Luther once expresses the wish,*) that he could have been present only one time at the most lovely company of the Lord JEsu with his disciples, in order to enjoy it. A similar wish is close to every Evangelical-Lutheran Christian: If only I could have spent one evening with our dear father D. Martin Luther, the greatest man and hero of faith after the time of the apostles! This wish, my dear reader, can and will be abundantly fulfilled, yes, for days and weeks, by what is offered in this volume. It brings you for the first time Luther's Table Talks translated from the originals. Our edition is the best and most complete of all editions published so far. The most complete, because we have recently brought to light the main sources of the Table Talks, the diaries of Lauterbach about the year 1538 and of Cordatus from the year 1537, trusted friends and table companions of Luther, in a completely unabridged German translation; the best, because we have eliminated from the Table Talks much that does not belong to them, partly duplicates, partly borrowed from other writings of Luther, partly not originating from Luther, but have renewed a large part of the Table Talks from these two main sources. Both men have copied what Luther said from his own mouth, at his table and elsewhere.
The importance and value of the discovery of these two diaries cannot be overestimated. For in the case of the table talks he
1) Lauterbach's diary, pag. 180, Tischreden Cap. 7, § 44, in our edition Cap. 24, 8 75, at the end.
The result is not merely a correction of individual readings or improvement of details, but really a complete transformation and renewal of the previous table talks. The editions of the Table Talks are, without exception, corrupted to a degree never imagined, so that it was almost impossible for us to retain and improve the old translation, even for the least corrupted pieces, but it had to be thrown aside and replaced by a new one. In the case of a few pieces, we tried to limit ourselves to an improvement at the beginning of our work, but what was improved in this way provided an almost inextricable print template. It will be easy to believe that it was not without significant reason that we decided to retranslate 1411 numbers of the Tischreden, namely 1031 from Cordatus and 356 even more extensive ones from Lauterbach, and 24 from Kummer.
This new translation has been done not only because of the unbelievable prolixity, bad condition and inaccuracy of Aurifaber's translation, but mainly because many pieces have not been understood by him at all; in a whole number of them the exact opposite of what is written in the sources is given, many things are translated quite wrongly, many wrong readings, many things are inserted, many things are omitted, sections are torn apart and mixed up, introductions and conclusions are formed and the like, yes, sometimes complete nonsense.
Not one of all the editors of the German Tischreden had a clue
of the horribly corrupted state of the same; therefore, all have confined themselves to reproducing Aurifaber's text, and have been the more highly praised the more accurately they have done so. 1)
Our edition is the first in which the text of the Table Talks is truly renewed by a faithful translation from the Latin originals, and it supplements the Table Talks by including in the Appendices what could not be accommodated in the Table Talks.
There has been only one German translation of the Tischreden, originally written in Latin, namely that of Aurifaber, which has been reprinted from all previous editions. Stangwald has only changed the order of the pieces and some of the text. The Selnecker edition is identical to the Stangwald edition. Walch brings a reprint of Aurifaber's edition of 1568, which is almost the same as the first. The Stuttgart-Lipzig edition is an imprint of Walch, somewhat modernized in language. The Förstemann-Bindseil edition contains a reprint of the first Aurifaber edition of 1566. The Erlangen edition is a reprint of the Förstemann-Bindseil edition. Therefore, it is only necessary to provide proof for our assertions with regard to Aurifaber. This covers all other editions.
Before we describe the nature of the Table Talks in more detail, however, it is necessary that we first report on the various editions of the Table Talks that have appeared up to now, but above all on the sources from which those editions have flowed.
Sources of the table talks.
1. the diary of cordatus.
One of the main sources for the table talks known until now is the "Tagebuch über D. Martin Luther geführt von D. Conrad Cordatus. 1537. For the first time
1) Cf. Guericke's Kirchengeschichte, 7th edition, vol. 3, 29 in the fourth paragraph of the first note.
The first part of the book was published by D. H. Wrampelmeyer, senior teacher at the Royal Grammar School in Clausthal. Halle. Max Niemeyer. 1885." 521 pages plus 48 pages of preface. Large octavo.
The manuscript from which this is printed is in the Calvör church library in Zellerfeld, where it came through Caspar Calvör, born Nov. 6, 1650 in Hildesheim, 1672 Diaconus in Zellerfeld, 1708 appointed by Duke Ulrich as Consistorial- and Kirchenrath. In 1720 he went to Clausthal as General Superintendent of the Principality of Grubenhagen, where he died in 1725 and was buried in the Zellerfeld church. The manuscript probably came into his important and valuable library from Helmstädt through Friedrich Ulrich Calixt, with whom Calvör was very friendly. The manuscript, in a handsome quarto volume, has an inscription pressed into the parchment cover, of which the following is still legible: "C-D-US" (probably Cordatus) and "1537." It comprises 730 pages, of which 653 form this diary or Apophthegmata Lutheri, which alone concerns us here. The text is Latin, but with much interspersed German, 2) with very numerous typographical errors due to the carelessness of the scribe and not infrequent omissions of individual words, but only a few serious corruptions of the text.
The collector and recorder of these Apophthegmata is D. Conrad Cordatus, as can be seen from No. 56 and 133 3) of the diary, because from these numbers we see that he made his notes in Luther's house and at Luther's table. He began with it first and about Veit Dietrich and Joh. Schlaginhaufen he reports: that they imitated him in it, and that he hoped to unite their records with his.
The individual passages are not accompanied by a date, so we have to rely on the content of the conversations to draw a conclusion about the time in which they took place. From No. 56 we see with certainty that Luther's words were already addressed to Cordatus in 1524 to 1525. This is the earliest
2) Perhaps the sixth part may be German.
3) Cf. Appendix No. II.
Time, which confronts us in the diary. From the signature under the last number of the manuscript we see that the diary was completed in 1537, so no piece is to be placed after this year. The great mass of the speeches distinguished in it is to be placed in the years 1531-1533. On the whole, Luther's conversations are written down in the order in which they took place.
