Frazier: Italian Renaissance (F22)
Reading Lorenzo Valla (1406-1457), On the Donation of Constantine
Assignment. For 10/24, read the excerpt on Canvas from Valla’s Treatise. This Reading
Guide will help a lot.
To think about as you read:
1.) Leonardo Bruni wrote a famous oration about Florence as a panegyric, a speech of
praise; Valla’s oration about the Donation of Constantine is exactly the opposite, a speech
of attack. Might speeches of praise and blame share any qualities? (See the website Silva
rhetoricae, under “epideictic.”)
2.) We have seen that a new historical self-consciousness characterized the Renaissance,
for example, in Petrarch’s sense of himself placed between classical antiquity (letters to
Cicero) and a distant future (Letter to Posterity). Another aspect of this historical selfconsciousness was critical historical thinking: can you find an example of it in Valla’s
oration? Defend your choice.
3.) Valla has two aims, although they are closely related:
a.) a moral/religious polemic, to attack the papacy as a temporal power.
b.) a scholarly/textual polemic, to attack the legal standing of the Donation.
Does Valla distinguish between these two aims? Is his attack on the temporal power of
the papacy an attack on religion? Is Valla an atheist?
4.) Some part of Valla’s authority comes from his ability to refer to classical and biblical
examples to back up his arguments. Keep track of these references. (I provide the
endnotes on Canvas). Does Valla favor one kind over the other? Does he make good use
of these references?
5.) Valla is criticizing a legal document. Does he seem to have the legal expertise to do
so? Does he show familiarity with important legal texts (like Gratian’s Decretals), or
with earlier legal arguments about the Donation (like those from the Investiture
Controversy)?
Valla’s preface (pp. 1-5 = paras. 1-5)
The accepted task of a preface in classical rhetoric was to win the audience’s goodwill /
benevolence (think about Boccaccio). How does Valla try to do that? In accordance with
the precepts of classical rhetoric, Valla includes a “table of contents” (it is very
imprecise) at the end of the preface. Note its four points. What is the rhetorical effect of
this list?
The body of the treatise
Keep track of all the different kinds of attacks that Valla makes. For example, he begins
by questioning the psychological verisimilitude (believability) of the Donation. How
does he do this?
He then goes on to discuss the physical evidence (e.g. para. 28) that we should expect to
find if the Donation had actually taken place. What sorts of evidence does he look for?
The famous part of the attack is philological, that is, Valla critiques the language of the
forged document itself. What aspects of the language does he find especially suspicious?
(What language was the forged document written in? What language does Valla write
in?)
Valla’s closing attack goes to the heart of his contemporaries’ complaints about the
Church. Of what does Valla accuse the Church?
Instances of direct discourse
To make his argument rhetorically powerful (stirring, moving, convincing), Valla uses
direct discourse (oratio recta). This means that instead of reporting the gist of a speech,
he gives it as if spoken; the editor follows modern practice of representing this sort of
speech with quotation marks.
Indirect speech: Johnny said that he was tired.
Direct speech: Johnny said, “I’m tired.”
How does Valla defend this procedure (p. 29)? Note these instances of invented direct
discourse:
a.) by his “sons, relatives, and friends” (beginning with para. 13)
b.) by an orator (beginning with para. 15)
c.) by the bishop of Rome, Sylvester (beginning with para. 20)
Can you find others?
What does each speech seek to accomplish? What does Valla achieve by making the
speaker a specific person in each case? Are the speakers realistically presented, i.e., how
do they speak and make references that suit the historical characters Valla has given
them? Which is most successful, and why?
Optional: Keep a list of obscure terms or references that impeded your understanding of
this reading. I’ll compile all your suggestions into a better Reading Guide.