Heiko a. Oberman the Reformation Roots and Ramifications 2004

The Reformation: Roots and Ramifications. by Heiko Oberman Review by: Nicholas Terpstra The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Spring, 1996), pp. 202-203 Published by: The Sixteenth Century Journal Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2544306 . Accessed: 15/06/2014 19:53 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Sixteenth Century Journal is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Sixteenth Century Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.41 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:53:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

202

XXVII / 1 (1996) Sixteenth CenturyJournal

simultaneouslyin the metaphoricprocess:cognition,imagination,and feeling.Metaphor is constantlydisruptingor disturbingthe reader,playing"on thatwhich cannot be reduced to purelyrationalformulae."For Milton, and especiallyin his prose,the readerneeds to sense thisdimensionof the literaryexperience"forwhich therecan neverbe a schematicaccount." "a truthwhose habitis less It is,Cable argues,an experience of poetic truth,but importantly to proclaim itselfthan to invoke in its reader affectiveassent-to invoke, as it were, the reader'sferventwitness."Andthat'show Milton needs to be approached-to see in the textualwork of Milton the use of metaphoras an essentiallyiconoclasticact,a subversiveactivity or experience which assaultsintellectualand emotional complacency.Such assaults,through metaphor,are what Cable pointsout in her variouschapterson Milton'sprose as she argues writerand readerthroughacts of creativeiconthatMilton and metaphorseek to transform oclasm. Cable's goal, then,is to understandand observein Milton the metaphoricprocesswhich writerand readerin the mortal,i.e. carnal,strivingafterthe immortal.How mettransforms aphor works,according to Cable and thisis the reason her studymoves,it seems,relentlesslyto itsfinalchapteron Samson-replicates what she findsin Milton's autonomous individual, subsuming the predominance of one's own mind "into the truth of God's predominance."Language, thus,is a medium-and Milton knew this-"capable of transformingand redeeminghuman life in the mortalworld."Studyingthislanguage is Cable's mission. In between her opening theoreticalchapterand the finaldiscussionon SamsonAgonistes, we findwell-writtenand especiallylucid chapterson the antiprelaticaltracts,on the divorce and on Eikonoklastes. For anyone interestedin the historyof English tracts,on Areopagitica, Cable's polemical writing,these chaptersare particularlyenjoyableand thought-provoking. approach to language and metaphorwill be usefulforanyoneworkingwith post-Reformation religiouspolemical prose-and, of course,foranyone exploringthe operationof metaphor.

Rudolph P. Almasy ..............

West Virginia University

The Reformation: Roots and Ramifications. Heiko Oberman.Andrew Gow, trans.Grand Rapids:Wm. B. Eerdmans,1994. 232 pp. $29.99. This collection bringstogetherten essaysfirstpublishedin Germanybetween 1967 and 1985.Although issued as a collection in German in 1986, the studiesare here given a translation which is clear and idiomatic,yet capturesOberman's veryparticularstyle.In these essaysOberman aims to explore"the unityand expansion of the Reformationmovement," with particularemphasison Luther'sthoughtand legacy.In fact,eightof the ten essaysdeal with Lutherand his immediatecircle,and two with Zwingli and Zurich. The book marksan effortto reassertthe role of faithas a centralcategoryforunderstanding the Reformation,without fallinginto the kind of ecclesiasticalpartisanshipthat often renderedtraditionalscholarshiptrivialor suspect.Oberman arguesthatmodern scholarship's effortsto move beyond thatpartisanshiphave generatednew distortions.He identifiesthree in particular.Advocates of ecumenismare eager to downplaydogma and overemphasizeconcord,and so arriveat a Reformationpushed forwardby well-meaningfolkwho trippedover theirown misunderstandings and theirinabilityto communicateclearlyand who, by implication,would otherwisehave gottenon quite well. Social historianshave rightlycriticized the abstractionof intellectualhistoriesof doctrinewhich give no thoughtto the social context or reception of ideas, yet they have written counterhistoriesin which people plot schism,build states,and suppressmarginalgroups,all the while believingnothingin partic-