The Zellerfeld manuscript is, as the comparison with his letters has shown, not written by Cordatus himself, but he probably compiled and arranged the notes in his notebooks 1) and copied them in all haste, 2) and then had them magnificently bound in the same year 1537. 3)
It is very conspicuous that neither in the German nor in the Latin Table Talks Cordatus, as a recorder and collector of Luther's speeches, is remembered even with a single word, although not much less has passed from his records into the Table Talks than from those of Lauterbach, who is expressly mentioned. As far as we can make an estimate, 428 columns of Walch's edition from Lauterbach are included in the Tischreden, but about 360 columns from Cordatus: Only once do we encounter a trace of Cordatus being a collector of Luther's speeches, in the Nuremberg manuscript of the Collectaneen of Veit Dietrich, who made the marginal note on p. 69 with respect to No. 22 of the diary: "Cordatus exscripsit/."
Cordatus is also rarely mentioned as a conversational companion in the Table Talks, namely Cap. 7, § 171: "Conrad Cordatus, who is angry by nature." Cap. 12, § 60:
1) Tabulae, see No. 133.
2) Cf. no. 1843.
3) From a note by Wrampelmeyer, no. 706, note 3, we see that there is still a collection of table speeches by Cordatus in the royal library in Berlin, written by Sebastian Redlich in 1566 and 1567. This manuscript offers axopktkeKmatn I^utksri on fol. 8-133 and seems to contain excerpts from the Zellerfeld manuscript. The sample given there already shows several changes and deviations from the text used by us.
"Grace belongs for the wretched etc., as Hausmann, Cordatus, Philip and I are. 4) Cap. 22, § 15: "My forester says he is moved by only three, by me, by Cordatus, and by M. Rörer." 5) Cap. 26, § 30: "Therefore it is nothing that we go either to Philip or to Cordatus, .... Christ ... Is a thousand times better than I, or Philip, or Cordatus." 6) Cap. 37, § 16: "Which parish (at Niemeck) now has Conrad Cordatus." Cap. 55, § 6: "D. M. L. said in his garden in presence U. Hausmann, Cordati and Schlaginhaufen" etc. These six passages are all that the German Tischreden offer about Cordatus. In the Hall manuscript (Bindseil) II, 210 Cordatus is also still mentioned, but in the corresponding place Rebenstock II, 197 a has "Cruciger" and Aurifaber Cap. I, § 74 "of one." Furthermore, Cordatus is mentioned as present only once more in the Latin table speeches Bindseil I, 50; Rebenstock I, 286. 7)
The Collectanea M. Hieronymi Besolds are mentioned in the Tischreden Cap. 5, § 5; 24, § 131; 27, § 154; those of the 14th Veit Dietrich Cap. 24, § 132; the record of M. Joh. Spangenberg is commemorated Cap. 12, § 86 to the end; Förster and Schlaginhaufen are named Cap. 37, §76; Mathesius is repeatedly mentioned Cap. 22, § 34; 27, § 114; 37, § 83; 44, § 24; 49, § 4. Rebenstock II, 9 states that one piece is taken from the handwritten collections of M. Georg Rörer. Mathesius in his twelfth sermon also names Doctor Weller, M. Caspar Heydereich, M. Plato and Ferdinand a Mangis as recorders, Aurifaber in his preface also names M. Johann Stolsius and M. Jakob Weber, priest at Ordorf, and himself. However, the fact that of all the summarizers and editors of the Tischreden, Cordatus was not credited for even one piece of his more than a thousand numbers that were included in the Tischreden, is a mystery that we are not able to solve satisfactorily.
4) From Cordatus No. 1406.
5) From Cordatus No. 1710.
6) From Cordatus No. 378.
7) Cordatus No. 8.
may be. The assumption raised by D. Wrampelmeyer probably gives information about why Cordatus himself did not come to the public with his diary, but also does not give a solution to this question. Wrampelmeyer says: 1) Neither Cordatus nor his heirs have given the Zellerfeld manuscript to others for use out of reverence for Luther 2) and as a result of Luther's Latin preface to the con- eiunculae amico cuidam praescriptae published in 1537, which is found in Luther's original before Cordatus' diary in the Zellerfeld manuscript. In this preface, which Stangwald and "Förstemann und Bindseil" also had preprinted in their edition of Luther's table speeches, Luther complains bitterly that his Wittenberg friends, during his illness in Schmalkalden, had published those sermons that he had not intended to print, but had only poured out during the midday and evening meals. Unwillingly, he protested against this procedure and exclaimed: 3) "I ask my pious thieves for the sake of Christ that they not be quick to publish anything, neither during my lifetime nor after my death: I beg my thieves, for the sake of Christ, not to be quick to publish anything, either during my lifetime or after my death, which they may have stolen from my thoughts while I was alive, or which they may have after my death from what they have already received before," and concludes: "Again, I beg that no friend publish anything that is mine without me-this requires both love and justice." Cordatus himself will have been that certain friend to whom the little sermons were communicated for instruction under the noon and evening meal. By this serious admonition of Luther he will also have been prevented from publishing the collected speeches of Luther himself, and from giving them to others for their use. But from the records of other table companions of Luther, namely Veit Dietrich and Schlaginhaufen, who heard and distinguished many things from Luther's mouth at the same time as Cordatus, then a
1) The following is only an excerpt.
2) Cf. no. 133 of the Cordatus.
3) Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XII, 1859, ß 2.
The majority of them have been incorporated into the Latin and German table speeches with considerable alterations. Among them there must have been someone who also made notes at the same time as Cordatus, although probably less frequently, which Kummer later included in his collection without changing much. Thus, Cordatus in his original version can very well be regarded as the indirect main source for the older parts of the later Latin and German table speeches.
The most important of Cordatus' life fates, according to D. Wrampelmeyer the following: I). Conrad Cordatus was born in 1476 in Weißenkirchen in Austria of peasant parents who did not belong to the Hussite sect. He studied theology in Vienna between 1501 and 1508, where Conrad Celtis was his teacher. Soon after, he went to Ferrara, where he studied Thomas Aquinas and Gerson diligently and also received his doctorate. Then we find him in Rome, perhaps 1508-1509, to which No. 250 and No. 1536 of his diary refer. In 1510, he received a lucrative office in Ofen, the income from which he himself states to be 200 gulden. However, when he joined the Reformation movement after 1517, he was deposed, drafted and imprisoned for a long time, but finally released.
Fugitive and penniless, he came to Wittenberg in 1524 to study Protestant theology, and became particularly attached to Luther, whose energetic nature appealed to him. In 1525 he dared to return to his homeland. No sooner had he begun to preach the gospel than he was again thrown into prison and his property confiscated. In a dark tower, darkness and snakes tormented and frightened him, but before his trial was over, a compassionate guard helped him to freedom after a confinement of 38 weeks.
