Introduction
Given the fact that we now live in time of political correctness, it comes as no surprise that the majority of contemporary historians adopt a very careful approach to the discussion of what were the metaphysical roots of Reformation, as the quasi-religious movement that produced a heavy impact onto Christianity’s doctrinal soundness – thus, creating objective preconditions for the decline of Christianity to become only the matter of time. According to conventional historians, the fact that the intellectual influence of Church became increasingly undermined, during the course of centuries preceding the schism of Reformation, was due to the spiritual and moral corruption, on the part of Catholic clergymen. As Gordon Leff had rightly pointed out in his article “Heresy and the Decline of the Medieval Church”: “Many historians continue to be endowed with deep-seated belief that the church became corrupt-politically, financially and in personnel – and the mere vehicle for privilege and private aggrandizement; and consequently that heresy was simply a rebellion against ecclesiastical degeneration or a reaction to ecclesiastical oppression. Such a view, implicit in many modern diagnoses, does not stand up to examination” (1961, 36). Apparently, one does not have to be overly smart to realize the conceptual fallaciousness of purely mechanistic approach towards assessing the true nature of historical processes, simply because historical events appear to be dialectically predetermined.
Thus, we can say that it is namely Anthony Levi’s utilization of dialectical methodology, within the context of defining links between Renaissance and Reformation, which endows his book “Renaissance and Reformation: The Intellectual Genesis” with an acute intellectual value. In this book, author had proven beyond any reasonable doubt that both: Renaissance and Reformation, should be regarded as simply the different emanations of essentially the same process of Europe’s intellectual awakening, with the roots of this process being traced back to a so-called ‘Carolingian Renaissance’, when the philosophical legacy of antiquity had again come to public eye’s attention.
According to author, the reason why introduction of Christianity to European barbarians did not bring about their spiritual demise, as it happened to Romans, is because these people’s inborn sense of existential idealism had allowed them to work out a semi-religious vaccine to this by-product of Asiatic religiosity – an early Catholicism, which had very little to do with the spirit of original Christianity, as one of Semitic suicidal cults: “The cosmogony of Plato’s Timaeus was fused with the narrative in the first chapters of Genesis to create a full Gnostic myth from which Jesus finally emerged as redeemer of humanity from the natural order in which, without him it would have remained. The fusion of Genesis with the Timaeus in a single creation myth, by harmonizing Plato with scripture, was to form another important tool in promoting the renaissance view of human potential” (2004, 22). Nevertheless, as time went by, the metaphysical incompatibility of Mosaic Law with the Catholic concept of “God’s grace”, was becoming increasingly obvious, which in its turn had created objective preconditions for the emergence of an early medieval scholasticism, as we know it today.
What medieval most prominent scholastics, such as Albertus Magnus Peter Abelard, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas strived to do, is reconciling seemingly irreconcilable – the concept of blind faith, promoted by Jesus, and the concept of intellectual exaltation, promoted by ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. However, since both concepts innately corresponded to the specifics of Westerners’ idealistic mentality, during the course of 12-13 centuries, the methodology of scholasticism was becoming equally popular among intellectuals and the clergymen.
At the same time, such state of affairs in Europe’s academically-religious realm could not last forever, simply because the very notion of intellectual progress implies evolutionary subtleties. Therefore, it was only the matter of time, before scholastic way of assessing surrounding reality and the soundness of Christian dogmas would become associated with conceptual self-contradictions. This was exactly what paved the way to Renaissance, as we know it: “What we call the Renaissance may largely, if not essentially, have been a way of bypassing the impasses into which late medieval Latin scholasticism, burdened by the categories bequeathed to it by Augustine, was always bound to lead” (2004, 79). According to Levi, there was nothing odd with the fact that Orthodox Christianity did not produce anything that would even closely remind Renaissance – whereas, early Catholicism can be referred to as formally religious sublimation of idealistic people’s strive towards the higher truth, Orthodox Christianity has always been and continues to be nothing but a religious instrument for mentally inadequate believers to explore their animalistic fascination with highly ritualized ‘mysteries’.
The irony lays in the fact that, as it appears from Levi’s book, the idealistic perception of surrounding reality, on the part of scholastics, have simultaneously provided a momentum for the process of Europeans expanding their intellectual horizons but also resulted in this momentum being slowed down. Levi is referring to the emergence of a so-called Ochamism, within the conceptual framework of scholasticism, during the course of late 13th and early 14th centuries, as something that establishes a validity of such his suggestion. On one hand, Ochamists never ceased professing Platonic beliefs in the ideal nature of epistemology, but on another, they referred to the attempts of humanistically minded scholastics to apply their essentially idealistic sense of rationale to the concept of “divine grace” as utterly inappropriate, simply because Ochamists rightly perceived these attempts as such that undermined the theological legitimacy of Christianity as ‘thing in itself’. As Levi had put it: “The first sign of the intellectual turbulence, which led to the moral and religious tensions bred by Ochmist theology was, indeed, the devastating revelation of the internal intellectual contradictions in the Latin formulations of the theologies of the Trinity and the incarnation in the twelfth-century epistemological disputes” (2004, 24). Such Levi’s idea resonates with Gordon Leff’s view on Ochamism, expressed in the article from which we have already quoted: “Ochamists placed emphasis upon God’s direct intervention… they used to stress out his ability to by-pass all secondary causes even should it mean God’s contravening his own decrees” (1961, 44). While pointing out to Ochamism as the ultimate consequence of medieval scholasticism, Levi also refers to it as the metaphysical ground, out of which the humanistic movement of Renaissance was able to originate, in the first place – whatever, the improbable it might sound.
In its turn, this provided Levi’s critics with formally legitimate reason to doubt the validity of his book’s main thesis. In her review of “Renaissance and Reformation: The Intellectual Genesis”, Marcia Colish stated: “Levi ignores the fact that Albert the Great, Aquinas, and Duns Scotus envision an interactive will and intellect in their consideration of the theme of synderesis and conscience. He omits a major aspect of Aristotle’s faculty psychology, which makes the Stagirite compatible with the Platonic anthropology that Levi ascribes to the humanists and reformers” (2003, 811). Yet, seeming inconsistencies in Levi’s interpretation of Renaissance origins do not undermine the logicality of book’s main premise that it is inappropriate to refer Renaissance and Reformation as unrelated socio-historical phenomenons. Apparently, Levi’s critics have failed to realize that, despite scholasticism and humanism’s essentially opposite nature, these concepts do derive out of each other rather organically. The validity of Levi’s suggestion is being further illustrated by the fact that it remains fully workable, even if applied to assess the essence of 20th century’s socio-political dynamics. After all, if there was no Communism, there would be no Nazism, as we know it, simply because Nazism was Europeans’ intellectual reaction to scholastically sound, but utterly unscientific theory of Marxism.
After having established a premise of Europe’s medieval history being deeply interwoven with the history of antiquity, despite the fact that, throughout the course of Dark Ages, Church never ceased trying to prevent ordinary people from being able to access the intellectual legacy of ancient Rome and Greece, author moved on to explain how Renaissance thinkers were able to pave the way for Reformation. According to Levi, many conventional historians make a mistake, while referring to Reformation movement as such was strictly concerned with religious affairs, simply because the true essence of Reformation appears to be only formally related to Christianity, as an intellectually oppressive Semitic religion.
This is exactly the reason why, despite what it is being assumed today, the leading Reformists, such as Martin Luther and Jan Huss, were not trying to undermine Catholic Church’s religious authority as their primary agenda – they actually strived to be exempted from this authority altogether as ‘morally wicked’. As Levi had put it: “Reformists’ opposition to the church was secondary to the search for a new mode of spiritual life” (2004, 181). It is a truth that, in technical sense of this word, Reformation has been inspired by Catholic Church’s immoral practices of selling indulgences, burning heretics at the stake and by Catholic clergymen leading utterly decadent lifestyles. By the end of 15th century, Church had been transformed into nothing short of a financial corporation. As Levin had rightly noted – by that time, the representatives Catholic Church had lost a moral right to claim themselves being the intermediary link between ordinary people and God, simply because of their constant preoccupation with trying to enrich themselves, while simultaneously promoting the view on the poverty as Christian foremost virtue.
However, there were much deeper metaphysical reasons for the fact that, during the course of 15th and the early 16th centuries, more and more European intellectuals were coming to a realization of a simple fact that Church could not possibly provide them with the hope of salvation. Author does not go about articulating these reasons openly, but as the context of his book implies, during the course of this historical period, Westerners had come to realization of their own divinity as gods-in-making. In its turn, such Levi’s implicit suggestion correlates rather well, with what we know about how Protestants (spiritual descendants of early Reformists) address life’s challenges – Protestants do not need God as their ultimate benefactor, but rather as some distant authority that does not intervene in their lives actively, simply because Protestants have grown to realize a very simple fact that material riches do not fall out of sky, and that one needs to work hard, in order to achieve a prosperity. In fact, Protestants believe that it is when they are being fully self-reliant that makes God to love them. This sets them apart from Catholics, who rely mainly upon “God’s grace”, when it comes to dealing with existential challenges.
