Andrew Pettegree’s Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion is concerned with the question of how and why the Reformation garnered the allegiance of the 16th-c. masses. Pettegree notes that the decision to convert—and conversion was generally a conscious decision in the Reformation’s first generation (2)—could be extremely traumatic. So why did people convert? Was it due to the content of the Reformers’ message, as Diarmaid MacColluch has argued (5)? Was it due to the advent of the printing press, as suggested by Elizabeth Einstein (7)? While Pettegree admits that there some truth in both these views, his book could be characterized as a monumental effort to problematize them. Once the ground is cleared of misconceptions, he constructs an elaborate, nuanced, and convincing portrait of the role that different media played in the emergence of the Reformation.
If persuasion is limited to the transfer of ideas, it could be argued that the Reformation met with limited success. The Reformers were extraordinarily pessimistic about the impact of their preaching; they saw little evidence that the Gospel had been internalized and that it was producing real transformation in believers (20,4). To the extent that persuasion in this sense was accomplished, Pettegree argues, it was done by word-of-mouth. Preaching, song, catechism, and conversation in public places were the most effective media by which the Reformation message was conveyed (8,212). These were particularly well-adapted to reaching illiterate, non-urban congregations (39,193). Unlike most historians before him, Pettegree does not think that books played an important role in this process. Besides the somewhat trivial problem of poor eyesight (107-9), there was the problem of illiteracy. Although some scholars suggest that the literate read aloud to the illiterate, Pettegree finds only one example of this occurring with a non-biblical text (119). Even the literate, moreover, may not have actually read most of the books they purchased—these were status symbols, or “badges of belonging” (156-9,216). Although woodcuts have occasionally been cited as a possible bridge between the printed medium and the illiterate, the truth is that most woodcut images were actually very complex and were not designed to be understood without reading the text around them (112-7). Like the books within which they were contained, they were luxury items and “badges of belonging” (116). And while smaller pamphlets were less expensive than books, they seem generally to have been purchased by social elites and bound together as collections in order to make them respectable library items (160). Their particular role appears to have been “the multiplication effect of reinforcement,” in which many voices make the same point and thereby give the impression of overwhelming force (162-3).
But if the ability of books to convey the message of the Reformation to the masses has been exaggerated, Pettegree also seems to imply that the importance of conveying the message has itself been exaggerated, at least in terms of explaining the spread of Protestantism. That he has deprecated books, pamphlets, and woodcuts as “badges of belonging” does not mean that they were unimportant in the Reformation’s proliferation. And that Protestant drama was most effective where the Reformation was already established and quickly secularized to become little more than a form of entertainment does not mean that it was insignificant, either (96). Quite to the contrary, in fact. The Reformation displaced medieval systems, structures, and relationships, leaving people with a profound sense of alienation (211). Protestants had to create “new solidarities,” a new “culture of belonging” (213). The miracle and mystery plays that had been so central in medieval Catholic piety were replaced by new Protestant dramatic forms, which had the double effect of being an attack on Catholic piety and of erecting new Protestant cultural associations. That they were little more than “shared recreation” (214) does not diminish their significance. Similarly, “badges of belonging” were important in constructing shared Protestant identity (216-7).
Pettegree’s argument is highly compelling. This is surprising, considering that the misconceptions he so confidently assaults—like for example the primacy of the printing press in disseminating the message of the Reformation—are such staples of Reformation historiography. But this argument, in particular, may still be open to question. Even if reading was not an option for the illiterate majority of the population, it was an option for intellectuals and undoubtedly played an important role in the recruitment of preachers, songwriters, authors, playwrights, and civil officials. True, probably many if not most of the books that were purchased by wealthy elites were never actually read. But some of them must have been, and this surely cannot have failed to have an effect in educated circles. We might posit a sort of “trickle-down” theory of the effect of print publications. If the literate did not read aloud to the illiterate, it is probably still the case that the literate preached to the illiterate some of the things they had learned from books.
Pettegree also makes regrettable omissions at a few points. For example, he informs his readers very briefly that Zwingli was hostile to the use of music in worship (54). How, one might ask, did this affect the progress of the Swiss Reformation? If singing was one of the two most effective ways that Protestant teachings were disseminated, one might expect to find that the Reformation proceeded very differently in Switzerland than it did elsewhere. I am not aware of any evidence for this, but if there is some I would have liked to see Pettegree explore it. At this point, I think, he missed a golden opportunity for a comparative study that might have validated or invalidated this aspect of his thesis. Secondly, Pettegree largely neglects the Anabaptists. While the Anabaptists are mentioned a few times in the book, they are usually only discussed insofar as they affected the course of the Magisterial Reformation. True, the Anabaptists may be more difficult to study given the paucity of evidence. But they would make particularly interesting subject-matter for an exploration of the construction of shared identity. And finally, Pettegree also fails to offer any really measured commentary on the extent to which he thinks drama affected the spread of the Reformation vis a vis the other media under consideration. Of course, these ultimately are relatively minor objections.
Besides the material cited to directly support his thesis, Pettegree offers a few really penetrating insights that help add nuance to the story of the Reformation. In particular, the way that he weaves the story of the various reform movements together is truly admirable. Regional studies often miss the kinds of international connections that Pettegree makes when, for example, he charts the diaspora of Genevan metric psalmody across the continent. Another interesting observation Pettegree makes is that while Luther’s central doctrine of justification by faith resonated with a few intellectual clerics, it was a difficult one for the laity to absorb. They were much more interested in doctrines like sola scriptura, which was not only extraordinarily simple but also reinforced in every major rhetorical medium. And finally, Pettegree’s treatment of the differences between the printing industry in the Reformation’s various locales complicates but also enriches the story of the Reformation’s progress. Printing and Protestantism were organically connected; while each might have been able to survive without the other, their union ensured that both thrived. In both Wittenberg and Geneva, an enormous print industry was built almost entirely around the celebrity of the major reformers. Both cities experienced a significant influx of both population and wealth. Although Pettegree does not suggest that this material prosperity directly affected the spread of the Reformation, one cannot help but wonder whether the dramatic increase of these cities’ cultural and material gravity was viewed by Protestants as a providential sign.
While perhaps not perfect, Pettegree’s study of the Reformation and its media is magisterial and unlikely to be superceded in the near future. It seriously complicates some landmarks on the Reformation historiographical scene, and crafts a new, compelling narrative with which any serious historian studying this period will unquestionably have to reckon.
0 comments:
Post a Comment