The Dynamics of Polarization
In the fall of 1520 Luther's public persona was challenged by the anonymous counterattacks of the Franciscan Thomas Murner. If Luther presented himself as an impassioned critic, Murner depicted him as a dangerous rebel seeking to overthrow all legitimate authority through a seductive appeal to "simple Christians." For the most part, however, Luther's supporters had been convinced by Luther that his criticism
was more than warranted. The battle had taken on apocalyptic proportions, and in the war between light and darkness the supporters of darkness deserved all the abuse that could be heaped upon them. The dynamics of polarization were at work. The polemical and psychological pressures all drove Luther's supporters to maximize Luther's virtues as their leader against the Antichrist, to minimize or discount his vices, and to see nothing but self-seeking and wickedness among their opponents.
Thomas Murner was mercilessly satirized in treatises such as Karsthans , and his name was invariably changed to "Murnar" to play on the German word Narr , "fool."[52] He was also likened to a cat, just as Emser was depicted as a goat, Eck as a pig, and popes and clergy in general as ravening wolves. In the Declaration of the University of Erfurt, the translator, Wolfgang Rüßen, called the bull excommunicating Luther "the trumped-up Eckian bull" and labeled it "heretical and unjust."[53] Eck and the other sponsors of the bull were called "ungodfearing" and "hypocrites" doing the work of the devil, and the bull of excommunication was termed the "tyrannical and more than devilish papal ban."[54]
Several of the treatises emphasized Luther's learning and the learning of his supporters and characterized his opponents as ignorant and unlearned. For example, in A Good Coarse German Dialogue , there was an exchange between the characters Peter and Hans. Peter said that he could tell that Hans thought "there is no one wiser than Luther and those who protect him and his undertaking." But Peter would not be swayed, for the "great lords, which are the cardinals and bishops" were not well disposed toward Luther. "So say the canons at the chapters, for one, and various other clergy and several learned people besides, how he is a wicked, perverted monk." It was no wonder that he had misled the whole world since, by all reports, he had in his books "so wickedly attacked the pious man, the pope." The character Hans found this funny, suggesting that these friends of Peter should have been absolved for slander. Rebutting Peter's charges, Hans insisted, one found "many pious people" among Luther's supporters, and the most learned members of the chapters and cloisters were "well disposed towards him and highly praise his teaching."[55]
In A Beautiful Dialogue the priest who by pamphlet's end was brought around to Luther's side said that he wished henceforth "to agree with the pious Luther and have nothing more to do with these
blatherers," Luther's opponents. Instead, he wished in future "to rely entirely on his teaching and lead you as a true pastor. For I hear," he continued,
[that] there are in fact many learned people on his side, especially Doctor Erasmus [of] Rotterdam, a strong cornerstone of the Scripture, the same [is true of] Doctor Andreas Karlstadt, a crown of the Holy Scripture, also Oecolampadius and still many more. For I understand [that] these highly learned men are well practiced in the true kernel of the good books—Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and perhaps Chaldean—out of all that has appeared in recent years. [In this] lies, as I hear, the true treasure of the Holy Scripture.[56]
So Luther and his supporters were all learned men. It was only "the unlearned and the greedy," as A Good Coarse German Dialogue put it, "who are his enemies and those who are involved with Roman business and those who nourish themselves with deluded judicial quarrels [verplentem haderwerck¶recht ]. But those who promote justice and love listen to him gladly."[57]
While Eck and his supporters were "the unlearned and the greedy," Luther was not only learned but motivated solely by Christian zeal. In the anonymous A Good Coarse German Dialog Between Two Good Journeyman , the character Hans insisted that Luther had done nothing for money, regardless of what the character Peter had heard. "He has not in fact retained a penny." Hans said, "He also does not seek worldly honor. He could have had a bishopric and a great prelacy but he did not wish it. How can he be accused of pouring out poison [when in fact he has been] with great effort championing the proper teaching of God day and night?"[58] This report of an attempted bribe appeared elsewhere. The anonymous author of A Beautiful Dialogue had the mayor insist to the priest that Luther "is pious and right [and] does nothing for money. In fact the pope had wanted to give him a bishopric so that he would no longer write against him. Luther would not do this for he would rather be poor than abandon God's truth."[59] By way of contrast, among other harsh accusations, the Declaration of the University of Erfurt suggested that Eck and his supporters were in the pay of the Roman bishop.[60]
Luther's supporters generally agreed that Luther had been set upon because he threatened clerical income. The student Laux Gemigger stated that God had sent Luther to reveal the current state of the world, which greatly displeased the pope and his supporters. It was "the penny's shine" that prompted the injustice done to Luther "be-
cause he tells us about Roman rascality and also their great heresy."[61] A touch of xenophobia could also creep into the explanation. For example, in Karsthans the character Luther, when asked by Karsthans what brought him to do what he was doing, answered that it was the simplicity of the German people who were of such little understanding that they did not question what was presented to them and were thus deceived and made fun of by foreigners.[62]
As these several examples illustrate, popular stereotypes were working to enhance Luther's status and demean the status of his opponents. In the natural polarization of polemical characterization, Luther took on all the attributes of goodness and virtue and his opponents, the attributes of evil and vice. So Luther's selfless concern for Christianity is juxtaposed with papal hirelings like Eck or greedy clerics, who fleeced Christ's sheep or tore into them like ravening wolves. He and his supporters were learned, his opponents ridiculous and ignorant. And so on.
