Note 618 — Chapter VIII · INTELLECT AND FAITH.
Reading edition
Laurent. Vallæ in Donat. Constant. Declam. (Fasciculus Rer. Expetendar. L. 132, Ed. 1690).—Bayle, s. v. Valle.—Raynald. ann. 1446, No. 9.—Paramo de Orig. Offic. S. Inq. p. 297.—Wagenmann, Real-Encykl. VIII. 492-3.—Creighton’s Hist. of the Popes, II. 340.—Æn. Sylv. Comment. in Dict. et Fact. Alfonsi Regis Lib. I.—Erasmi Epistt. Lib. IV. Ep. 7; Lib. VII. Ep. 3.—Reusch, Der Index der Verbotenen Bücher, I. 227.
The immediate conviction wrought by Valla’s criticism of the Donation of Constantine is shown in Æneas Sylvius’s defence of the temporal power, where he abandons Constantine entirely, basing the territorial claims of the Holy See on the gifts of Charlemagne, and its authority over kings on the power of the keys and the headship granted to Peter (Æn. Sylvii Opp. inedd. pp. 571-81). Yet the Church soon rallied and renewed its claims. Arnaldo Albertino, Inquisitor of Valencia, in alluding to the Donation of Constantine, says, in 1533, that Lorenzo Valla endeavored to dispute its truth, but that every one else is united in maintaining it, so that to deny it is to come near heresy (Arn. Albertini Repetitio nova, Valentiæ, 1534, col. 32-3). Curiously enough, he adds that it is asserted in the bull Unam Sanctam, which is not the case (I. Extrav. Commun. Lib. I. Tit. viii.). In fact, Boniface VIII. founded his claims on Christ, and a reference to Constantine would only weaken them.
Valla’s bitter and captious criticisms provoked sundry epigrams after his death.
“Nunc postquam manes defunctus Valla petivit, Non audet Pluto verba Latina loqui. Jupiter hunc cæli dignatus parte fuisset, Censorem linguæ sed timet esse suæ.” “Obe ut Valla silet solitus qui parcere nulli est! Si quæris quid agat nunc quoque mordet humum.”—(Bayle, l.c.).