John Wycliffe was known as the “morning star of the
reformation”, preparing the way for later reformers like Martin Luther. Wycliffe’s
Sixth Sunday After Easter sermon I think is particularly unique in the way that
he is able to tie in his bashing of the pope while discussing scriptures and
other doctrinal topics that apply to a more general audience.
Wycliffe
uses multiple quotes from Christ as the basis of the “proof” for his argument.
After explaining and expounding on Jesus’s words he is able to compare and
contrast both how this could apply to the general population as a whole and how
it is evidence that the pope and other priests are corrupt. This rhetorical
approach is unique and leaves the main idea of his sermon up for “debate”… I
use the quotations to infer that at the time Wycliffe’s approach might have
been able to detour some of his detractors away from the real purpose of his
sermon, but for us today it is clear that his message is primarily focused on
the corruption of the Catholic Church and its leaders.
Smeagol: A dual personality character from Lord of the Rings |
Tone,
which in this sermon is two-fold, also plays an important rhetorical role throughout.
It’s as if he is almost a Sméagol like character, calmly explaining his doctrinal
views of the Holy Ghost and the devils trickery, then going into an accusatory
rage, pointing out the pope and other leader’s flaws and even stating that they
have “killed Christ” from the church’s purpose. Wycliffe’s tone in this sermon
is a good blend of the tones which Erasmus and Martin Luther used in their respective
speeches on free will, which makes sense given Wycliffe’s position and time in
history: both wanting to push his ideas of reform, but not incriminate himself
to the point where he would no longer have the ability to give such sermons.
Nice job of tying this speech into other works we have been studying this unit, like Discourse on Free Will. It seems to me that as time and history goes on we have this evolvement of the humanist approach of not wanting to offend any one else's ideas, to a harsher tone of bashing on the Church, or bashing on the pope, or bashing on someone's ideas. This time period of religious fervor and revolution really seemed to be grabbing everyone by hold. It sounds like Wycliffe was still in the middle of all this - humanism vs. religious reformer.
ReplyDeleteI was scrolling through the posts when I saw Smeagol, and I was like EUGH! So then I had to read your post.
ReplyDeleteI like your discussion of tone, and it reminded me that if we don't understand the speaker's audience or purpose, we won't be able to identify the tone. It works the other way around, too. (Whoa! Why are his words suddenly so harsh? Oh, he's addressing the pope now, I get it.)