The Reformation Dbq

The Reformation that took place in the sixteenth century saw the fragmentation of Catholic Europe under new religious ideas and practices. One factor causing debate is the role Martin Luther played in the spread of the Reformation. A Reformation, seen in the context of Sixteenth Century life, can be identified as ‘a return right back to the beginning’. In this sense, Luther’s intention can be seen as an attempt to return the church back to where it should be. It has been argued by modern contemporary historians that Luther’s contribution was limited due to the presence of existing reformers and rivals and the idea that Luther was unable to unite a coherent force meaning his role in the Reformation has been exaggerated. However, when

considering the Reformation within the context of the Sixteenth Century, it becomes evident that Luther was seen as a figurehead for the Reformation and a person that made use of new innovations, such as the printing press, to enable and encourage a debate concerning the legitimacy of the Catholic Church and its practices. Therefore, Luther can be seen as hugely influential, in that he was identified by many as a catalyst for the spread of the Reformation.
When discussing Martin Luther’s contribution to the spread of the Reformation, it is useful to explore aspects of his personality and characteristics that have been made apparent through his writings and accounts. Cohn describes Luther as having a ‘charismatic personality’; this suggests that Luther was able to appeal to masses through his speeches and teachings. This idea is furthered by MacCulloch’s assertion that Luther was a ‘passionate, impulsive man’. Luther can be seen as passionate and impulsive in his decision to staple his Ninety-Five Thesis on the door of a church in Wittenberg. This saw him attack papal veniality and the theory behind indulgences. In addition to this, Luther made use of new technology and means of communication to spread his ideas. For example, Luther and his followers relentlessly used the circulation of popular pamphlets as a means of spreading their ideas. Luther also publicised his sermons, whereby he used a language that was highly relatable to the general population and within that, the illiterate. This was highly effective as it could not be controlled by the Church or State and therefore could not be manipulated or prevented. Luther’s personality and methods can therefore be seen as factors, which distinguished him from other reformers.
However, Luther’s brashness and acts of spontaneity can be attributed to the fact that, for the most part, Luther was not prepared for the reaction and attention he received. MacCulloch suggests that Luther published his thesis with no intention of inspiring reform. A source that further suggests this notion comes from Martin Luther’s Resolutions, whereby he profusely denies having any intention of causing so many to question the Church’s authority: ‘It is a mystery to me how my theses, more so than my other writings, indeed, those of other professors, were spread to so many places’. He goes on to suggest that he was questioning the practices of local Priests rather than Pope Leo X and the Catholic Church in general. This further suggests that in the early stages of the Reformation, Luther makes an effort to appease the Papacy and attempts to limit the effects of his Ninety-Five Thesis. However, it could be argued that the tone in Luther’s Resolution is that of sarcasm and mockery. For example Luther writes ‘Therefore, Most Holy Father, I prostrate myself before your Holiness’, here his praise of the papacy can be seen as sarcastic, as it can be seen as a stark contrast to his Ninety-Five theses whereby he radically condemned and rejected the Pope’s authority, general councils of the church and canon law. Luther was admired by many for his radical nature, whereby he confronted the Catholic Church in a way in which no other individual had dared to before. He can therefore be seen as a figurehead who people used as an example for how to lead the Reformation. Luther was also identified as the pioneer of the Revolution, which distinguished him from his rivals despite their individual successes.
At the time of the Reformation, Lutheranism was not the only form of Protestantism. Therefore, when considering Luther’s role in the Reformation, he can be compared to other groups who rivaled him. Luther’s main rival was Zwingli who originated and spread his ideas in Switzerland. Zwingli was influenced by Luther, however; in general he was more radical and confrontational. It can be argued that Zwingli was more influential in some factors of the Revolution. For example, Zwingli was successful in winning over the municipal authorities, and thus having mass abolished in 1525. Cohn eludes to the idea that, had it not been for Zwingli’s death in 1531, Zwingli may have had a considerable effect on the course of the Reformation. This therefore suggests Luther was faced with a significant rival force, thus pointing to his inability to create one united and coherent Lutheran movement. This therefore may have limited the success of the Reformation movement in the Sixteenth Century.
In addition to this, it can be argued that Luther’s model of Protestantism was largely influenced by the works of his predecessors, thus suggesting that his ideas about how the Reformation should take place cannot be seen as innovative in their approach.

