism of Dionysian silence is equally clear insofar as
it coheres perfectly with the overall theological epistemology of the
Commentary:
God is honored by silence, but not in such a way that we may say nothing
of Him or make no inquiries about Him, but, inasmuch as we understand
that we lack the ability to comprehend Him.128
Here, however, let us note immediately that whatever seems common to
both Thomass statement and Vallas exhortation is merely apparent.
Their respective positions are actually undergirded by wholly divergent
argumentative methodologies regarding the secrets of faith, methodolo-
gies that derive from, or better are based on, vastly different epistemologi-
cal guidelines for the study of theology. Thomass position presupposes
the use of philosophy (its ethical, metaphysical, psychological, and other
categories Aristotelian or Neoplatonic unfailingly articulated and
indeed constrained and delimited by the analogical constants of quod-
dams and quodammodos). Vallas position, on the other hand, depends on
the models and procedures of (Quintilians) rhetoric. This is what Valla
defends and argues most explicitly in the preface to the fourth book of the
Elegantiae, which will be the focus of analysis in the fourth part of this
essay.129
127Aquinas, Expositio super librum Boethii de Trinitate, quae. 2, art. 1: divina investigare
non licet argumentando (tr. Brennan).
128Ibid., quae. 2, art. 1, ad sextum: Deus honoratur silentio, non quod nihil de ipso
dicatur vel inquiratur, sed quia quidquid de ipso dicamus vel inquiramus, intelligimus nos
ab eius comprehensione deficisse (tr. Brennan).
129On the theme of Dionysian mystic silence, see Salvatore I. Camporeale, Amore e
conoscenza nellesperienza mistica secondo lAquinate (Viterbo: Agnesotti, 1961), originally
published in Sapienza 12 (1959): 237271 and 13 (1960): 360381.
234 salvatore i. camporeale
3.2.Dialectic/Rhetoric
3.2.1.Chapter 12, Book III ofDe vero falsoque bono: Text and Context
Following in the scriptural footsteps of Paul (Col. 2:8), as he repeatedly
states throughout his oeuvre (from the Epistola apologetica [Letter of
Defense] to De professione religiosorum [On the Profession of the Religious]
all the way to the Encomium), Valla dedicated his De voluptate and De
libero arbitrio to a kind of damnatio philosophiae. On the one hand he con-
demns classical philosophy in almost courtroom fashion, definitively
130Valla, De vero fasloque bono, 202 (Apparatus I to p. 113.1518): Boethius qui utinam
operam quam scribendis dialecticis libris impendit, Quintiliano legendo maluisset impen-
dere! Nam nec ita in rhetoricis errasset, et gravior et religiosior philosophus evasisset.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance235
also damn him for not furnishing you with a reward? And will you dictate to
him which favors he should especially grant you, as if you were wiser or
greater than he? And although he, knowing what is to your advantage, has
done you a favor, will you reject it and most ungratefully call his kindness an
injury? This is the rebuke with which those who complained about fortune
and God ought to have been scourged. But boastful philosophy was never
able to do this, because it did not love and worship God, despite knowing
him or having the capacity to know him. It preferred instead to fornicate
with the lovers of the earth.132
The long passage cited here is an important part of a section of De vero
falsoque bono that received some of the most extensive revision (namely
chapter 12 of book III). Indeed, we seem to find concentrated here the
methodological core of Vallas critique of Boethian philosophy. From an
epistemological point of view, this critique is the objective underlying the
entire dialogue, and it takes on clear significance within a specifically
theological perspective, especially in book III (the long speech entrusted
to the Franciscan Antonio da Rho). Valla shows Boethiuss argumentative
procedure to be erroneous by demonstrating that the apodosis does not
132Valla, De vero falsoque bono, 113.438: Ita cum bonum beatitudo dicatur et virtus
boni tamen ii demum sunt qui virtute affecti sunt non qui felicitate et beatitudine, in quo
Boethius dialecticorum quam rhetoricorum amantior deceptus est. At quanto satius erat
oratorie quam dialectice loqui! Quid enim ineptius philosophorum more ut si uno verbo sit
erratum tota causa periclitetur? At orator multis et variis rationibus utitur, affert contraria,
exempla repetit, similitudines comparat et cogit etiam latitantem prodire veritatem. Quam
miser ac pauper imperator est qui omnem fortunam belli in anima unius militis ponit!
Universitate pugnandum est et si quis miles concidit aut si qua turma profligata est, alia
subinde atque alia sufficienda. Hoc modo agendum Boethio erat, qui ut plurimi alii nimio
amore dialectice deceptus est. At quantus in ea error fuerit et quod nemo de illa sobrie scrip-
serit et eadem rhetorice pars sit hic noster Laurentius scribere instituit meo iudicio verissime.
Sed ut ad rem redeam, audite quanto melius quantoque brevius ipse quam boethiana phi-
losophia respondeam nixus fidei auctoritate. Non verebor philosophiam aut contemnere
aut damnare, cum Paulus eam arguat et Hieronymus cum quibusdam aliis philosophos
heresiarchas appellent. Valeat igitur, valeat philosophia et a sacrosancta ede velut scenica
meretricula pedem effereat et sirena usque in exitium dulcis cantare seu garrire desinat et
morbis ipsa fedis ac plurimis affecta vulneribus egros alii curandos sanandosque medico
relinquat! Cui medico? Mihi. Quonam modo? Certe ita: Quid fles? Quid gemis eger? Quid
Deum incusas? Si expectas bona eterna, quid terrena desideras? Sin hec terrena malles,
licet prave, quin Deum potius deprecaris quam incusas, qui se dicit amatores non amare
terrenos? Itane cum a domino supplicium meritus sis, fugitive, etiam illi quod te non afficit
premio maledicis? Etiam illi prescribes que in te beneficia potissimum conferat, tanquam
tu sis illo aut sapientior aut maior? Etiam cum tibi beneficium prestiterit, sciens quid tibi
sit conducibile, non agnosces, sed benignitatem ingratissime iniuriam appellabis? Hac
omnes qui de fortuna ac Deo querebantur erant increpatione verberandi; quod nunquam
philosophia vaniloqua facere potuit quia Deum non dilexit ac coluit, cum vel cognosceret
illum vel posset cognoscere, malens fornicari cum amatoribus terre (emphasis added; the
translation of Hieatt and Lorch in Valla, On Pleasure has been consulted).
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance237
work that indicate the stages of its transformation from one revision to the
next. Unfortunately, this issue is extremely complicated and has not, as far
as we are concerned, been definitively resolved by Lorchs critical edition
of 1970 and this despite her insightful introduction to the text. It will
therefore be necessary to pass over issues marginal to the chronological
sequence of the dialogues various drafts and revisions and to reduce
Lorchs complex solution, for use as a working hypothesis, to a rather sim-
plified outline.
This is how Boethius should have acted, who like so many others was
ensnared by an excessive love for dialectic. But how much error was in dialec-
tic, and that no one has written circumspectly about it, and that it is a part of
rhetoric, our Lorenzo here, in my opinion, has begun to write most truly.
(emphasis added)
A basic reading of this passage and the context in which it occurs would
certainly suggest that the gamma redaction of De vero falsoque bono was
composed at the same time as (the first version of) the Dialecticae disputa-
tiones the very conclusion reached by Lorch.
Nevertheless, the force and the significance of the mention made of the
Disputationes in the dialogue transcend that of a simple chronological ref-
erence. Indeed, only by considering the larger theoretical import of the
statement made by Antonio da Rho (the main speaker in book III) can its
meaning be understood for the interpretation of the text. Thus while
accepting Lorchs sketch of the evolution of Vallas dialogue as the most
likely hypothesis, we would be inclined to move the chronological con-
fines of the gamma redaction to the period (immediately) following 1444.
The general reasons and the particular textual analysis that induce us to
correct, or better, to refine the editorial phase of the gamma (and then the
delta) version can be encapsulated in the following points.
First, it seems necessary to repeat here something we have had occa-
sion to note elsewhere: 1444 the year of the inquisitorial trial held in
Naples against Valla must not be considered solely as one biographical
fact or incident, important as it may be, among the various affairs and
complex situations that dot the humanists life. Instead it marks a turn, or
at the least it was a decisive moment, in Vallas cultural development,
which was starkly characterized by tenacious dissent and by a radical crit-
icism of both the scholastic tradition and of contemporary Ciceronianism.
The inquisitorial trial had defining repercussions for and notable impacts
on Vallas successive literary production. It gives us the opportunity to
mark a biographico-cultural caesura in his residence at Alfonso of Aragons
court: between an early period (from 1435 to 1444) and a late one (com-
prising the final years of service to Alfonso, until Vallas return to Rome in
1448/49 and his definitive transfer to Nicholas Vs curia). This distinction
between the two periods, split by the year of the inquisitorial trial, is made
with a view to the following two objectives: on the one hand, to under-
stand more adequately, even if only approximately, the fluctuations that
occurred in Vallas personal position in the Neapolitan chancery between
the years before 1444 and the period following the trial; on the other hand,
to establish a basis for grasping more precisely the developments and
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance241
and the critical aims represented by those editorial revisions has already
proved revealing and incisive in the one particular case where successive
versions have been studied, namely with the Dialecticae disputationes.
Indeed, the comparison of the first redaction of the Disputationes (1438/39)
with the second and the third, to be placed respectively at the close of the
late Neapolitan period and the final years of the Roman decade, has led to
two conclusions of great importance for understanding the historico-cul-
tural place of Vallas humanism.
The first conclusion concerns the significance of the inquisitorial trial
of 1444 and the dimensions that it eventually took on. It was not only a
specific reaction on the part of current scholasticism to Vallas theses,
namely his critique of logical and metaphysical Aristotelianism, and his
patristic renewal of rhetorical theology by means of a systematic deploy-
ment of philology and Quintilians categorical schematics. Actually, the
trial (to which Valla reacted with his Apologia ad papam Eugenium IV
[Apology to Pope Eugenius IV] of 1445) turned out to be the reactionary
counterpart of a simultaneous conservative counter-critique, more com-
plex and thus more significant, hailing from humanist circles with
Ciceronian leanings. This other, humanist trial was geographically much
more diffuse and ideologically much more profound. Also begun within
the Aragonese chancery itself, by Bartolomeo Facio and Panormita, it was
prosecuted to the full as a veritable Kulturkampf by Poggio Bracciolini in
his Invectivae against Valla (14521454) and in related letters. Poggio had
fully understood from the very beginning the nature of the shift that Valla
and his followers were effecting within humanist culture. In his Invectivae,
he took up and sharpened nearly all of the essential elements of the
polemic against Valla that had already converged in Facios writings in
Naples and that had thenceforth ricocheted in humanist circles through-
out central and northern Italy. Valla was gradually induced, indeed con-
strained, to undertake and devote increasing energy to a systematic
self-defense (going well beyond the appeal to Eugenius IV). This he pro-
duced in his Invectivae in Facium (Invectives against Facio) of 1447 and his
Antidota in Pogium of 1452/53. Here we might observe, with reference to
the general theme of this essay, that in the Encomium of 1457 Valla would
ultimately take what had initially been two lines of defense against his
accusers, gradually developed and elaborated in the Apologia to Eugenius
(against the scholastic tradition) and the Antidota in Pogium (in opposi-
tion to the old school of early humanism), and fuse them into a single
proposition for theological renewal (renovatio).
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance243
136This is the thesis that underlies the whole of ch. 1 of Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla.
Umanesimo e teologia, esp. 3387, and is treated explicitly in other parts of the same work.
But see also Di Napoli, Lorenzo Valla, 5799.
246 salvatore i. camporeale
write most truly. But to return to our philosopher. But to return to our
subject .137 subject .138
Let us first consider the initial part of chapter 12, book III of the dialogue,
which directly precedes the long passage (including the editorial variant
in question) cited above. In this way we will be able to reconstruct in full
the extensive critique of Boethius that Valla elaborates in this important
chapter, clarifying its rationale and identifying the alternative solutions
proposed in its final sentences.
According to Valla, Boethius argued in book IV of The Consolation of
Philosophy that good men always possess the true good (verum bonum)
while evil ones lack it utterly, thus identifying the true good with upright
behavior and the integrity of moral virtue (honestas). Now, to say what I
think of him, Valla continues in the guise of Antonio da Rho,
begging the pardon of a man so learned in every area of study, he called in
philosophy as his patroness and bestowed upon her almost greater honor
than on our religion, and thus he did not resolve the question, nor did he
demonstrate what the true good is.139
Thereupon follow Vallas counter-arguments to Boethiuss thesis: virtue
is not actually the highest good, nor are the evil always wretched or the
good always happy.140 On the contrary, the good often find themselves
surrounded by misery while the evil enjoy well-being and happiness: the
evil are not necessarily wretched in this life, but in the next; and the just
are not blessed in the present time, but they will be in the future.141 Then
Boethiuss error is revealed, namely a linguistic ambiguity hidden in the
parasyllogistic reasoning of his dialectic:
137Valla, De vero falsoque bono, 113.1518: Hoc modo agendum Boethio erat, qui ut plu-
rimi alii nimio amore dialectice deceptus est. At quantus in ea error fuerit et quod nemo de illa
sobrie scripserit et eadem rhetorice pars sit hic noster Laurentius scribere instituit meo iudicio
verissime. Sed ut ad rem redeam (emphasis added).
138Ibid., 202, App. I to p. 113: Hoc modo agendum Boethio erat, qui utinam operam
quam scribendis dialecticis libris impendit, Quintiliano legendo maluisset impendere! Nam
nec ita in rhetoricis errasset et gravior et religiosior philosophus evasisset. Sed ut ad rem
redeam (emphasis added).
139Ibid., 112.69: De quo ut dicam quod sentio, pace viri in omni doctrina peritissimi,
quia patronam philosophiam advocavit et ei propemodum maiorem honorem quam nos-
tre religioni tribuit, illi cause non satisfecit nec quid sit verum bonum probavit.
140Ibid., 112.910: Non enim virtus est summum bonum, nec malos semper miseros nec
bonos semper felices.
141Ibid., 112.1214: Iniqui nanque non in hac utique vita miseri sunt sed in futura, et
iusti non nunc beati sed postea erunt.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance247
who would believe that so careful and sharp, not to say elegant, a man fell
into this kind of error out of ignorance of one word, and such an easy one at
that? For good (bonum) is said both of virtue and of happiness, just as evil
(malum) is said of their opposites. But virtue and vice are actions (actiones),
whereas happiness and unhappiness are qualities (qualitates) things very
different from one another in the effect that they produce.142
Boethiuss reasoning is thus reducible to the following form:
Whoever is good has the good,
the good is blessedness
therefore every good man is blessed.143
But this reasoning, Valla observes, can be easily refuted. In the syllogisms
major premise, what is meant by the good (bonum)? Does it mean the
good of happiness (bonum felicitatis)? Then the statement must be denied,
for no one is called good because he is happy but because he is virtuous
(virtute praeditus). Does it mean the good of virtue (bonum virtutis)? Then
the reasoning remains completely valid, but it will be necessary to refor-
mulate the argument in the following way:
Whoever is good has the good,
the good is virtue,
therefore every good man is virtuous.144
Valla notes that where Boethius errs, Cicero did not, namely in the
Tusculan Disputations (I 5,9), where he treated exactly the same question
using the same terminology: this linguistic ambiguity did not dupe
Cicero.145 Valla concludes:
although blessedness and virtue are called good, nevertheless the good are
ultimately those who are graced with virtue, not with happiness and
blessedness; here Boethius, who had a greater fondness for dialecticians
than for rhetoricians, was deceived.146
142Ibid., 112.1723: Quis crederet virum ita diligentem et acutum, taceo elegantem, in
huiusmodi errorem propter ignorationem unius verbi, et quidem facillimi devenisse? Nam
bonum tum virtutum tum felicitatem dicimus, sicut e contrario malum. At virtus
quidem et vitium actiones sunt, felicitas vero atque infelicitas qualitates, res etiam effectu
ipso inter se longissime distantes.
143Ibid., 112.3233: quicunque est bonus is habet bonum, bonum autem est beatitudo,
ergo omnis bonus beatus.
144Ibid., 112.3738: quicunque est bonus is habet bonum, bonum autem est virtus, ergo
omnis bonus, virtute praeditus.
145Ibid., 112.3839: non Ciceronem fefellit ista verbi ambiguitas.
146Ibid., 113.47: Ita cum bonum beatitudo dicatur et virtus, boni tamen ii demum
sunt qui virtute affecti sunt non qui felicitate et beatitudine; in quo Boethius dialecticorum
quam rhetoricorum amantior deceptus est.
248 salvatore i. camporeale
147[The title of book III, chapter 11. See Lorenzo Valla, Repastinatio dialectice et philoso-
phie, ed. Gianni Zippel, 2 vols. (Padova: Antenore, 1982), 1:304:] Quaedam verba reddere
numerosum ac multiplicem sillogismum (emphasis added).