On July 1, 1526, he was back in Wittenberg. Very soon he received a call from Duke Frederick II of Liegnitz and Brieg to teach at his newly founded academy. However, this did not last and Cordatus left Silesia in April 1527. For the second time, Cordatus dared to
In 1528, Cordatus returned to Wittenberg, where he had the prospect of being employed by Queen Mary of Hungary, the sister of Carl V. However, this 'chance' came to nothing and we find Cordatus in Wittenberg again in 1528. Here he stayed, especially invited by Luther, for a longer time. In 1529, through Luther's mediation, he received the position of a second preacher at St. Mary's Church in Zwickau, which he held under difficult circumstances until 1531. The mayor Hermann Mühlpfort and the city syndic Stephan Roth together with the city council allowed themselves repeated encroachments on the rights of the clergy, and Cordatus therefore left the city of Zwickau with the first pastor Nicolaus Hausmann at Luther's urging.
Now he returned to Wittenberg between July 10 and August 18, 1531, and this time seems to have spent 10-12 months as a guest in Luther's house. In 1532, Luther provided him with a pastorate in Niemeck near Wittenberg, where Georg Witzel had been forced to resign because of apostasy. Here he worked until 1537, but here too, as in all his positions, he had to struggle with hardship and all kinds of difficulties. Thus he complains in No. 1462 of his diary and is comforted by Luther. From there, he often visited Wittenberg and attended the lectures, and often stayed as a guest in Luther's house. In 1536 he began the violent theological dispute with Melanchthon over the doctrine of divine grace, to which No. 174 and No. 221 of his diary refer. 1) In May 1537 Cordatus received a call to Eisleben. Even before his resettlement there, he seems to have hastily compiled his notes on Luther. On July 9, 1537, he took up his new post to replace Johannes Agricola and to preach against Witzel, who had found a position in Eisleben (next to the preacher Caspar Güttel) through the line of the* Counts of Mansfeld, who had remained Catholic. Here, too, conditions were difficult and laborious. A ray of hope falls in this time
1) On the cause and termination of this dispute, see the remarks in Appendix No. II. to the numbers cited.
of his stay in Eisleben by the reconciliation with the badly offended Melanchthon. His doctorate in Protestant theology must also have taken place at this time. In 1540 he was appointed as Superintendent over all clergy and as Vicedechant of the Domstist at Stendal by the Elector Joachim II of Brandenburg, with the assurance of a salary of 200 gulden along with free housing and some other emoluments. This was his last position and at the same time the most difficult of all. Here he took strict action against the immoral life of the still papist clergy, but experienced such hostility for it that he almost despaired after his letters to Luther and other friends in Wittenberg. Luther tried to comfort him with the words of the 110th Psalm: "Rule in the midst of your enemies", but his complaints always resounded again. Until February 1546 Cordatus administered his office in Stendal under heavy worries and troubles. Then an honorable call went out to him from his sovereign, that he should complete a doctorate in Frankfurt on the Oder. But on the journey, as Melanchthon says in the preface to the Cordatus Postille, he "fell ill, as an old man of great kelt and afterwards in Christian consolation departed from this mortal world to the eternal churches in heaven" in the spring of 1546, soon after Luther's death. He is said to be buried in the cathedral at Stendal.
That Cordatus stood in a close personal relationship to Luther, yes, that he was one of Luther's most trusted and loyal friends, is indicated to us by various circumstances. He made his notes in Luther's house and at Luther's table, as we can see from No. 133 and 133 a of his diary, and 21 letters, which Luther addressed to Cordatus from the year 1526 to 1545, are still preserved. 2) Many of the communicated conversations are especially with Cordatus, e.g. No. 33. 56. 57. 111. lila. 111b. 74. 75/115. 116. 1)61. 162. 253. 259. 637. 843. 1240. 1462, 3) and
2) Cf. De Wette, Luthers Briefe, vol. VI, p. 486 f.
3) See AppendixNo.il.
Melanchthon also says in the aforementioned preface to the postilion of Cordatus that the latter "often and Diel talked with him (Luther himself) about all articles of Christian doctrine. Therefore, his extensive and valuable notes are of particular importance.
In his notes, Cordatus introduces Luther speaking in the first person, while he speaks of himself in the third person.
Each new number of the cordatus is designated by us by a new paragraph.
The edition of the diary of Cordatus by D. Wrampelmeyer is extremely proficient and careful, but one notices more often that he is not a theologian. Therefore, he has also missed the point at times.
Wrampelmeyer did not quite understand the following numbers1): Cordatus No. 1071. 1088. 1116. 1273. 1293. 1349. 1358. 1405. 1426. 1431. 1461. 1474. 1515. 1528. 1589. 1658. 1714. 1830. 1834. 1836 u^a. M.
Several times, where Wrampelmeyer wanted to help the right understanding by translating particulars, wrong translations are found, e.g. Cap. 5, tz 13, Cord. No. 1431: justiciarius judge, instead of: who deals with his own justice.
Cap. 12, § 84, Cord. 1328: statum according to the meaning in the usage, instead of: "according to the circumstances". For according to the usage, not only the rhetor, but everyone must speak.
1) The numbers of the Cordatus can be easily found in our edition by Appendix No. II.
Cap. 13, tz 55, Cord. No. 1369: cum papa cepit jurista the pope and the jurists have taken away our spirit, instead of: together with the pope the jurists have deceived us.
Cap. 19, tz 4, Cord. No. 1350: se negaturos which they will not admit, instead of: that they want to deny.
Cap. 24, tz 12, Cord. No. 1377: msvit provoked to anger, instead of: "moved. That translation is too narrow, as can be seen from the following number 1378.
Cap. 28, tz 5, Cord. No. 898: filius seculi a son of his time, instead of: a world child.
Cap. 30, § 32, Cord. No. 1567: suspensi the dying facing an uncertain fate, instead of: those who were hanged.
Cap. 37, § 117, Cord. No., 1635: nisi ut statuit decretum if they are not within the scope of the decree, instead of: even if the decree had not already made this provision.
Cap. 59, § 6, Cord. No. 1342: ut pur 6886t an image that is like us, instead of: as befits us.
