¹ The dependence of over 300 years of Catholic scholarship on the work of a single contemporary—indeed adversary—of Luther was traced by Adolf Herte, Das katholische Lutherbild im Bann der Lutherkommentare des [Johann] Cochläus, 3 vols. (Munster: Aschendorff, 1943). Strong bias could render useless even such Catholic efforts as would seem unrelated to Cochläus, e.g., V. Kehrein, “Dr. Martin Luther als deutscher Schriftsteller,” Der Katholik, 98 (1918), 32-40, or make suspect, because of the firm Protestant context, such excellent surveys as that by Julius Köstlin in his famous Martin Luther: Sein Leben und seine Schriften, 5th ed., revised by Gustav Kawerau (Berlin: A. Duncker, 1903), e.g., ii, 434-36.

² This contrast was eloquently demonstrated in a lively exchange during the 1960's, in which we found a Catholic, Erwin Iserloh, Luthers Thesenanschlag, Tatsache oder Legende? (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1962), arguing Luther's propriety and correctness in handling the famous 95 theses. Lutheran scholars have fairly unanimously rejected Iserloh's conjectures. The whole battle about whether the theses were ever really posted was summarized by Franz Lau, “Die gegenwärtige Diskussion um Luthers Thesenanschlag, Sachstandbericht und Versuch einer Weiterführung durch Neuinterpretation von Dokumenten,” Luther-Jahrbuch, 34 (1967), 11-59. See also Bernhard Lohse, “Die Lutherforschung im deutschen Sprachbereich seit 1966,” Luther-Jahrbuch, 38 (1971), 100-02.

³ Die Reformation in Deutschland, 2 vols. (Freiburg: Herder, 1939-40), is usually credited with effecting the major liberalization of Catholic opinion.

⁴ “The Basic Elements of Luther's Intellectual Style,” Catholic Scholars Dialogue with Luther, ed. Jared Wicks, S. J. (Chicago: Loyola Univ. Press, 1970), p. 5.

⁵ In his letter to Lavater of 29 July 1792, he called himself “zwar kein Widerchrist, kein Unchrist aber doch ein dezidirter Nichtchrist.” The remark has become famous.

⁶ German professors of literature, who long regarded themselves as duty bound to theology, became vulnerable to the apt charge by an American graduate student: “His judgment was warped by over-appreciation”—Preserved Smith, Luther's Table-Talk: A Critical Study, Diss. Columbia 1907. Gustav Roethe, D. Martin Luthers Bedeutung für die deutsche Literatur (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1918), offers a fine example of the sweeping, useless generalization that prevailed in contributions to Luther scholarship by German literature professors. More recent writers have cautiously restricted themselves to limited topics, as does Heinz Otto Burger even in his essay entitled “Luther als Ereignis in der Literaturgeschichte,” Luther-Jahrbuch, 24 (1957), 86-101. This makes sense, because an overview of Luther's entire work is a lifetime's task. Another lifetime could then be consumed in struggling with the secondary literature, mostly by theologians, simply because they are best acquainted with Luther's extensive writings. Hence it is not surprising that the best introduction to Luther's literary accomplishment is by a theologian: Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther als Schriftsteller, Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1965).

Pascal Roy, The Social Basis of the German Reformation : Martin Luther and His Times (London: Watts, 1933), was an early advocate of the materialistic view, openly hostile to Luther. Gerhard Zschäbitz, Martin Luther: Größe und Grenze (Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1967), gives the Marxist assessment as it is accepted today. It has been given wider currency in Dieter Forte's drama Martin Luther und Thomas Münzer: Oder die Einführung der Buchhaltvng (Berlin: Wagenbach. 1971).

⁷ The greatest merit of Erik Erikson's popular psychiatric study, Young Man Luther (New York: Norton, 1958), was in showing that it is indeed possible to talk about Luther in terms that find credence in our time. The theological semeiotic, although it enjoyed an acceptance in Luther's day comparable with that of scientific assumptions in our own, elicits little resonance in today's world. The traditional job of the literature teacher is to create sympathetic understanding for other “realities” even if that requires suspension of one's own.

⁸ H. Marshall McLuhan's contentions, e.g., in The Gutenberg Galaxy (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1962), have not been taken into account by those concerned with the rapid spread of Lutheran ideas, but McLuhan's notion that the printed word has a peculiar effect on consciousness does seem relevant here. This is not to suggest that the role of the press in the Reformation has been overlooked or neglected. See, e.g., Maurice Gravier, Luther el l'opinion publique (Paris: Aubier, 1942).

⁹ The most recent report on Luther research in the Luther-Jahrbuch, i.e., that by Bernhard Lohse (see n. 2), begins with a statement that “auf eine Erwähnung der germanistischen Beiträge verzichtet werden muß.” It would be easy to assemble enough examples of crass misinformation purveyed by our literature colleagues to justify Lohse's remark. On the other hand, see my forthcoming article, “Philological Limits to Historical Knowledge: Martin Luther's ‘Tower Experience,‘ ” for an example of how vulnerable philological naïveté can leave theologians.