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance249
148[For these and subsequent quotations of chapter 12, book III of De vero falsoque
bono, consult n. 132 above.]
250 salvatore i. camporeale
Valla rebukes Boethius above all for devoting himself excessively to dialec-
tic and neglecting rhetoric. This first criticism of Boethiuss work must be
traced to Vallas peculiar vision of scholasticism. For he was struck by how
forcefully Boethiuss logical writings influenced medieval culture and
scholastic theology itself. But there is something more important in his
critique of Boethius. Valla was certainly aware that Boethius had read and
studied Ciceros rhetorical works; he therefore had to substantiate his crit-
icism in such a way as to implicate all of Boethiuss rhetorical and philo-
sophical writings in the criticism of his dialectics. Hence the fact that the
ultimate cause of the polemic against Boethius must be sought in Vallas
anti-Ciceronianism, or better, in the absolute primacy he accorded to
Quintilians Institutio oratoria. This is what Valla underlines here in no
uncertain terms: If only he had preferred to devote the effort to reading
Quintilian. What follows is even more explicit: He would thus not have
made mistakes in rhetorical matters, and he would have become a
weightier and more religious philosopher. Thus Boethius not only
subordinated rhetoric to dialectic, but he also failed to grasp the dimen-
sion Quintilian added to rhetoric. That is to say, he remained within a tra-
dition that left ample room for the dichotomy between rhetoric and
dialectic and accorded the latter a primacy and autonomy that it did not
deserve. Furthermore, by admitting that dichotomy and rejecting rhetoric
in the sense conceived by Quintilian as a universal and organic
science of language Boethian philosophy exhausted itself in the for-
malism of dialectic (and in the logicism of scholasticism). At the same
time, it kept itself from being used in a way that was more valid and
more consonant with the Christian religion than the Aristotelian Organon
(and the Aristotelianism of scholasticism) had been. In short, we have
here in nuce the motive force behind the full range of the critique of
Boethius, to which Valla devoted the three books of De vero falsoque bono
and De libero arbitrio.
With the gamma redaction, Valla switched to a new (and definitive)
formulation of his critique of Boethius. The purely negative assessment
and rejection of Boethian dialectic was replaced by the positive and the-
matic statement on the nature and validity of Quintilians rhetoric.
Boethius erred as Valla continues in the gamma redaction by letting
himself be seduced, like so many others, by the procedures of peripatetic
logic: he was ensnared by an excessive love for dialectic. That was the
source of formal and substantive errors which it was necessary to oppose
with a new conception of rhetoric, one that at the same time would assign
the art of dialectic a more precise and valid place.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance251
But at this point Valla inserts another element into the variant. He had
already completed the literary work in which he overcame the antinomy
between rhetoric and dialectic. Therefore, he no longer needed to make
explicit and direct reference to Quintilians classic work and could instead
mention his own brand-new Dialecticae disputationes, his retrenching of
all dialectic and philosophy (repastinatio totius dialecticae et philoso-
phiae). The aim of that work was (in addition to a constant, continuous
critique of Boethiuss writings) to re-assign logic a place within rhetorical
discourse and to effect a radical reduction of philosophy to rhetoric, all in
accord with the formal and categorical principles of the Institutio oratoria.
With the Disputationes, then, the new treatment (retractatio) of scholas-
tic, Boethian, and contemporary logic reaches its final and definitive form.
What is more, Quintilians thesis, which constitutes the central theme of
the work, is clearly enunciated: that dialectic is a part of rhetoric.149
149See the references in note 136 above. The meaning of the related terms dialectic
and logic, as used by Valla, can be deduced from a comparative reading of the three dif-
ferent versions of chapter 1, book III of the Disputationes, entitled, Whence dialectic and
logic are thus-called (Unde dicatur dialectica logicaque ; [cf. Valla, Repastinatio dia-
lectice et philosophie, 1:278]); cf. Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo e teologia, 117119.
252 salvatore i. camporeale
151Ibid., 1148: Quae enim potest alia maior esse temeritas, quam Dei sibi non dicam
similitudinem, sed aequalitatem, vindicare, et brevi sententia omnium haereticorum
venena complecti, quae de philosophorum et maxime Pythagorae et Zenonis principis
Stoicorum fonte manarunt? pulchre quidam nostrorum ait: philosophi, patriarchae hae-
reticorum, Ecclesiae puritatem perversa maculavere doctrina (tr. Fremantle, Lewis, and
Martley, in Schaff and Wace (eds.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers).
152In Valla, De vero falsoque bono (ed. Lorch), 203 (apparatus II), Lorch cites as sources
for this passage Jerome, In Isaiam V 23,2 and In epistulam ad Galatas III 5, respectively in
PL 24:206207 and PL 26:416419. These same references are provided by Radetti in Valla,
Scritti filosofici e religiosi, 204, n. 3, but to our mind they are insufficient and should be sub-
stituted with those we have spoken about here. Vallas critique of Boethiuss Consolation of
Philosophy is not considered at all by Pierre Paul Courcelle, La Consolation de Philosophie
dans la tradition littraire. Antcdents et postrit de Boce (Paris: tudes Augustiniennes,
1967), 317332; but how to explain the new spirit developed by the Renaissance and that
this new spirit caused the Consolation to be read much less? It seems to us rather reduc-
tive to assign the reason to a change in literary taste: ibid., 332.
254 salvatore i. camporeale
In his book on Lorenzo Valla, Mario Fois writes compactly and sugges-
tively, and with the full support of precise references to primary and sec-
ondary sources, on the problem of conscience in the realm of humanist
culture. The problem of conscience is the antinomy with which the reli-
gious believer has had to grapple, ever since the beginning of Christianity,
between the love of literature and the desire for God. This phrase is the
well-known title of a book by Jean Leclercq, who treated the theme
throughout the medieval period. Fois, who can be thought of as continu-
ing Leclercqs work, followed the question of the antagonistic relationship
between the Christian faith and the study of ancient pagan literature
(humanae litterae) into the Renaissance, to see how it was recast in the
context of humanism. Moreover, Fois sought to identify the many and var-
ied solutions offered to this problem across the whole arc of early human-
ism, beginning with the polemic between Albertino Mussato and
Giovannino da Mantova in the early fourteenth century and ending with
Vallas position, especially as it appears in the preface to book IV of the
Elegantiae. Fois concludes that, for Valla, eloquence is both the forum and
the definitive means for resolving the matter of conscience, such that
Vallas solution is the triumph of rhetoric in humanism.154
Foiss reference to the Elegantiae and his related conclusion are dead
on; they perfectly highlight Vallas original and unique contribution to
overcoming the problem of conscience (in the first half of the fifteenth
century). The preface, or proemium, to book IV of the Elegantiae is perhaps
the text that gives most explicit and complete voice to the humanist
attempt to establish the proper relationship between rhetoric and theo-
logical study. What would be declared programmatically in the Encomium
of 1457 regarding the proper mode of theologizing is developed compactly
153Ms. Paris, Bibl. Nat., Lat. 7723, f. 2v: Lumen ingenii sunt litterae.
154See Fois, Il pensiero cristiano di Lorenzo Valla, above all ch. 5: Il problema di cosci-
enza dellUmanesimo e la soluzione valliana (pp. 195260), esp. 249258. The other
reference is to Jean Leclercq, Cultura umanistica e desiderio di Dio (Firenze: Sansoni, 1965)
(from the original French: Lamour des lettres et le dsir de Dieu [Paris: ditions du Cerf,
1957]) [English translation = The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic
Culture, tr. Catharine Masrahi (New York: Fordham University Press, 1961)].
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance255
in the preface from the 1440s. Beginning with a formulation of the prob-
lem, put in the mouth of an anonymous objector, Valla elaborates his own
particular solution to the antinomy between theology and pagan litera-
ture. We therefore think it opportune to offer a close textual analysis of
the preface to book IV of the Elegantiae, and then to compare it with the
theological epistemology sketched by Thomas in Article 3, Question II of
his Commentary on Boethius. The purpose of this comparison is to arrive at
a substantive verification of the difference between the methodology of
Vallas humanist theology and that of Thomist theology and scholasticism
in general.
I know well that some people, especially among those who think themselves
holier and more religious, will dare to criticize my purpose and my work as
unworthy of a Christian, because I recommend the reading of secular
books.155
These are the first lines of the preface, the first blows of the objection to
which Valla intends to respond with an apology both for his work in gen-
eral and for the Elegantiae in particular. Actually, it was the same objection
that, ever since the beginning of Christianity, had continuously cropped
up across the centuries in the learned and devout tradition of the religious
community. Raised and sustained by those who think themselves holier
and more religious, it insisted on the radical antinomy between the read-
ing of the secular books of the pagans and a specifically Christian culture,
i.e. the insuperable antagonism between the study of ancient pagan litera-
ture (humanae litterae) and being a Christian. According to this view, the
love of literature ought to stay on the fringes of the Gospel, if not be extin-
guished altogether in theological faith and repudiated as unworthy of a
Christian, since it stands in antithesis to the desire for God.
Thus we once again encounter, clearly enunciated in the first lines of
the preface to book IV of the Elegantiae, the same problematic that
Thomas recast in Question II of his Commentary on Boethius. If visualized
155Valla, Elegantiae, book IV, preface (ed. Garin), 612: Scio ego nonnullos, eorum prae-
sertim qui sibi sanctiores et religiosiores videntur, ausuros meum institutum hoc
laboremque reprehendere, ut indignum christiano homine, ubi adhortor ceteros ad libro-
rum saecularium lectionem. [All translations of the proemium are based on Garins Italian
version in ibid., which Camporeale follows.]
256 salvatore i. camporeale
156Ibid., 612: ciceronianus , non christianus, quasi non potest fidelis esse et idem tul-
lianus. Eoque spopondisse libros saeculares se non esse lecturum. Hoc crimen non
magis ad praesens opus pertinet, quam ad me ipsum ac ceteros litteratos, quorum studium
ac doctrina litterarum saecularium reprehenditur.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance257
157On Jeromes dream and its use in humanism from Salutati to Erasmus, cf. the refer-
ence to Fois in note 154 above, and mile V. Telle, LErasmianus sive Ciceronianus dEtienne
Dolet (1535) (Genve: Droz, 1974), 389390 and 422423.
158Valla, Elegantiae, book IV, preface (ed. Garin), 612: quorum culpa non ex minima
parta latinae litterae iacturam naufragiumque fecerunt.
258 salvatore i. camporeale
159Ibid., 612: omnes oratores, omnes historici, omnes poetae, omnes philosophi,
omnes iurisconsulti, ceteri quoque scriptores.
160Ibid., 614: Cum Hieronymus quod ciceronianus est, reprehenditur, id reprehenditur
quod studiosus eloquentiae esset. Ideoque damnati et repulsi intelliguntur, qui comparan-
dae eloquentiae gratia lectitantur.
161Ibid., 614: Nihil ne in illis libris [saecularibus] nisi eloquentia est? non memoria
temporum gentiumque historiae, sine quibus nemo non puer est? non multa ad mores
pertinentia? non omnium disciplinarum tractatio?
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance259
162Ibid., 614: Ita aut eloquentes, aut nulli libri legendi erunt.
163[See Eugene Rice, Saint Jerome in the Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1985), 231, n. 7: Several of the early manuscripts , all the medieval lives
of St. Jerome, and all commentators on this passage before Erasmus read Plato instead of
Plautus. See also the apparatus criticus to Jerome, Epistulae, ed. Isidorus Hilberg, 3 vols.
(Vienna: F. Tempsky, 19101918), vol. 1 (Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, 54),
189, line 16. Eds.]
164Valla, Elegantiae, book IV, preface (ed. Garin), 614: quorum uterque nescias praes-
tantior sit philosophus an orator. Quod si omnes libri veterum ita sunt eloquentes, ut vel
plurimum sapientiae, ita tradentes sapientiam, ut vel plurimum eloquentiae habeant, qui-
nam isti erunt quos ob eloquentiam damnandos putemus?
260 salvatore i. camporeale
165Ibid., 61416: Cum eos duos lectitasse se Hieronymus fateatur, vide ne non tam de
oratoriis potius Ciceronis operibus quam de philosophicis dictum existimare debeas. Ego
certe de philosophicis dictum accipio, ubi soli philosophi nominantur; quodque platoni-
cus esset ideo non obiectum, quasi sancte faceret Platonem legens, sed tantum ciceronia-
nus, quod homo latinus magis Ciceronis stylum cupiebat exprimere, stylum, inquam, quo
ille utebatur in quaestionibus philosphiae, non quali in forensibus causis concionibusve
aut in senatu. Non enim orator causarum civilium Hieronymus, sed scriptor sanctarum
disputationum studebat evadere.
166Ibid., 616: Cur non ergo credamus non minus Platonem nocuisse ei quam
Ciceronem? Cur non magis philosophos quam oratores?
167Ibid., 616: at ornatus ipse dicendi reprehensus est, non scientia.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance261
It is at this point that Valla raises the central issue, the one which the
entire preface is aimed at expressing and providing with argumentative
coherence: the distinction, or better, the contrast between philosophy
and eloquence vis--vis theology, stated here, finally, in its full range
of meaning. The ambiguity between eloquence and ornamentation
thefoundation of the objection to humanism disappears, and the art
ofspeaking (ars dicendi) takes on the organic and holistic significance of
rhetoric (rhetorica). Vallas text thus ends up being directly connected
(even the same expressions and patristic references are encountered)
with chapter 12, book III of De vero falsoque bono and with the open-
ingpages of De libero arbitrio. The conclusions are identical: (1) philoso-
phy is the origin and (historical) manifestation of heresy; (2) the
negativejudgment of philosophy is a constant in the Christian tradition;
(3) the incompossibility between philosophy and the Christian religion is
radical.
Now we come to the most significant passage of Vallas text, which fol-
lows immediately upon the last quotation:
with flesh and color; and finally to memorize and deliver properly, that is, to
give speech life and action.169
Against the concept of eloquence as ornamentation, Valla enunciates the
definition of rhetoric in all its fullness. Thus all the parts of speech
(oratio) understood as an expression crafted by the art of rhetoric (ars
rhetorica) are described, albeit with abbreviated formulations: invention
(inventio), arrangement (dispositio), elocution (elocutio), memory (memo-
ria), and delivery (actio or pronuntiatio). There is an implicit reference to
Quintilians Institutio oratoria here, in which the five parts of speech (ora-
tio) constitute the vast and complex structure along which the whole work
unfolds (cf. book III, chapter 3).
Having provided this definition of rhetoric, Valla moves on. How, he
asks, thus posing anew the whole question at hand, could rhetoric the
science of language, the technique and methodology of speaking hurt
the study of divine things and thus be incompossible with Christian dis-
course? There will be an insuperable contrast, an insoluble aporia in the
relationship between rhetoric and Christian speech if and only if the con-
tent and the praxis of the latter, namely true wisdom and the virtues
(veram sapientiam atque virtutes), are rejected. And it is precisely this
rejection of the Gospel may it be noted in passing, in support of what
Valla says here that Jerome actually confesses to when narrating his own
story of unhappiness in the Letter to Eustochium. Lord, Jerome cries, in
recognition of his sinful attachment to pagan wisdom, if ever again I pos-
sess secular books, if ever again I read them, I have denied You.170 But
Valla continues beyond this point, further clarifying and enriching his
argument, as will be clear from the sequel to our exposition.171
169Ibid., 616: Nolo hoc in loco comparationem facere inter philosophiam et eloquen-
tiam, utra magis obesse possit, de quo multi dixerunt ostendentes philosophiam cum reli-
gione christiana vix cohaerere omnesque haereses ex philosophiae fontibus profluxisse,
rhetoricam vero nihil habere nisi laudabile, ut invenias, ut disponas, quasi ossa et nervos
orationi des, ut ornes, hoc est, ut carnem coloremque inducas, postremo ut memoriae
mandes decenterque pronunties, hoc est, ut illi spiritum actionemque tribuas (emphasis
added).
170Jerome, Epistola ad Eustochium (ep. 22), PL 22:394425, at 416: infelicitatis historia;
ibid., 417: Domine, si unquam habuero codices saeculares, si legero, te negavi (tr.
Fremantle, Lewis, and Martley in Schaff and Wace (eds.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
modified).
171For fifteenth-century discussions on the conception and practice of rhetoric, see the
important and rich contibution of John Monfasani, George of Trebisond. A Biography and a
Study of his Rhetoric and Logic (Leiden: Brill, 1976), esp. 241299.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance263
4.3.The Mechanical Arts, the Liberal Arts, and the Christian Religion:
Temple of God/Word of God and the Recovery of the Original Text of
Sacred ScriptureQuintilians Definition: Oratory, Queen of the World
(Institutio oratoria, I.12.1729), and Vallas Conception of Rhetoric ( Jeromes
Letter to Magnus)
Rhetorics innate usefulness as a science in the service of Christianity,
Valla continues, is not inferior to that expressed by and embodied in the
other arts (artes), both liberal and technical. In other words, the liturgical
use of painting and sculpture, engraving and music to mention only the
artistic activities expressly indicated by Valla suggests that rhetoric, as
the science of language, should be used in theology to the same extent and
according to the same principles. Here it must be noted, and with a cer-
tain emphasis, that a close relationship is posited between the two kinds
of aesthetic and creative activity, despite the fact that they were generally
placed on disparate levels of value and differentiated according to kind.
