Joseph Lortz - The Reformation in Germany: Volume 1

Joseph Lortz's mammoth history of the German Reformation is viewed as one of the major accounts of the period, and definitive in its coverage of the material and scope. The book, and its author, are however problematic and indeed pose troublesome questions for the reader and reviewer. All books are shaped by the views of the author, but this is particularly true of this one. Lortz was a committed Catholic, and a historian of the Catholic Church. He was also a ecumenist, who belived that the different wings of the Christian Church should work together towards unity. He was also a member of the Nazi Party from May 1933.

His account of the Reformation, and particularly Martin Luther, are framed by the idea that the Reformation arose not out of deep seated, but gradual, social and economic changes reshaping Germany, but out of a crisis within Christianity. Lortz is a good enough historian that he acknowledges that there was a wider context, but he cannot really see beyond the internal problems of the Church. So he writes:

The immediate, like the remote, effects of the indulgence theses [of Martin Luther], the theological and politico-ecclesiastical discussion which now began concerning Luther, the emergence and first advance, that is of what we call 'the Reformation', was entirely dependent upon the widespread vagueness of the theology of the age, vagueness, indeed, in the mind of the Church... this vagueness was both expression and consequence of the general confusion of the Church, as presented in the western schism... in the whole late medieval political and intra-ecclesisastical battle against the papcy... in the contradictions of Occamism and... by the shocking disintegration of the Christian and priestly ideal in the worldliness of the curia and the clergy.

Lortz spares little in his criticism of the internal failings of the Church, but by viewing the origins of the Reformation solely in these terms, he is thus able to have his cake and eat it. He can explain the origins of the Reformation within the Church and blame Luther for starting it all. He can write of the "fatal errors of the popes" but have as his real target Luther and the reformers. It means that he can write, frankly incredible, statements. For instance,

The whole idea of th Church was under examination. Luther could not find a lawful basis for this Church in scripture as he interpreted scripture. In so far as he understood scripture he felt himself bound by scripture as by the voice of God. This, then, is the explosive point: he, an individual, claimed the right to determine the content of scripture.

But Luther would likely have responded that individuals in the Catholic Church had been doing precisely this, and getting extremely fat and wealthy on it, for centuries. The Reformation becomes, in this analysis, not the outcome of a process of fundamental social change, but rather an accident of history. This does not mean that Lortz ignores the mass nature of the German Reformation. Far from it. He sees in Worms in 1521, for instance, the moment when the extent to which "the Lutheran cause had become a popular movement" becomes visible to everyone. Luther, he declares, "was a revolutionary":

In the extraordinary inflammation of these months and years his moving utterances against a corrupt clergy, and against good works, and his views concerning the summary expiation of sin... might well precipirate revolution... Luther publicly threatened an imminent revolution.

A revolutionary, for Lortz, is not a good thing. In fact, Luther and his predecssors were extremely dangerous in this regard. Erasmus is dismissed as a "father to fanatics", and the impact of all this is best shown for Lortz, and critics of Luther in the 16th century, by the Peasant War:

At a deeeper level, the Reformation as a whole was a revoutionary phenomenon, breaking through centuries-old institutions and laws, regarding its own conviction as sufficient legitimation. By this means, and by preaching the liberty of the Chritisan man, and also through the spiritualist character o it sconcept of the Church, and its battle against good works and clerical privilege, Reformation doctrine supplied a welcome basis for every kind of revolutionary unrest.

It's not a bad analysis. But it lacks any real sense of the discontent at the bottom of German society that had driven numerous local revolts through the 15th and 16th centuries, and crucially was being inflammed by the development of capitalist relations in society. Lortz cannot see the outbreak of revolution in Germany as being driven by anything but ideas. Nor, to be fair, could Luther. But neither could really understand or explain the Peasant Revolution that exploded in 1524. For Lortz, "Luther was the German Reformation; and the German Reformation was Luther". 

But this is a decidely unhelpful explanation. Luther may have opened the floodgates - and he had to actually do that - but the flood arose out of the nature of German society and a multitude of crises. But this focus on Luther's ideas alone means that Lortz can respond in the same way - through a close, and very dull, Catholic demolition of Luther's Protestantism. Readers not immersed in theological studies may struggle with this part of the book. But Lortz really is avoiding the wider questions.

Which brings me back to Lortz himself. There's a couple of very interesting points in his condemnation of the Peasant War when he refers to the violence of the movement and notes the pogroms against the Jews that happened on at least two occasions. He then writes:

we may cite Luther's fight with the Jews also. Because he regarded their interpretion of scripture as lies, and because they paid no heed to his more moderate demands, he dcommanded their synagogues and houses be burned, their books to be confiscated, and their rabbis prevented from teaching. Their freedom of movement should be impeded; better still, they should be exiled. He had severe decrees passed against them in Saxony and Hesse.

Here Lortz is criticising how Luther's tone allowed the masses to vent their "baser impulses, of hatred, intolerance". But it would be interesting to know when he wrote these words. Because the book was originally written, according to Lortz's introduction, in 1938-1939 and first published in 1939/1940 (for the two volumes). The English edition of 1968, was based on Lortz's updated German edition of 1949. So when Lortz was writing the original book, he was not only under the Nazi regime, he was also a member of the Nazi party. He maintained that he tried to leave the party in 1937, but couldn't leave, though he continued to pay dues until July 1944. Indeed his academic position in this time was solely due to the Nazis who had imposed him and kicked out his predecessor (who got the job back after the war when Lortz had to be denazified). I don't know the extent to which Lortz was a supporter of the regime, though he did write a treatise on the "Catholic accommodation with National Socialism" in 1933. But it is no doubt true that his politics in the 1930s would have coloured his account of the German Reformation.

Had I known this before I began reading I might not have started the book. Readers and reviewers have to grapple with this question. How trustworthy is an account of the German Reformation that was written by a card carrying Nazi, favourable to the regime and published at the point war broke out? Personally it is another reason to reject Lortz's account. Not because he is mistaken on historical detail, but because his political framework would not have allowed a genuine account of the period.

Related Reviews

Roper - Martin Luther: Renegade and Prophet
MacCulloch - Reformation: Europe's House Divided 1490-1700
Pascal - The Social Basis of the German Reformation