¹⁰ The two most recent Luther books comprehensive enough to interest the nonspecialist are John M. Todd, Martin Luther: A Biographical Study (New York: Paulist Press. 1964), and Richard Friedenthal, Luther: Sein Lehen und seine Zeit (Munich: Piper, 1967). They share the purpose of conveying the present state of scholarship without undertaking original reinterpretations, and they complement one another in that Todd reflects theologians while Friedenthal relies more heavily on historians. In that neither argues literary importance for Luther, they reflect the prevailing temper in both camps.

¹¹ This is a point curiously not touted by the many who have sought to magnify Luther's cultural importance. Karl Holl, “Die Kulturbedeutung der Reformation,” Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte (Tübingen: J. B. C. Mohr, 1921), pp. 359–413, is one of the most responsible of these. Other recent, also sound essays are those in the collection Luther and Culture, ed. George W. Forell et al. (Decorah, Iowa: Luther Coll. Press, 1960), and John W. Montgomery, “Luther, Libraries and Learning,” in Montgomery, In Defense of Martin Luther (Milwaukee: Northwestern Pub. House, 1970), pp. 116-39.

¹² Parzival, 115, 25-116, 4. (Lachmann):

7th ed., rev. Edward Hartl (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1952), p. 64. The bath was a part of the noble habitus; reading was not.

Simplizissinuis, Ch. x:

“Als ich das erste mal den Einsidel in der Bibel lesen sahe / konte ich mir nicht einbilden / mit wem er doch ein solch heimlich/und meinem Beduncken nach sehr ernstlich Gespräch haben müste. ... Ich gab Achtung auff das Buch / und nachdem er solches beygelegt / machte ich mich darhinder / schlugs auff/ und bekam im ersten Griff das erste Capitel deß Hiobs / und die darvor stehende Figur / so ein feiner Holtzschnitt / und schön illuminirt war / in die Augen: ich fragte dieselbige Bilder selzame Sachen / weil mir aber kein Antwort widerfahren wolte / wurde ich ungeduldig / und sagte: Ihr kleine Hudler / habt ihr dann keine Mäuler mehr?” (Grimmelshausen: Der Ahentheurliehe Simplicissimus Teutsch . . . , ed. Rolf Tarot, Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1967, p. 30).

¹³ I have drawn my figures from Rolf Engelsing, Analphabetentum und Lektüre: Zur Sozialgeschichle des Lesens in Deutschland zwischen feudaler und industrielier Gesel/schaft (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1973). Engelsing gives an extensive bibliography on the progress of literacy in the indicated time frame.

¹⁴ Donald Krummel (Univ. of Illinois), questioning the ability of German printers to marshal the capital, skilled labor, and equipment for a 25-fold increase within 5 years, has called my attention to the fact that many of these “books” were mere pamphlets. He argues that the sheet output of the German presses probably did not shoot up by so radical a factor. On the other hand, this means that the number of printed items may have risen by a factor greater than 25. It is easy to show how the smaller (hence cheaper) a pamphlet, the greater its number of press runs. I would guess that the same can be said of the number of imprints per run. Luther's implacable enemy Duke George of Saxony once ran off a pamphlet against Luther in 8,000 copies. This may give us an idea of the number of readers one could hope to reach if one disposed of substantial funds. While the great tomes typical of pre-Reformation years continued traditional press runs, the new spate of slender polemics and sermons far exceeded them. Reading material was obviously coming into many a hand that had never held it before.

¹⁵ The one-sided sympathy of printers for Luther has been much discussed, and it certainly has to be attributed to the sincere beliefs of some of them as well as to the profit motive, so plausible to our era. See, e.g., Johannes Froben's famous letter to Luther of 14 Feb. 1519 (Briefwechsel, in Luthers Werke, Weimarer Ausgabe, 11 vols., Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1930-49, i, 331-35. Further references to Briefwechsel will be by the usual symbol, Br, followed by page and line number). The dale alone attests to the fact that Froben was putting his shoulder to a bandwagon, not leaping onto one already rolling.

¹⁶ The best known instance is the famous introduction to the 1545 Latin edition of his works, “Martinus Luther pio lectori,” in Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesammtausgabe (Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1928), liv, 179, ll. 1-21. Hereafter, references to WA will be cited by page and (where appropriate) line number.

¹⁷ The connection between the English and the German Bible was established by Albert H. Gerberich, Luther and the English Bible (Lancaster, Pa.: Press of Intelligencer Printing Co., 1933). Recently, Heinz Bluhm has looked more closely into Tyndale's (and Coverdale's) debt to Luther: “Shaping the English Bible,” in Bluhm, Martin Luther, Creative Translator (St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1965), pp. 169–232. Bluhm is the major American Luther authority who is not a theologian.