Obviously, we intend to call attention here to the distinction between the
mechanical arts (artes mechanicae), like painting, sculpture, etc., and the
liberal arts (disciplinae liberales) of the trivium and the quadrivium.
Among the latter, in Vallas view, rhetoric enjoys hegemonic and educa-
tional primacy.
Valla, then, inscribes the whole arc of the expressive faculties within the
cycle of creative, artistic activities, all the while maintaining the tradi-
tional distinction between the two kinds of arts and the related subdivi-
sions specific to each single art. He includes each and every one, focusing
the entire spectrum of creative activity through the lens of service to
Christianity. Thus, on the one hand, following Quintilian (Institutio orato-
ria, XII.10), Valla rhetorically effects the greatest possible connection
between the two kinds of arts (as has already been underscored by
Panofsky and recently confirmed by Baxandall).172 On the other hand, he
mirrors the actual artistic praxis of a society that is still culturally Christian.
And this artistic praxis was emerging, right at the time when Valla was
drafting the Elegantiae (between the 1430s and 1440s), in the form of the
most original and extraordinary renaissance in history. Valla himself
observes as much, and with a certain emphasis, right from the very begin-
ning of the Elegantiae (preface to book I).
172Erwin Panofsky, Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art (London: Paladin, 1970),
16; Michael Baxandall, Giotto and the Orators. Humanist Observers of Painting in Italy and
the Discovery of Pictorial Composition: 13501450 (Oxford; Clarendon, 1971), 117120.
264 salvatore i. camporeale
173Valla, Elegantiae, book IV, preface (ed. Garin), 616: Hanc ego artem obfuturam par-
tem putem? Profecto non magis quam pingendi, fingendi, caelandi et, ut de liberalibus
dicam, quam musices artem. Et si ex his qui bene canunt, bene pingunt, bene fingunt,
ceterisque ex artibus multum usus atque ornamenti divinis rebus accedit, ut prope ad hanc
rem natae esse videantur, profecto multo plus accedet ex eloquentibus.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance265
contribution to the divine. Let us decorate the house of God, so that those
entering it are not roused by its neglect to contempt, but by its majestic con-
dition to religion. (Elegantiae, bk. IV, proemium)174
Each word of holy scripture is like a gem or precious stone from which the
heavenly Jerusalem is constructed. For the cities of other disciplines, so to
speak, were constructed partly of bricks, like civil law, partly of tufa, like
medicine, partly of marble, like astronomy, and the rest in like fashion. But
the city of the Gospel is of nothing but gems; it is nobler to be the humblest
builder there than to be an architect in the others. What then? Am I myself
an architect of this city? If only I were one of its builders! Yet it has fewer
architects and builders than is generally believed. Those who dare to con-
struct works of stone in that city, to say nothing of wood, plaster, or straw, are
in no way worthy of the name of builder or architect, since they mix certain
vain and empty sciences with divine ones. For my part I am not building a
new work [referring to the Collatio] but have tried, as it were, to the best of
my abilities to keep the roof of this citys temple in good repair. Because if it
is not maintained, the temple itself must of necessity leak, and it will not be
able to accommodate the divine fittingly. (Collatio Novi Testamenti, dedica-
tory letter)175
Let us now consider these three passages, in order of last to first, with
regard to the theme in question, namely the relationship between rheto-
ric and theology. In the passage cited from the introduction to the
Collatio,rhetoric is taken up as the unique and necessary tool for biblical
174Ibid., 622: Ceterae autem scientiae atque artes in medio sunt positae, quibus et bene
uti possis et male . Vides quam mirabili ornamento vestes Aaron distinguantur, quam
arca foederis, quam templum Salomonis. Per hoc mihi significari eloquentia videtur, quae,
ut ait nobilis tragicus, regina rerum est et perfecta sapientia. Itaque alii ornant domos priva-
tas: hi sunt qui student iuri civili, canonico, medicinae, philosophiae, nihil ad rem divinam
conferentes. Nos ornemus domum Dei, ut in eam ingredientes non ex situ ad contemptum,
sed ex maiestate loci ad religionem concitentur (emphasis added).
175Lorenzo Valla, Collatio Novi Testamenti, redazione inedita a cura di Alessandro
Perosa (Firenze: Sansoni, 1970), 6.25ff.-7.1ff.: Singula enim verba divine scripture sunt tan-
quam singule gemme lapidesque pretiosi, ex quibus Hierusalem celestis extruitur. Nam
aliarum doctrinarum, ut ita loquar, urbes partim e lateribus, ut ius civile, partim e topho,
ut medicina, partim e marmore, ut astronomia, et item cetere extructe sunt; evangelica
vero nonnisi e gemmis, in qua vel minimum structorem esse preclarius, est quam in ceteris
architectum. Quid igitur? Sum ne ego eius architectus? Utinam essem vel structor! Cuius
tamen non tot architecti sunt atque structores, quot vulgo creduntur, nequaquam digni
hoc nomine qui lapidea, ne dicam lignea, cretacea, stramentitia opera in ea edificare
audent, vanas quasdam ineptasque scientias divinis admiscentes. Equidem ipse nihil ope-
ris novi condo sed velut huius urbis templi sarcta tecta prestare pro mea virili conatus sum,
quod nisi prestetur templum ipsum perpluat necesse est, nec in eo res divina fieri com-
mode possit. [The translation of Christopher S. Celenza has been consulted: Celenza,
Lorenzo Vallas Radical Philology: The Preface to the Annotations to the New Testament
in Context, Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 42:2 (2012), 365394, at
380383.]
266 salvatore i. camporeale
exegesis, which for Valla consists in the collation of the Vulgate Bible with
the Greek truth (veritas graeca) of the original text of the New Testament.
Vallas statement, it might be noted, is the finale to a series of historico-
philological premises considered and discussed in the long dedicatory let-
ter to the Collatio.
Valla concludes that no science or art can substitute for rhetoric. It
is the sole art capable of supplying the proper tools for restoring the tem-
ple that is Sacred Scripture. For it is only in rhetoric that the divine (res
divina), i.e., the Word of God, can be recovered and unfurled in all its
solemnity and hieratic dignity. In plain language, rhetoric is the only sci-
entific discipline that can offer an analytical and organic principle capable
of fully restoring the authentic, original text of the Bible. Despite their
great effectiveness, the other arts and sciences, from law to medicine to
astronomy, are unable to assist adequately in restoring this Temple of the
Word, this worldly reflection of the heavenly Jerusalem. Unlike the cities
constructed by the other arts and sciences, this temple has no architects
or builders but only, so to speak, restorators. It would certainly be a sin to
aim for more, to attempt a sacrilegious renovation of the Temple of the
Word, or at least to claim to repair and reinforce walls and roofs and every
other supporting element, but with an unsuitable and ruinous mixture of
divine truths and human arts.176
The relationship between the temple (templum) and the city (civitas),
as spaces for the arts and sciences to be put to use, takes on grander
dimensions (although still with specific reference to theology) in the sec-
ond passage, cited from the preface to the fourth book of the Elegantiae.
With a statement as explicit as it is rare for his writings, Valla affirms that
the deployment of cultural tools involves, or better, is determined by an
ethico-political choice. The arts and sciences in general, he specifies fur-
ther, are intended and often used for the purpose of decorating and adorn-
ing private dwellings (domus private). This example concerns not only
sciences like medicine and civil law, but also disciplines like canon law
176Valla, Collatio Novi Testamenti, 37. [For the full Latin text and English translation of
the preface, see Celenza, Lorenzo Vallas Radical Philology. Eds.] Vallas analogy is obvi-
ous, as are its implications, which are the result of a corresponding operational parallelism
between the restoration of the authentic text of the Bible and that of the sacred monu-
ment of the temple. In both cases the same attempt at reconstruction is put in motion, a
restoration to an original editorial (of the text) or architectural (of the building) state. We
are not able to ascertain the level of originality in Vallas comparison between operations
and techniques that continue to be expressed in terms of restoration. Let us only say that
here the analogy is used by Valla within the particular sphere of the historico-religious
world: Word of God/Temple of God (Verbum Dei/Templum Dei).
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance267
and philosophy a fact whose deep significance can only be fully under-
stood by attentively noting its context in Vallas discourse. These are the
sciences and disciplines intended for the urban construction of the civitas,
or city, and yet they are to no avail in theology: [they make] no contribu-
tion to the divine. With this original and extremely radical exclusion of
canon law and philosophy from the catalogue of auxiliary disciplines to
theology, Valla paved the way to concluding that rhetoric is the true hand-
maiden of theology. Only rhetoric can provide organic mediation, on the
level of culture, between the divine (res divina) and a man-made adorn-
ment (ornamentum) consonant with and worthy of the house of God
(domus Dei). Indeed, this house must be as hieratic and solemn, in its
architectural and ornamental lines, as were Solomons temple, Aarons
priestly raiment, and the Ark of the Covenant, which contained the
ancient tablets of the Law.177
Rhetoric possesses this capacity for organic mediation on account of its
very nature as the omni-comprehensive science, preeminent above every
other art or discipline. It is dominion over all things, and at the same time
it is wisdom about life and knowledge: it is the queen of the world and
perfect wisdom. This definition of rhetoric, which Valla attributes to an
unnamed tragedian, actually derives from a standard passage (standard
even for the tradition of medieval rhetoric) of the Institutio oratoria one,
however, that Valla has changed and abridged in a significant way. In the
last section of chapter 12, the final, concluding part of book I of the
Institutio, Quintilian writes:
And I trust that there is not one even among my readers who would think of
calculating the monetary value of such studies. But he that has enough of
the divine spark to conceive the ideal eloquence, he who, as the great tragic
poet says, regards oratory as the queen of all the world and seeks not the
transitory gains of advocacy, but those stable and lasting rewards which
hisown soul and knowledge and contemplation can give, he will easily per-
suade himself to spend his time not, like so many, in the theatre or in the
Campus Martius, in dicing or in idle talk, to say naught of the hours that
are wasted in sleep or long drawn banqueting, but in listening rather to
the geometrician and the teacher of music. For by this he will win a richer
177Vallas text increases in meaning if understood within the more general humanist
discourse on the city. On this point cf. Eugenio Garin, Rinascite e Rivoluzioni. Movimenti
culturali dal XIV al XVIII secolo (Bari: Laterza, 1975), 235254; and idem, Scienza e vita civile
nel Rinascimento italiano (Bari: Laterza, 1965), 3356. But see also what Alberti says in De re
aedificatoria, book VII, chapter 1 and book IX, chapter 1: Leon Battista Alberti, LArchitettura,
Latin text and Italian translation by Giovanni Orlandi (Milano: Edizioni Il Polifilo, 1966),
529537 and 779788.
268 salvatore i. camporeale
harvest of delight than can ever be gathered from the pleasures of the
ignorant.178
The unnamed tragedian apparently Vallas noble (nobilis) source
agrees with his great (non ignobilis) counterpart in Quintilian is the
Latin writer Pacuvius, who lived between about 220 and about 130 b.c.
Quintilian, in his historical review of Greek and Roman literature
(Institutio oratoria, ch. 1, bk. X), counts him as one of the earliest excellent
Roman tragedians:
Among writers of tragedy Accius and Pacuvius are most remarkable for the
force of their general reflections (gravitatem sententiarum), the weight of
their words (verborum pondere), and the dignity of their characters (auctori-
tate personarum).179
In his tragedy Hermiona, Pacuvius echoes a verse from Euripides
Hecuba persuasion, sole queen of mankind and with an expression
not unworthy of the original calls eloquence the highest and most effec-
tive art of persuasion: the persuader and queen of all the world.180
Pacuvius translation of Euripides had already inspired Cicero in De
oratore. And it is probably through the medium of Ciceros dialogue, if
not directly from it, that Quintilian takes up the description of eloquence
as queen of the world. In De oratore we read:
But so potent is that Eloquence, rightly styled, by an excellent poet, per-
suader and queen of all the world, that she can not only support the sinking
and bend the upstanding, but, like a good and brave commander, can even
make prisoner a resisting antagonist.181
178Quintilian, Istitutio oratoria, I.12.1719: nec velim quidem lectorem dari mihi quid
studia referant computaturum. qui vero imaginem ipsam eloquentiae divina quadam
mente conceperit quique illam (ut ait non ignobilis tragicus) reginam rerum orationem,
ponet ante oculos fructumque non ex stipe advocationum sed ex animo suo et contempla-
tione ac scientia petet perpetuum illum nec fortunate subiectum, facile persuadebit sibi, ut
tempora, quae spectaculis, campo, tesseris, otiosis denique sermonibus, ne dicam somno
et conviviorum mora conteruntur, geometrae potius ac musico impendat, quanto plus
delectationis habiturus quam ex illis ineruditis voluptatibus (tr. E.H. Butler; emphasis
added).
179Ibid., X.1.97: tragoediae scriptores veterum Accius atque Pacuvius clarissimi gravi-
tatem sententiarum, verborum pondere, auctoritate personarum (tr. E.H. Butler).
180Euripides, Hecuba, v. 816: peith de tn tyrannon anthrpois monn; Pacuvius,
Hermiona, fr. 187: flexanima atque omnium regina rerum. Euripides passage should be
read in its fuller context (Hecuba, vv. 814819) as confirmation of the imitation of him that
underlies all of Pacuvius work.
181Cicero, De oratore, tr. E.W. Sutton and H. Rackham, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1988), II. 44.187: tantam vim habet illa, quae recte a bono
poeta dicta est flexanima atque omnium regina rerum, oratio, ut non modo inclinantem
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance269
But the art of persuasions sophistic ascendance to primacy does not keep
the conception of rhetoric from undergoing a radical transformation in
the Institutio oratoria. Indeed, in Quintilians text rhetoric takes on much
fuller dimensions and, as a consequence, acquires specific characteristics
that differentiate it from the conception of Euripides and Pacuvius as well
as from the one found in Ciceros De oratore. At the end of chapter 12, book
I of the Institutio (text quoted on p. 267 above), Quintilian does not stop
merely at extending the art of eloquence beyond the realm of forensic per-
formance. On the one hand he elevates rhetoric to the primary and hege-
monic function of governing ethical and civil conduct in society (queen
of all the world). On the other he considers it an instrument of knowledge
(scientia) and a context for contemplation (contemplatio), for the interior
formation of the individual. Thus rhetoric is simultaneously knowledge
and language (practical and theoretical), dealing both with contingent
events and with the social and personal world not subject to fortune, i.e.
the civic community and the individuals interior mind.
Since the text and the context of Quintilians work converge in substan-
tiating this definition and conception of rhetoric, Valla could not have
found a better passage in the tradition of classical rhetoric to which to
refer for resolving the antinomy between rhetoric and theology. It was still
necessary, however, to make the reference to Quintilian act as more than
a mere citation in support of the counter-response to the objector and his
anti-humanist thesis. With a decisive and most effective act of linguistic-
semantic dislocation, in which specific concepts are adopted but their
content and meaning simultaneously modified, Valla takes up Quintilians
precise conception of rhetoric and at the same time transcends its dimen-
sions, attributing to it a definite theological function. In Vallas hands
rhetoric undergoes a true transformation in kind.
This becomes clear if the particular linguistic-semantic modality is
highlighted by which Valla draws on Quintilians text and incorporates it
into the context of his own argument. While repeating Pacuvius phrase,
designed for such an end by nature (such that they seem to have been
born for this very purpose), how much more beneficial will the art of
rhetoric be, how much greater profit will it bring, as an organic instrument
in the service of those same divine truths (all the more so will such be
derived from those who are eloquent)?
Once again it is Vallas very own formulations that call to mind parallels
with and departures from Aquinas. While Thomas bases the analogic
relationship between philosophy and theology on the ontological princi-
ple nature is the preamble to grace, Valla argues for the reduction of
rhetoric to theology on the basis of a certain historical connaturality of
artistic praxis, employed consistently throughout Christian tradition and
civilization ancient, medieval, and contemporary in liturgical and aes-
thetic service to the divine: such that they seem to have been born for this
very purpose. In other words, the principle of Thomass analogy seems to
be taken up by Valla and, so to speak, historicized; it is projected along the
dimensions of a Christian civilization that had reorganized the arts for the
service primarily not of the profane city (civitas) but of the temple of God
(templum Dei).
