Arthur R. Butz – The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century

Supplement 2: Context and Perspective in the Holocaust Controversy
Valla was not a disinterested scholar. At the time he wrote the treatise, he was
employed as secretary to Alfonso of Aragon, who was contesting the rule of
Naples with the Pope. Valla left his readers in no doubt of his view that temporal
power of the Pope is bad and ought to be abolished. Nevertheless, Valla’s treatise
is a landmark in the rise of historical criticism, and I believe it can profitably be
studied today by those engaged in “debunking the genocide myth.”
Although somebody was burned at the stake in Strassburg in 1458 for denying
the Donation, Valla’s thesis was at first quite well received among educated people,
although the treatise remained in manuscript. By 1500, it seemed the legend
was finished; the relative quiescence of fundamental controversy on the character
of the papacy was probably helpful. However, the development of the Reformation
movement and the wide use of Valla’s treatise as a weapon against the papacy
had the ironic effect of reviving the defense of the legend. On the one hand,
Martin Luther declared in 1537 that Valla’s treatise had convinced him that the
Pope was the embodiment of the Antichrist. On the other hand, Steuchus, librarian
of the Vatican, produced in 1547 a rather able attack on Valla’s treatise, which
was put on the Index shortly later. The process of overthrowing the legend could
only be considered completed around 1600, when the great Catholic historian
Baronius declared that the falsity of the Donation had been proved.
This short sketch begs at least two fundamental questions. First, we have observed
that the fraudulence of the Donation seems obvious, on the grounds that
the alleged transfer of sovereignty did not in fact take place. Why then did it take
so long to expose it
I believe that the reason is fundamentally that it would have been impolitic,
earlier than the Renaissance, to have drawn the obvious conclusions about the
Donation. Important political and economic interests are difficult to oppose with
mere observations, regardless of how factual and relevant. The two explanations
that come most readily to mind, for the overthrowing of the legend at the time it
was done, are, first, that the Renaissance introduced a new higher level of scholarship
to Europe and, second, that the Reformation assisted anti-papal developments.
I believe this interpretation is valid provided it is not thereby implied that
the Middle Ages did not have the intellectual acumen to see through the fraud.
The political developments of the post-medieval period were decisive in making it
safe and even opportune to see the obvious.
We can elaborate on this basically political explanation by noting the old problem:
we see the trees, not the forest, unless we make unusual efforts to do otherwise.
To see the obvious, it must first be presented somehow. What people heard
in the Donation controversy were the claims of Popes to temporal authority, references
to the relevant document, and all sorts of arguments from quarters hostile to
the Pope. Roman history, while known to a good extent, was not normally ably
presented. For this perhaps amazing omission there are simple explanations. For
one thing, the Popes represented the entrenched position and called the tune on
what was to be discussed; they could hardly be expected to encourage examination
on historical grounds. For another thing, spokesmen against the Donation, on
account of their dissident position, had to address familiar subjects in order to ac-
385