Weird Reformation Political Cartoon

[SaintGeorge]

I'm looking at Martin Luther's political cartoons, and I have no idea what this one means. It's kind of creepy. Could you all please enlighten me on what it is?

No idea what it meant. I though it was about the Pope or something. Thanks for telling me, Luther's Rose. I though Martin Luther drew it, but it appears that he didn't after all. I'm studying the reformation, and I need some serious help. I don't know practically anything about it.:help:


By the way, which cartoons were written by Martin Luther and which ones weren't?

[ByzantineDixie]

Esran...if you want information on the Reformation you came to the right place! We have it all...the good, the bad and the ugly. Ask away!

Are you by any chance viewing these cartoons online? Would you have a link?

(Now I am a little concerned that I may have misread that cartoon! :eek: )

Peace

Rose

[Jim47]

Maybe you could translate? Cause I couldn't read it at all. ;)

[Tertiumquid]

I'm looking at Martin Luther's political cartoons, and I have no idea what this one means. It's kind of creepy. Could you all please enlighten me on what it is?

No idea what it meant. I though it was about the Pope or something. Thanks for telling me, Luther's Rose. I though Martin Luther drew it, but it appears that he didn't after all. I'm studying the reformation, and I need some serious help. I don't know practically anything about it.:help:




By the way, which cartoons were written by Martin Luther and which ones weren't?

Hi Esran,

Towards the end of his life, Luther commissioned the painter Lucas Cranach to draw cartoons to accompany one of his writings. My guess is you're looking at one of these. As Roland Bainton has pointed out,


The third group toward whom Luther became more bitter was the papists. His railing against the pope became perhaps the more vituperative because there was so little else that could be done. Another public appearance such as that at Worms, where an ampler confession could be made, was denied Luther, and the martyrdom which came to others also passed him by. He compensated by hurling vitriol. Toward the very end of his life he issued an illustrated tract with outrageously vulgar cartoons. In all of this he was utterly unrestrained.

Here I Stand, 298.


One of the best overviews I have read on these "cartoons" was by Mark Edwards in his book, Luther's Last Battles. If you're interested, I will dig up some of his commentary.

These cartoons exist in cyber-space, mostly the result of Roman Catholic apologists. I'm a bit busy at the moment, so i'm sparing everyone my usual long commentary. Perhaps later...or during the week...

Regards,
James Swan

[SaintGeorge]

Yes, I would love it if you dug up some of his commentaries.

[ByzantineDixie]

It appears I misinterpeted the woodcut Esran posted!!! My sincere apologies! :blush:

James...here is the picture...perhaps you could explain it to Esran. Thanks.

http://history.smsu.edu/jchuchiak/Monk%20as%20Devil1.gif

[Tertiumquid]

It appears I misinterpeted the woodcut Esran posted!!! My sincere apologies! :blush:

James...here is the picture...perhaps you could explain it to Esran. Thanks.



Ok, that helps. That picture is not one of those Luther commissioned by the painter Lucas Cranach to draw cartoons to accompany Against The Papacy At Rome. It is not, as far as I know, anything commisioned by Luther or approved by Luther. The picture in question though doesn't seem that difficult to interpret: a monk is played by a chicken (or a demon on the shoulder). It looks to be a bagpipe, as if to say "the monk is playing a tune everyone should march to." The tune, is of course, intended to be portayed as evil, the lies of "monkery" or the papacy.


A few things. Steven Ozment's book, Protestants: The Birth of a Revolution has a great overview of propoganda and pamphleteers during the 16th Century There was a literal "pamphlet explosion" during the 16th Century. Also, if you have Oberman's Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, you can find many examples of pictures like these, as well as in Roland Bainton's Here I Stand. Best book though is Ozment.


Second, the link from where this picture is from is:

EDIT: I took the link out because some people might find the material offensive.

