Luther and Literacy

Author(s): H. G. Haile
Source: PMLA, Vol. 91, No. 5 (Oct., 1976), pp. 816-828
Published by: Modern Language Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/461557 .
Accessed: 22/10/2011 15:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PMLA.

http://www.jstor.org

H. G. HAILE

Luther and Literacy

M

UCH OF THE rationale for literature

study arises from the enrichment we
think we may offer to our own people
through values that some text has preserved from
a culture otherwise remote in time or place. The
assumption is that humanity remains enough like
itself for understanding to be possible even over
great distances, yet that human potentials have
proved so varied as to leave much to learn from
the past and from the distant. One epoch may, of
course, seem to another so radically different that
a sympathetic reading is precluded. This must
have been the case with Luther's writings during
the heyday of German scholarship in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Despite the
fact that he continued to be recognized as a central figure in the development of German literature, Luther studies were left to theologians and,
peripherally, to a few historians.
The older Protestant view of Luther as successful reformer of a corrupt tradition, like the now
seldom encountered caricature of him as a depraved monk, has over the years been erased by
more temperate scholarship. Indeed, Catholic
writing, once notorious for the most grievous
calumny,' today sometimes seems more sympathetic to Luther than Protestant work.2 The gentler, circumspect approach stems in such large
measure from the writings of Joseph Lortz and
his pupils that it is fair to quote him as representative of many theologians.3 He concedes that detachment does not yet characterize the world of
Luther studies: "We cannot speak of [Luther]
with detachment and from a distance... he
works on us and makes demands of us today."4
Still dominated by Christians and anti-Christians,
the field is graced by very few of that new race for
whom Goethe found the happy term nonChristian.5 While non-Christians may find little
to interest them in the recondite theological dialogue which supplies the bulk of Luther scholarship, an alternative is offered principally by
Marxist zealots, to whom Luther is an outright
hypocrite and lackey for aristocratic and capital-

ist circles.6 Obviously, a balanced perception of

European history demands appreciation for profoundly religious motivation.7 At the same time,
in Luther studies as in all literary scholarship,
disinterest is essential.
Because of its theological orientation, Luther
scholarship has tended to present his development
against the patristic background, scarcely related
to or even contrasted with the Renaissance and
Humanism. It became possible to inquire, for example, into the influence of Humanism on Luther,
because scholars took it for granted that he was
certainly no "Humanist." Yet Humanism is
understood as a phase in the expansion of modern
experience when, first of all, a wealth of ancient
literature was reborn, becoming available in
modem languages to an immensely larger readership than ever before. The printed word took on
unprecedented immediacy.8 Luther played a key
role in such changes to an extent not fully appreciated precisely because specializations in church
history or in theology (hence in Luther) have insufficient overlap with literature studies.9 Nevertheless, the ancient Hebrew tales had never been
received with such intense inner participation as
in Luther's version of them for northern Europeans, probably not even by those listening to
them when they were recited in Canaan 3,000
years earlier. Preoccupation with the Bible during
the German Renaissance, and the debates that
attended it, had a dynamic effect on general
literacy rates. "Literature" in the sense of the
written word actually being read and taken seriously by a significant fraction of a populace was
virtually brought into being by the young Wittenberg Doctor in Biblia. It seems therefore ironical
that his stature as a literary figure continues to be
subordinate to and even contingent on theological
or historical-political considerations.'? The present essay can do no more than plead for a secular
revision by sampling kinds of approaches to
Luther that a literature student might prefer. I
will touch on the following topics: (1) literacy
rates around 1500; (2) Luther as a popular song-

816

H. G. Haile
writer and pamphleteer; (3) Luther's treatment
of the Bible as literature.
Literacy Rates
From a secular viewpoint, surely the most farreaching effect of Luther's activity was the radical
increase in literacy from the early 1520's on
through the rest of the century."1 In the Middle
Ages reading had been an activity of professional
scribes and scholars, while illiteracy had remained
widespread among the nobility and even among
the clergy. Wolfram von Eschenbach is either
being truthful or affecting a noble pose when he
claims to be illiterate, but Grimmelshausen is just
telling an old, familiar joke when, over 400 years
later, he has his young hero come upon a hermit
"conversing" with the pictures in his book.12 The
two passages illustrate a gradual increase in
literacy rates, until the Biblia pauperunihad been
rendered obsolete by the Biblia deutsch. Luther's
position in this long-range development is analogous to his part in the gradual standardization
of German, or to his role in the long demanded
reform of the Church: ongoing processes merge
in him, reinforce one another, and eventuate in
unprecedented change.
The imaginative and intellectual stimulus that
Luther supplied evoked a new literacy in the traditional, qualitative sense of that word-a topic
to which we shall return. Let us for now express
the effects in the statistical terms to which our era
attaches faith. 13
Mercantile activity and trade, technological developments like the paper mill, copper engraving,
woodcuts, and at last the use of movable types had
for several centuries been enhancing the availability of reading materials. By 1500 about forty
German imprints were being produced annually
at issues of about 500 each. Compare that modest
book consumption in Luther's youth with the
output at the height of his controversy with the
authorities in 1523: 498 imprints, which are
thought to have averaged over 1,000 copies each.
Luther was himself author of over a third of them.
Most impressive is the rapidity with which a
Wittenberg tract is reprinted now in Strasbourg,
now in Basel, and throughout Germany. The
flood of German works was by no means reducing
the production of Latin books, which also continued to increase for several generations.14 In
the sixteenth century religious dispute was trans-

