On Pleasure
Lorenzo Valla's De voluptate emerged from the humanist circles of fifteenth-century Italy as a provocative challenge to medieval scholastic ethics. Writing in 1431, the Italian scholar and priest crafted this philosophical dialogue to confront what he saw as the life-denying tendencies of contemporary Christian morality, particularly the Stoic-influenced asceticism that had shaped much medieval thought about virtue and pleasure.
The treatise unfolds as a debate between three speakers representing different philosophical positions: an Epicurean advocate for pleasure, a Stoic defender of virtue, and a Christian who seeks to reconcile both perspectives. Valla's Epicurean speaker argues that pleasure, properly understood, is the highest good and that attempts to suppress natural desires lead to hypocrisy and spiritual sterility. The Stoic counters with traditional arguments about duty and rational control of the passions. But Valla's most radical move comes through his Christian speaker, who argues that true Christianity embraces a higher form of pleasure—the joy found in God and the promise of heavenly beatitude. This speaker contends that earthly pleasures, when received with gratitude and used properly, can serve as foretastes of divine joy rather than obstacles to spiritual growth.
De voluptate has endured as a pivotal text in the development of Renaissance humanism and Christian moral theology. Valla's sophisticated defense of pleasure challenged the false dichotomy between spiritual and physical well-being that had dominated medieval thought, anticipating later developments in both Protestant and Catholic thinking about the goodness of creation. The work demonstrates how rigorous philosophical argument could serve theological renewal rather than undermine faith.
Who should read this: Scholars of Renaissance thought and anyone interested in the philosophical foundations of Christian ethics will find Valla's arguments essential. Those seeking simple devotional reading or uncomfortable with sustained philosophical dialogue should look elsewhere.