Hence the further consequence deduced by Valla: once rhetorics pri-
macy among the other arts, as perfect wisdom, is rediscovered, and thus
also its status as the supreme art governing all the others, it becomes a tool
of direct and immediate use to theology, transcending the purely decora-
tive function in the temple of God to which the other arts are limited. By
their very nature, the other arts can only operate on a level inferior to the
highest one, which is perfect wisdom. Vallas conclusion, reached by
continuing the line of his own counter-argument to the objection based
on the topos of Jeromes dream, appears to follow extremely well from the
initial premises:
Therefore Jerome was accused not of being a Ciceronian, but of not being a
Christian, as he wrongly proclaimed had been the case when he scorned
sacred literature. It was not the study of this art [rhetoric] but the dispropor-
tionate study of this or any other art, such that no place was left for better
ones, that was rebuked. Only Jerome was accused, not others; otherwise oth-
ers would have been censured in a similar way.183
183Valla, Elegantiae, book IV, preface (ed. Garin), 616618: Quare non fuit illa accusatio
quod ciceronianus esset Hieronymus, sed quod non christianus, qualem se falso esse
praedicaverat, cum litteras sacras despiceret. Non studium huius artis sed nimium studium,
sive huius artis sive alterius, ita ut locus melioribus non relinquatur, reprehensum. Non
ceteri sed solus Hieronymus accusatus est, alioqui ceteri simili castigatione correpti
fuissent.
272 salvatore i. camporeale
All that can actually be gathered from the Letter to Eustochium, Valla
argues, is the indication, or better, the declaration of a phase or moment
of cultural and religious crisis at this point along Jeromes development as
a Christian thinker. Jerome the Ciceronian, the worshipper of classical
rhetoric, is no longer a thinker organic to Christianity; and Jerome the
Christian, disgusted by the style of Scripture, is not yet able to under-
stand rhetoric in its dimension as perfect wisdom. Jerome had arrived at
the dramatic impasse, experiencing it with deep personal suffering, of the
theoretical and practical opposition between pagan culture and biblical
revelation, manifested in the dilemma of the antinomy between human
and sacred literature (humanae litterae and sacrae litterae). Thus the
Jerominian topos, as invoked by the anti-humanist, is in its essence an
exemplary referent, emblematic both of and in the history of the Christian
tradition.
But equally emblematic, Valla immediately adds, is the solution pro-
vided to that specific antinomy by Jeromes own works a solution
embodied fully and profoundly in the interpretive task of translation and
the exegetical task of commentary to which the Latin Father would dedi-
cate the rest of his life. For this he becomes the greatest exponent and the
exemplary figure in the Latin Christian tradition (much more so than the
other Church Fathers, who had not undergone the same punishment):
Nor did Jerome dare to prohibit others from engaging in it [the study of lit-
erature]; on the contrary he praised the eloquence of many, from both ear-
lier times and his own. But why talk of others? Who is more eloquent than
Jerome himself? Who is more rhetorical? Who, although he is wont to hide
it, is more prepared, more eager, or more careful to speak well?184
The sense in which Valla interpreted Jeromes solution to the humanist
antinomy (the problem of conscience) and the organic use of rhetoric as
philological criticism can be highlighted by circumscribing it within a suf-
ficiently clear frame, i.e. by connecting this passage, quoted from the pref-
ace to the Elegantiae, to a letter sent to Giovanni Aurispa in December of
1441. Referring to his brand-new Declamatio (1440) on the Donation of
Constantine, Valla praises his work in terms of literary composition:
I have written nothing more rhetorical.185 Here, in a piece of private
184Ibid., 618: Neque ille hoc aliis vetare ausus est ne facerent; contraque plurimos lau-
davit tum superiorum tum suorum temporum eloquentes. Verum quid multis agimus?
quid Hieronymo ipso eloquentius? quid magis oratorium? quid, licet ille saepe dissimulare
velit, bene dicendi sollicitius, studiosius, observantius? (emphasis added).
185Lorenzo Valla, Epistole, ed. Ottavio Besomi and Mariangela Regoliosi (Padova:
Antenore, 1984), 252.9192: qua nihil magis oratorium scripsi (emphasis added).
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance273
188Jerome, Contra Rufinum, bk. III, ch. 32: PL 23:481: te exigere a dormiente quod
numquam vigilans praestitisti. Magni criminis reus sum, si puellis et virginibus Christi dixi
saeculares libros non legendos et me in somniis commonitum promisisse ne legerem?;
but see also bk. I, chs. 3031: PL 23:421424.
189For an overview of Jeromes biblical exegesis and the controversies in which he was
involved, see Angelo Penna, Principi e caratteri dellesegesi di S. Girolamo (Roma: Pontificio
Istituto Biblico, 1950); E.F. Sutcliffe, Jerome, in The Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 vols.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19631970), vol. II (ed. G.W.H. Lampe, 1969),
80101; and ibid., vol. I (eds. P.R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans, 1970), 510541; J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome:
His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London: Duckworth, 1975).
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance275
exegetical work on the Old and New Testaments stands as a constant wit-
ness to the compossibility between the organic use of pagan culture and
the philological interpretation of Sacred Scripture. This fact is of great
importance, as it clearly implies a continuous, ever-deepening familiarity
with and study of classical literature. Valla emphasizes that Jerome often
adduced pagan books as witnesses. And he immediately adds, with spe-
cial reference to his anti-humanist interlocutor,
if it is not permitted to read pagan books, certainly less so is it to show that
they must be read; and if he were to dissuade us from reading them which
he does not do I would think it more necessary to pay attention to what he
himself does than to what he says others should do.190
Valla continues: once Jerome decided to devote his efforts to the study of
Sacred Scripture (which he had earlier scorned), he began reading pagan
authors again with equal seriousness, either to acquire their eloquence or
to condemn their false opinions while approving their correct ones.191
Actually Valla goes on all Jerome did was to continue along a trail
already blazed in the past, namely the early tradition of the Eastern and
Western Church Fathers. Indeed, Jerome himself testifies to this often,
especially in his letters. Valla identifies the particular authors as Hilary,
Ambrose, Augustine, Lactantius, Basil, Gregory, Chrysostom the same
names that would crop up again in the Encomium. At the end of this list he
immediately adds: and very many others who in every age adorned the
precious gems of divine utterance with the gold and silver of eloquence.
To Vallas mind, Jeromes exegetical work, as well as the dominant, most
significant part of the Greek and Latin patristic tradition, offers definitive
and irrefutable proof of the compossibility between classical literature
and Sacred Scripture, between Greco-Roman rhetoric and doctrinal study.
Indeed, the great Greek and Latin Fathers saw no insoluble antinomy
between the scientific disciplines of rhetoric and theology: they did [not]
abandon one science on account of the other.192
190Valla, Elegantiae, book IV, preface (ed. Garin), 618: Quid quod libros gentilium
saepe in testimonium assumit? Quod si non licet legere, minus profecto legendos exhi-
bere; et si nos dehortaretur a lectione gentilium quod non facit magis intuendum puta-
rem quid ipse ageret quam quid agendum aliis diceret.
191Ibid., 620: sive ut illinc eloquentiam mutuaretur sive ut illorum, bene dicta probans,
male dicta reprehenderet.
192Ibid., 620: Hilarius, Gregorius, Chrysostomus aliique plurimi qui in omni aetate
praetiosas illas divini eloquii gemmas auro argentoque eloquentiae vestierunt, neque
alteram propter alteram scientiam reliquerunt.
276 salvatore i. camporeale
193Ibid., 620 (italicized section is a variant found in ms. Florence, Bibl. Laur., Conv.
soppr. 187, f. 60r): At mea quidem sententia, si quis ad scribendum in theologia accedat
parvi refert an aliam aliquam facultatem, sive canonum sive geometriam sive medicinam sive
philosophiam afferat an non afferat. Nihil enim fere conferunt. At qui ignarus eloquentiae
est, hunc indignum prorsus qui de theologia loquatur existimo. Et certe soli eloquentes,
quales ii quos enumeravi, columnae ecclesiae sunt. Etiam ut ab Apostolis usque repetas,
inter quos mihi Paulus nulla alia re eminere quam eloquentia videtur.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance277
Eastern and Western Church Fathers. On the basis of his earlier references
to the Fathers and the New Testament writings of the Apostles, he insists,
So you see how the exact opposite conclusion is reached: it is not study-
ing eloquence that must be rebuked, but not studying it.194
In Vallas work, and perhaps for the first time ever as Poggio clearly
understood and wrote in his Invectivae in L. Vallam (Invectives against
Lorenzo Valla) in the early 1450s the overcoming of the antinomy
between rhetoric and theology becomes the epistemological foundation
for a new, specifically humanist perspective on biblical and ecclesiological
study. Valla depicts the humanist principle of rhetorical theology as a
recovery both of the mode of theologizing underlying the apostolic
Scriptures (especially those of Paul) and of the epistemological basis of
the whole patristic tradition. Indeed, on this count it should be noted that
scholasticism to which rhetorical theology was radically opposed was
not able (and never tried) to raise consistent arguments for the defense
and elaboration of its own philosophical theology on the basis of this kind
of New Testament scriptural authority.
Even more illuminating is Vallas clarification, following directly upon
the last passage cited:
I am acting as if I were offering a defense of eloquence against its detractors,
which is more than I intended. For our object is not this but to write about
the elegance of the Latin language, which nevertheless acts as a stepping
stone to eloquence itself. If someone is not eloquent, he should not be cen-
sured if he was unequal to the task and did not shun the work involved. But
whoever does not know how to speak elegantly and yet commits his
thoughts to writing, especially in theology, is utterly shameless. And if he
says that he does so deliberately, he is completely out of his mind.195
Thus Valla defines more precisely the function of elegance (elegantia), a
theme which here is treated apologetically in the context of the dispute
over literature and is derived from a precise theological tradition. But at
the same time, Valla also intends to justify the place of this preface (to
book IV) in the context of the Elegantiae as a whole.
194Ibid., 620: Vides igitur ut in contrarium res ipsa recidit. Non modo non reprehen-
dum est studere eloquentiae, verum etiam reprehendum non studere.
195Ibid., 620: Et ego sic ago tamquam eloquentiae contra calumniantes patrocinium
praestem, quod est maius proposito meo. Non enim de hac, sed de elegantia linguae lati-
nae scribimus, ex qua tamen gradus fit ad ipsam eloquentiam. Verum si quis eloquens non
sit, ita demum non erit castigandus: si talis non potuit evadere, non si hunc laborem effu-
git. Qui vero eleganter loqui nescit, et cogitationes suas litteris mandat, in theologia prae-
sertim, impudentissimus est; et si id consulto facere se ait, insanissimus.
278 salvatore i. camporeale
199Valla, Oraciones y Prefacios, 278280: Quid utilius, quid uberius, quid etiam magis
necessarium librorum interpretatione? Ut haec mihi mercatura quaedam optimarum
artium esse videatur. Magnae rei eam comparo, cum mercaturae comparo: quid enim illa
in rebus humanis conducibilius quae omnia ad victum, ad cultum, ad praesidium, ad orna-
mentum, ad delitias denique vitae pertinentia comportat, ut nihil usquam desit, omnia
ubique abundent? Et quod in aureo saeculo fuisse fertur, sint cunctorum quodammodo
cuncta communia. Idem fit in translatione linguarum, sed tanto praeclarius quanto potiora
sunt bona mentis corporis bonis; siquidem ex rebus, quas ista transferendi negotiatio
nobis apportat, animi aluntur, vestiuntur, roborantur, delectantur ac prope diviniores
efficiuntur. Nam quid suavius, salubrius, amabilius et, ut uno complectar verbo melius
quam libri qui vel e graeca vel ex hebraea vel e chaldaica punicave lingua in nostram
traducuntur, sive historicorum sive oratorum sive poetarum sive philosophorum sive
medicorum sive theologorum? Adeo nullum cum Deo nos latini commercium habere-
mus, nisi Testamentum Vetus ex hebraeo et Novum e graeco foret traductum. Longiore
opus esset oratione quam ut huic tempori conveniret ad omnes laudes interpretationis
exsequendas .
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance281
appropriate to dedicate the next section of our essay to this subject. This
interlude will serve to tie together, by way of a comparative reading, the
variations and repetitions of this theme contained in the Encomium of
St. Thomas, in the introduction to the Latin translation of Thucydides, and
in the preface to book IV of the Elegantiae. Thereupon we will return in
the subsequent section to our analysis of the Elegantiae.200
200The text of the preface to the translation of Thucydides History is available in Valla,
Oraciones y Prefacios, 278289, but see also 7475 of Adornos introduction (to the anthol-
ogy). Adornos entire essay (78 pp. with an invaluable bibliography) is still an excellent
piece of scholarship on Vallas work as a whole.
282 salvatore i. camporeale
wisdom of the patron of the humanists202 along the parallels and con-
trasts of a series of significant comparisons and assimilations: commerce/
translation (mercatura rerum/translatio linguarum), language/money (lin-
gua/nummus), traffic in translation/transfer into Latin (transferendi
negotiatio/in latinum traductio), etc. With this project, was the Pope not
extending, in breadth and depth, his Roman Empire (imperium romanum),
but in such a way that his hegemony would be different from that of the
ancient emperors? Certainly he expressed his will to conquer differently
from Augustus, Antoninus, and the other Roman emperors.203 He did so in
accordance with the specific character of his rule as a Christian Pope:
through your own person you see to sacred things, religion, divine and
human laws, and the peace, greatness, and welfare of the Latin world. But to
others, especially us, you have assigned other tasks, sending us off as your
prefects, tribunes, and captains, expert in both languages, to subject as
much of Greece as possible to your rule, that is, to translate Greek books into
Latin for you.204
In this sense, Valla resolves Nicholas Vs grand project later described as
ensuring the translation of the Greek books that are left in a cultural
logistic that is peculiarly humanist and different from the ancient one,
which was preeminently military although not dissimilar in its geographic
expanse or in the ethno-linguistic space at which it aimed. Its strategy of
cultural retaking and reconquest aimed at bringing the Greco-Oriental
world of the ancient empire back within the boundaries of Christian
Rome: adding Asia , Macedonia , the rest of Greece to the Roman
empire.205 Here it should be emphasized that Vallas preface composed
in August of 1452, on the eve of the fall of Constantinople (May 29, 1453)
is doubtless informed by an anxious concern, one that was by then felt
throughout the humanist world of Europe but that could be sensed ever
since the Council of Florence (1430s): the desire fully to salvage the remain-
ing literary patrimony, both classical and patristic, of ancient, Hellenistic,
and Byzantine Greece.
From what we have observed, it seems clear that in the preface to
Thucydides History Valla was revisiting the grammatical problem of the
relationship between Greek and Latin in a manner informed by Quintilians
view of philology. And indeed, the traffic in translation planned and
organized by Nicholas V caused Valla to reconsider the complex operation
of translation as a philological, theoretical, and practical problem of vital
importance. This was a most important issue in philology, one that had
not only been present in Vallas writings but that had constituted a nodal
and structural point for the convergence of a complex and diverse series
of literary, philosophical, and theological problems. Such emerges clearly
and on various levels, particularly in the Disputationes and De vero fal-
soque bono, on the plane of grammatical analysis, in the terminological
and categorical exegesis of Aristotelian and scholastic logic, metaphysics,
and ethics, and in linguistic and conceptual questions surrounding
Trinitarian terminology. The statement in the Encomium of St. Thomas
because the nature of Greek is different from that of Latin. This would be a
rather tedious subject to discuss, and it is a question for another time
in the same years as the Latin translation of the History, and in 1453 Valla
dedicated it, too, to Nicholas V. He would subsequently return to the
Collatio, reconsidering and reworking the whole text for a second edition,
this time under the title Adnotationes in Novum Testamentum.
Scripture, then, was for Valla the original setting for commerce with
God and the space in which that commerce had its specific foundation.
Scripture was the literary source from which Valla drew his theological
problematic, which turned out to be essentially a hermeneutic investiga-
tion. Thus Vallas theological critique of scholasticism reached its culmi-
nation. He redirected his own basic arguments and made them converge
on a radical objective, reframing his critique as philological criticism
within the biblical space of the Old and New Testaments. He aimed at
nothing less than the transcendence of the Vulgate, from which theology
took its scriptural premises, and the reconstruction, through the exegesis
of the Greek truth (veritas graeca), of new, more pristine and authentic
premises for an alternative language of theology. Hence also Vallas other
decisive undertaking, chronologically the last but still fundamental to his
work: the critico-philological re-examination of Thomist exegesis as the
focal point of a more proper critique of scholastic theology. Returning the
Vulgate to the Greek truth through the linguistic and categorical critique
of Thomass theologico-scholastic exegesis was the specific operation,
both methodological and substantial, of Vallas humanist theology; and
the revision of the Collatio in the 1450s, which would eventually result in
the Adnotationes in Novum Testamentum, acted as the pivot for that
operation.