Appendix No. II, Cord. No. 1604 favorem negabam ad balneas, that it is not allowed to go to the bath, instead of: I would have no desire (Sundays) to bathe.
Several times, D. Wrampelmeyer has made emendations where none were necessary, e.g., Cap. 43, § 75, Cord. No. 38; Cap. 27, § 2, Cord. No. 40; Cap. 12, § 23, Cord. No. 75; Cap. 26, § 12, Cord. No. 283; Appendix II, Cord. No. 1358, line 2.
We have considered the following emendations to the diary of Cordatus necessary:
Table speeches Cordatus
Table speeches Cordatus
Appendix No. II. No. 371 line 5 read: lratsr ssu8 dux srit instead of: lratsr sst äux sst.
instead: Satan laeilius non eontsinnsnäo vincitur, quarn quoä sts.
ejus to be erased.
ApPendix No.II,, 1760 " 3 " sapientia instead: Sara.
rentnr be set. In "ineritaanto vita" are rnsrita vita as
Appendix No.il. "1835 "' 2 and 3 is wrongly changed and resolved. Sodoma--Sodom stands for Sodomiterei, and intoxieca" is to be dissolved by intoxicatio, i. e. poisoning.
The emendations, which Wrampelmeyer has already made correctly, have not been included by us here.
2. the Lauterbach diary.
The second main source of Luther's Tischreden is M. Anton Lauterbach, Diaconi zu Wittenberg, Tagebuch auf das Jahr 1538. Ans der Handschrift herausgegeben von Ine. tkeol. Johann Carl Seidemann, Pfarrer zu Eschdorf. Dresden. 187S. Published by Justus Naumann's bookstore." 221 pages and XIV pages of preface.' Gr. Octav.
This manuscript was newly found by the library secretary D. Franz Schnorr von Carolsfeld in the year 1870 in the Royal Public Library in Dresden, its value was recognized and it was displayed and bibliographically discussed in the "Serapeum" 1870, p. 168 to 174. In 1727, the Rector of the Annenschule in Dresden, M. Christian August Freiberg, published a school program of 2 quarto sheets, in which he described the external and internal education of the students.
- thus in later time, because not Apoteg- mata (they!), what Kmnmer has- in writing designates, is made by foreign hand, in the time of 1546 to 1548 and compiled from individual notes of Lauterbach, perhaps by his Famulus Balthasar Tham. 1)
L a u terba ch, born in Stolpen Thursday, January 13, 1502, was the elder son of not impecunious parents,' probably of Matthäus Lauterbach, mayor of Stolpen and the wife of the same, Katharina. The family had its name from the Amtsdoxfe Lauterbach near Stolpen. About his father the event is told, which is reported to us in the table speeches in the last paragraph of Cap. 27, § 72. In the summer of 1517, Anton Lauterbach was immatriculated in Leipzig. Only in 1529, Wednesday, April 21, he is inscribed in Wittenberg under the rectorate of U. Johann Stoeb Ginckelyn as "Anthonius Lauterbach de Stolpen". 2) He also received his master's degree in Wittenberg, was Luther's housemate and table companion as early as 1531, and served at the baptismal banquet for Luther's son Paul on January 28, 1533. He was a man of long stature. As successor of the wasteful Valentin Pacäus Härtung he came to Leisnig as Diaconus in 1533. Here he soon got into disagreements with his pastor M. Wolfgang Fuß, which is why Luther arrested him for the second Diaconate in Wittenberg in 1537. He probably married the nun Agnes in Wittenberg as early as 1533, because the Bishop of Meissen, Johann VII von Schleinitz, took offense at his marriage when he was to become deacon in Leisnig. 3) His grief-stricken father-in-law is remembered Tischr. Cap. 3,
1) Cf. Tischreden Cap. 67, § 7.
L) The information, which was found in the German Tischreden Cap. 55, § 2, that he came to Wittenberg on Sept. 27, 1521, is missing in Bindseil Vol. I, 438 and also in Cordatus No. 1721, and will be wrong.
3) Cf. Tischreden Cap. 43, § 22, Cordatus No. 127V.
§He had several children in his marriage, namely a daughter Elisabeth, to whom Luther and his niece Lene Kaufmann seem to have been godparents, and a son.
Wednesday, July 23, 1539, Lauterbach moved to Pirna as superintendent. During his stay in Wittenberg, Lauterbach copied Luther's sermons as early as 1531. From Pirna he seems to have traveled to Wittenberg once every year; /we know this from the years 1542-1545 inol. Lauterbach preached his inaugural sermon in Pirna on the 8th Sunday after Trinity, July 27, 1539, and died there on Monday, July 18, 1569. His bust can be found above the door to the sacristy of the town church twice. He founded the church library in Pirna. One of his favorite sayings seems to have been: Qui cupit esse beatus, discat contemnere et contemni (If you want to be happy, learn to despise and endure contempt).
The Royal Public Library in Dresden possesses the same diary in a second, somewhat later copy in a quarto volume, which is immediately followed by a second part of Luther's table speeches 1), which only rarely provide an indication of day and year, but deviate in the most varied way from that given in Bindseil's Latin imprint, entirely with regard to the position of the individual pieces. The first half, the diary, was copied in 1554 by the pastor Caspar Kummer of Ortrand on the first pages by another, perhaps his son Caspar or Abraham, but then also wrote much himself, while the second half is entirely by his hand. The copy of the first part was completed on the Sunday after the Exaltation of the Cross (Sept. 14), which was the 17th Sunday after Trinity, in 1554, that of the second part on Nov. 22, 1554. Kummer was registered on Tuesday, May 11, 1529, under the rectorate of Caspar von Teutleben in the Wittenberg university register as "Caspar khumer ex langfelt patavien. dioc.
4) With respect to these, Seidemann states that they also originate from Lauterbach's dep notes. From the selection given by Seidemann, we see that a large number of deftelben are also found in Cordatus.
41 Because he was persecuted in his fatherland because of "the" religion, he had to flee in female clothing, whereupon he turned to Wittenberg, where Luther is said to have appointed him to the pastorate in Ortrand. The time in which he took up his office as pastor there falls in the years between 1541 and 1545. He is also otherwise referred to as Lengenfeldianus Austri acus, from Lanfeld (also Lengefeld) from Eastern Austria. At the second church visitation held on May 30, Thursday 1555, he is given the censure: "Is found correct and good life." How long Kummer was in office in Ortrand cannot be determined. His successor Johannes Rühl is only mentioned in 1575 as pastor in Ortrand on the occasion of a church visitation. Kummer and Lauterbach were fellow students in Wittenberg.