If you scroll the link to the bottom, the last picture and the third to the last picture are those Luther commissioned by the painter Lucas Cranach. Luther gave him specific details as to what the pictures should like. Luther then attached his own explanation at the bottom of each picture. BTW, these 2 pictures are more "mild" than some of the others put together by Luther and Cranach. Luther's idea was to mock the papacy, and his captions were ment to be satirical verse. The cartoons are shocking, and drew criticism (as well as praise) from other Protestant leaders.


Luther was convinced the Papacy was the "Devil's foremost minion" (as Edwards points out). He intended to shock his readers into this realization. If they couldn't read, they definately would understand the pictures. The pictures are downright crude. If Luther's assesment of the papacy was correct, the pictures indeed would shock those who saw them, perhaps even wake a few from following (what Luther thought) was Satan.



Regards,
James Swan

[ByzantineDixie]

Ok, that helps. That picture is not one of those Luther commissioned by the painter Lucas Cranach to draw cartoons to accompany Against The Papacy At Rome. It is not, as far as I know, anything commisioned by Luther or approved by Luther. The picture in question though doesn't seem that difficult to interpret: a monk is played by a chicken (or a demon on the shoulder). It looks to be a bagpipe, as if to say "the monk is playing a tune everyone should march to." The tune, is of course, intended to be portayed as evil, the lies of "monkery" or the papacy.



Yes, that was my original interpretation. in my PM to Esran..that the devil was "playing" Martin Luther like a musical instrument...so that all that came out of him was of the devil. But after you had posted the first time I though "Oh NO! I must be wrong!"

,,,in one way my pride is all bloated now in knowing I was correct...but it would have been better to have risked being wrong and not have reposted the image. :sigh: Sorry, Lutherans.-----R

[pastel]

I do believe Martin Luther was the most misunderstood person of his century ... perhaps of any century. Which probably means he was on the right path, at least most of the time. :( :cry: :o

[Dr. Martin Luther]

Some people just cannot handle the truth. :sigh:

I'm referring to that site with the so-called "Martin Luther's Propaganda" ...which is propaganda in its own right.

[SaintGeorge]

Thank you for explaining that to me.

God bless you all!:crossrc:

[Tertiumquid]

Some people just cannot handle the truth. :sigh:

I'm referring to that site with the so-called "Martin Luther's Propaganda" ...which is propaganda in its own right.

Herr Doktor,

There was propoganda from both sides. Kudos though to the Protestants for getting into the "pamphleteering" much earlier than Roman Catholics, and doing it widely and effectively. As Steven Ozment points out,


"As a literary event, the revolution envisioned by pamphleteers was a revolt of ordinary laypeople newly impervious to spiritual deciet against those who would defraud them. This image was conveyed to the public not only in pamphlets featuring educated laity capable of formal theological debate. Spiritually enlightened shoemakers, bakers, cooks, spoonmakers, bellsmiths, carpenters, and haymakers also take leading roles in the pamphlets, challenging readers and auditors with a folksier logic and oratory."

Source, Ozment, Protestants: The Birth of a Revolution, 57


Catholic writer (and severe critic of Luther) Hartmann Grisar thinks that Roman Catholics were somehow more "moral" because they did not frequently employ cartoons against Luther. But they did do it, I don't know to what extent. The most famous cartoon against Luther is that of Cochlaeus, who saw Luther as “an agent of the devil, a perversion, and a monster.” Cochlaeus best expressed this portrayal of Luther as a seven-headed dragon, in a book as well as in an accompanying artistic portrayal. The picture is in many Luther biographies. I believe it is in Bainton's Here I Stand.Cochlaeus explains the picture:

“It is indeed a miracle and surpasses all reason and understanding, however sublime and venerable, that in one deity there are three, and these three deities are one—one in substance, yet three in person. But in one cowl of this one Luther, there are seven, and these seven Luthers are not only one in substance, but even in person. An extraordinary theology indeed, hitherto unheard of not only among Jews and heathens, but also among Christians! In the old, most Christian Evangel, there was one heart among the multitude of believers and one soul; yet in this new Evangel one heart and flesh are cut apart into many heads, and not only is it that diverse people hold diverse opinions, but one and the same mind grows several heads next to itself.”