A reading of the Adnotationes that directly correlates Vallas philologi-
cal analysis of the New Testament with Thomass exegetical Commentary
permits the reconstruction of the supporting axis of that operation, under-
taken by Valla as a direct alternative to scholastic theology. Even if the
Adnotationes must indubitably be considered as the end of an incredibly
laborious journey that began with De vero falsoque bono and passed
through the Disputationes and the Elegantiae, it achieves full meaning on
its own. It stands as the greatest and fullest expression of that humanist
theology which Valla described in abridged and nearly concentric formu-
las in the Encomium of 1457.206
206See La caduta di Costantinopoli, ed. and tr. Agostino Pertusi, 2 vols. (Verona:
Mondadori, 1976). This important collection, fastidiously and perceptively furnished with
an introduction and notes by Pertusi, could be supplemented with further witnesses from
the correspondence of other contemporary humanists. Concerning the cultural function
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance287
and theoretical conception of translation, it should be noted that Valla discusses them,
both here (in the preface to the Thucydides) and elsewhere (e.g., in the Adnotationes), in a
manner quite similar to Jerome, Epistola ad Pammachium, ep. 57 (de optimo genere inter-
pretandi) in PL 22:568579. On Vallas translation and biblical exegesis, see Camporeale,
Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo e teologia, 172192 and 277ff. For a comparative reading of
Aquinass exegetical commentary on Scripture with Vallas Adnotationes, see the appendix
to the original Italian version of this essay in Memorie Domenicane, n.s., 7 (1976), 149194
[reprinted in Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo, riforma e controriforma, 266330].
There we have limited ourselves to a comparison of their exegeses of St. Pauls letters:
Thomas Aquinas, Super Epistolas s. Pauli lectura, 2 vols. (Torino: Marietti, 1953) (cited by
page and paragraph number for each Bible passage); Valla, Opera omnia, 1:803b-895b. We
have collated the text of the Adnotationes, published by Erasmus in 1505 at the Parisian
press of Josse Bade (cf. Ph. Renouard, Bibliographie des impressions et des oeuvres de J.
Badius Ascensius imprimeur et humaniste: 14621535, 3 vols. [Paris: E. Paul et fils et Guillemin,
1908], 3:344345) with ms. Brussels, Bibl. Royale, 40314033 (cf. J. van den Gheyn, Nicolas
Maniacoria, correcteur de la Bible, Revue Biblique 8 [1899]: 289295), which contains the
Adnotationes on ff. 37r-122r. Returning to what was said in Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla.
Umanesimo e teologia, 25, we would now clarify that the variants between the Brussels ms.
and the text of Erasmuss edition are not always of a formal nature. A lacuna, for example,
in the Brussels ms. (which is noted in our appendix), in addition to various other consider-
ations, might indicate that Erasmus relied on a different manuscript tradition of Vallas
work from the one represented in the Brussels ms. And now one final observation regard-
ing the appendix. The comparison between Vallas (extremely short) commentary and
Thomass (much fuller) one is not meant exclusively to emphasize the formers critique of
the latter. It intends, rather, to offer a list of biblical passages in which different methodolo-
gies, interpretations, and perspectives can be readily compared, and which thus clearly
shows (to our point of view) how much distance separates in both philological technique
and theological study the humanist of the fifteenth century from the great scholastic of
the thirteenth.
288 salvatore i. camporeale
207Valla, Elegantiae, book IV, preface (ed. Garin), 620: gentiles hoc modo locutos esse,
non decere eodem loqui.
208Ibid., 620622: Non lingua gentilium, non grammatica, non rhetorica, non dialec-
tica, ceteraeque artes damnandae sunt, siquidem Apostoli lingua graeca scripserunt; sed
dogmata, sed religiones, sed falsae opiniones de actione virtutum per quas in coelum scan-
dimus. Ceterae autem scientiae atque artes in medio sunt positae, quibus et bene uti possis
et male. Quapropter conemur obsecro eo pervenire, aut saltem proxime, quo luminaria illa
nostrae religionis pervenerunt.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance289
Valla gives concrete form to when he exalts rhetoric as queen of the world
and perfect wisdom in relation to contemporary theological discourse.
Hence his identification of patristic theology, which he understands as
rhetorical theology (theologia rhetorica), as the source of the humanist
alternative to the contemporary decadence of late scholasticism.
Valla continues:
I cant hold back from saying what I think. Those ancient theologians seem
to me like certain bees that, flying to far-off pastures, have used their marvel-
ous art to produce the sweetest honey and wax; modern theologians, how-
ever, rather resemble ants who steal off into their hiding places with pieces
of grain swiped from their neighbor.211
This is Vallas contrast between the Fathers and the scholastics, between
the theology of the ancients, which is critically rigorous but still open to
cultural acquisitions and developments, and that of the moderns, crawl-
ing with disputations and dialectical subtleties, by now encased in its own
inaccessible jargon. He programmatically proclaims his choice between
the two:
For my part, I would not only rather be a bee than an ant, but I would also
rather fight in the service of a king bee than captain an army of ants. We are
confident that this will be approved by right-minded youths; the old are sim-
ply hopeless.212
This last statement finds an echo in the break, already in force while Valla
was writing, between the Laurentians (laurentiani) and the Poggians
(pogiani), between the followers of Valla and the old school (antiqua
schola), as Bracciolini would himself call it in his Invectivae.213
In the Elegantiae Valla intends to limit himself to offering a method-
ological and historical (in Quintilians terms) investigation of Latin gram-
mar to be used by theological discourse in its own argumentative
procedure and exegetical study of Scripture. That is, he intends to system-
atically elaborate theologys morphological and semantic premises,
211Valla, Elegantiae, book IV, preface (ed. Garin), 622: Non possum me continere quo-
minus quod sentio dicam. Veteres illi theologi videntur mihi velut apes quaedam in longin-
qua etiam pascua volitantes, dulcissima mella cerasque miro artificio condidisse; recentes
vero formicis simillimi quae ex proximo sublata furto grana in latibulis suis abscondunt
(emphasis added).
212Ibid., 622: At ego, quod ad me attinet, non modo malim apes quam formica esse, sed
etiam sub rege apium militare quam formicarum exercitum ducere. Quae probatum iri
bonae mentis iuvenibus, nam senes desperandi sunt, confidimus.
213On the controversy between the Laurentians and the Poggians, cf. Camporeale,
Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo e teologia, 128129, n. 13 and 374ff.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance291
214Valla, Elegantiae, book IV, preface (ed. Garin), 622: Nunc ad inceptum redeo, quam-
quam ea quae sequentur nonnihil a superioribus. Tractabimus enim de verborum significa-
tione, neque de omnibus vocabulis sed quasi gustum quemdam, et eorum maxime quae ab
aliis tractata non sunt; nam de omnibus dicere prope infinitum est (emphasis added).
215For what follows, see: Emile V. Telle, Erasme de Rotterdam et le Septime Sacrament,
(Genve: Droz, 1954), 7197; Ernst Wilhelm Kohls, Die Theologie des Erasmus, 2 vols. (Basel:
F. Reinhardt, 1966), 1:3568; Charles Bn, Erasme et saint Augustin, ou Influence de saint
Augustin sur lhumanisme dErasme (Genve: Droz, 1969), 1595, 281333; Albert Rabil,
Erasmus and the New Testament: the Mind of a Christian Humanist (San Antonio: Trinity
University Press, 1972), 1426. For the text of the Life of Jerome (Hieronymi stridonensis vita)
we have followed: Desiderius Erasmus, Opuscula, ed. Wallace K. Ferguson (The Hague: M.
Nijhoff, 1933), 125133 (intr.) and 134190 (text and notes). Too late for consideration, we
became aware of two essays by Silvano Cavazza: La cronologia degli Antibarbari e le orig-
ini del pensiero religioso di Erasmo, Rinascimento, ser. 2, 15 (1975): 141179; and La
formazione culturale di Erasmo, La Cultura 13 (1975): 2040. We thank the author for
bringing these works to our attention and for providing offprints.
216James D. Tracy, The 1489 and 1494 versions of Erasmus Antibarbarorum Liber,
Humanistica Lovaniensia 20 (1971): 81120.
292 salvatore i. camporeale
preface seems clear in his two thematic foci: first, the formulation of the
terms of the aporia as it was reproposed by the anti-humanism of the bar-
barians; second, the arguments and solutions put forward regarding the
supposed dichotomy between theological culture and classical literature.
Erasmus consciously takes his own anti-barbarian counter-response
directly from Valla, proposing a rhetorical theology in the place of the
philosophical theology of the contemporary scholastic tradition. It must
nevertheless be observed that Erasmuss reiteration, while expanding
Vallas proposal for a humanist theology to include multiple levels of cul-
ture, nevertheless ends up being less convincing, since less radical, than
Vallas proposal.
More precisely, if on the one hand Erasmus repeats arguments that are
distinctly and originally Vallas, on the other he revises Vallas solutions to
the problem. Alongside the commonplace of Jeromes Letter to Magnus in
defense of rhetoric, Erasmus invokes with equal insistence the authority
of Augustines De doctrina christiana, book IV, chapter 11, where the refer-
ence to classical culture principally concerns philosophy. In his preface,
however, Valla had deliberately excluded Augustine and instead focused
on Jerome as the authority for his radically unequivocal stance, namely
the exclusive exaltation of rhetorical theology in direct opposition to the
philosophical theology of the scholastic tradition.
In upholding the humanist principle for a theology founded on the sci-
ence of rhetoric (along the lines traced in Vallas preface), Erasmus also
seems to want to bring De doctrina christiana into the Jerominian sphere
of a specifically philological and scriptural theology. In so doing he
attempted to bridge, at least on a theoretical level, the methodological
and analytical divide underlying the theological work and thought of the
two greatest Fathers of the Latin Church. Here Erasmus in no way agrees
with Valla, for whom there subsists an absolute epistemological difference
between the writings of Augustine and Jerome. And thus Erasmus and his
works variously conditioned by controversialist concerns, by his choice
of literary tools, and by the related periods of his own cultural develop-
ment display an attitude and critical stance towards scholasticism that
are actually less radical than what appears in Valla, especially concerning
the more important aspect of traditional and contemporary speculative
theology. All this appears more clearly with regard to their respective
revivals of patristic theology. Erasmuss stance is much more complex and
variegated, developed in different times and in relation to multiple lines of
theological inquiry. Vallas is strongly univocal and unilateral, concen-
trated on Jerome and his works of New Testament exegesis.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance293
217[Erasmus, Hieronymi stridonensis vita, ll. 1133 and 1463, with notes.]
218Ibid., ll. 1126ff.: Audimus quotidie quosdam impie religiosos et inscite doctos nobis
ad aurem obgannire, id in Hieronymo calumniantes quod in eo pulcherrimum est, nimi-
rum doctrinam, ut ipsi vocant, immodicam, et plusculum eloquentiae quam theologum
294 salvatore i. camporeale
deceat. Neque quicquam omnino norunt de Hieronymo, nisi quod Ciceronianus dictus
vapularit. Verum huius rei, ab eruditissimis abunde responsum est, Laurentio Valla et
Angelo Politiano, et nos olim adulescentuli minores annis viginti lusimus in istorum stulti-
tiam Dialogis quos Antibarbaros inscripsimus. Translation by James F. Brady and John C.
Olin, Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 61: The Patristic Scholarship, the Edition of Jerome
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992), p. 50.
219Erasmus, Hieronymi stridonensis vita, ll. 236ff.: in rhetorica sese studiosius exer-
cuit sperans futurum ut plures sacris litteris delectarentur, si quis theologiae maiesta-
tem dignitate sermonis aequasset (tr. Brady and Olin, 27, modified). See also Hieronymi
stridonensis vita, ll. 195338 and 489ff.
220Ibid., ll. 489ff. and 1213.
lorenzo valla between the middle ages and the renaissance295
221Ibid., l. 1187: novum theologorum genus; ll. 795ff.: omnium bonarum litterarum
prorsus rudes et mala degustata Aristotelis philosophia freti, pedibus ac manibus illotis
irruant in theologiae professionem; 1193ff.: ex divina faciunt sophisticam, aut thomisti-
cam, aut scotisticam, aut occamisticam (tr. Brady and Olin, 42 and 52).
222Ibid., ll. 1226ff.: magis theologice.
223Ibid., ll. 15341565: Illud hactenus offecit Hieronymo, quod ut a plerisque non legi-
tur, ita a paucissimis intelligitur . At posthac quando per universum orbem christianum
revixerunt bonae litterae et non pauca bonae spei ingenia ad veterem illam ac germanam
theologiam exergisci coeperunt, Hieronymum veluti renatum communibus studiis
complectamur omnes: hunc singuli sibi ceu peculiarem vindicent . Hunc omnis sexus,
omnis aetas discat, evolvat, imbibat. Nullum doctrinae genus est, quod hinc non queat
adiuvari; nullum vitae institutum, quod huius praeceptis non formetur. Soli haeretici
Hieronymum horreant et oderint, quos ille solos semper acerrimos hostes habuit (tr.
Brady and Olin, 6162).
296 salvatore i. camporeale
The Life of Jerome and the prefaces to the Novum Instrumentum provide
Erasmuss perspective on the new theological question of the early six-
teenth century, but its center of radiation was fixed in the Encomium of
St. Thomas of 1457. In this way Vallas oration acted as an essential break
between two historical moments of Christian philosophical and theologi-
cal thought: between medieval scholasticism and the humanist culture of
the Renaissance, between Thomas Aquinas and Erasmus of Rotterdam,
the two emblematic poles that encompass the trends and structures of the
science of faith.
Lorenzo Valla and his work thus play a founding role for humanist the-
ology and, at the same time, provide a retrospective view that historicizes
medieval systematic theology, encasing it within a specific period of
Christianitys development. The Encomium of St. Thomas, which synthe-
sizes Vallas whole corpus, is perhaps the most conscious portrayal of the
crisis that came to a head in Christianity between the early fifteenth cen-
tury and the beginning of the sixteenth. This crisis was organic to the
political and civic crisis of the same period (acutely identified by the his-
toriography of civic humanism224), but it culminated as a religious and
theological crisis. That is, it was a crisis of Christian existence and categor-
ical systematics, of Church (ecclesia) and ecclesiology, of evangelical faith
and the science of faith. Valla was the first directly to confront, on a theo-
retical and a practical level, this crisis of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century
Christianity, and he did so by extending the use of the philological criti-
cism of humanism into the realm of theological and scriptural study.225
224[For civic humanism, see at least Hans Baron, The Crisis of the Early Italian
Renaissance: Civic Humanism and Republican Liberty in an Age of Classicism and Tyranny,
2 vols. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955); and James Hankins (ed.), Renaissance
Civic Humanism: Reappraisals and Reflections (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2000). Eds.]
225For a full discussion of the crisis of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, see
Salvatore I. Camporeale, Umanesimo e teologia tra 400 e 500, in Problemi di storia della
Chiesa nei secoli XV-XVII (Napoli: Edizioni Dehoniane, 1979), 137164.
LORENZO VALLA
ENCOMIUM OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
Note on the Text: The Latin text, which is provided here as a supplement to
the English translation and as a source for the quotations in Camporeales
essay, is substantially that of the critical edition of Stefano Cartei: Lorenzo
Valla, Encomion sancti Thome Aquinatis, ed. S. Cartei (Firenze: Polistampa,
2008). Camporeale based his own work on direct consultation of the avail-
able manuscripts and the earlier edition of Francesco Adorno (Lorenzo
Valla, Oraciones y Prefacios, ed. F. Adorno [Santiago: Universidad de Chile,
1955], 290321), but it has seemed preferable to adopt Carteis more cor-
rect text. A deciding factor was that Cartei follows what he demonstrates
to be a more reliable manuscript tradition; that is, he argues convincingly
that ms. Paris, Bibliothque Nationale de France, Lat. 7811 A (= P) is more
trustworthy and closer to the author than both ms. Rome, Biblioteca
Angelica, 1500 (= R), on which Adorno primarily relied, and ms. Modena,
Biblioteca Estense Universitaria, Lat. 151 (alpha T.6.15) (= M). While fol-
lowing Carteis readings and emendations (none of which represents a
significant departure from the version Camporeale used), I have repunc-
tuated the text, followed my own judgment regarding capitalization, and
preferred classical orthography in the interests of accessibility to a broader
audience. I have also reformatted the text in a manner suggested by
Camporeales interpretation, dividing it, moreover, as he does, into the
five sections exordium, narratio, probatio, refutatio, and peroratio.
In preparing my own English rendering I have consulted the following
existing translations: the Italian version of Giorgio Radetti, in Lorenzo
Valla, Scritti filosofici e religiosi (Firenze: Sansoni, 1953), 455469 (= In lode
di S. Tommaso dAquino); the Spanish version of Francesco Adorno in Valla,
Oraciones y Prefacios (= Encomio de Santo Toms de Aquino); and the
English version of M. Esther Hanley in Leonard A. Kennedy (ed.),
Renaissance Philosophy: New Translations (The Hague: Mouton, 1973),
1727 (= In Praise of Saint Thomas Aquinas).