Of all the table-top speech collectors, Wrampelmeyer notes, Cordatus and
Grief closest. Not infrequently, Kummer comes very close in version and form. However, there are also many deviations, some of which Kummer does not offer completely, and the interspersed German already shows far more recent forms, since Kummer's table speeches were compiled much later.
These main sources of the Table Talks, the diary of D. Conrad Cordatus from 1537 and the diary of M. Anton Lauterbach about the year 1538, bear the stamp of authenticity and immediacy. We have endeavored to reproduce the meaning exactly everywhere, and have retained as faithfully as possible the passages given in German in the originals, which offer Luther's short, concise, sometimes proverbial speech.
The emendations we found necessary in Lauterbach's diary are as follows:
Lauterbach. Table speeches.
pass. 4 Cap. 62, 81 read: reißern instead of: eißern.
,, 44 Appendix I., No. 98 read: "s eonüäsrs instead of: si eonüdsns.
" 81 Cap. 27, 8138 read: quasreront instead of: quasrsrst.
"175 Appendix I., No. 420 reads: Princip "
" 190 Cap. 37, 87 read: impuAuanäss instead of: IlnpuZnanda.
3. A. Johann Mathesius.
Although it is not known that, directly from Mathesius, records have passed into the collections of table speeches, we cannot ignore him as a recorder and collector of Luther's speeches. A whole number of table speeches can be found in his sermons 1).
1) D. Martin Luther's life, described by M. Johann Mathesius, former Lutheran pastor at Joachimsthal in Bohemia. St. Louis, Mo. Printing House of the Lutheran Concordia - NerlnaS 1
and often in them reference is made to incidents which are also mentioned in the table speeches. Everywhere, however, there is only sameness and similarity of thought, never of form, except for a similar version of some cited verses, e.g. Mathesius p. 224 and Tischr. Cap. 78, § 3. The manuscript ,,Apophthegmatai Lutheri", which Christian August Freyberg in the school programs mentioned earlier, is assigned to the Mathesius, is not a copy.
The book of table speeches by Mathesius, which has just been discussed, is the book by M. A. Laute r b a ch from the year 1538.
handed down by Mathesius and also found in the table speeches, usually have a much more extensive version in these. Such pieces are, for example, the following:
Mathesius, St. L. Ansg.
Page 194 f.
Table speeches
Binding rope
s Cap. 47, 815. l " 47, 828.
II, 63. Lauterbach pas. 114.
" 7, 812,para.6.
212 f.
" 49, 89, paras. 1-4.
cf. cap. 22, § 25.
Cordatus No. 1504.
Cap. 22, 896.
" 1, 8 45, para. 2.
I, 305 f. Cordatus No. 763.
" 24, § 101, cl. 5.
Written out from Luther's Psätterlem.
Ill, 25.
Cf. Cordatus No. 1351.
l " 13, 862.
Cf. cap. 12, § 38.
and many others.
Important and interesting are some sayings of Mathesius about the table speeches of Luther.
At the beginning of the 12th sermon, Mathesius tells us that he came to Luther's table in 1540 through the promotion of D. Justus Jonas and M. Georg Rörer. Justus Jonas' and M. Georg Rörer's promotion. He says: "What I heard and saw there, I noted with diligence; so God gave me, through the help of industrious people, many good colloquia and conversations, which before N. Veit Dietrich of Nuremberg, Doctor Well er of Freyburg, Mr. Antonius Lauterbach of Pirna and afterwards M. Caspar Heyderich, Superintendent at Torgau, N. Hieronymus Besold of Nuremberg and others of the doctor's boarders had advertised. Ferdinand ä Mangis from Eastern Austria also recorded many interpretations of some sayings in his Bible, as M. Georg Rörer Diel very diligently brought together delicious things of writings and advice and especially what was spoken in the interpretation of the Bible."
In t^r same sermon (p. 212) Ma- talks.
1) Cattle rope. Vol. IV. P. XVI.
thesius about how the conversations at the table came about: "Although our doctor often took heavy and deep thoughts with him to the table, and sometimes kept his old monastic silence during the whole meal, so that not a word was spoken at the table, he let himself be heard very amusingly at the appropriate time; as we used to call his speeches condimenta mensae, which were dearer to us than all spices and delicious food.
When he wanted to extract speech from us, he used to make an accusation: "What's new? The first admonition we let pass; when he stopped again: When he stopped again, "You prelates, what's new in the country?" the old people at the table began to talk. Doctor Wolf Severus, who had been the preceptor of the Roman Royal Majesty, sat at the top, he brought something on the track, if no stranger was present, as a wandering courtier."
"When the discussion started, 2) but with due discipline and reverence, others sometimes added their part to it, too, until maw
2) Conversation.
Often good questions were put in from the Scriptures, which he solved finely, roundly and briefly; and if one once held a part, he could also suffer it and refute it with a skillful answer. Often, honest people from the university, even from foreign places, came to the table, where very beautiful speeches and histories fell. I want to remember some of them here recently, maybe they would like to get together once, as it would be a very nice and useful work to write 1) Noctes et dies Albiacae ober Miscellanea D. Lutheri".
Once again in the same sermon (p. 225) Mathesius expresses the wish that Luther's speeches be collected: "God will one day raise up one who will read together this great man's sayings, similes, proverbs, rhymes, histories, and other coincidences and good reports, as it would be a very beautiful book for the Germans if wise and sensible sayings were added, especially of our emperors, kings, princes, and lords.
4. m. Johann Aurifaber.
For a small part of the German table speeches, M. Johann Aurifaber, or Goldschmidt, who was around Luther in the years 1545 and 1546, and also accompanied him on his last journey to Eisleben, is to be listed as the first recorder. All pieces originating from him are contained only in the German editions, which also confirms that the Latin table speeches do not go back to the German ones as their original.
The table speeches, written down by Aurifaber as an eye and ear witness, are as follows: Cap. 1, § 10, para. 1 and § 22. the addition to § 22; § 26; § 45, para. 2; 2) § 56, paras. 1 and 2; § 95, paras. 2 and 3; § 96. - Cap. 3, § 6; § 48; - Cap. 4, § 40; 3) § 82, para.) 2. 3. -Cap.9,tz54,para. 2. -Cap. 22, § 49; - Cap. 24, § 22, para. 1; § 43. 4) -.
1) An extremely justified judgment, which certainly every friend and lover of Luther will agree with, and which would never have been contradicted if Aurifaber had proceeded with insightful judgment in the selection of the speeches.
2) Cf. cap. 4,§ 55.
3) Quite similar in content to the preceding § 39.
4) Cf. Cordatus No. 1125.
Cap. 27, §93, para.1.-Cap. 43, §165; §166; §167. -Cap. 44, §20, para. 1); §21. - Cap. 46,.§1; §3. -Cap. 48, §29. -Cap. 66, §60. -Cap. 78, §7.
The content of the pieces listed above is mostly quite insignificant. Apart from these, there are a small number of pieces by Aurifaber, introduced: "D. M. Luther sagete zu Eisleben über Tisch", which are partly demonstrably spurious, partly very suspicious. These are the following:
Cap. 1, § 95, para. 1, taken from Luther's writing against the assassin at Dresden. 5) This narrative is in another relation Cap. 27, § 54 in the last paragraph. Cf. Bindseil I, 142.
Cap. 3, § 49 is contained in the report of D. Justus Jonas and LI. Mich. Cölius about Luther's death. 6)
Cap. 7, § 149, the last paragraph is contained in Cap. 43, § 33, para. 2. Cf. Bindseil II, 356 and I, 218.
Cap. 24, § 21, the last paragraph is not Luther's speech, but narration by another person.
Cap. 66, § 61 is only another relation of Cordatus No. 602. Cf. Bindseil III, 1. Rebenstock II, 179 k.
B. The Latin editions.
1. Heinrich Peter Rebenstock.
In 1571, Heinrich Peter Rebenstock, pastor in Eschersheim near Frankfurt am Main, published a Latin edition in which all passages left in German in the originals were translated into Latin, except for a few words, such as "Ah" or "Oh", and only very rarely is there a German fragment interspersed. The title of this edition is: "Colloquia, Meditationes, Consolationes, Consilia, Judicia, Sententiae, Narrationes, Responsa, Facetiae, D. Mart. Luth. piae et sanctae inemoriae, in mensa prandii et coenae, et in peregrinationibus, observata et fideliter transscripta. - Tomus Pri-
5) Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2069, § 16.
6) Walch, old edition, Vol. XXI, 283*, § 10. By the way, Aurifaber wrote this report as a witness. However, it does not belong in the table speeches.
mus. - Ne erres Lector, scias haec, non ex D. Aurifabri, sed ex alterius'collectione, ante annos 10. ad aeditionem parata, sed hactenus propter certas causas suppressa, ad nos pervenisse. - Francofurti ad Moenum." - Without year. Above the place of printing is a vignette with the bust of Luther, which contains the year 1558. From this year, one has wrongly wanted to draw the conclusion that this first part was already published in 1558. However, an old vignette was used for this title without any thought of removing the year. The preface of Rebenstock to the first part shows at the end the time: in die Laurentii, 1) ^.nno 1571. The first part belongs to this year as well as the second. 2) The second part has the same title as the first, only with a small change of the words: Consolationes, Responsa, Judicia, Sententiae, Narrationes, Facetiae etc.. But the remark added to the first title: ,,Ne erres " etc. is not repeated on the title of the second volume, and under the place of printing is written "N. D. I^XXI." On the last leaf of the first part and on the last page of the second part, the printer is named: Francofurti ad Moenum per Nicolaum Bassum et Hieronymum Feyer- abent."
The format of the book is small octavo. The leaves are paginated only on one side. The first volume has 238 paginated leaves, the second 253. In addition, there is a preface of 9 leaves at the beginning of the first volume, and 2 leaves containing a poem by a Frankfurt patrician, Conrad Weis, and distichs by Johann Stolsius on Luther's life. At the end of the first volume is an alphabetical index of 12A leaves and at the end of the second a similar Inäex of 14 leaves. The printing is very tight, so that one page of the small booklet contains as much as in one column of the old Walchian edition, Rebenstock thus comprises about 1000 columns of Walch. The most diverse things are without a paragraph, without a period, without a large initial letter,
1) August 10.
2) This has already been correctly noted by Seidemann in his preface to Lauterback's Taaebucke vss. I V.
are attached to each other. The section: "De ten- tationibus", Rebenstock Vol. II, 2206-233 a, which we will examine in more detail below for the sake of comparison, has only 20 paragraphs in Rebenstock, while the same speeches in the German Tischreden comprise 55 paragraphs with over 80 paragraphs.
The Rebenstock edition is teeming with errors. However, Rebenstock does not seem to be responsible for many of them, since he, living in a village, probably could not have done the proofreading himself, but had to leave it entirely to the printer. Only since we have become acquainted with Rebenstock's edition has it become clear to us how great, important and well-founded a complaint it is that we so often find in Luther's work, that the printers, through their carelessness (especially in the reprints), completely spoil his copies. To excuse the printers, it can only be said that Rebenstock used many compendia 3) in his writing. Quite a number of them are still in print.
There is only a short passage in Rebenstock's preface that is of interest to the readers of our Table Talks; we will therefore put it here in German translation: "Luthers Tischreden und Rathschläge sind deutsch durch den Druck veröffentlicht. However, in order that Martin Luther's godly and salutary Table Talks might be known to all, not only to Germans, but also to Italians, French, other nations and foreigners who do not understand the German language, a certain pious man, a lover of evangelical truth, has written Martin Luther's Table Talks in Latin for the praise of God and the benefit of the Church, but has interspersed them with many German sayings. But because the printers, on the advice of learned, pious men, have undertaken to publish Martin Luther's Table Talks in Latin, pious, even faithful men have asked me to translate those German sayings and words into Latin. And although I considered myself unworthy of this task, I have nevertheless become the
3) d. i. Abbreviations.