¹⁸ Luther's most serious detractor in this respect was Wilhelm Bäumker, Das katholische deutsche Kirchenlied in seinen Singweisen von den frühesten Zeiten, 4 vols. (Freiburg: Herder, 1883-1911). In 1923, Wilhelm Luck offered a balanced view of the problem in his edition of Luther's songs for WA, xxxv, esp. pp. 79–87. More recent writers have tended to attribute considerable musical originality to Luther, e.g., Charles Schneider, Luther: Poète et musicien (Geneva: Henn, 1942), and Paul Nettl, Luther and Music, 2nd ed. (New York: Russell & Russell, 1967).

¹⁹ Blume Friedrich, Geschichte der evangelischen Kirchenmusik, 2nd ed. (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1965), p. 24, remarks with respect to “Ein feste Burg,” “Eyn newes Lyed,” and “Vom Himmel Hoch”: “Offenbar reichen die Wurzeln dieses Melodietypus bis in die Frühzeit eurasischer Volksbewegungen zurück.” Blume's treatment of Luther may be regarded as authoritative for our time: he attributes about three dozen songs to him, of which perhaps a half dozen seem to be original musical compositions.

²⁰ The 16th century placed perhaps less store by originality than have later centuries. When Luther, in a conversation with Johann Walter, preserved by Michael Praetorius, declared his purpose to be a close match between words and music, he seemed to be regarding this as an essentially literary requirement. Walter had asked Luther with respect to his German Mass: “Wie er alle Noten auf dem Text nach dem rechten accent und concent so meisterlich und wohl gerichtet . . . und woraus oder woher [er] doch diese Stücke oder Unterricht [hätte]. Darauf der teure Mann meiner Einfalt lachte und sprach: ‘Der Poet Virgilius hat mir solches gelehrt, der also seine Carmina und Wort auf die Geschichte, die er bcschreibt, so künstlich applicieren kann; also soll auch die Musika alle ihre Noten und Gesänge auf den Text richten’ ” (WA, xix, 50).

²¹ Brode Otto, “Ein neues Lied wir heben an,” Luther, 34 (1963), 72-82, does not discuss the song named in his title, but in several others he examines the “Übereinkunft von Wort und Weise” (p. 77) as a major feature of Luther's composition.

²² WA, vi, 404-69. References will occur by page and line number only. Since Luther's language is difficult for the non-specialist and since the customary modernization may run a greater risk of misinterpretation than outright translation, I continue to offer quotations in English rather than alter them.

²³ One of the best treatments is that by James MacKinnon in Luther and the Reformation (New York: Longmans, Green, 1925-30), ii, 222-47.

²⁴ Götze Alfred, Volkskundliches bei Luther (Weimar: Hof-Buchdruckerei, 1909), is a good general introduction.

²⁵ E.g., in his investigation “On the Evolution of Luther's Bible: Matthew (1517-21),” in Luther: Creative Translator (St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1965), p. 36.

²⁶ D. Martin Luthers Tischreden, 1531-46, vols. 1-6 (Weimar: Böhlau, 1912-21, No. 467). Further references will be by the customary abbreviation, TR, followed by item number.

²⁷ In March of 1523, Luther wrote to Eoban Hessus: “Ego persuasus sum, sine literarum peritia prorsus stare non posse sinceram theologiam, sicut hactenus ruentibus et iacentibus literis miserrime et cecidit et iacuit. Quin video, nunquam fuisse insignem factam verbi Dei revelationem, nisi primo, velut praecursoribus Baptistis, viam pararit surgentibus et florentibus linguis et literis. Plane nihil minus vellem fieri aut committi in iuventute, quam ut poësin et rhetoricen omittant. Mea certe vota sunt, ut quam plurimi sint et poëtae et rhetores, quod his studiis videam, sicut nec aliis modis fieri potest, mire aptos fieri homines ad sacra turn capessenda, turn dextre et feliciter tractanda” (Br, iii, 50, ll. 21-29). Today the shoe is on the other foot and we would reverse Luther's statements, persuaded that youthful Bible reading and the tacit hermeneutics that went with it constituted better literary preparation than any available since the dotage of organized religion.

²⁸ Heinrich Bornkamm, in what is surely the best single work on the subject, Luther und das alte Testament (Tübingen: J. B. C. Mohr, 1948), goes into the question of authorship (pp. 162–65) and offers numerous quotations.

²⁹ The fundamental essay on the subject was that by Karl Holl, “Luthers Bedeutung für den Fortschritt der Auslegekunst,” originally a lecture for the Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 11 Nov. 1920, and printed in his Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, i (Tübingen: J. B. C. Mohr, 1921), 414-50.

³⁰ The Holl and Bornkamm works were mentioned in nn. 28 and 29. Gerhard Ebeling, much under the influence of Heidegger, is less rewarding for the nontheologian. See his Evangelische Evangelienauslegung: Eine Untersuchung zu Luthers Hermeneutik (Munich: A. Lempo, 1942), and “Die Anfänge von Luthers Hermeneutik,” in Ebeling, Lutherstudien, i (Tübingen: J. B. C. Mohr, 1971), 1-68.

³¹ Quanbeck Warren A., “Luther's Early Exegesis,” in Luther Today, ed. Roland Bainton et al. (Decorah, Iowa: Luther Coll. Press, 1957), pp. 37–103.