Printing, Propaganda, and Martin Luther.

Mark U. Edwards, Jr., formerly professor of church history at Harvard's divinity school and now president (and professor of history) at St. Olaf's College, has already published a well-received study, Luther's Last Battles. In the work under review, he turns his attention to Luther's first battles and offers a detailed account of pamphlet warfare in Strasbourg between 1518 and 1522. (Strasbourg is selected to take advantage of bibliographical aids furnished by Miriam U. Chrisman and Josef Benzing.) As the introduction makes clear, the study is designed not simply to examine the course of events in a single city but rather as a contribution to two historiographical debates, one over the role of printing in the Reformation and the other over the content and reception of Luther's messages.

On the first question, Edwards disagrees with skeptics who point to low levels of literacy. He argues that the "printed word played a crucial role in the early Reformation" (172). It enabled Luther to broadcast his attack on traditional authorities to "opinion leaders" with great rapidity and made it possible to coordinate the activities of scattered followers. Moreover the medium itself "embodied the subversive message it conveyed." "Multiple copies of cheap agitatory pamphlets reinforced the message of lay involvement, much to the distress and disadvantage of Catholic publicists" (11). When the latter sought to counter Lutheran attacks, church authorities withheld support, being reluctant to invite lay involvement and to expose matters of faith to "public" discussion. Catholic rebuttals, moreover, inadvertently helped to publicize Lutheran views.

On the character of early Lutheran teachings, Edwards stresses the difference between the limited vernacular literature available to lay readers before 1522 and what is now known to the historian familiar with all of Luther's works. He argues that the Luther who attracted an early following resembled Erasmus more closely than later developments might suggest. Edwards also takes note of the difference between Luther's own views and the diverse views of those who wrote on his behalf. He underscores the way "Luther's enthusiastic supporters fundamentally misunderstood his theology of justification by faith alone" (167). He makes room for disagreement about this and other issues within the Lutheran camp.

The book contains useful summaries of selected pamphlets, careful analysis of Luther's own writings, clear exposition of theological disputes, helpful tables and charts analyzing printed output. For the most part, Edwards avoids the pitfalls entailed in dealing with reader reception. But his treatment is not without flaws. The work is so loosely organized that the same topics and arguments are introduced repeatedly in chapter after chapter. The microanalysis of four years of Strasbourg pamphleteering turns out to be ill-suited for dealing with the large issues at stake in historiographical debates. Self-imposed limits, which are strictly enforced in some places, have to be abandoned in others. Thus the plan to restrict analysis to what was made available by Strasbourg printers between 1518 and 1522 is dropped, without explanation, after chapter 4. The last three chapters - which cover the contents and reception of Luther's German Bible, an internecine debate over the Lord's supper and Catholic attacks on Luther for having incited the Peasant War - leave Strasbourg for other locales and take note of pamphlets published later than the announced cut-off date. Although some chapters look beyond 1522, none deal with earlier printed output (of German Bibles, indulgences and the like). As a result, the ground is not prepared for the reception of Luther's first works. Throughout, German anti-papal sentiment is downplayed. The decision to limit investigation to vernacular works seems to be at odds with the importance assigned "opinion leaders." After he has underlined the need for caution when dealing with reader reception, the author becomes incautious about divining the contents of the "public" mind (170).

Nevertheless Edwards deserves credit for being willing to tackle significant problems. He has scarcely offered the last word on the issues at stake, but he has done much to spark further controversy. Future studies of the early phases of the Lutheran movement will have to take this book into account.

ELIZABETH L. EISENSTEIN University of Michigan, Emerita