817

forming Germany into a literate nation in the

modern sense, and the same process would soon
go on in other countries, penurious but contentious Scotland being perhaps the most famous example. When dispute was submerged by Protestant orthodoxy toward the end of the century, demand for books in Germany began to level off,
and it actually declined during the Thirty Years'
War, but by then book production had increased
tenfold during a period (1470-1600) when population had only doubled.
Luther's sensational dispute and eventual
break with the Church was crucial in this popularization of literacy. The common man, always
curious, wanted to know what the fuss was all
about. That he could indeed find out and understand for himself was after all a major argument
of Luther's theology, which-in the beginning,
anyhow-encouraged individuals to rely on their
own judgment. This in itself constituted a strong
new motive for reading and helps explain the
phenomenal sale of polemical pamphlets in the
1520's.15 Luther not only played this key role in
urging people to read; he produced, as we have
seen, a lion's share of the imprints. Just as he expressly hoped,16 most of these pamphlets were
soon forgotten, but the new ability and eagerness
to read was retained. The psychological power of
the printed word continued to transform the mentality of European man (to Luther's own consternation) for at least a generation. The new quality
and extent of literacy had the effect of general
consciousness raising, which was of course closely
connected with the impact of the vernacular
Bible. The admirable teamwork that produced
the Wittenberg Bible in the 1520's was duplicated
elsewhere, notably by the scholars of King James's
court a century later in England.17
Probably also essential to the stunning popular
success of the Luther Bible was his theory of
literature, which for the first time enabled the
people to understand these works from ancient
Hebrew as related intimately to their own lives.
This is the aspect of Luther's work which our own
era, languishing in a scholasticism of its own, can
most admire. The conclusion of my paper will
turn to the qualitative aspect of the new literacy.
To appreciate the broad popular appeal of Luther
the interpreter, it may help if we first observe his
work as a popular artist. Many German Humanists were influenced by the aristocratic Italian

818

Luther and Literacl

Renaissance with its visions of clear and balanced

form, of rationality and propriety; but northern
Europe would eventually come to express its own
character in the profusions of Rabelais, Fischart,
and Shakespeare with their endless combinations
and crass juxtapositions. In this more boisterous
sense, Luther is a man of the democratic northern
Renaissance, who from long experience as professor and debater consciously played to the gallery.
Popular Song
Luther the lyricist is kin to Robert Burns,
Woodie Guthrie, and others whose songs arise
from the native strength of popular language,
words and music coming as a coherent inspiration. Learned arguments have been long and
bravely fought concerning the originality of his
melodies, 18 often quite missing the point that such
artists scorn originality. When schoolchildren
patriotically join in "This Land Is Your Land,"
when resolute Lutherans sing "Ein feste Burg,"
or when "Auld Lang Syne" unites Anglo-Saxons,
they must be cultivating modes that hark back to
an ancient communality, perhaps their IndoEuropean background.19 If we place great store
by originality-and, in accordance with the adage
that we most admire those virtues which we lack,
scholars usually do-then we must seek it in the
craftsmanship with which these artists match
poetic and melodic line.20 Any of the songs will
reward such an investigation. Here we will just
have a glance at the earliest Luther song that has
come down to us, "Eyn newes Lyed." Although it
is still sometimes found in songbooks, this topical
piece did not achieve the widespread and lasting
popularity of Luther's other musical efforts, but
it does share their naive appeal.
The occasion for the forty-year-old man to
write what is, so far as we know, his first song
composition was the public burning of two Antwerp Augustinians (1 July 1523) at the beginning
of the inquisition by Charles v in the Netherlands
-the first martyrdom of those holding "Lutheran" opinions. The song reports that event in
tendentious narrative which makes its claim to art
mainly through the adaptation of old and familiar
topoi, e.g.,
Sie sungensueB,sie sungensawr...
die Knabenstundtenwie eynn mawr.
(WA, xxxv, 412, 11.19-21)

They sang sweetly,they sang harshly.

Those lads stood therelike a wall.
This is a technique that can yield touching beauty,
as in the conclusion:
Der Sommerist hardtfurder thiir,
der Wynterist vergangen,
die zartenblumengehn herfur,
der das hat angefangen
der wirdtes woll volenden.
(WA, xxxv, 414,11.14-18)
Summeris nearat hand,
Winteris gone:
The tenderblossomsare sprouting:
He who beganthesethings
will finishthem,too.
Such ancient motifs have a psychological effect
similar to the familiar turns of the air: singers feel
united in consciousness of a common heritage.
The melody is itself well adapted to emphasize the
conflict of good with evil in a melodramatic way,
as is appropriate for the genre of historical folk
ballad. Note how triumphantly the tale is begun:

Eynneweslyedwyrhebenan, des waldgot unserherre

Zu singenwas Gott hat gethanzu seynemlob undehre.
We commencea new song, may it rest in God's hand.
We sing God's deeds and glorifyHis name.
Every strophe returns to words appropriate to
that lilting "f." The narrative begins ominously,
then rises with mention of the martyrs all the way
to the top of the scale:

INl o

0ooo

't 0

Zu Briisselin dem niederlandtwoll durchzwenjunge

knaben
In Brussels,intheNetherlands,throughtwoyoungmen
As the history continues, divine participation is
also made clear by the melodic line:
IlIh

o ?o

Hat er seyn wundermachtbekandt,die er mit seynen

gaben
He made His wondersknown, abundantlyadorning
them

H. G. Haile

4h b?b

So reychlichhatt gezyret. (WA, xxxv, 487)

With His own gifts.
Thus a pattern is set to which the song continues
to adhere as it recounts the events through ten
more strophes.21 If we sing or play them today we
are still impressed by their propagandistic effectiveness. Luther hews so faithfully to the form and
techniques of the historical folk ballad, widely
cultivated from early times-and still used, especially by dissident movements-that we have
never really lost touch with his appeal.
"Eyn newes Lyed" was written with a fairly
clear intent to stir popular sympathy, Luther being by 1523 reconciled to a public course in a cause
which had begun five years earlier as just another
academic argument by an ambitious young professor. The turning point which committed him
to a break with his Church was recognized by
contemporaries to have occurred in his decisive
publications of 1520. The most famous of these
was, as its title indicates, addressed to the laity:
An den ChristlichenAdel deutscherNation von des
Christlichenstandes besserung.22
Popular Polemic
This is not the place to recapitulate the background or the content of the Address to the Christian Nobility. Those who have been concerned
with its significance in political and in church history have written at length on the work.23 Our interest here is rather for the craftsmanship which
has shaped this example of Renaissance art. We
do not find much finesse in its overall form, which
betrays a matter-of-fact expediency of professor
(or preacher) itemizing point upon point. We have
the impression that the writing may have been
subject to interruptions, and certainly the organization permits that. The actual body of the work
is arranged according to twenty-seven "gravamina" long familiar from presentation by the
German estates at Imperial diets, e.g., at the one
that had just adjourned at Augsburg when Luther
went there to wait on Cardinal Cajetan (1518).
We are tempted to compare the whole Address
with the great, ungainly tile stove standing in the
dining room of the Black Cloister, where the
Table Talks were recorded. While the big square

