DONATION OF CONSTANTINE (Donatio Constantini), the supposed grant by the emperor Constantine, in gratitude for his conversion by Pope Silvester, to that pope and his successors for ever, not only of spiritual supremacy over the other great patriarchates and over all matters of faith and worship, but also of temporal dominion over Rome, Italy and "the provinces, places and civitates of the western regions." The famous document, known as the Constitutum Constantini and compounded of various elements (notably the apocryphal Vita S. Silvestri), now universally admitted to be a gross forgery, was fabricated at Rome between the middle and the end of the 8th century, was included in the 9th century in the collection known as the False Decretals, and two centuries later was incor porated in the Decretum by a pupil of Gratian. It was regarded as genuine both by the friends and the enemies of the papal preten sions throughout the middle ages, though at the close of the 1 oth century Leo of Vercelli, Otto III.'s chancellor, proclaimed its true character, as, in 1452, did the heretical followers of Arnold of Brescia. Though little use of it was made by the popes during the 9th and Loth centuries, from this time forward it was increasingly employed by popes and canonists in support of the papal claims, and from the Ieth century on ward became a powerful weapon of the spiritual against the temporal powers. It is, however, as Cardinal Hergenruther points out, possible to exaggerate its importance in this respect. By the partisans of the Empire the Donation was looked upon as the fons et origo malorum, and Constantine was regarded as having, in his new-born zeal, betrayed his imperial trust.
The genuineness of the Constitutum was first critically assailed by Laurentius Valla in 144o, whose De f also credita et ementita Constantini donatione declamatio opened a controversy that lasted until, at the close of the i8th century, the defence was silenced. In modern times the controversy as to the genuineness of the document has been succeeded by a debate scarcely less lively as to its date, its authorship and place of origin. The efforts of Roman Catholic scholars have been directed (since Baronius ascribed the forgery to the Greeks) to proving that the fraud was not com mitted at Rome. Thus Cardinal Hergenrother holds that it was written by a Frank in the 9th century, in order to prove that the Greeks had been rightfully expelled from Italy and that Charle magne was legitimate emperor. The evidence now available, how ever, confirms those who ascribe an earlier date to the forgery and place it at Rome. The view held by Gibbon, Dellinger (Papst fabeln des Mittelalters, Eng. tr. 18 71) and others, that the Constitutum is referred to in the letter of Adrian I. to Charle magne (778), is now largely rejected; and the same must be said of Friedrich's attempt to find such reference in the letter addressed in 785 by the same pope to Constantine VI., emperor of the East, and his mother Irene. Still less safe is it to ascribe the authorship of the forgery to any particular pope on the ground of its style ; for papal letters were drawn up in the papal chancery and the style employed there was apt to persist through several pontificates.
On one point, however, agreement seems now to have been reached, a result due to the labours of Scheffer-Boichorst (Mitteil ungen des Instituts fiir osterr. Geschichtsf orschung, x., 1889, xi., 189o), namely; that the style of the Constitutum is generally that of the papal chancery in the latter half of the 8th century. This being granted, there is room for plentiful speculation as to where and why it was concocted. We may still hold the opinion of Dellinger that it was intended to impress the barbarian Pippin and justify in his eyes the Frank intervention in favour of the pope in Italy; or we may share the view of Loening that the forgery was a pious fraud on the part of a cleric of the Curia, committed under Adrian I., with the idea of giving a legal basis to territorial do minion which that pope had succeeded in establishing in Italy. The donations of Pippin and Charlemagne established him as sover eign de facto; the donation of Constantine was to proclaim him as sovereign de jure. It is significant in this connection that it was under Adrian (c. 774) that the papal chancery ceased to date by the regnal years of the Eastern emperor and substituted that of the pontificate. Dollinger's view is supported and carried a step further by G. H. Bohmer (art. "Konstantinische Schenkung," Herzog-Hauck, Realencyclopddie), who by an ingenious argu ment endeavours to prove that the Constitutum was forged in 753, probably by the notary Christophorus, and was carried with him by Pope Stephen II. to the court of Pippin, in 754, with an eye to the acquisition of the Exarchate. In support of this argument it is to be noted that the forged document first appears at the abbey of St. Denis, where Stephen spent the winter of 754. E. Mayer ("Die Schenkungen Konstantins and Pippins," Deutsche Zeit schri f t fur Kirchenrecht, 1904) , on the other hand, denies that the Constitutum can have been forged before the news of the icono clastic decrees of the council of Constantinople of 754 had reached Rome. He lays stress on the relation of the supposed confession of faith of Constantine, embodied in the forgery, to that issued by Constantine V., pointing out the efforts made by the Byzantines between 756 and the synod of Gentilly in 767 to detach Pippin from the cause of Rome and the holy images. The forgery thus had a double object : as a weapon against Byzantine heresy and as a defence of the papal patrimony. As the result of an exhaustive analysis of the text and of the political and religious events of the time, Mayer comes to the conclusion that the document was forged about 775, i.e., at the time when Charlemagne was beginning to reverse the policy by which in 774 he had confirmed the possession of the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento to the pope.
In addition to works already mentioned, see Hergenrother, Catholic Church and Christian State (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1872 ; Eng. trans. 2 vols. 1876) ; W. Martens, Die romische Frage unter Pippin u. Karl d. Grossen (Stuttgart, 1880, with text ; L. Weiland, "Die Konst. Schenkung" in Zeitschr. f. Kirchenrecht, xxii. (1887-1888), maintaining that the Constitutum was forged at Rome between 813 and 875, in connection with the papal claim to crown the emperors ; with text ; Friedrich, Die Konst. Schenkung (Nordlingen, 1889), with text ; W. Martens, Die falsche Generalkonzession Konstantins des Grossen (Munich, 1889) ; G. Kruger, "Die Frage der Entstehungszeit der Konst. Schenkung," in Theologische Literaturzeitung, xiv. (1889) ; Laurentius Valla's treatise was issued in a new edition, with French translation and historical introduction, by A. Bonneau, La Donation de Constantin (Lisieux, 1879).