For the benefit of the Church, and so that God's Word would be known to all, and God would be praised in all languages, I took upon myself this very heavy burden and, according to my few gifts, alone with God's assistance, I translated the German sayings into Latin with great care, for the sake of those who do not understand the German language. However, I have by no means wanted to take on this work for the sake of tainting the godly sayings of Martin Luther with other ungodly and useless sayings, and to interfere with new things or to seek my own honor and benefit (as the sacramentarians and enthusiasts presume to do today), but so that I might give our Lord his due praise, and for this reason, supported by the counsel of learned men, I have undertaken this work. Therefore, I urge all lovers of the gospel, that if they find errors in my work, they may attribute them to my inability, not to my courage or audacity."
According to the above, it seems to be Rebenstock's opinion that the Table Talks were originally written in German and only translated into Latin for the sake of making them known to other nations. This work, however, was not completely executed by the "pious man", but left much German, which Rebenstock now had to translate into Latin. Thus, he probably considered Aurifaber's edition to be the original, but - as one can conclude from his note on the title, taken together with the preface - contaminated with other additions. It has been unknown to him, however, that the table speeches were written down by the first recorders immediately in this mengsp räche of Latin and German. 1)
Some of the translations of the German passages in Rebenstock's edition are, however, out of ignorance, downright senseless.
1) Seidemann in the preface p. XIII says about it: "As far as the confusion of Latin and German is concerned, it is known that Melanchthon used such a mixture in his lectures.
Z. E. g. Vol. II, 230b, where Lauterbach pag. 50 offers: Desertus Joannis baptistae erat habitabilis. Like thieves sDüben], Jessen", Rebenftock has: "Desertum Joannis baptistae erat habitabile, nos fures, hospites". He has thus taken the proper names for nowius appellatives,. - Bindseil l, 256: "This will also happen to the boys" in Rebenftock I, I36b: "continget et hoc meo filio immori- gero", 2) thus makes a "boy" into a "son of Luther". - Bindseil I, 426: sDie Sau fragt^s "Waren auch Kleien da?" in Rebenftock I, 228 b: "^.äersnt, esset kur kures?" The same translation is found twice more on the same page. The compendium for "etiam" was read by the typesetter in esset, and he did not know "furfures".
In order to give the reader an idea of the "immense" corruption of the text, we want to share only a few of the thousands of false readings that can be found in Rebenftock, which have just come to our attention.
Rebenftock
1, 112 uiutus instead of: runtatus.
1, 114 eolumeüsus instead of: "orrimsQdaus.
I, 227 d nassitur instead of: nsseitur.
1, 2286 elsto instead of: elata.
"prseäiears instead of: xrasäieators. 1, 228 expsruit instead of: sxxuit.
" uua ill vass eerevislae vilis8iraas äurablli instead of: ulluva vas eerevisiae vilisslruae 6urabilius.
1, 229 sulllis instead of: suraus.
" psrllioiosissilllUlll instead of: scheblich.b)
II, 91b Zlaäiuill instead of: gauälurri.
2) Rebenstock seems to read, as Aurifaber, Cap. 3, § 71 to have read "the jack".
S) Harmful for shebbish d. i. displaceable.
Vine
1, 20 b äsäuoens instead of: äueens.
1, 148 V oonnlvinl" instead of: eronvivium.
1, 148a st 0.6arIo^itEin held: Lt 0. Oruci^erum IVorlodtrium.
II, 64 b menaeium liberis instead: InunäationerL 11deris.
I, 201a terris instead of: stuäük.
I, 224 b auriZatur instead of: auriZarura.
" ratis pouas held: Ratisbonas.
I, 223 b lumiorsrn " Lr-miorsM.
I, 225 b redäos instead of: reääenäos.
1, 226 0a68ari8 instead of: 6a68ari.
" Lpi8ooL>ati8 held: Lpisoopis.
1, 132 ainasiis instead of: amatis.
" imiuituntur instead of: innituntur.
" inorerneütnni instead: exoreinenturn.
1, 132 b 1530 instead of: 1538.
1, 133 b äoetores 6886t instead of: äoatiortzg 6886Qt.
1, 135 exoeUentia instead of: exoellentior.
1, 135 b baereäitarim instead of: basreäitarli.
1, 136 Aratisgimurn held: Kravisgi room.
1, 136 b mutavit instead of: mutnavit.
1, 137 in sperato instead of: insperato.
1, 139 b we find 'the form: subtollsrs.
II, 160 b äatain instead of: äotatarn.
II, 5 a calamitatm instead of: trigtitias.
II, 17 b viat is lavia: instead: Vratislavia.
Il, 28 b inoäo instead of: noäo.
II, 18bc1no8 " 6nro8.
II, 224 a virtns " vietus.
11, 227 ?Ii26uin held: Lvangelistarn.
Furthermore, the pagination is often wrong. In the second volume from fol. 200 to the end by 100 too small. Furthermore
There are also a large number of incorrect headings, e.g. I, 149-172 De principe ftatt: De principibus. II, 96 De universitatibus ftatt: de adulteriis. II, 196 de bellis ftatt: de bibliis. II, 221 de bellis ftatt: de tentationibus. II, 104 de universitatibus ftatt: äs spo8tolis and various others.
As a reason why Rebenstock's collection, which was ready for printing in 1561, was held back for another ten years, Seidemann assumes (preface p. IV) that Lauterbach and Agricola were still alive. The former died in 1569, the latter on September 22, 1566.
From a note in Seidemann's preface, p. IV, we see that a manuscript very similar to the Hallische is in the Dresden Bibliotbek.
Of the latter, Seidemann p. V says: "Rebenstock and the Dresden manuscript are closest to each other. ... - Yes, the Dresden manuscript is perhaps taken from the one that Rebenstock used for his editing, according to Fr. Jacobs and F. A. Ukert, Beiträge zur älteren Litteratur oder Merkwürdigkeiten der herzoglichen öffentlichen Bibliothek zu Gotha Bd.il! Heft 2. Leipzig 1843. p. 309: ,, ,,Colloquia serotina D.M.L. 1536 et sqq. 22. Octobr. descripta ex áõôü- γράφω Antonii Lauterbachii primi Superint. Pirn. in Misn. anno 1553 manu Pauli Judicis al. Richteri prim. Pastoris Neap. s. Neustad. prope Pirnam. Ch. B. no. 169. 144 581." " to which there is noted that this collection is contained in the vine, cf. p. 306."