819

form is itself uninteresting, one can spend an hour

examining the several score bas reliefs of its
Renaissance decoration. Similarly, the craftsmanship of the Address to the ChristianNobility has to
be sought in its detail.
At the lowest level, Luther's techniques include
simple invective (p. 406,1. 2; p. 416,1. 26; p. 432,
11. 12-13) and, especially, appeal to German
chauvinism (pp. 418-19). He also likes neologisms (e.g., "geltstrick" = "money noose," p. 426,
1. 12). Among his many debater's devices is direct
appeal to his audience (p. 452, 1. 32), to his adversary (p. 453, 1. 12), even to Jesus Christ himself
(p. 453, 1. 22). He maintains a jovial tone by poking fun at himself and especially by ridiculing
the pretensions of the Church: "gleich als wen ich
leret, die hurwirttyn solt burgemeysterin heyssen,
unnd doch bleybenn szo frum als sie ist" ("It's the
same as if I taught you to call the whorehouse
madam, 'Madam Mayor,' while she continued her
old profession," p. 424, 11.17-18). From the style
of the Address we infer an audience that loved
jokes (p. 404, 11.25-31) and had an endless tolerance for puns (e.g., p. 463,11. 37-38) and prolixity.
While Luther does shape his flood of words, most
often with crescendo, we often feel that he is just
venting his spleen in a tradition later to be taken
up by Fischart and Abraham a Sancta Clara.
Luther became their model in effective use of
proverbial material.24 Here are just a few of the
familiar expressions from the Address:
"Wenddasblatumb,szo findistues" ("Youdon'thave
to look far for the reason,"p. 426, 1.24); "Es ist noch
das Valete dahyndenn,das musz ich auch geben"("I
haveyet to dealthecrowningblow,"p. 426,1.25);"land
und leut"("theland and its people,"p. 435, 1.9); "das
armvolck mit der naszenumb furen"("to bamboozle
the commonman,"p. 447, 11.25-26); "ein blind fuert
den andern"("the blind leadingthe blind,"p. 448, 11.
13-14); "er vorhengtdem teuffel"("he gives the devil
his way," p. 448, 1. 32); "nit einen heller drumb geben"

("not give a dime for it," p. 456, 11.4-5); "nit ein harbreit"("nota hair'sbreadth,"p. 456, 1.5); "dasEvangelium [ligt] mussigunterder banck"("the Gospel is
neglected,"p. 460, 11.18-19); "szo fristder Bapstden
kern, szo spielen wir mit den ledigen schalen"("the
Pope gobblesthe meatof the nut and we play with the
empty shell," p. 464, 11.29-30); "den Fuckern ... ein
zawm ynsz maul legen" ("put a rein on the Fugger
financiers," p. 466, 11.31-32).

Where possible, Luther turns the proverb to his

820

Luther aind Literacy

own argumentative ends, e.g.: "O wie ein schlechter schatz ist der zol am Reyn gegen dieszem
heyligen hausze!" ("Oh, how modest a holding is
a customs house on the Rhine, compared with
this holy house!" p. 426, 11.15-16).
Proverbs like this are convincing not only because they seem to distill the wisdom of the ages
which is beyond dispute, but also because their use
certifies the native son, a fellow countryman who
can make a special claim on credence. In this connection, note that Luther imprints his slogans on
our mind not with end rhyme (of Latin provenience) so often as with stave rhyme, a Germanic
device.
In the ,4Address
we do find "gewurm und geschwurm" ("detestable tribe," p. 417, 1. 24);
"liegen unnd triegen" ("deceive," p. 419, 11.5-6);
and "zwingst unnd dringst die schrifft" ("distort
the meaning of Scripture," p. 453, 1. 21); but uses
of alliteration are much more numerous and inventive:
"prachtenundprangen"("livein luxury,"p. 420,1.27);
"schetzereyunnd schinderey"("gouging,"p. 426, 11.
10-11);"nurfrischmit fussentretten"("repudiate,"p.
438,1.3); "yrrhelauffennauffdemlandt"("gowandering about the countryside,"p. 438, 11.19-20); "teuffelischtyranney"("devilishtyranny,"p. 441, 1.34); "in
schandenunnd schweerengewissensitzenn"("suffer
shameand heavyconscience,"p. 442, 1.7); "folgemir
nurfrisch"("comeaheadandfollowme,"p. 442,1.25);
"schindenund schenden"("flayand defile,"p. 445, 1.
19); "drob lassenn leyb unnd leben" ("give up their
life,"p. 454, 11.29-30); "es hat sie der teuffeltoll unnd
toricht gemacht"("the devil has driven them out of
theirminds,"p. 455, 1. 18).
Luther often uses stave rhyme to reinforce an
argument. Although in his translation of Luke x.7,
he would (two years later) use the word "erbeiter,"
he now affirms: "Ein yglicher wircker ist wirdig
seynis lonhs" ("the laborer is worthy of his hire,"
p. 451, 11.18-19). When on the subject of the betrayed Jan Huss, he observes: "Geleyd halten hat
got gepoten" ("God commanded the observance
of sanctuary," p. 455, 1. 19). We not only put up
with but even admire profanity: "solche unehre
gottis leydenn und loben" (p. 436, 11. 29-30).
We become accomplices by our "schweygen
odder schmeychlen" ("connivance or ingratiation," p. 436, 1. 31). Greed and Canon Law go
together: "der geytz unnd das geystlich recht"
(p. 452,1. 18).