The goal of Cochlaeus in the use of this image was to point out that Luther was thoroughly contradictory in his own beliefs. Cochlaeus ultimately did not fight against Luther via Scripture and Church decrees. Rather, he used Luther’s own words, set up in such a way that they appeared contradictory and absurd. Cochlaeus had done what would later be a standard approach to vilifying Luther: create a book of out-of-context Luther quotes so parishioners of Catholicism would not have to read Luther for themselves. Cochlaeus divided up the life of Luther into seven distinct periods, each represented by one of the heads on the monster. Each head held a contradictory opinion to the other. He explains what each head represents:

"Thus all brothers emerge from the womb of one and the same cowl by a birth so monstrous, that none is like the other in either behavior, shape, face or character. The elder brothers, Doctor and Martinus, come closest to the opinion of the Church, and they are to be believed above all the others, if anything anywhere in Luther's books can be believed with any certainty at all. Lutherus, however, according to his surname, plays a wicked game just like Ismael [lat. ludere—Luder, Saxon pronunciation for Luther]. Ecclesiastes tells the people who are always keen on novelties, pleasant things. Svermerns rages furiously and errs in the manner of Phaeton throughout the skies. Barrabas is looking for violence and sedition everywhere. And at the last, Visitator, adorned with a new mitre and ambitious for a new papacy, prescribes new laws of ceremonies, and many old ones which he had previously abolished—revokes, removes, reduces. This is the sum of my book.”

Luther and the Protestants did similarly to the Papacy, and probably more effectively. Luther's final use of "Cartoons" though, really pushes the limit. I was chastised by a Roman Catholic apologist who said of me,

"Would Mr. Swan, as the Luther partisan with the natural Protestant bias, actually attempt to defend this art? He doesn't actually take a stand on that issue..."

Well, defend....no. Understand the intent of Luther? Yes. Agree with the motivation Luther had for presenting such strong images? Yes.

Regards,
James Swan

[•Amadeus•]

Herr Doktor,

There was propoganda from both sides. Kudos though to the Protestants for getting into the "pamphleteering" much earlier than Roman Catholics, and doing it widely and effectively. As Steven Ozment points out,



Catholic writer (and severe critic of Luther) Hartmann Grisar thinks that Roman Catholics were somehow more "moral" because they did not frequently employ cartoons against Luther. But they did do it, I don't know to what extent. The most famous cartoon against Luther is that of Cochlaeus, who saw Luther as “an agent of the devil, a perversion, and a monster.” Cochlaeus best expressed this portrayal of Luther as a seven-headed dragon, in a book as well as in an accompanying artistic portrayal. The picture is in many Luther biographies. I believe it is in Bainton's Here I Stand.Cochlaeus explains the picture:



The goal of Cochlaeus in the use of this image was to point out that Luther was thoroughly contradictory in his own beliefs. Cochlaeus ultimately did not fight against Luther via Scripture and Church decrees. Rather, he used Luther’s own words, set up in such a way that they appeared contradictory and absurd. Cochlaeus had done what would later be a standard approach to vilifying Luther: create a book of out-of-context Luther quotes so parishioners of Catholicism would not have to read Luther for themselves. Cochlaeus divided up the life of Luther into seven distinct periods, each represented by one of the heads on the monster. Each head held a contradictory opinion to the other. He explains what each head represents:



Luther and the Protestants did similarly to the Papacy, and probably more effectively. Luther's final use of "Cartoons" though, really pushes the limit. I was chastised by a Roman Catholic apologist who said of me,



Well, defend....no. Understand the intent of Luther? Yes. Agree with the motivation Luther had for presenting such strong images? Yes.

Regards,
James Swan

It depends on your definition of "propaganda" too.