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.41 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:53:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BookReviews 203 ular.Finally,some have takenLutheras the firstmodern man, a conscience-drivenindividualistwho sharesour neurosesand speaks to our condition.These are the distortionswhich Oberman seeks to counter.Whathe seeks to offerinsteadis a "historyof thought";thatis, intellectualhistorywhich recognizesthe social rootsand impactof dogma and which,above all,recognizesthe integrityof the past as past. Many of the essayswere writtenfor commemorativeoccasions,of which therewas no shortagebetween 1975 and 1984.They were,accordingly, aimed at two audiences who were onlyoccasionallypresentin the same room.One is the audience of scholarswho are skeptical of an approachto the Reformationwhich emphasizesfaithand ideas; the otheris the communitiesof Protestantswho are oftenunaware of, or embarrassedby,theirtradition.As a resultthe collectionis somewhatuneven.In some articles,such as "The Meaning of MysticismfromMeisterEckhartto MartinLuther,"and "Wittenberg's War on Two Fronts,"Oberman demonstrateshis unparalleledgrasp of the late medieval theological context for the debates which raged in the earlysixteenthcentury,achieving a level of complexitywhich would leave most lay audiences reeling.Others,such as "From Protestto Confession:The ConfessioAugustanaas a CriticalTest ofTrue Ecumenism" and "Martin Lutherbetween the Middle Ages and Modern Times," are more popular,even confessionalappeals to lay people which mighthave otherscholarsshifting uncomfortably in theirseats.One sensesthatOberman takesa delightin both reactions,because his Lutherdefiesmostof the pigeonholes constructedat both thepopularand scholarlylevel,and revelsin paradoxesthatkeep one offguard and in thought.His discussionof Luther'sview of the devil,a subject oftentreatedwith dismissivesimplicity, combineseconomywithpsychologicaland theologicalprofundity. The distinctionbetween two audiences is not hard and fast,since many of Oberman's most appreciativereaderswill fallinto both camps.Yetdoes he fulfillhis objectivesofproviding a broaderapproachto intellectualhistoryand of reasserting faithas a centralcategoryin Reformationresearch?Despite his efforts to promotea "HistoryofThought,"the resulthere looks a lot like the traditionalhistoryof ideas: strongon doctrinaldevelopment,and short on social roots and ramifications. One could argue thatbecause of its biographicalformat, Luther:Man betweenGod and Deivilmore thoroughlyfulfilledthatagenda.YetOberman does demonstratein theseessays,as in the Lutherbiography, a profoundunderstandingof the psychological appropriationof doctrines.Thismore thananythinglends weightto his argument thatattemptingto understandthe Reformationwithout understandingfaith(not identical with but not divorcedfromdoctrine) resultsin historiesthatare oftensuperficialand flat. The audience of scholarswill be familiarwith much of thisfromOberman's earlierworks. The "lay" audience is the one which has the most to gain fromtheseessays,since Oberman understandsboth theReformationand themfromthe inside.He paradoxicallyconfirmsthat while Luther may be the firstmodern man,he is a man fortoday.This is "applied Luther" just as much as Karl Holle's. Holle aimed at modern and Oberman at postmodern man. Having statedthat,the approach is more traditionalthan postmodern.Oberman is always appreciative,albeit never parochial.We don't see here the underside of Luther; his many good ideas come fromhis manystrongpoints,and Oberman does not explorewhat elements of Luther'sthoughtare rooted in the pugnacity, prejudice,confusion,inconsistency, or occasional dim-wittednessthatcharacterizesmost thinkersand so rendersa more nuanced HistoryofThought.But it is a Lutherwho has the abilityto recognize the paradoxical,thatthe devil is in the good timesand God in thebad-a Lutherwhom perhapsCalvinistslike Oberman and Eerdmanscan best appreciate.

Nicholas Terpstra ..

.............. Luther College, University of Regina

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.41 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:53:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions