LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

College of Arts and Sciences

Submitted to Dr Vance Kincade,

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of

HIEU 602

Historiography

by

Anthony Pradia, Jr

Jan 29, 2022

Many aspects of the Reformation have been examined in detail since it occurred. One of

the most notable disputes deals with when the Reformation actually began. Many historians date

the beginning of the Reformation from Martin Luther’s posting of his ninety-five theses on

October 31 of 1517 AD. While this may be seen as the beginning of the Reformation in

Germany, there are a number of movements toward reformation of the Catholic Church in

Europe that preceded Martin Luther’s 95 Theses. The Reformed, or Calvinist tradition was

already starting in Switzerland and France. Some of the movements that later contributed to the

Radical Reformation tradition began in England and Bohemia. In his book, All Things Made

New, Dr. Diarmaid MacCullogh describes some of the difficulty of labeling some of these early

efforts in England as Reformation efforts, in part because the title was only developed around

1529.1 Many of these other locations were foundational for the different strands of the Radical

Reformation that grew out of a reform that was more servile than the Magisterial Reformations

of Switzerland and Germany.2

Precursors to Reformation Historiography

The early Greeks were among the first to develop history as a distinct study. “The Greeks had

created the very concept of history of itself when, Herodotus had changed history from a general inquiry

about the world into an inquiry about past events.”3 Greek history initial began as an aspect of philosophy

that taught morals. Because of the moral aspect of Greek history, history, as the Greeks developed it, had

deep connections to religion. In many of the early Greek history studies, the Greek heroes or politicians

1
Diarmaid MacCulloch, All Things Made New: The Reformation and Its Legacy (New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, 2017), 103.
2
Diarmaid MacCulloch, in The Reformation: A History (London: Penguin Books, 2004), pp. 148-149.
3
Ernst Breisach, Historiography Ancient, Medieval, & Modern (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press,
2004), p. 38.

1
were descendants of a Greek god or goddess.4 Greek historians were committed to well written histories

that were easy to read and eloquently written. They heavily influenced the Roman authors who followed

them. Greek historians never really developed a universal perspective on history that would account for

people groups outside of Greek history. Because of Rome’s universality, Roman historians had to account

for other ethnic groups and people and explain their connection to Roman history.

Roman historians, similar to the Greek historians who influenced them often chose one of two

paths. One path was biographical, as described by Plutarch in his Alexander:

If I do not record all their most celebrated achievements or describe any of them exhaustively, but
merely summarize for the most part what they accomplished, I ask my readers not to regard this
as a fault. For I am writing biography, not history, and the truth is that the most brilliant exploits
often tell us nothing of the virtues or vices of the men who performed them, while on the other
hand a chance remark or a joke may reveal far more than the mere feat of winning battles in
which thousands fall or marshalling great armies or laying siege to cities. 5
In this quote, Plutarch demonstrates the practice of Roman biographers, who focused on the lives of

different individuals within Rome, often without a reference to time. One of Plutarch’s contemporaries

bridged this gap with a biographical work that included major acts and policy decisions as a sort of

preface to each of the emperors he wrote about in Twelve Caesars.

A journal article from the Historical Journal describes how the initial interest in Greco-Roman

history within the church grew: “The revival of classical learning in the Renaissance, as well as re-

igniting the study of Graeco-Roman antiquity, also witnessed the revival of interest in sacred history: the

history of biblical Judaism and of early Christianity”6 Breisach informed us that initially, Christians

rejected the history of Rome as a secular concern not worth understanding. However, when the

Renaissance began, it brought a renewed interest in classical education, which help create the

environment for the Reformation. Historical research was encouraged in Italy to support the Pope’s claim

to be descended from the great Roman emperors, albeit with more sacred focus. 7

4
Ernst Breisach, Historiography Ancient, Medieval, & Modern, p. 14.
5
Plutarch, The Age of Alexander, trans. Timothy Duff (London: Penguin, 2012).
6
DMITRI LEVITIN, “From Sacred History to the History of Religion: Paganism, Judaism, and
Christianity in European Historiography from Reformation to ‘Enlightenment,’” The Historical Journal 55, no. 4
(2012): pp. 1117-1160, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x12000295.
7
Ernst Breisach, Historiography Ancient, Medieval, & Modern, p.73

2
 Among Catholics in the early part of this renewed historical effort, church historians used a lot of

emphasis on sacred events and sought to limit their own voices. Breisach describes several of the

motivations for such modesty in reporting events. One was a tendency to name their chronicles after the

area in which they wrote. Another was to seek to focus the readers attention on the historical event, rather

than on the chronicler.8 Levitin reminds us of the many motivations that non-academic historians had as

they began to trace history: “This interest was not limited to scholars, many examples testifying to the

relevance of sacred history at different levels of early modern life. Local elites used it to defend their

privileges and identities.”9 Many historians who were outside the scholarly realm sought to establish the

accuracy of their claims to be established by tradition. Others outside the scholastic world sought to prove

their privileges as rulers or land-holders.

These alternate interests started to drive history toward a science that could withstand criticism,

not just a retelling of deeds that had occurred. Much of early church history was more biographical in

nature, and did not seek to establish a contextual chronology in which to locate the lives of different saints

and other significant individuals who were being investigated historically. As historians began to be

sought after to establish the connection between the Pope in Rome and the Pope in France, sources

became more important. The Investiture conflict drove this development in historiography just prior to the

Reformation. This conflict also had the desired effect of creating a universal framework for understanding

history.10

The universal framework developed in response to the Investiture conflict was further solidified

by the Crusades, which allowed Catholic priests to see the Catholic Church and the Providence of God as

the unifying theme throughout known history.11 This had the unintended consequence of creating a

massive wall against the truth claims of the Reformation. Around the time the Reformers began calling

for the Church to reform its worship and secular behavior, the Catholic Church had just reached an end of

8
Ernst Breisach, Historiography Ancient, Medieval, & Modern, p.101
9
LEVITIN, DMITRI. “From Sacred History to the History of Religion: Paganism, Judaism, and
Christianity in European Historiography from Reformation to ‘Enlightenment.’”
10
Ernst Breisach, Historiography Ancient, Medieval, & Modern, p. 136
11
Ernst Breisach, Historiography Ancient, Medieval, & Modern, p. 136

3
establishing a chronology and shared history that provided a basis for theological unity and social peace

instead of social upheaval. The Catholic Church’s reticence to dismiss the history that had been painfully

established through the Investiture conflict and the Crusades could not be lightly thrown away.

Reformer’s History

Initial history of Martin Luther’s reformation came from one of his contemporaries, Philipp

Melanchthon. He sought to integrate the history of Luther’s efforts to larger church history:

The first histories of Martin Luther and the Reformation, those written during the confessional
age (1517-1648), belong to the genre of sacral or confessional history. Their purpose was not to
capture or uncover objective truths about the past, but to explain, and ultimately to legitimate, the
reasons for the break from Rome. They were studies in theological rather than historical truth. In
the main, two approaches predominated. The first was devised by Luther’s Wittenberg colleague
Philipp Melanchthon, who integrated the history of the early Reformation into the broader
providential framework of the Christian past.12

This summary explains initial historical efforts within the magisterial traditions. They began with sacral

or confessional history and gradually became more secular. Another early reformation historian, Croatian

reformer Matthias Flacius Illyricus, used a different method than Melanchthon.

Flacius model played a more influential role in Radical Reformation history, and, as a result, in

the history of the Reformation as a whole. In contrast to Melanchthon’s view which reorganized all of

history around the Reformation, Flacius sought to return to early history and track how the Catholic

Church had deviated from the pure gospel:

‘I am going about with a great plan ...First, I want to write a catalog of all the men that
before Martin Luther of blessed memory fought the Pope and his errors. Then I would
wish that a Church history would be written, in which in a certain order and in sequence
it would be demonstrated how the true Church and its religion gradually fell off the track
from that original purity and simplicity in the apostolic time because of the negligence
and ignorance of teachers, and also partly through the evil of the godless. Then it must be
shown that at times the Church was restored by a few really faithful men, and why the
light of truth sometimes shone more clearly, and sometimes under the growing darkness
of godless entity it was again more or less darkened -until, finally at our time, when the
truth was almost totally destroyed, through God’s unbounded benefice, the true religion
in its purity was again restored’.13

12
C Scott Dixon, “Martin Luther and the Reformation in Historical Thought, 1517–2017,” Studies: An
Irish Quarterly Review 106 (2017): pp. 404-413, 405.

4
Flacius’ approach would be more influential for radical reformers, who viewed Luther as being

influenced too much by his Catholic upbringing. Flacius’ approach opened the door for other Reformation

traditions to understand themselves better, while at the same time providing a more accurate and reliable

history.

As time passed, Reformation scholars who followed Luther’s time moved away from the

medieval hagiography that was more biographical and sacred to a more secular history that was

committed to factual representation of events as they occurred. As Lutherans began to disagree amongst

themselves about various aspects of Luther’s reformation, the historical narrative changed. In 1617, at an

early celebration of the 100th anniversary of Luther’s 95 theses, Ulm superintendent Konrad Dietrich

stated that Luther was “not the one who instituted our evangelical teaching but the one who reinstituted it,

not the one who introduced it but the one who reintroduced it, not the one who authored it but the one

who restored it, not its promulgator, but the one who purged it, not its innovator but its renovator” 14 This

would conflict between Lutheran historians (among themselves and with those from other Reformation

traditions) influenced Reformation history in many positive ways, and eventually drove a Catholic

response to reformation traditions.

The Catholic response to the Reformation drove both Reformed and Catholic historiography

towards empirical research. Initial Catholic histories were very polemic and well researched works, such

as Johannes Cochlaeus’s Commentaria de actis et scriptis Martini Lutheri Saxonis chronographice ex

ordine ab anno Domini 1517 usque ad annum 1546 inclusive fideliter conscripta, which is often

shortened to Commentaries. In this work, Cochlaeus, a life-long enemy of Luther and the Reformation

attacked both, using copious research. Jacques Benigne Bossuet’s History of the Variations of the

Protestant Churches (1688) was the most influential Catholic history of the Reformation. His work

created a powerful indictment against the Reformation, charging that [The Reformation] had not only
13
WINFRIED EBERHARD, “Matthias Flacius and the Survival of Luther's Reform. by Oliver K. Olson.
(Wolfenbütteler Abhandlungen Zur Renaissanceforschung, 20.) Pp. 428 Incl. Numerous Ills. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz/Herzog August Bibliothek, 2002. €99. 3 447 04404 7,” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 55, no. 2
(2004): pp. 389-390, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022046904720771.
14
Robert Kolb, Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero: Images of the Reformer, 1520-1620 (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 134.

5
created a false religion but it had also planted the seeds of disunity which led to societal chaos. 15

Protestants were quick to respond with a thoroughly researched history, written by a Saxon statesman

Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff, entitled Commentarius historicus et apologeticus de Lutheranismo (known

in English: History of Lutheranism).

This mammoth work set a standard for all future histories, both Catholic and Reformed. Dr. Scott

comments on this work:

Seckendorff set out to refute the arguments by the weight of example rather than the depth of
faith. The result was a source-driven narrative, at times an almost day-to-day recreation of the
past, and it laid bare the contingency of Reformation history and the full human dimensions of the
process. Today we would say it is as much a social or political history as a study in religious
reform, but its central importance was not derived from its theories but rather its substance. No
other Reformation historian had ever worked through so much archival material. As Seckendorff
recalled in his preface, he had spent hours going through piles of documents and making excerpts
and copies, ultimately to the detriment of his health. Of particular importance was the fact that he
included references to the source materials, right down to shelf numbers and signatures. 16

Seckendorff transformed Reformation historiography and started a vast international project of salvage

and refurbishment of historical legacy, artifacts, and sites. Prior to Seckendorff, little effort had been

made to preserve anything related to Luther or any other key archival materials, Reformation

manuscripts, or historical sites.17 All of that changed after Seckendorff’s work.

Enlightening the Reformation: The Effects of the Enlightenment

Seckendorff’s History of Lutheranism came right before the Enlightenment began, which played

a part as well in the transformation of the historiography of the Reformation. With the Enlightenment

came a focus on reason as the measure of historical and theological truth. Because of this focus, sources

became extremely important. With the importance of sources, there was also a transformation of the

purpose of the Reformation. Initially, the Reformation was a Providential act whereby God protected the

purity of the universal church. With the Enlightenment transformation, the focus shifted to the human

15
Dixon, C Scott. “Martin Luther and the Reformation in Historical Thought, 1517–2017.” Studies: An
Irish Quarterly Review, No 424, 106 (2017): 404–13.
16
Ibid,
17
Ibid,

6
agency in the Reformation. Key figures of the Reformation, such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and

Zwingli were seen as freedom fighters defending rationality and conscience. 18

Reason, Progress, and Liberty

The Enlightenment crowned reason as the ultimate standard of truth. Enlightenment philosophers

such as Rene Descartes asked questions about the nature of truth and the nature of reason. His famous

quote, “I think, therefore I am” is an example of how he crowned human consciousness as the ultimate

source of true knowledge. Descartes felt that history should be restricted to the world of recording the

follies of mankind prior to the Enlightenment. This restriction expelled history from the developing

scientific world of mathematical methodology. It also removed history from the world of philosophy,

where they could seek the nature of truth and find direction.19

Enlightenment philosophers were positivist in nature. They saw history as a continual progression

toward better understanding and more harmonious living for mankind. For those who were not as

developed philosophically, the Enlightenment era saw them as still developing, just not as far a long as

the European philosophers who were building these models. Various factors could be limiting different

societies abilities to reason and progress. For Enlightenment philosophers, religion was often one of the

sources that prevented the progress of human nature. While Enlightenment philosophers celebrated the

Reformation for the freedom of conscience it brought to allowing men to interpret the Bible and live by

those convictions, they also rejected some of the truths that came along with Reformed thought.

Enlightenment philosophers were more inclined toward Deistic thinking, which meant they did not

believe in the Reformation God who was intimately involved with every event in human history.

Enlightenment philosophers also disagreed with the goal that Reformation thinkers sought of freedom to

worship in a way that accurately acknowledged Biblical truth.

18
Dixon, C Scott. “Martin Luther and the Reformation in Historical Thought, 1517–2017.” Studies: An
Irish Quarterly Review, No 424, 106 (2017): 404–13.
19
Ernst Breisach, Historiography Ancient, Medieval, & Modern, p. 192

7
 For Enlightenment philosophers, progress was defined by man being more and more in control of

his destiny and environment. Enlightenment philosophers have often been accused of seeing God as a

clockmaker and the world as a clock. Once the world was designed and set in motion, there was no

further action required for God. In an Enlightenment philosopher’s perfect world, man would have perfect

understanding of how the world worked and this would allow him to complete conform the world to his

desires. Man would then be able to eliminate anything that offended, pain, suffering, ignorance, and

poverty would all not have a place in the new and improved world created by the Enlightenment of

mankind.

Enlightenment philosophers saw much of the Enlightenment they imagined in the German

Peasants’ War. It appeared from their reflections on the German Peasants’ War that it would be a key

element in helping the enlightenment of the masses by destroying the ancient Feudal system. The German

Peasants’ War did change many things and destroyed the Feudal system. It did not automatically lead to a

more enlightened society.

Modern Era’s Empiricism

Enlightenment thinking gave way to the industrial age, where everything could be reduced to

materialistic understandings of world. Building on the understanding developed under Enlightenment

philosophy, the Industrialized world felt that they had finally arrived at a stage where man’s education

and technology could finally control history and other unknown forces. In the new modern era, religion

was no longer necessary to explain the world as we experienced it. Similar to the way history had been

expelled from philosophy, religion was also sidelined because it was viewed as not being useful to

understanding the world.

Every major historical theme seeks to prove its legitimacy by demonstrating its

foundation in historical events. The Communist historians of East Germany are no exception. As

early as the late 1970s, these historians scrutinized the German Peasants’ Revolt for the early

8
roots of Communist ideology. The debate over the reasons and theology of the German Peasants’

revolt has been going on since the revolt was ruthlessly suppressed. At the time of the revolt,

princes and other German political leaders sought to understand the revolt for a myriad of

reasons. Other contemporary nations also sought understanding for their own political security.

In 1979 Dr. Tom Scott, a historian from Liverpool University reflected on the lack of

empirical historical analysis of the German Peasants’ revolt:

The outward course of the revolt has long been known and clearly depicted: its inner
dynamic remains largely mysterious. Any rigorous assessment of the rebellion must
depend heavily on our knowledge of the widely differing economic and social structures
of rural Germany in the half-century or more before 1525, but until recently there has
been a dearth of regional studies which employ an adequate methodology. Only within
the last ten years, moreover, has a thorough comparative analysis of the peasants’
political demands from area to area even been attempted. With the 450th anniversary of
the War in 1975, however, a spate of publications has at last begun to modify and deepen
traditional interpretations.20
Dr. Scott’s analysis describes how much of the research dealing with the German Peasants’

revolt has been primarily descriptive. According to Dr. Scott, research has not really dealt with

the motivation for the Peasants to revolt. Dr. Scott’s recommendation to correct this lack of

evidence is to examine the differing demands of the various groups of peasants.

Dr. Scott goes on to say that much of the research around 1975 into the German Peasants’

revolt is heavily influenced by Marxist dialectical theory. East German historians see the

Reformation and the German Peasants’ revolt as early evidences of the bourgeois revolution.

East German historians acknowledge that the initial motivation appears to have been resistance

to the feudal lordship. But they also see the revolt as contributing to a larger event happening in

human history, the triumph of the early bourgeois revolution. The German Peasants’ revolt,

according to these East German historians, had an ideological mirror in the Reformation.

(Munich 1972) This early expression of the bourgeois revolution is essential for proving the
20
Tom Scott, “The Peasants' War: A Historiographical Review: Part I,” The Historical Journal 22, no. 3
(1979): pp. 693-720, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x00017040, 694.

9
legitimacy of Communist ideas in Germany. As a result, the challenges of this interpretation are

often dismissed because of the dialectic historical approach.

In a separate viewpoint, the German Peasants’ revolt was a confluence of factors that led

to a revolution of the common man. This viewpoint sees the German Peasants’ revolt as a variety

of factors that contributed the tender that the Reformer’s preaching found a ready fuel for

transforming society. Some of the factors involved in this fuel were structural tensions within the

agrarian economy, renewed pressure on land resources in the wake of demographic revival, and

the transformation of seigneurial authority.21 These factors worked together to transform the

agrarian society of the medieval times through the revolution of the common man.

Marxist theory is seen through the works of East German historians, such as Dr. Rainer

Wolfheil and Winfried Schulze. These historians, writing in Germany in the early 1970s viewed

the conflict between the feudal lords and the masses of German peasants as precursors to the

Marxist revolutions that occurred in the late 1800s to early 1900s. These East German historians

reinterpreted the Reformation through the lens of the Marxist revolutions that later dominated

much of Europe, and concluded that Karl Marx ideas were much more widely supported that the

revolutions might suggest.

Dr. Fredrich Engels supports the idea that early communism was the driving factor for

the German Peasants’ War. In his book, The Peasant War in Germany, he describes the different

societal groups involved:

But this very rapid growth of the movement was also destined to develop the seeds of
discord which were hidden in it. It was destined to tear asunder at least those portions of
the aroused mass which, by their very situation in life, were directly opposed to each
other, and to put them in their normal state of mutual hostility. Already in the first years
of the Reformation, the assembling of the heterogeneous mass of the opposition around
two central points became a fact. Nobility and middle-class grouped themselves

21
Scott, Tom. “The Peasants' War: A Historiographical Review: Part I.” The Historical Journal 22, no. 3
(1979): 693–720. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x00017040.

10
 unconditionally around Luther. Peasants and plebeians, yet failing to see in Luther a
direct enemy, formed a separate revolutionary party of the opposition. This was nothing
new, since now the movement had become much more general, much broader in scope
and deeper than it was in the pre-Luther times, which necessarily brought about a sharp
antagonism and an open struggle between the two parties. This direct opposition soon
became apparent. Luther and Muenzer, fighting in the press and in the pulpit, were as
much opposed to each other as were the armies of princes, knights and cities (consisting,
as they did, mainly of Lutherans or of forces at least inclined towards Lutherism), and the
hordes of peasants and plebeians routed by those armies.22

It is clear from this quote that Dr. Engels saw the forces of the nobility united around Luther and

the “masses” peasants and non-nobility as in perpetual conflict. He viewed the nobility and

middle class as supporting Luther without question, and without understanding what his

reasoning would cost them. Instead of viewing the support for Luther by the middle class and

nobility as being born of their commitment to truth, for Dr. Engels, they were just consolidating

their power.

Dr. Peter Blickle argues against Marxism as a motivating factor in the German Peasants’

revolt. Dr. Blickle notes that in some cases the landlords and landless labors cooperated against

peasants who own land, and craftsmen who lived in the countryside opposed city-based

craftsmen. Dr. Blickle supported this analysis further when he noted that the term Peasants’ War

was almost exclusively used by clerics and nobility:

The evidence suggests that the term Peasants' War cannot do justice to the phenomenon
as a whole. Analyzing the term in more detail, it is interesting to note that it is used
exclusively in noble and clerical correspondence or urban and monastic chronicles. From
the point of view of noblemen and prelates, the upheaval of 1525 amounted to a breach of
the peace by the peasants, an assessment retrospectively supported by towns keen to play
down their share in the rebellion23

This quote by Dr. Blickle suggests that the only people who characterized the Peasants’ War as a

uprising by peasants used the term. Dr. Blickle suggests that the factors behind the so-called

Peasants’ War point to far more significant issues than just class warfare.
22
Friedrich Engels, The Peasant War in Germany (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1974), Chapter 4.
23
Peter Blickle, “Memmingen — a Center of the Reformation,” Utopian Studies, January 1998, pp. 16-80,
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004473447_005.

11
 Dr. Blickle also introduced the concept of Divine Law into the discussion of the German

Peasants’ War:

It is one of the few undisputed characteristics of the Peasants’ War of 1525 that the
concept of “divine law” played a more prominent part than in any other rural rising. As
one of the war’s most potent rallying forces, divine law offers the historian a key to
unlock the causes and aims of the rebellion. While all scholars agree on the importance of
the concept, there is as yet no consensus about its origins. Does it, to cite a widely held
view, amount to a mere Reformation-related reinforcement of late medieval legal
thought, which failed to make a clear distinction between the “legal” and the “divine”
sphere. Or does it, as another, more recent interpretation suggests, derive much more
directly from Reformation theology? The answer has wide-ranging implications for an
overall assessment of the social and religious history of the period.24

Dr. Blickle discusses how the most potent rallying factor for the Peasants’ War was a call for

divine justice. This sets apart the Peasants’ War from most other revolutions of the period, which

often sought material or social changes. The Peasants’ War unified so many because it was based

on a theory of divine justice developed by idea from the reformation. One striking example of

these other factors is the Anabaptist movement, which was analyzed by Dr. Stayer.

Dr. James M. Stayer, a prominent Anabaptist historian, viewed the German Peasants’

War as a part of research on Anabaptist history. His work is one example of a historian

approaching the German Peasants’ War in the methodology suggested by Dr. Scott. His book

brings together writing from some of the Anabaptists involved in the German Peasants’ War to

assess their motivations and participation. His book shows some of the actual motivations for

Anabaptists to participate in the German Peasants’ War. His classification of the events as the

German Peasants’ War, rather than the German Peasants’ Revolt speaks to some of his

understanding of those events.

Unlike the East German historians, Dr. Stayer’s book sees the communal life of the

Anabaptists as one of their faith tenants, rather than as a motivation born out of class struggle.