Rublack focuses on the reformers John Wyclif and Jan Hus, who maintained the idea that the ‘king and nobility should reform the church, returning it to a truly spiritual life and deprive it of all secular dominion and property’. This ideal is reflected in Luther’s opposition to indulgences, which he saw as an abuse and violation of the intention of confession and penance. This therefore contextualizes the long process of reform in Europe and suggests that although ideas of Reformation existed before, they only came to a head in the sixteenth century. Despite the clear influences Luther made use of, it is evident that he was the first reformer to directly challenge and threaten the Catholic Church. Whilst his use of existing ideas made by historians that predate him has been used as a criticism of Luther’s work, it can also be seen to demonstrate Luther’s ability in creating a public debate whereby previous figures had failed to do so. This can be attributed to Luther’s use of innovative techniques such as his wide use of the printing press in spreading

pamphlets.
Cohn suggests one factor that can be seen to limit Luther’s role in the Reformation.

Cohn asserts that Luther’s actions were detrimental in the spread of the Revolution meaning that later Reformers, such as Calvin, learned from Luther’s mistakes and took a different course of action. Evidence for this comes from examples of peasant revolts and rebellions whereby Luther’s teachings were confused with other local religious leaders. These teachings encouraged peasant revolts, such as the one in 1524-26 whereby peasants used the idea of recourse to ‘divine law’ as justification for their actions. Although these actions weren’t representative of Luther’s teachings, he has often been blamed for allowing these ideas to develop into risings that were damaging to the Revolution. In addition to this, once the revolts were settled, peasants reverted back to Catholicism, thus suggesting Luther’s inability of truly converting the peasants. However, as previously stated, more often than not, Luther was successful in spreading and encouraging teachings amongst the wider population. He adapted his methods of teaching so that all members of society could understand. He made use of anecdotes to explain his teachings to the illiterate, for example his ‘advice for a barber’ tale. Therefore, despite the existence of cases whereby Luther was unsuccessful in spreading the Reformation, his methods of teaching can still be seen as hugely innovative and

successful.
An important factor to consider when exploring the extent of Luther’s contribution to the Reformation is the response made by the Catholic Church. In various sources it is suggested that the Church were threatened by Luther’s actions. For example Exsurge Domine, a Papal Bull issued in June 1520, can be seen in response to Luther’s Ninety-Five Resolutions. The hostile tone automatically indicates that the Pope identifies Luther as a threat to the stability of the Catholic Church. It publically condemned forty-one errors committed by Luther and makes no reference to any of Luther’s rivals, therefore identifying him as the central force in creating and spreading debate. By doing this, the Church created a figurehead for the Reformation and presented Luther as somewhat of a martyr for the Protestant cause.
Luther’s aim was to Christianize the whole of Europe and return the Church to its previous form, which the medieval church had obscured. Although he was not successful in achieving these aims, he provided reformers with a catalyst for the spread of the Reformation. His personality and methods of action set him apart from other reformers at the time and he therefore appeared as a figurehead for the Reformation. Although modern day critics have identified flaws in Luther’s methods, it is important to consider how he was portrayed at the time of the Reformation. Cameron asserts that ‘in his days of notoriety he was one of the most celebrated, written about and portrayed figures in Europe’. This epitomizes the view that Luther was seen as the pioneer of the Revolution at the time. Although, modern critics have pointed out his inadequacies, his relevance at the time cannot be understated. It is also important to consider that Luther maintained no official status; it is therefore remarkable that he was able to influence and convince so many people. In conclusion, Martin Luther’s contribution to the spread of the reformation can be seen as highly important, his methods of encouraging debate can be seen as innovative and brave in a situation whereby no one had dared go to before.