Laurentii Vallae
Encomion Sancti Thomae Aquinatis
[Exordium]
[1] Moris fuit vetustissimis temporibus cum apud Graecos tum vero
apud Latinos ut qui orationem aliqua de re maiore vel ad iudices vel ad
populum esset habiturus, is fere ab invocatione caelestis numinis exordire-
tur. Quem ego ritum a veri Dei cultoribus reor introductum, ut sacrificia, ut
5 primitias, ut caerimonias, ut ceteros divinos honores, mox ut illa, ita hunc
quoque a vera religione ad falsas fuisse translatum. Nam id profecto exstitit
in rebus humanis immanissimum nefas et paene caput malorum omnium,
cultum religionis immortali Deo et soli creatori debitum tribuere mortali-
bus ac rebus creatis. Haec consuetudo cum per aliquot saecula in utraque
10 natione viguisset, paulatim in desuetudinem versa est, desitumque numina
invocare non modo ab iis qui malas sed etiam ab iis qui bonas causas age-
bant: ab iis quidem qui malas quod aut nullos esse deos crederent aut eos
invocare extimescerent quisquis enim deos implorat ideo implorat ut
veritati atque iustitiae assint, quod mali fieri nolunt; ab iis autem qui bonas
15 agebant, partim quod iuri suo citra deorum praesidium fidere videri vel-
lent, partim quod sese praestantiores atque viriliores visum iri putarent, si
non protinus tamquam feminae ad implorandos deos confugerent muli-
ebre namque iam videbatur, non virile, numina implorare, unde apud
Sallustium Cato inquit: non votis neque suppliciis muliebribus auxilia
20 deorum parantur. Verum sicut improbe illi hunc vetustissimum morem
summoverant et quasi de possessione deiecerant, ita probe fecerunt qui in
integrum restituerunt in possessionemque reduxerunt, non ut gentiles,
quod absit, imitarentur, sed ne a gentilibus superari viderentur; nam si illi
falsis diis tantum honoris tribuebant ut eos in exordiis invocandos putar-
25 ent, quanto nos magis hunc honorem Deo vero tribuere debemus? Quare
istorum ego institutum tam egregium hodie imitari et debeo et volo, laudes
sancti Thomae Aquinatis relaturus, et, ut consuetum est, sanctissimam Dei
matrem eamdemque semper virginem invocare, salutans eam angelicis
verbis: Ave Maria
Lorenzo Valla
Encomium of St. Thomas Aquinas
[Exordium]
[1] It was customary in ancient times among the Greeks as well as the
Latins for whoever was going to give a speech on some important matter,
either to judges or to the people, in general to begin with a divine invoca-
tion. I think this rite was introduced by the worshipers of the true God, just
like sacrifices, the offering of the first-fruits, ceremonies, and the other
divine honors; and like them, it too soon passed from the true religion to
false ones. Now, to accord to mortals and created things the religious wor-
ship due to immortal God, the lone creator, stands out as quite the most
monstrous of all human transgressions and perhaps the chief of all evils.
After this custom had reigned among both peoples for several centuries, it
slowly fell into disuse, and divinities ceased to be invoked not only by those
pleading bad causes, but also by those pleading good ones. Those pleading
bad ones either believed that there were no gods or were afraid to invoke
them for whoever beseeches the gods beseeches them to attend to truth
and justice, something the evil do not want to happen. As for those plead-
ing good causes, in part they wanted to seem to put greater trust in their
law than in the protection of the gods, in part they thought they would
seem more distinguished and manlier by not continually taking refuge like
women in prayers to the gods. For then it seemed effeminate and unmanly
to invoke deities, wherefore Cato says (in Sallust): the aid of the gods is not
procured with vows and womanish prayers.1 But just as those men were
wrong to cast off this most ancient custom as if banishing it from their pos-
session, others did well to take it back into their possession and restore it
intact. This they did not do, as some might think, to imitate the pagans, but
rather so as not to be seen to be outdone by them. For if the pagans gave
such great honor to their false gods that they thought they should invoke
them when beginning their speeches, how much more ought we bestow
this honor on the true God? Therefore before beginning my praise of
St. Thomas Aquinas, it is my duty and my pleasure today to imitate that
outstanding institution of theirs. And so, as is our custom, I invoke the most
holy mother of God, the eternal virgin, greeting her with the angelic words:
Ave Maria 2
[Narratio]
30 [2] Etsi omnes qui in Domino moriuntur beati sunt et sancti, tamen eos
demum beatos et sanctos promulgat ecclesia quos cognovit vel mortem pro
religione, pro veritate, pro iustitia oppetisse, vel vita caste integreque tra-
ducta divinis signis ac miraculis claruisse. Horum priores graeco vocabulo
martyres, posteriores latino confessores appellat ecclesia, licet utriusque
35 nominis vis eodem fere tendat. Quid enim martyres aliud tolerandis tor-
mentis et obeunda morte fecerunt, nisi Christum nolentes abnegare con-
fessi sunt? Quorum illa frequentissima in tormentis exstitit vox se non
negare Christum sed esse Dei filium confiteri. Ergo idem est martyrem esse
quod confessorem. Rursus quid aliud confessores egerunt quam pie
40 vivendo pieque scribendo veritati testimonium perhibuerunt? Siquidem
Ioannes Baptista, qui ad perhibendum testimonium de lumine id est de
veritate missus erat, non minus illud perhibuit praedicando quam mor-
tem obeundo. Ergo cum hoc confessores fecerint, nimirum martyres exsti-
terunt: martyr enim transfertur latine testis et martyrion testimonium.
45 [3] Hoc quamquam ita sit, tamen Ecclesia, ut dixi latina dumtaxat
superiores tantum martyres appellandos censuit et praerogativa ordinis
honorandos, quod videlicet milites strenui et fortes cum in ceteris militiae
operibus tum praecipue in proeliis imperatori suo probantur. Martyres
autem, qui fuere Christi milites, pro imperatore suo in acie steterunt san-
50 guinemque ac vitam profuderunt. Confessores vero, et ipsi milites Christi,
solum labores militares, magnos illos quidem atque diutinos, pertulerunt,
parati et mortem pro imperatore Deo subire, verum ipsis ut eam subirent
aut in acie starent non contigit. Idcirco martyres ampliore honore fuisse
afficiendi videntur. Quod etsi iure ac merito factum est, quis tamen
55 negaverit esse quosdam e numero confessorum qui nonnullis martyribus
non modo aequari possint verum etiam anteferri? Quod divino quoque tes-
timonio declaratur, cum videamus multos confessores fuisse quam quos-
dam martyres longe miraculis illustriores.
[4] Quorsum autem haec? Ut appareat Thomam nostrum Aquinatem,
60 etsi confessorem, non tamen esse continuo post martyres reponendum, ut
mea fert opinio, nihilo inferiorem, ne longius exempla repetam, aut Petro
eiusdem ordinis, qui ob tutandam veritatem
encomium of st. thomas301
[Narratio]
[2] Although all who die in the Lord are blessed and saints, nevertheless
the Church expressly designates as blessed and saints those whom it recog-
nizes either as having met death for religion, for truth, for justice, or as hav-
ing achieved fame for leading a chaste and spotless life accompanied by
divine signs and miracles. It uses the Greek word martyrs (martyres) for the
former and the Latin one confessors (confessores) for the latter, although
both terms have approximately the same meaning. For what else have mar-
tyrs done in enduring torture and meeting death than confess themselves
unwilling to deny Christ? Under torture they repeatedly refused to deny
Christ but rather confessed that he was the son of God. Therefore a martyr is
the same as a confessor. On the other hand, what else have confessors done
in living piously and writing piously than bear witness to the truth? John the
Baptist was sent to bear witness to the light that is, to the truth and he did
so no less by preaching than by meeting death.3 Thus by acting in this way,
surely confessors have shown themselves to be martyrs. For martyr is trans-
lated in Latin as witness (testis), and martyrion testimony (testimonium).
[3] Although this is the case, the Church, as I have said at least the
Latin one has decided that only the former are to be called martyrs and
honored with the privilege of that rank, because, as vigorous and brave sol-
diers, they are recognized by their commander for their military service
and especially for their deeds in battle. The martyrs, then, who were sol-
diers of Christ, stood in the battle line for their commander and poured out
their blood and life. The confessors were themselves also soldiers of Christ,
but they merely performed military labors (albeit great and lasting ones);
and although they were prepared to undergo death for their commander,
God, they did not actually undergo it or stand in the battle line. For that
reason it seems that martyrs ought to have been accorded greater honor.
The justice of this view notwithstanding, who could deny that there are
certain confessors who not only equal but even surpass some martyrs?
Divine testimony makes this clear, as we see that many confessors were
much more renowned for miracles than certain martyrs.
[4] What is the point of these considerations? To show that our Thomas
Aquinas, although a confessor, should not necessarily be placed below the
martyrs. In my opinion he is in no way inferior not to look too far afield
for examples either to Peter the Dominican,4 whose defense of the truth
3John 1:68.
4St. Peter of Verona (St. Peter Martyr).
302 encomion s. thomae
roused some mad peasant to kill him with a sickle, or to Thomas, bishop of
Canterbury,5 who, like the good shepherd protecting his flock, died to keep
the clergy from being despoiled of its goods. That he is not inferior is fur-
ther demonstrated by the following argument: although both men had the
name of Thomas, our Thomas received it not by human but by divine will,
since the meaning of Thomas in Hebrew is both bottomless pit (abyssus)
and twin (geminus). And Thomas Aquinas truly was such a one: a kind of
bottomless pit of knowledge, and a twin due to the pairing of knowledge
and virtue in him, both of which were without parallel and beyond belief.
He was like a kind of sun, shining forth in the dazzling splendor of his
learning and burning bright with the ardor of his virtues. He is to be placed
among the Cherubim for the splendor of his learning, among the Seraphim
for the ardor of his virtues. Of these qualities I shall now speak.
[5] But in my attempt to do so, some people seem to me to be objecting
and just about throwing up their hands, crying, What are you saying? What
are you aiming at with this hyperbole of yours, which is the friend of the
foolish, enemy of the prudent? Will you have no regard for the truth, for
your own conscience, or for your audience, which is composed of numer-
ous men of the greatest importance and wisdom? Are you not content to
make Thomas Aquinas the equal of the martyrs and to prefer him to many
of them? Must you raise him up to the level of the Cherubim, above whom
God sits? Must you also compare him to the very Seraphim, the highest
order of angels? What more will you accord to the apostle Thomas? What
more to Paul the teacher of the Gentiles that he is one of the Cherubim?
What more to John the Baptist that he is one of the Seraphim?
[6] Let me respond that I do indeed think that all who are imbued with
the knowledge of divine truths have something in common with the
Cherubim, just as all who are infused with the love of God are the fellows of
the Seraphim to say nothing of Thomas, so incredibly full of knowledge
and love. Still, I have been justly reproached and warned. Therefore I entreat
the brothers of this order to pardon me if I relate the praises of its saint with
greater temperance than I otherwise might have done, and if I do not men-
tion all of them but focus only on those of the greatest importance. For to
this august body they ought to be narrated briefly, not treated at length, lest
they grow tiresome. And if I tried to praise such great and powerful virtues
with words, the day would sooner than the tale be done,6 as the poet says.
[Probatio]
[7] Merito igitur talis vir ut de virtutibus eius prius dicam, dicturus
95 postea de scientiis merito debuit antequam nasceretur mundo praedici,
eius ortus prophetari, vita promitti, mors etiam nuntiari. Etenim matri eius
ventrem ferenti anachoreta quidam, vir Dei qui ad hoc ipsum denuntian-
dum venerat, gratulabundus dixit genituram esse filium quem Thomam
appellaret, in quo excellentia huius nominis impleretur. Solet Deus, quo-
100 tiens aliquid eximium ac novum terris dare destinavit, id signis aut vatici-
niis enuntiare. Cuius rei sunt non parum multa exempla, sed brevitatis
gratia uno et domestico ero contentus.
[8] Sic beati Dominici, huius familiae progenitoris, magnitudo matri
suae, cum gravida esset, praedicta est. Non dicam utrum praestantius fuerit
105 vaticinium, ne inter patrem et filium videatur, quantum in nobis est, esse
certatio. Sint paria de utroque vaticinia, paria amborum vitae merita.
Neuter alteri praeponatur: sint tamquam duo consules, quo nullus erat
maior magistratus, pari veneratione nobis honorandi, omnibus uterque vir-
tutibus, infinitis uterque miraculis clari. Quorum etsi alterum modo lau-
110 dandum habeo, tamen utrumque coniungam, primum quia, cum pares
ambos faciam, sic magis liquebit quousque dignitatis et celsitudinis putem
Thomam esse provehendum, deinde quia institutum Praedicatorum est
fratres binos ire, non singulos.
[9] Dominicus igitur domum Praedicatorum condidit, Thomas eius pavi-
115 menta marmore vestivit. Dominicus parietes struxit, Thomas picturis eos
egregiis adornavit. Dominicus fratrum columen exstitit, Thomas specimen.
Dominicus plantavit, Thomas irrigavit. Ille dignationes atque episcopatus
ultro oblatos refugit atque adversatus est, hic nobilitatem, opes, propin-
quos, parentes tamquam sirenes effugit. Ille castitatem et continentiam
120 Pauli, hic virginitatem Ioannis Evangelistae reddidit. Illius humilitate
quam significantius graeci tapeinophrosynen vocant nihil admirabilius,
huius tanta humilitas fuit ut etiam de aliorum tumore atque iactantia
miraretur, in se numquam id vitium expertus, ut apud quosdam fratres sim-
pliciter confessus est, cum tamen tot et tanta in se agnosceret ornamenta.
125 [10] Hae sunt propriae virtutum laudes. Illa vero testimonia virtutum et
praemia et quasi in hac vita paradisus revelationes, visiones, miracula
quae tanta in his fuerunt, ut cetera taceam,
encomium of st. thomas305
[Probatio]
[7] Justly, therefore, such a man let me speak first about his virtues and
later about his knowledge justly was he destined to be foretold to the world
before he was born, his birth prophesied, his life predicted, even his death
announced. For when his mother was with child, a certain hermit, a man of
God who had come precisely to bring her this news, congratulated her and
told her that she would bear a son whom she would call Thomas and who
would be filled with the excellence of this name. God, whenever he has
resolved to give something extraordinary and new to the world, is wont to
announce it with signs or prophecies. There are very many examples of this,
but, for the sake of brevity, I shall be content with one from the family.
[8] In the same way the greatness of the blessed Dominic, the founder of
this family, was foretold to his mother when she was pregnant. I will not say
which prophecy was more extraordinary, in order to avoid (to the extent
possible) the appearance of a contest between father and son. Let the
prophecies about each man be equal, equal the merits of both their lives.
Let neither be placed before the other. Let them be like two consuls, the
highest of magistracies. We must honor them with equal veneration, both
of them renowned for all the virtues, both for miracles without number.
Although I am only here to praise one of the two, nevertheless I will join
them together. First, because by setting them equal it will become all the
clearer to what heights of lofty dignity I think Thomas should be raised.
Second, because the rule of the Preachers is that the brothers go in twos,
not singly.
[9] So then, Dominic founded the house of the Preachers; Thomas
covered its floors with marble. Dominic built its walls; Thomas decorated
them with the finest paintings. Dominic was the pillar of the brothers,
Thomas their shining example. Dominic planted; Thomas gave water. The
one shunned and resisted the honors and episcopacies bestowed upon
him; the other fled nobility, wealth, kinsmen, and parents as if they
were sirens. The one imitated the chastity and continence of Paul, the
other the virginity of John the Evangelist. Of the one nothing was more
admirable than his humility (which the Greeks more meaningfully call
tapeinophrosyn). The other had so much humility that he was even aston-
ished at the boasting and bragging of others; he never felt this vice in him-
self, as he frankly confessed to some brothers, although he still recognized
his own great and numerous talents.
[10]These are the praises of their virtues. Now for the testimonies of their
virtues and their rewards, the revelations, visions, and miracles which are like
paradise on earth. They were so great in them that, to speak of nothing else,
306 encomion s. thomae
ut uterque sanctos Apostolos Petrum et Paulum sive re vera sive per speciem,
uterque sanctissimam Dei matrem, uterque Dominum Salvatorem sive in
130 corpore sive extra corpus et viderit et audierit, deque obitu suo imminenti
certior factus sit. Nam adeo ferventes in orationibus erant ut interdum sub-
limes a terra, Deo miraculum quibusdam fratribus indicante, cernerentur.
[11] Denique, ut finem comparationis faciam, ille optimam fratrum
regulam scripsit, hic plurimos ac praestantissimos libros. At plus est, dicas,
135 libros composuisse quam regulam. Cur ita plus esse ais? Dum hic scribun-
dis libris operam dat, ille regundis provinciis incumbit et, ut optimus rec-
tor, suis populis bene vivendi regulam ac legem tradit, et certe non plures
transmittit in caelum scriptis suis Thomas quam Dominicus sua regula.
Concedatur ergo in virtutibus, in miraculis, in gloria pares esse Dominicum
140 et Thomam, non magis inter se differentes atque discretos quam Lucifer est
et Hesperus.
[Refutatio]
[12] Dixi de virtutibus ac miraculis Thomae breviter et nude, nulla usus
amplificatione atque exornatione, ne minus quam pro rei dignitate, ut in
hac temporis angustia, dicerem. Credo iam a me expectari ut quid de huius
145 sancti scientia, quod secundo loco proposui, dicam, quibus eum praepo-
nam, quibus aequiperem.