24
Peter Blickle, From the Communal Reformation to the Revolution of the Common Man (Leiden: Brill,
1998), 149.

12
His research shows that the Anabaptists were not significant participants in the German

Peasants’ War, and as a result did not drive much of the ideology and political development of

the German Peasants’ War. So, while the Anabaptists practiced communal living, they were not

communists. Even if the Anabaptists were communists, they did not play a significant role in the

German Peasants’ War and its motivation.

Dr. Stayer argues that the German Peasants’ War had a far greater effect on the

Anabaptist movement than the Anabaptists had on the German Peasants’ War. Since they are

primarily responsible for ideas that might be perceived as communist, it is obvious that in this

case the “chicken” (The German Peasants’ War) preceded the egg (Anabaptists communal

living). The Anabaptists were persuaded to begin communal living as a result of some of the

things observed during the German Peasants’ War, but they did not adopt this lifestyle as a part

of a political and social commitment to communism, they were motivated by other theological

and social considerations.25

Dr. Stayer notes that prior to the German Peasants’ War, most Anabaptists lived in towns

and cities. The rural living that is commonly associated with Anabaptist beliefs today began as a

result of the persecution following the German Peasants’ War. This led to the Anabaptists

withdrawing from society, and developing more communal lifestyles. Dr. Stayer cites Clasen’s

statistical work demonstrating that Anabaptists increased proportionally in rural areas, but argues

that this increase was due to Anabaptists in towns being persecuted and forced from town to

country side, not an increase in adherents to Anabaptist theories.

It is clear from this example alone, that historiography that sees the German Peasants’

War as an early expression of communism is somewhat flawed. There are many other aspects of

25
Stayer, James M.. German Peasants' War and Anabaptist Community of Goods, McGill-Queen's
University Press, 1991. ProQuest Ebook Central,
https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=3331548

13
the German Peasants’ War that need to be examined to determine if it is more appropriate to use

German Peasants’ War, or German Peasants’ Revolt. Arguably, German Peasants’ War is a more

accurate term, supported by the evidence.

14
Bibliography
Blickle, Peter. From the Communal Reformation to the Revolution of the Common Man. Leiden:
Brill, 1998.

Blickle, Peter. “Memmingen — a Center of the Reformation.” Utopian Studies, 1998, 16–80.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004473447_005.

Breisach, Ernst. “3.” Essay. In Historiography Ancient, Medieval, & Modern, 38. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press, 2004.

Dixon, C Scott. “Martin Luther and the Reformation in Historical Thought, 1517–2017.”
Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, No 424, 106 (2017): 404–13.

Donohue, Alice A., and Mark D. Fullerton. Ancient Art and Its Historiography. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2011.

EBERHARD, WINFRIED. “Matthias Flacius and the Survival of Luther's Reform. by Oliver K.
Olson. (Wolfenbütteler Abhandlungen Zur Renaissanceforschung, 20.) Pp. 428 Incl.
Numerous Ills. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz/Herzog August Bibliothek, 2002. €99. 3 447
04404 7.” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 55, no. 2 (2004): 389–90.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022046904720771.

Engels, Friedrich. The Peasant War in Germany. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1974.

Kolb, Robert. Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero: Images of the Reformer, 1520-1620.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

LEVITIN, DMITRI. “From Sacred History to the History of Religion: Paganism, Judaism, and
Christianity in European Historiography from Reformation to ‘Enlightenment.’” The
Historical Journal 55, no. 4 (2012): 1117–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x12000295.

MacCulloch, Diarmaid. All Things Made New: The Reformation and Its Legacy. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press, 2017.

MacCulloch, Diarmaid. Essay. In The Reformation: A History, 148–49. London: Penguin Books,
2004.

Momigliano, Arnaldo, and Di Riccardo Donato. The Classical Foundations of Modern

Plutarch. The Age of Alexander. Translated by Timothy Duff. London: Penguin, 2012.

i
Scott, Tom. “The Peasants' War: A Historiographical Review: Part I.” The Historical Journal 22,
no. 3 (1979): 693–720. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x00017040.

Stayer, James M.. German Peasants' War and Anabaptist Community of Goods, McGill-Queen's University Press,
1991. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/lib/liberty/
detail.action?docID=3331548

ii