In its turn, this explains why it were namely Protestants, who acted as facilitators of cultural and technological progress, ever since Reformation had forced Catholics to loosen their intellectually-oppressive grip onto Western civilization. In his revolutionary book “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, Max Weber had pointed out that: “A glance at the occupational statistics of any country of mixed religious composition brings to light… the fact that business leaders and owners of capital, as well as the higher grades of skilled labor, and even more the higher technically and commercially trained personnel of modern enterprises, are overwhelmingly Protestant” (1930, 3). Therefore, the name of Levi’s book makes perfectly logical sense, as it rightly implies the metaphysical essence of Western civilization as such that is being concerned with continuous development of essentially the same philosophical, aesthetic and scientific ideas. These ideas had originated in Greco-Roman antiquity, were rediscovered through Renaissance, conceptually reestablished through Reformation, and perfected during the course of modern era. In its turn, this explains why many parallels can be drawn between themes, contained in works of such Renaissance humanists as Dante Alighieri and Francesco Petrarca, and themes contained in the works of European intellectuals associated with Reformation and Protestantism, such as John Milton.
It is needless to say, of course, that such author’s stance on the subject matter could have hardly won him a favor among politically correct historians, as they believe that Greco-Roman antiquity only indirectly relates to the discourse, in regards to the origins of Western civilization. This is exactly the reason why these historians tend to assess the significance of humanist ideas, associated with Renaissance, through the lenses of epistemology alone, as opposed to adopting a history-based approach to dealing with the subject matter. In its turn, this leads them to suggest that humanist ideas, originated during the course of Renaissance era, should actually be discussed within the ideologically-religious framework of Counter-Reformation. In his critical article “Renaissance and Reformation: the Intellectual Genesis (review)”, Barry Collett states: “Renaissance was connected with the Protestant Reformation, but it also had powerful connections with Catholic Counter-Reformation spirituality” (2006, 180). However, this kind of ‘criticism’, regarding Levi’s book, does not stand much of a ground, simply because it is based upon the wishful thinking of those who strive to deny the linear course of European history.
Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to refer to “Renaissance and Reformation: The Intellectual Genesis” as being absolutely objective, because – even though in this book Levi had succeeded in establishing undeniable intellectual links between Renaissance and Reformation, he never bothered to define these links’ dialectical essence. Apparently, it never occurred to the author that the discussion of a genesis from Renaissance to Reformation should also be concerned with taking into account the issue of anthropology. This is because that, even a brief glance at the geography of Reformation and Protestantism will reveal that it were namely Europeans of a Nordic racial stock, to which humanist ideas appealed the most. Nowadays, people are being encouraged to believe that the Renaissance movement had originated in Italy proper; whereas, it actually originated in Italia’s Northern region of Lombardy, which at the time was populated by the descendants of Germanic Goths.
In his book “The Passing of the Great Race”, one of 20th century’s most famous anthropologists, Madison Grant had made a perfectly good point while stating: “The chief men of the Cinque Cento and the preceding century were of Nordic blood, largely Gothic and Lombard, which is recognized easily by a close inspection of busts or portraits in northern Italy. Dante, Raphael, Titian, Michael Angelo, Leonardo da Vinci were all of Nordic type, just as in classic times many of the chief men and of the upper classes were Nordic” (1922, 215). Despite being a credible historian, Levi had omitted mentioning this fact, as well as he omitted coming up with the explanation as to why it were namely Europe’s countries with predominantly Nordic population, such as German principalities, Sweden, Denmark and Britain, where Protestantism had taken immediate roots. The reason for this is simple – had Levi done so, he would be facing the accusations of ‘racism’ and eventually the prospect of losing his academic career. Apparently, Levy knew what happened to another famous British ‘historical revisionist’ Professor David Irving, who in 2004 was sentenced to three years in Austrian jail, simply for suggesting that Jews were not only the people who had suffered, during the course of WW2. Yet, despite the fact that Levi had intentionally distanced himself from the discussion of how Renaissance and Reformation related to the particulars of their promoters’ racial affiliation, does not mean that such discussion cannot take place in a priory.
