Lesson 23: Lorenzo Valla's On Pleasure

Valla was born in Rome in 1407. He trained in rhetoric and philosophy - the liberal arts. But he was temperamental and combative. He spent his career getting fired from positions, arguing with colleagues, and attracting powerful patrons who protected him.

Key accomplishment: Valla was one of the most brilliant Latin scholars of his age. He wrote treatises on grammar, rhetoric, and the power of language to shape thought.

Philosophical insight: Valla believed that how we use language matters enormously. Words shape what we believe. So if the Church uses misleading language about pleasure, sin, and virtue, it shapes people's beliefs in harmful ways.

Valla is most famous for his exposure of the "Donation of Constantine" - a medieval forged document claiming the Roman Emperor Constantine had granted temporal power to the Pope.

Using careful textual and linguistic analysis, Valla proved it was a forgery. This was not merely academic - it was politically explosive. It undermined papal claims to authority.

Why this matters: Valla showed that even documents the Church held sacred could be questioned. If the Pope could be wrong about this, he could be wrong about other things.

Valla wrote On Pleasure (also titled On the True Good) probably around 1431 - early in his career, before his exposure of the Donation. It was a dialogue - a philosophical conversation between a Stoic, an Epicurean, and a Christian.

The problem: Valla's Epicurean character makes compelling arguments. The Christian character defends Christianity, but the dialogue suggests the debate is genuinely open - not settled by papal authority.

For a writer to take Epicureanism seriously, to let it have the best possible arguments, was provocative. You weren't supposed to do that.

The Stoic character (sometimes portrayed as a Christian Stoic) argues that virtue is the only good. Pleasure is a distraction. The good life means controlling emotions, accepting fate, and living according to reason and duty.

This was medieval Christianity's implicit ethics: Deny pleasure, embrace suffering, obey duty, control the body. Medieval Christianity was profoundly Stoic.

Valla's Epicurean character makes the best possible case for Epicureanism:

• Nature itself: All animals naturally seek pleasure and avoid pain. To deny this is to deny nature.
• Happiness as the goal: What else do we want, finally, except to be happy? Everything we do aims at happiness.
• Rational pleasure: The wise person calculates which pleasures are sustainable, which lead to pain. Simple pleasures - good food with friends, conversation, freedom from fear - are the best.
• Virtue as instrumental: We practice virtue because it brings pleasure. A virtuous person is happy; a vicious one suffers.

Here's the audacious move: Valla has the Christian character agree with the Epicurean - in a modified form.

The argument: Christianity is actually the truest Epicureanism. Here's why:

• God offers the ultimate pleasure: Union with God, eternal happiness, the beatific vision.
• Christian virtues serve pleasure: Justice, charity, faith - these bring spiritual joy and lead to God's favor.
• Earthly self-denial has a payoff: By denying earthly pleasures, you secure eternal pleasure in Heaven.
• Christ's love offers true pleasure: The pleasure of salvation, redemption, divine love - far greater than bodily pleasures.

Result: Christianity is reframed as the best Epicureanism - it offers the highest and most lasting pleasures.

Conservative theologians and ecclesiastical authorities condemned the work. Why?

• Too sympathetic to Epicureanism: Even though Christianity "wins" the dialogue, Epicureanism is presented as philosophically serious.
• Pleasure language: By framing salvation as "pleasure," Valla seemed to instrumentalize divine grace. Is Christianity just a superior pleasure calculus?
• Undermines asceticism: Medieval Christianity valued suffering and self-denial for their own sake. Valla suggested they're valuable only as means to spiritual pleasure.
• Too rhetorical: Valla uses rhetoric to persuade. But what if rhetoric can persuade us of Epicureanism too?

Despite the controversy, Valla wasn't executed or imprisoned (unlike some heretics). Why?

• He had powerful protectors: The Pope eventually employed him. His supporters included cardinals and nobility.
• The times were changing: The 15th century was more intellectually open than the 13th. The Renaissance valued bold thinking.
• He was too useful: His linguistic and rhetorical skills made him valuable. His exposure of the Donation forgery served papal interests (despite being dangerous).

On Pleasure had several important effects:

• Reopened the question: He showed that Epicureanism could be philosophically engaged with, not just condemned.
• Influenced humanists: Other Renaissance thinkers were inspired to take pleasure and happiness seriously as philosophical topics.
• Set stage for Gassendi: In the 17th century, Gassendi would develop a fuller Christian Epicureanism, building on Valla's work.
• Validated rhetoric: Valla's demonstration that words and arguments matter encouraged humanists to see philosophy as a conversation, not papal pronouncement.