The Reformation: A History Book

I can see that many of the other reviews for this book have not been as happy with it as I have been. I assume the problem is that they know much more about this period than I do and so are annoyed at how much is left out. But he does make it clear that compared to other books on the period that go for over 800 pages he is going to give a brief overview of the major themes of both the reformation and the counter-reformation - and I believe he has done this admirably.

As I said, I came to this book knowing bits and pieces of the history of the reformation, but not totally sure how those pieces fit together. This definitely gave more than just a helicopter view of the period.

I quite like it when I learn that things I had always assumed happened were actually myths invented after the fact. So, Luther saying at the Diet of Worms, "Here I stand, I can do no other" - probably shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that he never said this in as many words. However, what he did say was pretty much the same thing, if in many, many more words. That history remembers the pithy (even at the expense of accuracy) should not really come as a shock to anyone. This is compared in this book to Galileo saying "Yet it moves" - something he also almost certainly never actually said, but which so perfectly sums up the story that we ought to just accept it as true and be done with it.

To say the reformation was 'one thing' is to miss the point. The reformation in Germany, Scandinavia, England and France were all quite different in intent and in outcome. And we could play the 'what-if' game forever here if the fancy took us - what if Henry VIII had lots of sons? What if they had burnt Luther for heresy? What if the printing press had not been invented for another fifty years? Because this was clearly a revolution in theology sparked by and enflamed by the printing press.

What is also interesting in this book is that the counter-reformation is presented as more the Catholic reformation. There were clearly aspects of the Catholic Church's response to the reformation that were reactions against the reformation (even reactions designed to repress the ideas behind the reformation) - however, it is also clear that the Catholic Church itself was reformed in this process. This is not meant to negate the fundamental differences between what Calvin and Luther were calling for in their reforms - the whole personal relationship with god that is unmediated by anything other than the scriptures was never going to be acceptable to the Catholic Church, but all the same, the Catholic Church was not nearly the same beast in 1660 as she had been in 1490.

Wonderful stuff in this about Protestant art too - given this was a religion on iconoclasts (read, the Christian version of the Taliban gleefully destroying the artistic masterpieces of centuries in the name of religion) it was fairly obvious (I guess, although I'd never really thought about it before) that the reformation would struggle to produce any truly great art. But then, one does have to account for Dürer, that most wonderful of drawers, and his affection for Luther. There is a lovely line here about protestant artists going from painting god to painting churches, from painting portraits of the saints to painting portraits of the rich - but in the end it would be hard to claim that no good art came out of the reformation, though much less hard to claim it still cost us dearly in the wilful destruction of vast amounts of our cultural heritage.

There is also an interesting discussion of Weber and whether his idea that the reformation was a necessary pre-condition of capitalism has been appropriately understood or if this idea is not really quite overstated. This is an idea with a long history in Europe - much the same thing is said by Marx, I believe, and as is pointed out here there have been mumblings along these lines ever since the reformation. The standard line being backward Catholic countries not even bothering to keep up with the go-getter spirit of the Protestant north. This has inspired me to read some Weber and see what he had to say about this for myself.

For such a short book it is overflowing with information, so much so I think I will need to read another, longer book on this period to really come to terms with it. I haven't even touched on the reformation and its relationship to the enlightenment. Now, there is a theme worthy of consideration and contemplation. That one depended on the other is almost certainly true, but whether or not the reformation proved always to be a positive boon for enlightenment thinking, now that is quite another matter. The material presented here on the Anabaptists, of whom I knew virtually nothing, is also utterly fascinating.