These Strasbourg publications also made much of the contrast between Luther's alleged willingness to be instructed and the alleged unwillingness of his opponents to give him a hearing or overcome him with Scripture, for the contrast fit perfectly into their authors' view of Luther and the struggle in which they were all engaged. In Karsthans , for example, Karsthans' son reported that the Dominican "Master of Heretics," Jakob von Hochstraten, had said that "it is not good or certain to dispute with such people or to give them a hearing or to follow the law [in dealing with them] because they are too learned and have often disgraced the master of heretics."[63]
This was a message of several of the treatises: Luther had risked his teachings through public disputations and hearings and had not been overcome. Michael Stifel said that Luther had appeared among his enemies three times now and requested a discussion of his teachings at Augsburg, Leipzig, and Worms. Those who took up the challenge were disgraced; the rest avoided disputing. It was a scandal, Stifel wrote, that members of the universities called Luther a heretic and yet not one of them would come forward to dispute with Luther.[64] In A Beautiful Dialogue it was reported that Doctor Eck of Ingolstadt disputed with Luther at Leipzig and "carried away a great sow," the traditional prize for last place in horse racing.[65] In Karsthans the student reported that Eck had gained neither much honor nor victory in his disputation with Luther.[66] Hartmuth von Cronberg spread the blame even further. "One says that the wise do not commit small follies," he
wrote in his Rejection of the Alleged Dishonor . "This may also happen to our geniuses [hochwysen ] who acted so childishly at the last imperial diet in the matter of doctor Luther, for there has undoubtedly not been a truer more Christian teacher living in a thousand or more years than this doctor Luther."[67] Cronberg went on to say of Luther at Worms that "this doctor rejoiced that he was honored by God in being condemned and banned by men for the sake of the truth. He would much prefer to suffer death and all the horrors of the pope than to keep silent concerning the truth, and in that fashion he shows forth [his] great Christian brotherly love towards the pope and all human beings."[68]
The anonymous author of A Pleasant Argument summarized well a point made by several of the pamphleteers. The nobleman in the dialogue asked the curialist why they had not appointed "learned people" to refute Luther "with divine Scripture" and "show him his error," for Luther "wishes nothing else and has offered gladly to be corrected and to give up if he is overcome with Scripture." If this were done, the curialist and his people "would receive great praise" and secure the allegiance of the laity "so that we would believe and persevere more strongly than ever. But when we see that you do not wish to do this but only wish to proceed against him with force you arouse in us a suspicion that you have not shown us thus far the right way to eternal life but rather are misleading us."[69]
The other side of the claim that Luther was willing to be instructed was that it was his opponents who had refused to enter into proper measured debate on the basis of Scripture. Instead, they had started the public battle in the press and then, unable to overcome Luther's arguments, had resorted to force. The burgher of A Pleasant Argument became upset with the curialist's criticism of Luther's polemics. While he agreed that some of the pamphlets used "improper ridicule and insulting words" that were inappropriate for "Christian people or doctors" to use, he asked, "But who started this in the first place? Indeed, you Romans! For when Luther first wrote against you in Latin and warned you in a friendly fashion, you would not tolerate any criticism from him. Instead you insulted him so badly [by calling him] a heretic and [attacked him] with such inappropriate treatises that you gave him great cause to write in German."[70] Michael Stifel in his Against Doctor Murnar's[71]False Made-Up Song Concerning the Downfall of Christian Faith[72] essentially agreed with the burgher's remark. To Murner's charge that Luther had awakened rebellion in the land, Stifel
replied that it was widely known that Luther had written that he had often wished to withdraw from the public battle but that his opponents had not allowed this. Instead, they had attacked him with their "insane bacchanalian writings" so that "no pious Christian could have tolerated such sacrilegious falsifying of the holy word of God" that his opponents had practiced. The conflict had been forced by the opponents. "Murnar" called it rebellion, but he needed to know that Christ and Paul had undertaken the same "rebellion."[73] In the introduction to Karsthans , the author also claimed that it was Murner who had replied in German to Luther's Latin publications.[74]
Several of these treatises expressed the conviction that Luther's opponents were applying brute force, book burning and the like, because they were unable to defeat Luther in debate or refute his claims with Scripture. In Marcellus's Passion of Doctor Martin Luther , it was Luther's books that were burned at Worms rather than Luther himself. Hutten's books were burned to the right of Luther's, Karlstadt's to the left. And following the passion narrative, Marcellus claimed that a portrait of Luther was also consigned to the flames. Over it stood the words "This is Martin Luther, Doctor of divine truth." The portrait would not burn, however, until covered in pitch.[75] Perhaps less fanciful was the account in Karsthans that in Mainz in 1520 the papal legate, Aleander, had attempted to arrange that Luther's books be publicly burned. "When everyone was assembled on the square and was awaiting the event," the pamphlet reported, "the executioner asked whether a legal judgement had been given that the books should be burned. When no one could attest to this, the lowly man did not want to execute the judgment and went away. O what great shame and disgrace was thereby shown the legate!"[76] The author of New Karsthans had Karsthans report that the emperor was a good papist and accordingly had had Luther's books burned and "placed under the ban with a ferocious, sharp mandate"—the Edict of Worms. Karsthans said that Hutten was being persecuted as well.[77]
Luther was willing to enter into debate on the basis of Scripture; his opponents refused. He had sought to resolve their disagreements peacefully and quietly; his opponents had taken to the press and smeared his name and lied about his teachings. He had been forced to respond to defend the truth and expose error. He had courageously testified to his faith in Leipzig, Augsburg, and now Worms. But instead of offering him the instruction he requested, his opponents resorted to force, condemning him with an unjust ban and burning his
books. But just as his picture failed to catch fire, he too, like Christ, would rise up to continue to testify to the truth. These were the stereotypical characteristics of a humble yet learned man of God.