As we have mentioned earlier, Levi book’s discourse is being primarily concerned with the analysis of how medieval thinkers’ idealist attitudes were continuously prompting them to seek rationalistic sense in highly irrational doctrine of Christianity. But what caused these people to be endowed with the sense of existential idealism, in the first place? Why, during the course of a same historical period, no similar intellectual developments were taking place within Islam? The answer to this question appears rather politically incorrect – both: Renaissance and Reformation are nothing but socio-cultural reflections of the fact that, unlike what it is the case with representatives of specialized races, Whites never ceased evolving intellectually, except for few hundred years, following the collapse of Roman Empire.
Thus, even though the conceptual premise of “Renaissance and Reformation: the Intellectual Genesis” appears to be perfectly legitimate, Levi still lacked the intellectual honesty to bring book’s conclusions to their logical end.
Another book’s major weakness is the fact that it is extremely hard to read, mainly due to author’s lowered ability to understand what constitutes a particular historical event’s primacy and what does not. “Renaissance and Reformation: the Intellectual Genesis” makes mentioning the names of a multitude of medieval scholastics, known only to the small group of experts that specialize in this particular period of European history. Yet, in book’s introductory parts, Levi had made it perfectly clear that it is not only academicians who would be able to benefit from reading it, but ordinary people, as well. We have doubts as to validity of such author’s suggestion; especially given the fact that, as of today, Western academic standards are continuing to hit new lows in exponential progression to the flow of time, as the result of an ongoing process of Western societies’ racial and intellectual marginalization – just as it was the case during the last stages of Roman Empire’s decline.
Conclusion
This review’s major conclusions can be summarized as follows:
- In his book, Anthony Levi had proven beyond any reasonable doubt that, despite medieval scholastics’ strongly defined negative attitude towards the notion of intellectual exaltation, in empirical sense of this word, they had unwillingly created objective preconditions for the humanist methodology to attain full legitimacy as far back as the middle of 13th century. Book’s context implies that this should be attributed to the fact that, even while actively denying the appropriateness of the principle of empirical inquiry, medieval scholastics’ inborn sense of idealism had never ceased prompting them to wonder whether the principle of blind faith could be adjusted to correspond to the principle rationale. Thus, the emergence of scholastic humanism, and consequentially Renaissance, was dialectically predetermined.
- Levi had succeeded in proving that it is not only that there are an undeniable links between Renaissance and Reformation, but that Reformation should be referred to as Renaissance’s intellectual by-product. This is what had gained author a negatively connoted fame of ‘historical revisionist’, even though that it is in the nature of historians’ professional pursuit to strive to reexamine history.
- Given the fact that the empirical historical research is now being subjected to politically correct censorship, similarly to what it used to be the case during the course of Dark Ages, when Inquisitors were put in position of defining the ‘moral appropriates’ of just about any book, it appears that the ultimate explanation as to why Levi was allowed to proceed with publishing “Renaissance and Reformation: the Intellectual Genesis” in the first place, has to do with this book’s utter complexity. Apparently, politically correct censors had failed to realize that the ideas, contained in Levi’s book, support the validity of racialist outlook on the essence of European history’s dynamics. Therefore, despite book’s apparent shortcomings, its publishing should be welcomed as the breath of fresh air in the ideologically stale atmosphere of today’s Western intellectual domain.
This is the reason why we can only agree with Barry Collett’s insight on the sheer extent of “Renaissance and Reformation: The Intellectual Genesis” intellectual significance: “This (Levi’s book) is a profound historical analysis. The role of scholastic ‘fault lines’ in provoking the Reformation has long been established by Obermann and others, but Levi has set the phenomenon newly in context and has convincingly attributed a common source to both neo-classical Renaissance and the Pauline-Augustinian Reformation. The search for inner moral conversion and human dignity revived debate about human nature, the relationship between nature and grace, and connections between inner moral experience and social and political structures of society. These are deep questions, and other historians need to study them” (2006, 181). We can only hope that, while studying these questions, future historians will not have to deal with the accusations of ‘historical revisionism’, as it is often the case nowadays.
Bibliography
Colish, Marcia “Renaissance and Reformation: The Intellectual Genesis by Anthony Levi”. Renaissance Quarterly 56.3 (2003): 811-814. Print.
Collett, Barry “Renaissance and Reformation: the Intellectual Genesis (review)”. Parergon 23.1 (2006): 179-181. Print.
Grant, Madison “The Passing of the Great Race”. 1922. Internet Archive. 2010. Web.
Leff, Gordon “Heresy and the Decline of the Medieval Church”. Past & Present 20.5 (1961): 36-51. Print.
Levi, Anthony. Renaissance and Reformation: The Intellectual Genesis. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. Print.
Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Roxbury Publishing Company, (1930) 2001. Print.