Religionsstreitigkeiten: Volksprachliche Kontroversen zwischen altgläubigen und evangelischen Theologen im 16. Jahrhundert (review)

Historians of Reformation thought have long recognized the role that vernacular texts played in the dissemination of evangelical doctrines. Less widely acknowledged has been the contribution of vernacular writing to the Catholic response during the early decades of Protestantism. Because of the asymmetry of Protestant and Catholic constructions of lay and clerical status, close scrutiny of vernacular writings by Catholic controversialists has proven particularly revealing. Conventional views that vernacular polemics are dominated by scurrilous vituperation were supported by texts by Hieronymus Emser and Thomas Murner that became known through Luther's equally vociferous counterattacks. It is now recognized that these works by early Catholic polemicists are no more representative of the Romanist response than pamphlets by the Reformers are of their larger theological programs. In this monograph Kai Bremer elucidates the relation of Latin and vernacular writings by identifying some of the specific roles for which the native language was used.

Firmly grounded in the methods of Germanistic philology, Bremer rightly understands the importance of the choice of language. Identifying the genre of vernacular Streitschrift as a component of the Romanists' larger polemical strategy, Bremer offers precise criteria for determining this class of writing and relating it to broader categories of religious polemic. Bremer's attention to rhetorical analysis of polemical texts yields welcome results, notably his focus on the relation of persuasion to demonstration, or in his terms, conversion to conviction (p. 56). Using Georg Eder's 1580 example, in which the Golden Fleece is an image of the unity of Christianity from the apostolic era onward, Bremer argues cogently that appeals to the coherence and extension of Catholicism compose a distinct category apart from the denunciations and refutations usually associated with the Streitschrift. Moreover, this genre is one in which authors offer commentaries on texts in the harsher style. Bremer's intensive analysis allows him to locate, among these persuasive expositions, criticisms of the use of German for aggressive polemics. Hence we find intra-confessional differences over the use of German for disputes concerning the finer points of doctrine.

For historians of religious controversy, one great merit of Bremer's exposition is the contrast he draws between mild and harsh styles of argumentation, or, in his terms, between pastoral care and the battlefield (p. 129). As his exposition demonstrates, the irenicists and polemicists not only had their own styles but also some Catholic authors practiced both, an indication that they were aware of sympathetic and hostile factions among their intended readers. If, as Bremer suggests, highly charged, controversial positions occasionally appeared in conciliatory guise, researchers in this specialty will have to use the categories irenic and polemical with far greater care than in the past.

The close scrutiny of selected texts comes at the unavoidable cost of not knowing exactly how typical or unique these examples are. To be sure, Catholic controversialists sought to present a unified front as a contrast to their depictions of a hopelessly fragmented Protestantism, but the internal friction exemplified by Eder's critique indicates a less harmonious movement than they wished to display. The surviving literature is vast and scattered through myriad libraries, and selectivity is necessary for such close literary analysis as Bremer offers. Thus we may hope that more studies of the same caliber will follow.

Originally a 2002 Göttingen dissertation and displaying the detailed thoroughness of the genre, Bremer's monograph covers an unusually broad spectrum of textual material and in so doing both clears new paths for further investigation and provides helpful new terms for interpreting Catholic controversial literature.