It is fascinating to tfollowthis highly associative

mind as it seeks poetic release, now in gratuitous
fairy-tale motif-in arguing that a bishop is delegated by the congregation he asks us to imagine
that "tzehen bruder, kuniges kinder, gleich
erben" ("ten brothers, children of the King, have
an equal inheritance," p. 407, 1.32), or to think of
"ein heufflin fromer Christen leyen ... gefangen
unnd in ein wusteney gesetzt" ("a little band of
Christian laity captured and led into the wilderness," p. 407,11.35-36)-now into powerful metaphor, as with the devastating argument that to
give a celibate cleric a housekeeper is to put fire
and straw together and forbid them to burn (p.
442, 11.30-34). The poetic gift may turn to harshness[Der Bapst]gibt dyr bley umbsgolt, fell umbsfleisch,
schnur umb den beutel, wachsz umbs honnig, wort
umbs gut, buchstabenumb den geyst ... soltu auff
seinempergamennunnd wachsgen hymel farenn,szo
wirtdir der wagenngar bald zuprechen,und du in die
helle fallen(p. 450,11.8-12)
[ThePope]willgiveyou leadin returnforgold, hidefor
flesh, in exchangefor your purse, its cord, wax for
honey,wordsfor substance,the letterfor the spirit....
Should you ride towardheaven upon his parchment
andseal,yourcoachwill soon breakdownand you will
tumbleinto hell.
-or
unexpected gentleness, especially when
guided by biblical metaphor: "szo doch allein die
schrifft unszer weyngart ist, darynnen wir all
solten uns uben und erbeyttenn" ("although the
Scripture alone is our vineyard, where we should
ever strive and toil," p. 461, 11.9-10).
Medieval man's tireless quest for biblical exemplification of his everyday life puts forth its
most stunning flower in Martin Luther. When he
argues that we must apply the test of our own
judgment to what we are told by the clergy, he recalls one of his favorite analogies:
MustedochvortzeytennAbrahamseineSarahoren,die
doch yhm hertterunterworffenwar, den wir yemant
auff erden: szo war die eselynneBalaamauch kluger
dennderProphetaselbs.Hat got da durchein eselinne
redetgegeneinemPropheten,warumbsolt er nit noch
redenkunnendurcheinfrummenschgegendemBabst?
(p. 412, 11.31-36)
In his time even Abrahamhad to heed his Sarah,althoughshewasfarmoresubordinateto himthanarewe

H. G. Haile
to anyoneon earth.Similarly,Balaam'sasswascleverer
than the prophethimself.If in those days God spoke
againsta prophetwith the voice of a she-ass,then why
shouldhe not stilltodayspeakagainstthe Popethrough
a God-fearingman?
For him the Bible was an immensely rich storehouse from which he unerringly drew the most
delicate jewels. In despairing of learning in his
time, when the professors themselves pursue cold
theoretical interests, he bursts out: "Mein augen
sein vor weynen mud worden, mein eyngeweyd
ist erschrocken, mein leber ist auszgeschut auffdie
erden ("Mine eyes do fall down with tears, my
bowels are troubled, my liver is poured upon the
earth," p. 461, 11.27-28). Thus begins the lengthy
quotation in which Jeremiah laments the condition of his people (Lam. ii. 11). Luther is quoting it
(from memory, no doubt) ten years before he
translated it! Heinz Bluhm has looked into this
question of Luther's Bible translations outside
the Bible and concluded that some of his greatest
successes occur in just such extempore quotations.25 This is in line not only with Luther's
artistic bent (which inclined him to equate substance with beauty) but also with his strong desire
to find a broad popular appeal. The same desire is
fundamental to his theory of literature.
Luther as Interpreter
The assumptions of our own day and the symbols we use to express ourselves are so different
from those of the German sixteenth century that
Luther cannot speak directly to us except through
his deeds. Whatever his intent as interpreterof the
Bible, he in fact elevated that collection of ancient
literary classics to the status of a beloved counselor on a broad range of human concerns. So effective was he in this that the interpreter's role itself became the noblest and most essential task in
the community. To many of his contemporaries
Luther's behavior in this regard was most irreligious. Even the Lutherans soon ceased to include
in editions of the Bible his excellent prefaces to the
various books, probably because of his sharp
questions as to authorship and authority of such
sections as the Pentateuch or, most notoriously
perhaps, the Epistle of James. That Luther consciously treated his text as a literary document,
i.e., one bearing witness to a poetically inspired
author as well as to the time, place, and circum-

821

stance of its writing, is attested by numerous

written and oral remarks.
Luther's very first lectures as a university professor, on Psalms (1513), are distinguished by
their sensitivity to the poetic devices and poetic
qualities of the Old Testament. At the other end
of his career as teacher, his Table Talks (1530's1540's) constitute a rich mine of literary interpretations for the benefit of colleagues. Here the
most frequent authors mentioned are Virgil and
Terence, whom he loves to compare-usually unfavorably-with "Moses." The latter uses a simple, straightforward style which compels the
reader to draw upon his own experience or imagination and re-create the subject matter:
Sacraeliteraecontinenthistoriasbrevissimequidem,
sed tamen optime scriptas,hauriuntenim uno verbo
omnia.QuodmultisverbisapudVergiliumde Didonis
amoredicitur,hoc Hebreusbrevissimedicit: Thamar
amavitAmmon. Verbasunt pauca, sed res maximae.
... Ideo mus einer denken, was Dauid gedachthab,
cum discerpsitleonem, da er sich mit Goliad must
schlagen:Quid,si occidar?Sednon fiet;dextrameaest
dextraDei. Das heistmandarnachrhetorican.26
Holy Scripturescontain histories written most succinctly but yet with the greatestskill. They pour out
everythingin one word.Whatis said of Dido's love in
many words in Virgil,the Hebrewsays most tersely:
"Amnon loved Thamar.The words are few, but the
importis great.... Thus we have to imagineDavid's
thoughtswhen he slew the lion [or] when he had to
fightGoliath:Whatif I shallbe killed?But it shallnot
be so; my righthand is the hand of God. This then is
whatyou call rhetoric."
"Rhetoric" Luther contrasts with the "dialectic"
used by Terence. He feels that the latter can become boring, while "rhetoric" is interesting.
"Argumentum ist wie ein leere bruch, sed rhetorica seu eloquentia, die bleset die schweinsbloBen auff vnd sagt, wie idermann in dem
negotio zu sinn sey" ("Mere reasoning is like an
empty pair of breeches, but rhetoric or eloquence,
this pumps up the hogsbladder and lets you know
how all sides felt about the issue at hand," TR,
No. 467). Luther's highest praise of Christ's
eloquence is for his terseness: "der fast himel vnd
erden auff ein pissen, wen der redt" ("He combines heaven and earth into a morsel when he
speaks," TR, No. 684). Pregnancy of expression
is, according to Luther, the highest literary accomplishment.

822

Luther atid Literacy

Although he contrasts the wordiness of Virgil

and the more analytical art of Terence with biblical succinctness, Luther does recommend the performance of Terence in the schools, arguing that
such dramas teach many practical lessons (TR,
No. 867).27 This is probably the most serious and
fundamental difference between Luther's view of
literature and that of the modern professor. For
Luther, literature was supremely useful. For example, when he compares "Moses" with classical
authors in terms of the subjects dealt with, he
comes to the conclusion that affairs of the heart,
of the home, and of the state just are not as practical as the high spiritual issues treated by the
prophets, who themselves "desperaverunt de
digna tractatione istarum rerum, quod viderunt
non posse satis ea declarari" ("despair of a sufficiently worthy treatment of these matters, for
they recognize that they cannot be satisfactorily
revealed," TR, No. 467). Typically, Luther went
ahead at this sitting to attribute the sure inspiration of the prophets to the attacks they had suffered from Satan:
Ideo etiam nullus gentilis potest habere cogitationes
prophetae,nam prophetaehabent tentationesSathanae, die machenaffectusinenarrabiles,quos satis est
uno verbo indicasse,siquidemdici perfectenon 'possunt. Gentilesautem,die habennur genommententationesaffectuumde amorepuellarum.(TR, No. 467)

and person show that the author intended it to be

a "fabula similis illi de S. Margaretha aut
Georgio" ("tale like those about St. Margaret or
St. George," TR, No. 478). Job, on the other
hand, reports an event that really took place,
albeit long before it was written:
Hiobnon est ita locutus,sicutibi scribitur,sedcogitavit
ista. Es redt sich nit so in tentatione.Res tamen est
facta, et est quasi argumentumfabulae,quod accepit
scriptorsicut quidamTerenciuset addiditpersonaset
affectus. (TR, No. 475)
Job did not talk the way it is writtenhere, but he had
thoughtslike these.You don't talk that way whenyou
are beingtempted.The event reallyoccurred,and it is
like the subjectof a storywhichthe authortook up, as
Terencemighthave, addingcharactersand emotions.
The story must have been written in the time of
Solomon ("Possibile est, das es wol Salomo selb
gemacht hab," "It is possible that Solomon himself wrote it," TR, No. 475) but in any case the details were invented.
LibrumHiobhistoriamessesentio,sedvix puto omnia,
quae in eo libro recensentur,ordine ita gesta esse.
Opinor autem a bono magistroin dialogum et eum
ordinemredactumesse.TemporeenimSalomonis,quo
hunc librum scriptumreor, multi sapienteset sancti
virifuerunt,quifueruntdelectatitaleshistoriasscribere.
(TR, No. 794)

That is why no Gentile can have the thoughts of a

prophet, for the prophets have the temptationsof
Satan.Thoseproduceindescribablepassion.Oneword
sufficesto indicatethat feeling,sinceexpressingit fully
is impossible.As to the Gentiles,they only writeabout
temptationsof amorouslove.

I take the Book of Job to be a history,but I scarcely

assumeeverythingrecountedin this book to have occurredin exactlythat way. I thinkit was renderedinto
this dialogue and sequence by a skilled master. In
Solomon'sday, when I assumethis book to have been
written,therewere many wise and virtuousmen who
werepleasedto writedown such histories.

Luther deplores what seems to him to be the

palpable loss of some of the books dealing with
the patriarchs(TR, Nos. 852, 2313), and he regrets
that Abraham received such short shrift (TR, No.
948). He is quite happy to entertain other doubts
about Moses' authorship (TR, No. 2844). He
finds the prophetic writings in general fragmentary and attributes this to the passions of the
writers or to the fact that "hanc Prophetiam vel
ab ipso Propheta vel a scribis aeditam habeamus"
("This prophecy comes to us in a form edited
either by the prophet himself or by scribes," WA,
xxv, 138, 11. 34-35). The Book of Judith "est
poema theologicum" (TR, No. 444). It should be
read allegorically, because its errors in time, place,

While in Luther's eyes the human-hence fallible-authorship of the Bible stories may be taken
for granted, that does not detract at all from their
great practical usefulness.28 The story of Jonah,
for example, can be a great comfort to the Godfearing, who have also been cast into the sea and
find themselves in the belly of a whale:
Haec historiasit nobis summeconsolatoriaet certissimum resurrectionissignum. Sie ist schir luiigerlich,
nequecrederem,nisi in sacrisliterisesset scripta.Sic
autemsolet Deus suos humiliare.Er [Jonah]wirdaber
her nachviel erger,das er Gott meisternwil; factusest
praetereamagnushomicidaeo, quodvoluiturbemtam
propulosamfunditusdeletam.Das hiesmirein prophet!
(TR, No. 736)

H. G. Haile
This history is most comforting to us and a most certain
sign of the resurrection. It is a pretty tall tale, and I
wouldn't believe it if it weren't included in Holy Scripture. This is exactly the way God usually humbles his
servants. Jonah gets a lot worse later on and wants to
tell God how to do things. He even becomes a murderer,
wanting utterly to destroy such a populous city. That's
a prophet for you!

Obviously, Luther was highly critical of the

text, so much so that before the sixteenth century
was out he would certainly have been excommunicated from the Lutheran Church, too, had he
lived.29 So enlightened a critic as Cardinal Newman still regarded Luther's skepticism about the
Epistle of James as beyond the pale of discussion.
But for all his critical acuity-and indeed as the
motive behind it-Luther felt that these writings
are supremely valuable to mankind in a most
practical way. It was really on this account that he
was so contemptuous of interpretation as practiced by his contemporaries, whom he called
"Sophists." They boasted a highly refined method
for extracting and expanding upon spiritual meanings in the text, but were oblivious to the spiritual
needs of the people. It is probably true that scholastic interpretation had become more wrapped
up in the fine art of distilling various abstract
meanings than concerned with usefulness. Luther
felt that once this happens, once the process loses
sight of the ends it serves, then interpretation itself must degenerate. We have to concede that he
was stunningly successful in his interpretive efforts judged on their own merits and that he did
at the same time effect unprecedented popularity
of the text itself. Especially in an era of declining
literacy like our own, a "Renaissance" in Luther's
sense of the experience is precisely what every
literature teacher longs for-a return to the
sources as they are reborn in new immediacy.
"Renaissance" probably takes on its full meaning
only in this religiously colored sense which suffuses the sources in new affect and lends them
relevance for and in the individual life.
Luther's art of interpretation has been much
studied by theologians. Karl Holl, Heinrich
Bornkamm, and Gerhard Ebeling have in our
century done work that we in literature studies
cannot hope to surpass.30 We are sent rather to
reap that whereon we bestowed no labor, so that
literature as well as Luther studies may profit. It
might be possible to abstract the main lines of

823

recent writing on Luther's exegesis under four

headings. For the sake of continuity in this essay,
I shall very briefly attempt to do so.
(1) The most striking feature of Luther's exegesis from the modern theologian's point of view
is its extremely personal tone and its lack of systematization.31 Luther's interpretation is almost
always admittedly tentative. He likes to begin and
end with the reminder that it may be replaced by a
better one tomorrow. As we grow, so does our
appreciation-and the text helps us grow.
(2) Luther insisted that the text is generally
comprehensible for all, elaborate interpretive
technique both unnecessary and diversionary:
"Es ist auff erden keyn klerer buch geschrieben
denn die heyligen schrifft, die ist gegen alle ander
bucher gleych wie die szonne gegen alle liecht"
("There is no book on earth written more lucidly
than the Holy Scripture. Compared with all other
books, it is like the sun compared with artificial
light," WA, viii, 236, 11.9-10). We have seen that
he readily allows for allegorical intent by the
author, but he cast out a large part of the patristic
heritage when he flatly refused to accept the timehallowed manifold sense of Scripture-by which
alone many Humanists could come to terms with
some of the Bible stories.
(3) Luther's confidence in the simplicity of
biblical expression corresponds with his sure
assumption of one simple, i.e., uniform, sense
throughout the Bible. Old and New Testament
alike proclaim Christ:
Alle Geschicht und Wort Gottes sind . . . auf den
kiinftigen Christum gericht, der hernach kam . .. wie

auch Abrahamsahe hinder sich den Widder in der

Heckenund nahmund opfertihn, das ist, er glaubtan
den Christum,der kommensollt hernachund geopfert
werden. (WA,

xvii,

Pt. 2, 134, 11.5-9)

The entirehistoryand word of God referto the future

Christ,who then came. It is just as Abrahamsaw the
ramin the thicket,and sacrificedhim. That means,he
believedin the Christwho was in time to come, and be
sacrificed.

This may be said to be an elevation of the traditional tropological sense to the sole "historical"
sense. It certainly means that the "verus theologus totum corpus bibliae scire debet" ("the
true theologian must know the whole Bible," TR,
No. 744). Luther's own detailed recall of the
Bible was fantastic.

824

Luther a nd Literacy

(4) Taken together, these principles lead to the

notion that the text is its own best interpreter:
"sit ipsa per sese certissima, facillima, apertissima, sui ipsius interpres, omnium omnia probans, iudicans et illuminans" ("It is itself, in
itself, its own most certain, least difficult, most
obvious interpreter, of all things testing, judging
and illuminating all," WA, VII, 97, 11.23-24). Of
course there are obscure and difficult passageswe have seen that Luther would account for them
by the fallibility of author or transmission-but
they are illuminated by clearer ones. This principle, like the uniform sense of Scripture just discussed, operates under the analogia fidei: certainty that no passage, rightly construed, will
contradict the teaching of Christ's redemption of
man through faith.
This outline would probably be accepted by
most Luther scholars as, while sketchy, an essentially fair characterization of the exegete; yet it
seems terribly inadequate in describing Luther
the literary critic. His emotive participation in the
text seems paramount here. He finds those interpreters who seek abstract meanings "intellectu
. . . illustrissimi, sed affectu frigidissimi" ("in
matters of the intellect, most distinguished, yet
most wanting in warmth of feeling," WA, iv,
353, 1.21). As a monk he too had found allegorical
meanings everywhere, he confesses, but not after
the history itself sank in, e.g., "wie schwer es
gewesen sey, quod Iosua tali ratione cum hostibus
pugnat. Wenn ich da wer gewest, het ich fur furcht
in die hosen geschissen" ("how difficult it was for
[Gideon ] to fight the enemy at those odds. If I had
been there, I'd have shit in my breeches for fright,"
TR, No. 335). This may be what Karl Holl aptly
called "Nacherleben des Inhalts." But Luther's
imaginative participation goes much further.
Goethe felt that an emotional involvement which
actually adds to and fills out the literary work is
essential to true appreciation, and he called this
kind of participation by the reader "Supplieren"
("suppleer"). This is precisely the process we observe when Luther analyzes Solomon's motives
for executing Adonijah (TR, No. 764), when he
reconstructs Christ's strong arousal when tempted
by Satan (TR, No. 724), or Pilate's commonsense
assessment of his prisoner: "est simplex homo
.. egressus forte ex silva, ist ein guter schlechter
geselle" ("he's a simple man . . . probably just
strayed out of the forest, a well-meaning, ordinary

fellow," TR, No. 685). The sacrifice of Isaac impressed Luther strongly, because Abraham must
have had feelings similar to Luther's for his own
youngest, Martin. Hence Luther not only knew
how Abraham felt, he was able to state unequivocally that Sarah had not been informed of
his intentions (TR, No. 2754b).
The process which we are describing in Luther's
reading has two parts: (1) "Nacherleben des Inhalts," intense imaginative participation; and (2)
"Supplieren," the tendency to fill in nonexplicit
circumstances. These bring us to the most important quality of Luther's criticism. He never interprets a text, after all, except with the conscious
purpose of conveying it to someone, be it in lectures to students, introductions to books of the
Bible, sermons and other kerygmatic writings, or
in his tough polemics. He is always trying to
persuade an audience of his special interpretation,
and in doing so he makes constant appeal to their
experience. This decisive factor in his criticism is
certainly not new with Luther, and it continues
to be a most popular teacher's and preacher's device. Obviously, a whole philosophy of textual
understanding is involved. Bultmann used the
word "Vorverstindnis" in his attempt to convey
the Socratic notion that learning must draw upon
knowledge already possessed. Luther was so
terrifically adept at the use of experiential analogues from sixteenth-century German to ancient
Hebrew culture as to become a fascinating example for teachers of other texts in any society.
To his own pupils, he declared simply: "Die
schrifft verstehet kein mensch, vnd ist dazu vnmuglich, es kome im denn hin heim, id est, nisi
experiatur" ("There is no one at all who understands Scripture, for that is impossible unless it is
brought home to him, i.e., unless he go through
the same experience," TR, No. 941).
Luther's concessions to the experience of his
hearers sometimes remind us of Renaissance
painting where the patriarchs appear in sixteenthcentury dress. Mount Horeb "est magnum gebirg
ut hic doringisch und behemisch walt" ("is a
great mountain, like our Thuringian or Bohemian
Forest," WA, xvi, 333, 11.6-7); the wilderness
through which Moses wandered is "ut die heide
inter Wittenbergam et Lipsiam" ("like the plain
between Wittenberg and Leipzig," WA, xiv, 546,
1. 5). In an attempt to "bring home" the magnitude of the Red Sea miracle he points out that it

H. G. Haile
was as far across as from Wittenberg to Coburg
(TR, No. 1812). Karl Holl (p. 442) gives other examples, and is understandably touched by TR,
No. 704, a report of how Luther required his table
companions to get up and watch an approaching
storm so as to understand the eighteenth Psalm's
representation of "coals of fire" in the clouds.
One of Luther's finest strokes occurs in the
famous sermon on Mosaic law (1525). Provoked
by the fundamentalists, he is at pains to make
clear that the Old Testament, although it does
contain fine examples, is by no means binding on
a Christian.
Der Keyserm6chtein Exempeldarausnemen,ein fein
regimentaus dem Mose zu stellen,wie auchdie Romer
ein fein Regiment gefiirt haben, und wie auch der
Sachssenspiegel ist, darnachsich dis land helt. Die
Heyden sind dem Mose nicht schfildiggehorsamzu
seyn. Moses ist der JiidenSachssenspiegel.
(WA, xvi, 377, 1. 33-378, 1.23)

825

Furthermore,nonecomprehendsCiceroin his letters

who has less than twentyyears'experiencein a principalityof somesize.
Let none thinkhe has sufficientlytastedHoly Scriptures unless he has for a hundredyears governedthe
Churchwiththe prophets.So you see, greatis the wonder, firstof John Baptist,then of Christ,and third of
the Apostles. Lay no hand upon the divine Aeneid,
ratherfall down on your knees and worshipwherehe
trod. For we are trulybeggars.

Luther clearly assumes-and often says explicitly-that the true medium of communication
from soul to soul is shared passion and the experience that makes it possible. Letters cannot be
separated from life. The spirit must bring meaning to the letter. "Verum quid perdimus verba,
cum tamen nihil possimus omnibus verbis consequi quam indicium huius tribulationis? [of the
Psalmist] Intellectum et sensum non dat nisi ipse
affectus et experientia" ("But why should I waste
Theemperormightdrawan exampleof how to.set up a
words when with all my words I can attain nothfine governmentaccordingto Moses, just as the Roing but a hint of those tribulations? Only the pasmansrana finegovernment,andlikethe Sachsenspiegel sion itself and the experience can offer under[an earlyGermaniclegal code], by whichthis country standing and awareness," WA, v, 210, 11.23-26).
is ruled.The Gentilesare not requiredto obey Moses.
He cannot emphasize sufficiently that the task of
Moses is the Jews' Sachsenspiegel.
the teacher is to assure in the reader feelings consonant with the text. Just talking and listening is
By means of analogy to a code with which his
audience is abundantly familiar, Luther achieves
no substitute for what must arise from within us:
a brilliant demythologization of the Ten Com"Nullus enim loquitur digne nec audit aliquam
mandments, thus enabling his hearers to appreciScripturam, nisi conformiter ei sit affectus, ut
ate them in the perspective of Israel's ancient culintus sentiat quod foris audit et loquitur, et dicat:
"
ture, their Sitz im Leben.
'Eia, vere sic est' ("No one worthily speaks or
listens to any Scripture unless his feelings are conExamples of this sort can be accumulated informable to it, so that he senses within him what
definitely from Luther's sermons. We might conclude with his own strong words on the analogia
is outwardly heard and spoken, and declares:
experientiae. As it happened, they are the last
'Aye, that is truly the way it is!' " WA, IIIn,549, 11.
words he wrote:
33-35).
Vergiliumin Bucoliciset Georgicisnemo potest inLuther was not, after all, teaching contempotelligere,nisi quinqueannis primumfueritpastor aut
rary literature, nor did the future pastors in his
agricola.
audience expect to do so. Of the Psalmist he deCiceronemin epistolisnemo secundointelligit,nisi
clares:
vigintiannissit versatusin republicaaliquainsigni.
[author]absconditusest et in spiritunimiuminteriori
Scripturassacras sciat se nemo gustassesatis, nisi
undenon possiteius causaet motivumvideri,
loquens,
centum annis cum prophetis ecclesias gubernaverit.
cur
sic
et
non aliterdixeritet ordinaverit,ab iis, quinon
Quare ingens est miraculumprimumlohannis Bapeosdem
motus
habent.Nam nullusaliumin scripturis
tistae, secundumChristi,tertiumapostolorum.Hanc
spiritualibusintelligit,nisi eundemspiritumsapiat et
tu ne divinam Aeneidam tenta, sed vestigia pronus
habeat. (WA, iv, 305, 11.8-12)
adora.Wirsein pettier.Hoc est verum.
(TR, No. 5677)
The author is not with us, but speaks exclusivelyto
None can comprehendVirgil in his Bucolicsand
our innerspirit,so that his purposeand intent,why he
Georgicswho has not firstbeen a herdsmanor farmer told and arrangedthingsthusand not differently,canfor five years.
not be apparentto those who arenot similarlymoved.

826

Luther and Literacy

For no one comprehends anything in spiritual writings

unless he sense and have the same spirit.
I believe I have characterized Luther's critical
posture as very much in accord with his more
famous attitude toward translation. Both are distinguished by an acute awareness of the polarity
constituted by text and reader. Luther's philosoits more controphy of translating-especially
versial side-was
determined by his recognition
that a translator must know the language and culture into which he is transferring the text and must
show as much regard for the uniqueness of this
culture as for that of the text itself. We as literature
teachers may take a similar lesson from Luther
the interpreter. Interpretation of a text from

Shakespeare's England or Goethe's Germany requires above all regard for America-and, indeed,
love for our countrymen is our motive for teaching and criticism. Ancient and foreign literature
can be-to use Luther's expression-brought
home to a people if it is presented in terms of their
own experience. This notion, to be sure, implies a
communality of humankind which may not exist
at all. But much as Luther confidently heard the
Son of Man clearly speaking in the Psalter, the
literature teacher thinks that he, too, hears a
familiar human ring in the most remote writings.
Universityof Illinois
Champaign

Notes
' The
dependence of over 300 years of Catholic scholarship
on the work of a single contemporary-indeed adversaryof Luther was traced by Adolf Herte, Das katholische Lutherbild im Bann der Lutherkommentaredes [Johann] Cochlius,
3 vols. (Mtinster: Aschendorff, 1943). Strong bias could render
useless even such Catholic efforts as would seem unrelated to
Cochlaus, 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 K6stlin in his famous Martin Luther.
Sein Leben und seine Schriften, 5th ed., revised by Gustav
Kawerau (Berlin: A. Duncker, 1903), e.g.. ]], 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 gegenwairtigeDiskussion um Luthers Thesenanschlag, Sachstandbericht und Versuch einer Weiterfiihrung 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 LuthersBedeutungfar 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).
Roy Pascal, The Social Basis of the German RefJrmation:
Martin Lutherand His Times (London: Watts. 1933), was an
early advocate of the materialistic view, openly hostile to
Luther. Gerhard Zschabitz, Martin Luther: Gro&je
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 Miinzer: Oder die EinfiJhrvngder Buchhaltung
(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

H. G. Haile
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 et l'opinion publique (Paris: Aubier,
1942).
9
The most recent report on Luther research in the LutherJahrbuch, i.e., that by Bernhard Lohse (see n. 2), begins with
a statement that "auf eine Erwahnung der germanistischen
Beitrage verzichtet werden mul3." 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 Experi"
ence,' for an example of how vulnerable philological naivete
can leave theologians.
10The two most recent Luther books comprehensive
enough to interest the nonspecialist are John M. Todd,
Martin Luther:. A Biographical Stud3v(New York: Paulist
Press, 1964), and Richard Friedenthal, Luther. Sein Leben
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.
l1 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," GesammnelteAufsitze zur Kirchengeschichte(Tubingen: 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 Lutherand
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 Par:zival,115, 25-116, 4. (Lachmann):
swer des von mir geruoche,
dern zels ze keinem buoche.
ine kan decheinen buochstap
da nement genuoge ir urhap;
disiu aventiure
vert ane der buoche stiure.
e man si hete fur ein buoch
ich waer e nacket ane tuoch
so6ich in dem bade saeze,
ob ichs questen nicht vergaeze.
7th ed., rev. Edward Hartl (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1952), p. 64.
The bath was a part of the noble habitus; reading was not.
Ch. x:
Simplizissimnus,
"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 Gesprach haben muste.... Ich gab Achtung auffdas Buch / und
nachdem er solches beygelegt / machte ich mich darhinder /
schlugs auff / und bekam im ersten Griff das erste Capitel deB
Hiobs/ und die darvor stehende Figur / so ein feiner Holtzschnitt / und schon illiuinirt war / in die Augen: ich fragte

827

dieselbige Bilder selzame Sachen / weil mir aber kein Antwort

widerfahren wolte / wurde ich ungeduldig / und sagte: lhr
kleine Hudler / habt ihr dann keine Mauler mehr?" (Grimmelshausen: Der AbentheurlicheSimplicissimus Teutsch . . . , ed.
Rolf Tarot, Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1967, p. 30).
13 I have drawn my figures from Rolf Engelsing, Analphahetentum und Lekture:. Zur Sozialgeschichte des Lesens in
Deutschland zwischen feudaler und industrieller Gesellschaft
(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.
15The 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 (Briefnvechsel,in Luthers
Werke, Weimarer Ausgabe, 11 vols., Weimar: H. Bohlau,
1930-49, i, 331-35. Further references to Brielfivechselwill be
by the usual symbol, Br, followed by page and line number).
The date alone attests to the fact that Froben was putting his
shoulder to a bandwagon, not leaping onto one already rolling.
16The best known instance is the famous introduction to
the 1545 Latin edition of his works, "Martinus Luther pio
lectori," in Lutlhers Werke. Kritische Gesammntausgabe
(Weimar: H. Bohlau, 1928), LIV, 179, 11. 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, CreatitveTranslator
(St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1965), pp. 169-232. Bluhm
is the major American Luther authority who is not a theologian.
'8 Luther's most serious detractor in this respect was Wilhelm Baumker, Das katholische deutsche Kirchenliedin semen
Sing\weisenvan den fiihesten 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 con-

828

Luther and Literacy

siderable musical originality to Luther, e.g., Charles Schneider,

Luther. Poete et musicien (Geneva: Henn, 1942), and Paul
Nettl, Luther and Music, 2nd ed. (New York: Russell &
Russell, 1967).
19 Friedrich Blume, Geschichte der evangelischen Kirchenmusik, 2nd ed. (Kassel: Barenreiter, 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 Friihzeit eurasischer Volksbewegungen
zuriick." 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 Stiicke oder Unterricht
[hatte]. Darauf der teure Mann meiner Einfalt lachte und
sprach: 'Der Poet Virgilius hat mir solches gelehrt, der also
seine Carminaund Wort auf die Geschichte, die er beschreibt,
so ktinstlich applicieren kann; also soll auch die Musika alle
ihre Noten und Gesange auf den Text richten' " (WA, XIX,50).
21 Otto Brode, "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 "Ubereinkunft von Wort und
Weise" (p. 77) as a major feature of Luther's composition.
22 WA, vi, 404-69. References will occur
by page alid line
number only. Since Luther's language is difficult for the nonspecialist 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 Lutherand the Reformation(New York: Longmans, Green,
1925-30), ii, 222-47.
24 Alfred G6tze, Volkskundlichesbei Luther
(Weimar: HofBuchdruckerei, 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: B6hlau, 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 poesin et rhetoricen omittant.
Mea certe vota sunt, ut quam plurimi sint et poetae et rhetores,
quod his studiis videam, sicut nec aliis modis fieri potest, mire
aptos fieri homines ad sacra tum capessenda, tum dextre et
feliciter tractanda" (Br, in, 50, 11.21-29). 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, Lutherunddas alte Testament(Tiibingen:
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 for den Fortschritt der Auslegekunst," originally a lecture for the Preussische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 11 Nov. 1920, and printed in his Gesammelte
Aufsdtze zur Kirchengeschichte,I (Tiibingen: 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
Anfange von Luthers Hermeneutik," in Ebeling, Lutherstudien, l (Tuibingen:J. B. C. Mohr, 1971), 1-68.
31 Warren A. Quanbeck, "Luther's Early Exegesis," in
Luther Today, ed. Roland Bainton et al. (Decorah, Iowa:
Luther Coll. Press, 1957), pp. 37-103.