Societal Success: From Renaissance to Reformation

            “Movable type helped disband the world’s armies,” said Jenna. Then she expounded, informing us that the quote from Hugh Latimer during the Northern Renaissance. Our small group pondered her point while we sat, analyzing its relevancy to a seemingly simple prompt: what best captures, or signifies, the period in Europe’s history from Early Renaissance to Reformation (roughly 1350 C.E. to 1700 C.E.)? While I loved the imagery that her quote summoned—that the power in words can be “mightier than the sword,” as Edward Bulwer-Lytton later coined it—my inner realist began to whisper doubts.

            But, did the world’s armies really ‘disband,’ I thought, perplexed. Should we, knowing history’s subsequent death tolls of numerous civil and world wars, embrace Movable type as the greatest indicator of social success during the Renaissance and Reformation? If not, what could possibly capture the successful social transformation that did occur during that period? Was it a name, or a text? Was it an event, or a place?

Philosophy vs. Theology: Erasmus vs. Luther

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine." (John 7:17)

            The Protestant Reformation brought major religious conflict to Europe and had two voices that came to dominate its arenas of debate and apologetics. These two voices argued at the heart of the conflict. Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther made irreplaceable arguments surrounding free will during the development of, what would become, Christian humanism. We will examine the effectiveness of the rhetoric within their written arguments to one another, and it is worth noting (for context) that Erasmus centers his argument on moral philosophy while Luther centers himself within theological dogma.

            Luther led a far-reaching theological movement against the authoritarian Catholic Church. His rhetoric, within his argument “On the Bondage of the Will,” takes a stance that is, in many respects, congruent with a Platonist’s (e.g. Luther says that Erasmus “attribute[s] more to free will than the Sophists hitherto did”). These introductory remarks—where Luther equates Erasmus to “the Sophists”—serves as a type of proof which is used to both discredit Erasmus as being the ultimate relativist (one who will say anything to win an argument and cares little for the “Truth”) and to position himself as one who believes in, and professes to have obtained, absolute “Truth.” In Luther’s mind, he is the man that escaped “Plato’s cave.”

            Erasmus, the man given the title “Prince of the Humanists,” remained open-minded while presented his arguments. Erasmus repeatedly addresses the logic behind open-mindedness—a critical concept within Humanism—while sharing his philosophical views. Erasmus does this not only to emphasize its importance, but, by discussing open-mindedness with his audience, he simultaneously invites the quality within us. Erasmus’ presents Christianity as a discernible morality and, in my opinion, employs a more persuasive use of rhetoric than Luther does.

            Where Erasmus presents scriptural proof of God's varied emotional responses to mankind's choices to validate his philosophies of free will, Luther presents his personal scriptural interpretations using those interpretations to speak for God. Luther presents these interpretations as incontrovertibly true which, coincidentally, is in complete harmony with the authoritarian practices within the Catholic Church. This was they very type of hegemonic manipulation he was seeking to reform. Luther—the veritable voice of religious reformation as a response to authoritarian repression—seems guilty, within his arguments, of the same thing he spent so much effort to condemn.