[13] Non me fugit quosdam, qui de hac re hoc die ex hoc loco orationem
habuerunt, non modo nulli doctorum ecclesiae secundum Thomam fecisse
sed etiam omnibus anteposuisse. Qui, cur nulli secundum facere debeant,
150 ex eo probabant quod quidam integerrimae vitae frater inter orandum
viderit Augustinum, quem summum theologorum statuunt, et una
Thomam, mirabili utrumque praeditum maiestate, Augustinumque dicen-
tem audierit Thomam esse sibi in gloria parem. Cur autem eumdem pos-
sint omnibus praeponere, hinc demonstrabant quod dicerent eum ad
155 probationem theologiae adhibere logicam, metaphysicam atque omnem
philosophiam, quam superiores doctores vix primis labiis degustassent.
[14] Lubricus hic mihi et anceps locus, non modo propter sancti cuius de
laudibus loquimur dignitatem, sed etiam propter inolitam apud plerosque
opinionem neminem posse sine dialecticorum, metaphysicorum, cetero-
160 rum philosophorum praeceptis evadere theologum.
encomium of st. thomas307
they saw and heard the holy Apostles Peter and Paul (either truly or in a
vision), the most holy mother of God, and the Lord our Savior (either in the
body or out of the body7). Both men were told about their imminent deaths.
What is more, they prayed so heatedly that now and then they were seen
levitating, God revealing the miracle to certain brothers.
[11] Finally, to complete the comparison: the one wrote the brothers
most excellent rule, the other the most outstanding and the greatest num-
ber of books. But, you might say, it is a greater thing to have written books
than a rule. Why do you say this? While Thomas devotes himself to writ-
ings, Dominic rules the provinces and, as an excellent leader, gives his peo-
ples a Rule and law for living well. Certainly Thomas sends no more men to
heaven with his writings than Dominic does with his Rule. Therefore let it
be granted that virtue, glory, and miracles are equal in Dominic and
Thomas, who are no more different and distinct from one another than the
morning from the evening star.
[Refutatio]
[12] I have spoken of Thomass virtues and miracles briefly and simply,
aving made no use of exaggeration and embellishment, lest, in the short
h
time available, I say less than the dignity of the subject requires. I believe
you would now like me to say something about this saints knowledge,
which I proposed to treat second, saying whom I would set him above and
whom I would call his equal.
[13] It has not escaped me that certain people who held an oration here
today on the same subject not only made Thomas second to none of the
doctors of the Church but also placed him above them all. They claim that
they ought to consider him second to none because a certain friar of the
utmost purity supposedly saw Augustine, whom they count as the greatest
theologian, together with Thomas. Both were endowed with wonderful
majesty, and he heard Augustine say that Thomas was his equal in glory. The
reason they gave for being able to put him above everyone is that for proof
in theology he used logic, metaphysics, and all philosophy, which the earlier
doctors are supposed to have barely tasted with the tips of their tongues.
[14] This is a slippery and perilous place for me, not only on account of
the dignity of the saint we are praising, but also because of the deep-set
opinion, held by so many, that no one can become a theologian without the
precepts of the dialecticians, metaphysicians, and the other philosophers.
72 Cor. 12:2.
308 encomion s. thomae
non per philosophiam et inanem fallaciam. Quod etiam usu ipsi intelligi-
195 mus. Quid enim in philosophia non dico in rationali, quae tota in verbis est,
de qua et dixi et dicam, sed morali et naturali quod sit indubitatum
ratumque, nisi quod in naturali aut medicorum aut aliorum experimenta
deprehenderunt?
[19] Verborum autem, quod alia est condicio linguae graecae alia latinae,
200 quae longior foret ad disputandum materia et quaestio ab hoc tempore ali-
ena. Hoc dixisse sit satis, hos doctores ecclesiae latinos reformidasse vocab-
ula quae auctores latinos, id est suos in loquendo magistros, graecarum
litterarum eruditissimos nunquam viderant usurpasse, quae novi theologi
semper inculcant: ens, entitas, quidditas, identitas, reale, essentiale, suum
205 esse, et verba illa quae dicuntur ampliari, dividi, componi, et alia huiusmodi.
Ergo haec non minima ex parte nugatoria aut non tractanda fuerunt illis
aut ignoranda, ne magis ignorarent.
[20] Neque vero hoc dico ut recentibus theologis derogem cur enim
derogare velim praesertim saeculo meo? sed ut veteres iniuste reprehen-
210 sos sugillatosque defendam, qui non sunt hunc in modum theologati sed se
totos ad imitandum Paulum apostolum contulerunt, omnium theologorum
longe principem ac theologandi magistrum. Cuius is est dicendi modus, ea
vis, ea maiestas ut quae sententiae apud alios etiam apostolos iacent eae
sint apud hunc erectae, quae apud alios stant apud hunc proelientur, quae
215 apud alios vix fulgent apud hunc fulgurare et ardere videantur, ut non ab re
gladium, quod est verbum Dei, manu tenens figuretur. Hic est verus et, ut
dicitur, germanus theologandi modus, haec vera dicendi et scribendi lex,
quam qui sectantur ii profecto optimum dicendi genus theologandique
sectantur. Quare non est ut illis veteribus, vere Pauli discipulis, hoc nomine,
220 quod ab his philosophia theologiae non admisceatur, aut detrahant novi
theologi aut noster Thomas sit praeponendus.
encomium of st. thomas311
not through philosophy and vain deceit.8 This we know from experience
as well. For what is there in philosophy? I do not mean dialectics, the whole
of which lies in words; I have already spoken about it and will do so again.
No, I mean moral and natural philosophy. What is there in them that is
indubitable and settled except the things discovered in natural philosophy
through the observations of doctors and others?
[19] Regarding their words: because the nature of Greek is different from
that of Latin. This would be a rather tedious subject to discuss, and it is a
question for another time. Let it suffice to have said that the Latin doctors
of the Church dreaded words which the great Latin authors (who were
their teachers in the language), although experts in Greek, never used,
words that are continually pressed into service by modern theologians: ens,
entitas, quidditas, identitas, reale, essentiale, suum esse, as well as those
terms which are given names like ampliari, dividi, componi, and other such
things.9 Thus these largely worthless trifles were either not to be treated, or
else they were to be disregarded, lest they lead to greater ignorance.
[20] I am not saying this to detract from modern theologians why
would I want to detract from my very own age? but to defend the ancients,
who are unjustly blamed and abused for not having theologized according
to this method. Instead they devoted themselves wholly to imitating the
apostle Paul, by far the prince of all theologians and the master of theolo-
gizing. His manner of speaking, his power, his majesty were such that what
fell flat when spoken by others, even the apostles, he uttered loftily; what in
the mouths of others stood its ground, rushed from his into battle; and
what from others shone dimly, from him seemed to flash and burn, so that
it is not off the mark for him to be represented holding in his hand a sword,
i.e. the word of God.10 This is the true and, so to speak, the genuine mode of
theologizing. This is the true law of speaking and writing, and those who
pursue it doubtless pursue the very best manner of speaking and theologiz-
ing. Therefore the ancients, the true disciples of Paul, should not be criti-
cized by modern theologians or placed second to our Thomas on account
of not having mixed theology with philosophy.
8Col. 2:8.
9The first set of words (being, entity, quiddity, identity, real being, essential being,
its own being) are terms of scholastic philosophy that in Vallas view represent incompre-
hensible jargon. Ampliari (to be ampliated or ampliation) is a term proper to supposition
theory, a part of scholastic philosophy that deals with the proper referents and significations
of names. Componi (to be composed or composition) and dividi (to be divided or divi-
sion) refer to types of logical fallacies treated by scholastic philosophers.
10Eph. 6:17.
312 encomion s. thomae
[Peroratio]
[21] Quid autem? Aequandus? Omnibus eum aequare non ausim, pleris-
que tamen etiam facile praetulerim, quos, ne parum id esse videatur, nomi-
natim recensebo. Praepono Thomam Ioanni Cassiano, quem tamquam
225 optimum doctorem sanctus Dominicus fertur lectitare solitus. Praepono
Anselmo, in primis acuto atque exculto. Praepono Bernardo, doctori eru-
dito, suavi, copioso, sublimi. Praepono Remigio, omnium suae aetatis viro
doctissimo. Praepono Bedae, his omnibus doctiori. Praepono Isidoro, quem
sui amatores negant esse ulli secundum. Quid dicam <de> Magistro
230 Sententiarum atque Gratiano, qui magis seduli collectores quam veri auc-
tores dici merentur? Praepono item, etsi de numero recentium theologo-
rum sunt, fratribus omnibus tam huius ordinis quam ceterorum, Alberto
Magno, Aegidio, Alexandro Alensi, Bonaventurae, Ioanni Scoto reliquisque
suo ipsorum iudicio tam magnis ut sese antiquis aequare fastidiant.
235 Praepono praeterea Lactantio atque Boethio, dumtaxat in theologia, nam
in ceteris nulla est comparatio. Idem dico de Cypriano. Addo etiam,
licet invitus, Hilarium; cuius scriptis quid tandem sanctius, doctius,
eloquentius?
[22] An ne hoc quidem Thomae satis est? O quanti et quanta laude digni
240 sunt hi quibus Thomam anteposui! An etiam illos quattuor omnium sum-
mos, paene alteros Evangelistas, in dubium certamenque vocabimus et
aliquem de illa quadriga detrahemus ut in eius loco Thomam reponamus?
Quorum vix scio quem cui praeferam in sua quemque dote mirabilem. Nam
etsi Augustinus omnibus vulgo praefertur, quia plures tractavit in theologia
245 quaestiones et est in multis haud dubie omnibus praeferendus, tamen, si
scripta Ambrosii cum altero tanto scriptorum Augustini comparentur, meo
iudicio non sint posthabenda. Nec Hieronymus ulla in parte cedit ingenio
Augustini, in omni autem doctrinarum genere adeo maior ut mihi Augusti
nus tamquam mediterraneum mare, Hieronymus tamquam oceanus, quem
encomium of st. thomas313
[Peroratio]
[21] What then? Should he be their equal? I would not dare to call him
the equal of them all. Yet I would prefer him, and willingly, to many whom,
lest it seem of little account, I shall list by name. I set Thomas above John
Cassian, whom St. Dominic is said to have been in the habit of reading as
if the best doctor. I set him above Anselm,11 the sharpest and most refined.
I set him above Bernard,12 a learned, sweet, eloquent, and sublime doctor.
I set him above Remigius,13 the most learned man of his age. I set him above
Bede, more learned than all of them. I set him above Isidore, whom his
admirers deny is second to anyone. What should I say about the Master of
the Sentences14 and Gratian, who deserve more to be called assiduous com-
pilers than true authors? Likewise, I set him above all the brothers of both
his order and the others (although here we are talking about modern theo-
logians): Albert the Great, Giles,15 Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure, John
the Scot,16 and the rest, who are so convinced of their own greatness that
they are loath to compare themselves to the ancients. Moreover I set him
above Lactantius and Boethius, although only in theology, for in other areas
there is no comparison. I say the same about Cyprian, and I add, albeit
unwillingly, Hilary as well; for what, finally, is holier, more learned, more
eloquent than his writings?
[22] Or is not even this enough for Thomas? How great and how praise-
worthy are these men above whom I have set Thomas! Or shall we also call
into question and dispute the four greatest of all, who were like a second
team of evangelists? Shall we pull one of them out of that team so as to
replace him with Thomas? I barely know which of them to prefer to whom,
as each one had his own extraordinary gift. For although Augustine is com-
monly preferred to all, because he treated more theological questions and
is in many respects indubitably to be preferred, nevertheless, if Ambroses
writings were compared with an equal number of Augustines, I do not
think they would be ranked second. Nor does Jerome yield in any way to
Augustines intellect; he is so much the greater in all areas of learning that
Augustine seems to me like the Mediterranean, Jerome the ocean, upon
11Anselm of Canterbury.
12Bernard of Clairvaux.
13Remigius of Auxerre.
14Peter Lombard.
15Giles of Rome.
16John Duns Scotus.
314 encomion s. thomae
250 pauci nostrorum navigant, esse videatur. Gregorius his longe impar erudi-
tione, sed cura et diligentia par, suavitate autem tanta atque sanctitate ut
angelicum paene sermonem repraesentet.
[23] Horum alicui parem facere Thomam vereor aut aliquem Latinorum.
Potius eos cum totidem Graecis comparaverim: Ambrosium cum Basilio,
255 cuius, ut video, exstitit aemulus; Hieronymum cum Gregorio Nazianzeno,
cuius auditorem et discipulum se fuisse profitetur; Augustinum cum Ioanne
Chrysostomo, quem multis in locis secutus est et in librorum copia aemula-
tus; Gregorium cum Dionysio, quem Areopagitam vocant, quod eius ipse
primus Latinorum, quantum invenio, facit mentionem (nam superioribus
260 quos nominavi, non modo Latinis verum etiam Graecis, opera Dionysii
fuere ignota). Ad hos proxime accedit Ioannes Damascenus, apud Graecos
auctor celeberrimus, ut apud nos Thomas: ergo iure optimo Damascenus et
Thomas copulabuntur, eo quidem magis quod Damascenus nonnulla logi-
calia et prope metaphysicalia conscripsit.
265 [24] Erunt itaque quinque paria theologiae principum ante thronum Dei
et Agnum concinentia cum viginti quattuor illis senioribus. Canunt enim
semper apud Deum scriptores rerum sanctarum. Primum par Basilius et
Ambrosius, canens lyra; secundum Nazianzenus et Hieronymus, canens
cithara; tertium Chrysostomus et Augustinus, canens psalterio; quartum
270 Dionysius et Gregorius, canens tibia; quintum Damascenus et Thomas,
canens cymbalis. Nec absurdum fuerit quinarium numerum nunc esse qui
erat quaternarius, cum apud musicos quinque sint tetrachorda non quat-
tuor, nec Thomam cymbalis fieri canentem. Ut enim Thomas geminus
interpretatur, et ipse gemino sono theologiae pariter ac philosophiae
275 canere delectatus est, ita cymbala gemino constant instrumento laetum,
hilarem, plausibilem cantum reddentia.
[25] Talis est Thomae librorum cantus. Hac harmonia sanctus Thomas et
pios homines qui ipsum legunt et sanctos angelos qui nunc eum audiunt
oblectat. Semper enim apud Deum cum aliis sanctis doctoribus modulatur
280 et psallit, Agnum Dei assidue aut laudans aut pro nobis mortalibus obse-
crans ut eodem perveniamus quo ipse pervenit. Quod nobis concedat qui
vivit et regnat in saecula benedictus. Amen.17
17In R, after Amen: Oration of Lorenzo Valla, a most learned and eloquent man, which
he held in praise of St. Thomas Aquinas in the Church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, in the
city of Rome, a.d. 1457, the seventh day of March. He died in the same year on the first day
of August (Doctissimi viri ac eloquentissimi Laurentii e Valle oratio quam habuit in lau-
dem Sancti Thomae Aquinatis in Ecclesia Sanctae Mariae Minervae, in urbe romana a.d.
1457, VII die Martii; obiitque eodem anno die primo Augusti). See Valla, Encomion sancti
Thome, 55.
encomium of st. thomas315
which few of our contemporaries set sail. Gregory18 lags far behind all in
erudition, but he equals them in carefulness and diligence and is possessed
of such great sweetness and holiness that he seems to speak like an angel.
[23] I am afraid to set Thomas or any of the Latins equal to any one of
these men. Rather, I would compare them with the same number of Greeks:
Ambrose with Basil, whose rival I see he was; Jerome with Gregory
Nazianzen, whose pupil and disciple he claimed to have been; Augustine
with John Chrysostom, whom he often followed in his writings and emu-
lated in the number of his books; Gregory with Dionysius the Areopagite,
because he is the first of the Latins, as far as I know, to mention him (for the
works of Dionysius were unknown to the others I named, not only the
Latins but the Greeks as well). Closest to these comes John Damascene, a
most famous author among the Greeks, as Thomas is amongst us. It will
therefore be perfectly right for John and Thomas to be paired together, and
all the more so because John wrote many logical and well-nigh metaphysi-
cal works.
[24] So there will be five pairs of princes of theology resounding before
the throne of God and the Lamb, in unison with the twenty-four elders. For
the writers of holy things always make music in the sight of God. The first
pair is Basil and Ambrose, playing the lyre; the second, Nazianzen and
Jerome, playing the cithara; the third, Chrysostom and Augustine, playing
the psaltery; the fourth, Dionysius and Gregory, playing the flute; the fifth,
John Damascene and Thomas, playing the cymbals. And it will not be
unharmonious for their number to be five now instead of four since for
musicians there are five tetrachords, not four nor to have Thomas playing
the cymbals. For as the name Thomas means twin, and as he enjoyed play-
ing equally in the twin tones of theology and philosophy, thus the cymbals
are a double instrument emitting happy, cheerful, and pleasing music.