[Tertiumquid]

It depends on your definition of "propaganda" too.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by asking for a definition of propaganda.

Dictionary.com offers these:


The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.
n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause

Merriam Webster online offers these more negative aspects:

2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

When we think of propaganda, we usually think of half truths or lies being pawned off as solid facts. None of these definitions express this, though i'm sure some dictionary somewhere does.

During the 16th Century, the new invention of the printing press gave both Protestants and Catholics something new: the ability to 'mass market' their doctrines and gripes. Literally thousand of pamphlets survive from this period. Most were around 20 pages or less. some were simply sermons. A good number were illustrated to target those who couldn't read. Thus, even though a large number of people couldn't read, they were still strongly influenced by the drawings contained therein. It's too bad I pulled the link from a previous post in this thread, you would get some good examples of these drawings (the links are not hard to find anyhow).

I am a Protestant, so I consider at least what Luther put out (usually) an accurate accounting of the facts, even when he did present his views in highly charged "in your face" type of writings, his extreme presentation usually is backed by an accurate accounting of the facts.

Since i've done some research on Johannes Cochlaeus (whose work I mentioned earlier), I can say with confidence that his work against Luther is propaganda in its most negative form. It is for his writings against Luther that Cochlaeus is remembered. Even with such a great output of works against Luther, the Catholic Encyclopedia states that “Almost all of these publications, however, were written in haste and bad temper, without the necessary revision and theological thoroughness, consequently they produced no effect on the masses.”

While they didn't effect the "masses", they definately effected Roman Catholic scholarship on Luther for many years.

“There can be no doubt of the sincerity and conviction of Cochlaeus, but neither can there be any doubt that it was he who poisoned the well of historical studies. Roman Catholic historians have drawn their prejudice against Luther from this polemical source, which in its animosity has an almost total disregard for objective truth and historical facts. Denifle, Grisar, Cristiani, Paquier, and Maritain (to cite the most famous and influential) have all drunk deep of this poisoned well-too deeply- and lesser historians have adopted their position.”

Source:James Atkinson, Martin Luther: Prophet to the Church Catholic (Grand Rapids: WB Eerdman’s Publishing co., 1983), 8.

“An answer to this question of why the more scientific and accurate Catholic depiction of Luther is so recent was well stated at the time of World War II by Catholic scholar Adolf Herte in a three-volume work, Das katholische Lutherbild im Bann der Lutherkommentare des Cochlaeus. His clear and, for many Catholics, embarrassing answer was this: Catholic Luther interpretation for the previous 400 years had more or less repeated what Johannes Cochlaeus, a contemporary of Luther, set forth in his extremely negative Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri.. Cochlaeus' writings were basically nothing but fiction, calumny, and lies. In the rude style of that time, Cochlaeus depicted Luther as a monster, a demagogue, a revolutionary, a drunkard, and a violator of nuns.”

Source: Johann Heinz, “Martin Luther and His Theology in German Catholic Interpretation Before and After Vatican II” (Andrews University Seminary Studies, 26, Autumn 1988), 253.

“Through the centuries, generation after generation of Catholic priests were brought up on church histories, encyclopedias, world-chronicles, and histories of heresy all of which, deliberately or unknowingly, accepted Cochlaeus's verdict on Luther. Only in the Age of Enlightenment did the Commentaria temporarily lose some of its hold on Germany, though not on France; and even then the revival of confessionalism in the nineteenth century renewed the old influences and continued to do so right into modern times.”

Source:Gotthelf Wiedermann, “Cochlaeus as Polemicist,” found in, Peter Newman Brooks (ed.), Seven-Headed Luther (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983) 204.

Regards,
James Swan

[pastel]

When we think of propaganda, we usually think of half truths or lies being pawned off as solid facts. None of these definitions express this, though i'm sure some dictionary somewhere does.

Not really, in reality most Americans have a skewed idea of what propaganda really is. You did well to place the dictionary definition of it.