Revolutionary Potential in the Renaissance and the Reformation, Essay Example

The evaluation of the Renaissance and the Reformation in terms of which movement is to be posited as more radically revolutionary requires both a recapitulation of the fundamental essence of these historical phenomena and an account of the meaning of the concept of revolution. In the case of the latter, a truly revolutionary movement can be preliminarily abstracted as one in which a pronounced rupture or break from the past is realized. This rupture can take the form of profound changes in existing societal institutions, displacements of concentrated power, and a greater philosophical worldview that re-thinks the position of the human in the cosmos. Whereas both the Renaissance and the Reformation both understood themselves as essentially conservative movements, according to the former’s return to classical sources and the latter’s proclaimed commitment to a more authentic version of Christianity, the historical and social shifts caused by the respective approaches suggests that both possessed a revolutionary character. Nevertheless, when considering the dominant worldview of the time period in Europe as that of medieval Christianity, the paper shall argue that the Renaissance is more radically revolutionary than the Reformation insofar as the Renaissance essentially broke with the dominant Christian worldview and postulated the autonomy of human subjectivity and the contingency of existing structures of societal and political power. That is, while the Reformation may be summarized as an intended break with the historical center of Christianity as located in Rome, the Reformation remained a movement that was fundamentally informed by an interpretation of Christianity. Accordingly, the Reformation remained what may be termed a variant of Christianity, and thus did not designate a thoroughly revolutionary movement. The Renaissance, in contrast, essentially stood for a certain intellectual freedom that designates a radical variant of revolution, as it remains unbound to particular interpretations of Christian ideology, instead emphasizing the possibility for human and societal change, a change that is consistent with the notion of a radical revolution. The paper shall argue for this position by providing an interpretation of texts crucial to both movements.

The rupture that the Reformation marked certainly cannot be glossed over. Martin Luther’s successful challenge of papal authority may be understood as a crucial decentralization of power in Western European life, as the previously hegemonic locus of Rome underwent an attack that intends to subvert its dominance. The revolutionary essence of Luther’s movement is clear in a text such as “Letter to Pope Leo X”, in which Luther explicitly challenges the Papal authority. The boldness of Luther’s prose is what is immediately striking in this text, a boldness that indicates both Luther’s deep conviction to his own cause and the thought that his movement did in fact have the potential to minimize the influence of Rome. Luther’s contempt for the latter is clear throughout the letter, reaching points of crescendo such as the following passage: “For the Roman Court is not worthy of you and those like you, but of Satan himself, who in truth is more the ruler in that Babylon than you are.” (Letter to Pope Leo X, 3) Luther’s equation of Rome with Babylon, a symbol of primordial evil in the Christian tradition, is a clearly antagonistic and hostile assault against papal infallibility. In the context of Roman domination in Western Europe based on papal hegemony, such language itself thus possesses clear revolutionary consequences. Yet the extent of the latter is mitigated by the nature of the Lutheran revolution: while it is one primarily concerned with eliminating Vatican hegemony, the basic ideological position that informs this gesture remains determined by the content of a purely Christian discourse. Luther’s arguments are structured as appeals to Christianity, and in this regard, can be viewed as consistent with the Christian dogma and ideology that is the source of the Pope’s own claims to power. This struggle is thus a struggle within Christianity for domination. Insofar as Christianity can be considered as the dominant ideological worldview of the time, this is a significant struggle: who controls Christianity could be said to control Europe. However, when thinking of revolutionary potential in terms of a break with a pre-existing paradigm in order to inaugurate a completely new paradigm, the Reformation more closely resembles an internal power struggle as opposed to a truly revolutionary movement. Consider, as example, Luther’s text “Address to the German Nobility”, in which after being threatened by excommunication through a papal bull, Luther appeals to the German nobility in order to realize his reforms. The aim of Luther in this text is to compromise with the existing power structure of German nobility, in order to preserve his own subjective interpretation of Christianity. Thus, Luther structures his defense in terms of an appeal to Rome’s threat to the hegemony of the German princes: “It has been discovered that the pope, bishops, priests and monks should be called the “spiritual estate,” while princes, lords, artisans and peasants from the “temporal estate’” – a very fine hypocritical invention.” (Letter to the German Nobility, 2) Thus, from the papal perspective, the temporal state as the transient or impermanent state is the social order of rigid class delineation between the rulers and the ruled: Luther essentially appeals to the nobility through endorsing the necessity and atemporality of this class structure against Roman hegemony. Luther thus maintains a commitment to an existing social order, while arguing against Rome as the center of this social order. In this regard, Luther’s objective can be said to lack truly revolutionary potential, as it is essentially an endorsement for the continuation of the pre-existing societal structure, with the only amendment being a shift in the precise seat of power.

When considering this Christian based world-view, the ideas of the Renaissance seem to represent a clearer instance of break from medieval Christianity. An archetypical Renaissance text, such as Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola’s “Oration on the Dignity of Man” can be construed as a radical re-thinking of anthropology and man’s construction of society, through an emphasis on individual dignity that anticipates modern formulations of human rights. This dignity takes the precise form of an ode to the autonomy of human being. Pico writes: “O supreme generosity of God the Father, O highest and most marvelous felicity of man! To him it is granted to have whatever he chooses, to do whatever he wills.” (Oration on the Dignity of Man, 70) Pico thus emphasizes a radical account of human agency, in which anything is possible for the human being. Accordingly, insofar as anything is possible, there is no pre-ordination to human existence: there is no necessity for a peasant to remain a peasant. The existing societal structures are contingent: anything becomes possible for the human subject. The revolutionary message of this text is clear, to the extent that it essentially prods the individual to challenge any pre-existing social structures, allowing one to question the latter’s very validity. The contingency of such social structures and the potentiality of human subjective autonomy are also echoed in the crucial Renaissance text of Machiavelli The Prince. The Prince, insofar as it can be understood as a didactic tract that emphasizes how political authorities may maintain political power, thus a fortiori contains the significant thesis that such political structures are contingent and susceptible to radical change and revolution. Hence, in a discussion of states headed by new rulers, Machiavelli cites the difficulty in maintaining these states, according to the contingency of social structure. There is “a natural difficulty which exists in all new dominions, because men change masters willingly, hoping to better themselves; and this belief makes them take arms against their rulers.” (The Prince, 35) Machiavelli thus recognizes the contingency of human life and political structures, and understands the possibility at any time for radical change and revolution. Whereas The Prince is a text wherein Machiavelli outlines how to maintain political power, at the same time an inverse reading of The Prince could just as easily be performed, in which the text becomes a means to familiarize oneself with the strategies employed by hegemonic political power. Both Pico and Machiavelli essentially appeal to the potentiality of human beings to change their living conditions, whatever the situation may be and thus demonstrate the revolutionary capability of the Renaissance.

Accordingly, the Renaissance can be considered as more revolutionary than the Reformation insofar as what is essentially at stake in the latter is the transference of one site of political and social power to another site. Appeals are made by Luther to dogma and to ideology in order to secure this transition of power, as well as to existing societal structures. The humanism of the Renaissance, in contrast, stresses the non-necessity of existing social structures and sites of power, through an emphasis on human autonomy. Accordingly, change is not only possible in the Renaissance worldview, but is the nature of this entire worldview. A revolutionary capability is thus found in the Renaissance’s explicit declaration of the contingency of all ideology and its endorsement of the autonomy of human subjectivity.

Works Cited

Luther, Martin. “Address to the German Nobility.”

Luther, Martin. “Letter of Martin Luther to Pope Leo X.”

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. New York: Signet, 1999.

Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni. “Oration on the Dignity of Man.”