[25] Such is the tune of Thomass books. With this harmony Saint Thomas
delights both the pious men who read him and the holy angels who now
hear him. For he is always singing and playing before God with the other
holy doctors, perpetually either praising the Lamb of God, or entreating
Him that we mortals may reach the same place he has. May it be granted us
by Him who lives and reigns, praised unto eternity. Amen.
Primary Sources
Secondary Sources
Bertelli, Carlo. Appunti sugli affreschi nella Cappella Carafa alla Minerva, Archivum
Fratrum Praedicatorum 35 (1965): 115130.
Berthier, J.-J. Lglise de la Minerve Rome. Roma: Cooperativa tipografica Manuzio, 1910.
. Le triomphe de Saint Thomas, patron et protecteur des coles catholiques peint par
Taddeo Gaddi dans la Chapelle des Espagnoles Florence. tude dhistoire et dart.
Fribourg (Switzerland): Saint Paul, 1897.
Besomi, Ottavio and Mariangela Regoliosi (eds.). Lorenzo Valla e lumanesimo italiano. Atti
del Convegno internazionale di studi umanistici (Parma, 1819 ottobre 1984). Padova:
Antenore, 1986.
Bischoff, Bernhard. Latin Palaeography: Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Tr. Dibh Crinn
and David Ganz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Blanchard, W. Scott. The Negative Dialectic of Lorenzo Valla: A Study in the Pathology of
Opposition, Renaissance Studies 14 (2000): 149189.
Blunt, Anthony and Hereward Lester Cooke. The Roman Drawings of the XVII and XVIII
Centuries in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen at Windsor Castle. London: Phaidon,
1960.
Boehner, Philotheus. The Tractatus de praedestinatione et de praescientiae Dei et de futu-
ris contingentibus of William Ockham. New York: Franciscan Institute, 1945.
Bolgar, R.R. The Classical Heritage and its Beneficiaries. London: Cambridge University
Press, 1973.
Bowersock, G.W. Introduction to Valla, On the Donation of Constantine, vi-xv.
Bowles, Edmund Addison. La Hirarchie des instruments dans lEurope fodale, Revue de
Musicologie 42 (1958): 155169.
Brezzi, Paolo and Maristella De Panizza Lorch (eds.). Umanesimo a Roma nel Quattrocento.
Roma: Istituto di Studi Romani, 1984.
Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo. A Biography. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1969.
Buchwald, Wolfgang, Armin Hohlweg, and Otto Prinz (eds.). Tusculum-Lexicon griechischer
und lateinischer Autoren des Altertums und des Mittelalters. Mnchen: Artemis, 1982.
Bullard, Melissa Meriam. The Renaissance Project of Knowing: Lorenzo Valla and
Salvatore Camporeales Contributions to the Querelle between Rhetoric and Philosophy,
Journal of the History of Ideas 66 (2005): 47781.
(ed.). Salvatore Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla, Humanism, and Theology, a special section
of Journal of the History of Ideas 66 (2005): 477556: Salvatore Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla,
Humanism, and Theology.
The Cambridge History of the Bible. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
19631970.
Camporeale, Salvatore I. Amore e conoscenza nellesperienza mistica secondo lAquinate.
Viterbo: Agnesotti, 1961. Originally published in Sapienza 12 (1959): 237271 and 13 (1960):
360381.
. Da Lorenzo Valla a Tommaso Moro. Lo statuto umanistico della teologia, Memorie
Domenicane, n.s., 4 (1973): 9102. Reprinted in idem, Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo, riforma
e controriforma, 19119.
. Giovanmaria dei Tolosani O.P.: 15301546. Umanesimo, Riforma e teologia contro-
versista, Memorie Domenicane, n.s., 17 (1986): 145252. Reprinted in idem Lorenzo Valla.
Umanesimo, riforma e controriforma, 331461.
. Giovanni Tolosani, O.P. e la teologia antiumanistica aglinizi della Riforma.
LOpusculum antivalliano De Constantini Donatione. In Xenia Medii Aevi historiam illus-
trantia oblata Thomae Kaeppeli, ed. Raymundus Creytens and Pius Knzle. Roma:
Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1978, 809831.
. Lorenzo Valla e il De falso credita donatione. Retorica, libert ed ecclesiologia nel
400, Memorie Domenicane, n.s., 19 (1988): 191293. Reprinted in idem, Lorenzo Valla.
Umanesimo, riforma e controriforma, 463589. English translation in the present
volume, pp. 17143.
322 bibliography
Marmo, Costantino. Semiotica e linguaggio nella scolastica: Parigi, Bologna, Erfurt, 1270
1330. Roma: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo, 1994.
Marrou, Henri-Irne. Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique. Paris: E. de Boccard,
1958.
Martimort, Aim Georges. La Chiesa in preghiera. Introduzione alla liturgia. Roma: Descle,
1966.
Martini, Giuseppe. Alcune considerazioni sulla dottrina gelasiana, Nuova Rivista Storica
65 (Jan.-Apr., 1981), fasc. I-II (Scritti di Giuseppe Martini): 282292.
. Per la storia dei pontificati di Niccol IV e Bonifacio VIII, Nuova Rivista Storica 65
(Jan.-Apr., 1981), fasc. I-II (Scritti di Giuseppe Martini): 157190.
. Regale Sacerdotium, Nuova Rivista Storica 65 (Jan.-Apr., 1981), fasc. I-II (Scritti di
Giuseppe Martini): 73156.
. Traslazione dellImpero e Donazione di Costantino nel pensiero e nella politica
dInnocenzo III, Nuova Rivista Storica 65 (Jan.-Apr., 1981), fasc. I-II (Scritti di Giuseppe
Martini): 372.
Mazzocco, Angelo. Decline and Rebirth in Bruni and Biondo. In Brezzi and Lorch (eds.),
Umanesimo a Roma nel Quattrocento. Roma: Istituto di Studi Romani, 1984, 249266.
Mecacci, Luciano. Contributo alla bibliografia degli scritti su Eugenio Garin, Il Protagora
38 (2011), 519526.
Meersseman, Gilles. La bibliothque des Frres Prcheurs de la Minerve la fin du XVe
sicle. In Mlanges Auguste Pelzer. Louvain: Bibliothque de lUniversit, Bureaux du
Recueil, 1947, 605631.
Meiss, Millard. Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death: The Arts, Religion and
Society in the Mid-Fourteenth Century. London: Harper & Rowe, 1973.
Mengin, Urbain. Les deux Lippi. Paris: Plon, 1932.
Michel, O. Philosophia, philosophos. In Theologisches Wrterbuch zum Neuen Testament,
ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, 10 vols. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 19311979,
9:169185.
Momigliano, Arnaldo. Il conflitto tra paganesimo e cristianesimo nel secolo IV: saggi. Tr.
Anna Davies Morpurgo. Torino: Einaudi, 1968. English edition = The Conflict between
Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century: Essays (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963).
Monfasani, John. George of Trebisond. A Biography and a Study of his Rhetoric and Logic.
Leiden: Brill, 1976.
. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite in mid-Quattrocento Rome. In Supplementum
Festivum: Studies in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller, ed. James Hankins, John Monfasani,
and Frederick Purnell, Jr. Binghamton: MRTS, 1987, 189219. Reprinted with the same
pagination as essay IX in John Monfasani, Language and Learning in Renaissance Italy
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 1994).
Mhlenberg, Ekkehard. Laurentius Valla als Renaissancetheologe, Zeitschrift fr Theologie
und Kirche 66 (1969): 466480.
Nauta, Lodi. In Defense of Common Sense: Lorenzo Vallas Humanist Critique of Scholastic
Philosophy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2009.
. William of Ockham and Lorenzo Valla: False Friends, Semantics, and Ontological
Reduction, Renaissance Quarterly 56 (2003): 613651.
Ols, Daniel. Tommaso dAquino. In Enciclopedia delle Religioni, vol. V. Florence: Vallecchi,
1973, 180925.
OMalley, John W. The Feast of Thomas Aquinas in Renaissance Rome: A Neglected
Document and its Import, Rivista di storia della chiesa in Italia 35 (1981): 127.
. Some Renaissance Panegyrics of Aquinas, Renaissance Quarterly 27 (1974): 174192.
Orlandi, Stefano. Beato Angelico. Firenze: Olschki, 1964.
. I libri corali di s. Maria Novella con miniature dei sec. XIII e XIV, Memorie
Domenicane 83 (1966): 5557.
(ed.). Necrologio di S. Maria Novella. 2 vols. Firenze: Olschki, 1955.
and Isnardo Grossi. Santa Maria Novella e suoi chiostri monumentali. Guida storico-
artisica. Firenze: Edizioni S. Becocci, 1974.
bibliography327
Panofsky, Erwin. Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art. London: Paladin, 1970.
Penna, Angelo. Principi e caratteri dellesegesi di S. Girolamo. Roma: Pontificio Istituto
Biblico, 1950.
Perosa, Alessandro. Ledizione veneta di Quintiliano coi commenti del Valla, di Pomponio
Leto e di Sulpizio da Veroli. In Miscellanea Augusto Campana. 2 vols. Padova: Antenore,
1981, 575610.
Perry, Matt. Marxism and History. New York: Palgrave, 2002.
Pertusi, Agostino (ed. and tr.). La caduta di Costantinopoli. 2 vols. Verona: Mondadori, 1976.
Pinborg, Jan. Die Entwicklung der Sprachtheorie im Mittelalter. Mnster: Aschendorff, 1967.
. Speculative Grammar. In The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, ed.
Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1982.
Pittaluga, Mary. Filippino Lippi. In Enciclopedia universale dellarte, 8:62331.
Prodi, Paolo. Il sovrano pontefice. Un corpo e due anime: la monarchia papale nella prima et
moderna. Bolonga: Il Mulino, 1982. English translation = The Papal Prince: One Body and
Two Souls. The Papal Monarchy in Early Modern Europe, tr. Susan Haskins (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1987).
Rabil, Albert. Erasmus and the New Testament: the Mind of a Christian Humanist. San
Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1972.
Rand, Edward Kennard. Cicero in the Courtroom of St. Thomas. Milwaukee: Marquette
University Press, 1946.
Regoliosi, Mariangela (ed.). Lorenzo Valla e lumanesimo toscano. Firenze: Polistampa, 2009.
. Lorenzo Valla: La riforma della lingua e della logica. 2 vols. Firenze: Polistampa, 2010.
. Pubblicare il Valla. Firenze: Polistampa, 2008.
. Salvatore Camporeales Contribution to Theology and the History of the Church,
Journal of the History of Ideas 66 (2005): 52739.
Renouard, Ph. Bibliographie des impressions et des oeuvres de J. Badius Ascensius imprimeur
et humaniste: 14621535. 3 vols. Paris: E. Paul et fils et Guillemin, 1908.
Rice, Eugene. Saint Jerome in the Renaissance. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1985.
Rico, Francisco. Nebrija frente a los brbaros. El canon de gramticos nefastos en la polmica
del humanismo. Salamanca: Universidad, 1978.
Rosier, Irne. La grammaire spculative des Modistes. Lille: Presse universitaires de Lille,
1983.
Rubini, Rocco. Humanism as Philosophia (Perennis): Grassis Platonic rhetoric between
Gadamer and Kristeller, Philosophy and Rhetoric 42 (2009), 24278.
. The Last Italian Philosopher: Eugenio Garin (with an Appendix of Documents),
Intellectual History Review 21 (2011), 209230.
. Philology as Philosophy: the Sources of Ernesto Grassis Postmodern Humanism. In
Humanisms, Posthumanisms, and Neohumanisms, a special issue of Annali ditalianistica
26 (2008), 22348.
Sadous, Alfred L. de. Sancti Augustini de doctrina Christiana libri exponuntur, seu de rhe-
torica apud Christianos disquisitio. Paris: apud Joubert Bibliopolam, 1847.
Scharf, Alfred. Filippino Lippi. Vienna: A. Schroll, 1935.
Schiavone, Michele. Intorno allEncomion Thomae Aquinatis di Lorenzo Valla, Rivista di
filosofia neo-scolastica 47 (1955): 7379.
Schlier, Heinrich. Il tempo della Chiesa. Saggi esegetici. Bologna: Il Mulino, 1968.
Schlosser, Julius von. Giustos Fresken in Padua und die Vorlufer der Stanza della
Segnatura, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhchsten Kaiserhauses
17 (1896): 13100.
Schmidt, Herman A.P. Introductio in Liturgiam Occidentalem. Roma: Herder, 1960.
Schramm, Percy Ernst. Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik. 3 vols. Stuttgart: Hiersemann,
19541956.
Seigel, Jerrold E. Rhetoric and Philosophy in Renaissance Humanism. The Union of Eloquence
and Wisdom, Petrarch to Valla. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968.
328 bibliography
Setz, Wolfram. Lorenzo Vallas Schrift gegen di Konstantinische Schenkung, De falsa credita
et ementita Constantini donatione: Zur Interpretation und Wirkungsgeschichte.
Tbingen: M. Niemeyer, 1975. Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in
Rom, 44.
Soboul, Albert. A Short History of the French Revolution, 17891799. Tr. Geoffrey Symcox.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977.
Stephens, Walter (ed.). Studia Humanitatis: Studies in Honor of Salvatore Camporeale.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004. Supplement to Modern Language
Notes 119 (2004).
Stieber, Joachim W. Pope Eugenius IV, the Council of Basel, and the Secular and Ecclesiastical
Authorities in the Empire. The Conflict over Supreme Authority and Power in the Church.
Leiden: Brill, 1978.
Storoni Mazzolani, Lidia. SantAgostino e i pagani. Palermo: Sellerio, 1987.
Struever, Nancy. Fables of Power, Representations 4 (1983): 108127.
. Historical Priorities, Journal of the History of Ideas 66 (2005): 54156.
Sutcliffe, E.F. Jerome. In The Cambridge History of the Bible. Vol. II, ed. G.W.H. Lampe
(1969), 80101.
Taurisano, Innocenzo. Beato Angelico. Roma: Fratelli Palombi, 1955.
. Discepoli e biografi di S. Tommaso. Note storico-critiche. Roma: Societ Tipografica
A. Manuzio, 1924.
. Hierarchia Ordinis Praedicatorum. Roma: Manuzio, 1916.
Telle, mile V. Erasme de Rotterdam et le Septime Sacrament. Genve: Droz, 1954.
. LErasmianus sive Ciceronianus dEtienne Dolet (1535). Genve: Droz, 1974.
Toussaint, Stphane. Humanismes / Antihumanismes: De Ficin Heidegger. Paris: Belles
Lettres, 2008.
Tracy, James D. The 1489 and 1494 versions of Erasmus Antibarbarorum Liber,
Humanistica Lovaniensia 20 (1971): 81120.
Trimpi, Wesley. The Quality of Fiction: the Rhetorical Transmission of Literary Theory,
Traditio 30 (1974): 1118.
Trinkaus, Charles. In Our Image and Likeness. Humanity and Divinity in Italian Humanist
Thought. 2 vols. London: Constable, 1970.
. The Scope of Renaissance Humanism. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1983.
Ullmann, Walter. Il papato nel medioevo. Bari: Laterza, 1975. English edition = A Short
History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages. London: Methuen, 1972.
Verde, Armando F. Lo Studio Fiorentino 14731503. Ricerche e documenti. 6 vols. in 9. Firenze:
Istituto nazionale di studi sul Rinascimento, 1973.
Vernant, Jean-Pierre and Pierre Vidal-Naquet. Mito e tragedia nellantica Grecia. Torino:
Einaudi, 1976. Original French edition = Mythe e tragdie en Grce ancienne (Paris:
F. Maspero, 1972). English translation = Tragedy and Myth in Ancient Greece, tr. Janet
Lloyd (Sussex: Harvester Press, 1981).
Vickers, Brian. Vallas Ambivalent Praise of Pleasure: Rhetoric in the Service of Christianity,
Viator 17 (1986): 271319.
Villoslada, Ricardo G. La Universidad de Paris durante los estudios de Francisco de Vitorio.
Roma: Aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1938.
Walker, D.P. Musical Humanism in the 16th and early 17th centuries, Music Review 2 (1941):
113, 111121, 220227, 228308; 3 (1942): 5571.
Walser, Ernst. Poggius Florentinus. Leben und Werke. Leipzig: Teubner, 1914.
Walz, Angelus. I domenicani al Concilio di Trento. Roma: Herder, 1961.
. Ordinationes Capitulorum Generalium de Sancto Thoma eiusque cultu et doctrina,
Analecta Sacri Ordinis Praedicatorum 31 (1923): 168173.
. Saint Thomas dAquin. Ed. Paul Novarina. Louvain: Publications universitaires, 1962.
Waswo, Richard. Language and Meaning in the Renaissance. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1987.
Weise, Georg. Lideale eroico del Rinascimento e le sue premesse umanistiche. Napoli:
Edizioni scientifiche italiane, 1961.
bibliography329