Walch's judgment on the Rebenstock edition, preface p. 20, is completely correct. He says: "In this Latin edition, one and the other occurs, which is not in the Aurifaber work, but it also appears, if one holds both books against each other, such a similarity that one can see that, if not everything, nevertheless most 1) and at least very much is to be found in the Aurifaber collection, which the Rebenstock edition contains.
Elias Frick in his German translation of V. L. von Seckendorf's "Ausführlicher Historie des Lutherthums" p. 2734 makes a similar judgment and also correctly gives the year 1571 for both volumes of Rebenstock. The judgment of Joh. Ernst Eberhardt in his Schediasma § 8 is wrong: "a Germanica plane diversa", unless one interprets these words only to the order of the pieces, but not also to the content.
In order that the reader may judge for himself, we include a comparison of a passage from Rebenstock with the Höllische Handschrift, the German Tischreden and the sources. We choose the section "De tentationibus, Rebenstock Vol. II, 220 b to 233". The same is complete in the Latin and the German Tischreden. The superscription is erroneously retained by Rebenstock for several more pages.
I) We would say "almost everything".
Vine.
Vol. II, 220 b.
Binding rope.
11. 287. i
German Table Speech".
" 24, § 117.1
Dupl. " 26, 8 27./ .
" 26,? 26.
Source".
Cordatus No. 577.
221a.
11, 289. s
221b.
Dupl. " 13, 8 61./ " 26, 8 29.
222a.
Dupl. " 61, 8 7./
222 d.
" 24, § 121, Ms. 2, middle.
223a.
11, 294. i
Dupl. " 24, 8 121, para. 3 E.u. para. 4./
Dupl. " 24, 8121./
223 b.
11, 294. <
Dupl. " 26, 8 85.
Dupl. " 26, 8 35.)
224a.
/II, 2W. l
Cf.Ill, 305. 1
" 26, 8 35.) .dupl. " 26, 8 5./
224b.
11, 297. l
Dupl. " 13, 8 70./
225a.
11, 298. /
Dupl. " 7, 8160./
225 b.
Cf. " 26, 8 73.
226 a.
Cf. Lauterbach, c 141.
226b.
" 7, 8111. " 7, § 100. " 26, § 20.)
Dupl. " 26, 8 33./ " 26, 8 12.
227a.
" 26, 8 36. Missing.
Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1315.
De Wette, V, 440.
228a.
Cordatus No. 271 and 1814. 272.
228 b..
(Dupl. 1, 218.
229 a.
Dupl. " 2, 8 66./
Dupl. " 26, 8 41.
Dupl. " 24, 8 28.
Lauterbach, pag. 4.
229 b.
" 24, § M.
Lauterbach, pag. 26.
230a.
230b.
231a.
231b.
232 a.
232 b.
233a.
" 26, § 49.
In Bindseil, this section includes De Ten- tationibus p: 287 to 320 of the second volume. The following pieces of this section, which are in the Hall manuscript, but are found in
Rebenstock are missing, all, with the exception of the last one, which is not by Luther, but a view of Melanchthon, are found in the German Tischreden. -
Binding rope.
Table Talks.
Cap. 7, §62.
Cordatus No. 413.
" 26, §68.
Dupl. Ill, 217. /
" 26, §66.
Dupl. Ill, 218. /
" 26, §68.
Dupl. Ill, 218. /
" 26, §44.
Lauterbach xaZ. 73.
" 26, §45.
Missing.
Meeuken Phil. Melanchthon of tribulation.
In the preceding sections, the Latin and German editions coincide completely, and most of it is also proven in the sources and brought into our edition from them. This also applies to the pieces of this section, which are found only in the Hall manuscript, but not in Rebenstock. The same is true for most of the sections; however, the situation is quite different for a few. From these, we see that almost everything found in
of the Rebenstockfchen edition is also found in the Hall manuscript, but also quite a number of pieces are missing in the German Tischreden. In order to prove this, we place a comparative table here over the section that bears the superscription 1): De D. M. Luth, ejus doctrina, vita, morbis et periculis. Rebenstock, Lom. II, 12a-24a.
1) Again, wrong heading on the first six leaves of this section, namely vs oonsolstions.
Vine.
"indseil.
German Table Talks.
Sources.
There are 5 lines missing.
12 b.
Ill, 174.
Missing.
Ill, 187.
13 a.
Ill, 182.
Ill, 183.
Ill, 182.
I Dupl. " 22, §115.
15b.
Ill, 173.
IHM
Ill, 157.
Cap. 27, § 93.
Cordatus No. 441.
17 a.
Ill, 171.
Missing.
Kurümer bei Lauterbach xag. 203. cordatus no. 631,632. .
17 b.
Ill, 155.
18 a.'
Ill, 157.
Ill, 177.
Ill, 186.
Ill, 199.
Lauterbach paA. 63.
Cordatus No. 633.
18b.
Ill, 200.
Ill, IM.
Ill, 158.
Ill, 166.
,/
Introduction. -17
Revenstock.
Biudsett.
German Table Talks.
Sources.
Vol. II, 186.
Cap. 43, § 137.
Cordatus No. 1079.
19 a.
Ill, 156.
Ill, 177.
Ill, 159.
" 43,? 127.
" 1,? 17.
" 22,? 113.
Lauterbach xaK. 62.
Cordatus No. 904.
Ill, 174.
Ill, 163.
Ill, 163.
Missing.
Lauterbach xa§. 54.
Cordatus No. 1235.
20 a.
Ill, 181.
Ill, 188.
21 a.
Ill, 167.
Ill, 158.
Cap. 14,'? 27. missing.
There are 11 lines missing.
Ill, 164.
22 a.
Ill, 165.
Ill, 165.
Ill, 165.
Cap. 48,'? 38. missing.
Ill, 166.
Ill, 168.
Cap. 47, § 9.
Cap. 48,'? 27.
t
23 a.
Ill, 181.
Ill, 185.
Ill, 189 f.
Ill, 179.
Missing.
Lauterbach xa§. 165.
From this table, one can see that in this section of Rebenstock, which comprises 24 pages, only 3 pieces are missing in Bindseil, but that of the 40 pieces that were missing from this section in the German Tischreden, 19 could be inserted into our edition according to the originals. Given the poor textual quality of both Rebenstock and the Hall manuscript, nothing from these could be included in our edition.
2. H. E. Bindseil's edition of Haltt's manuscript.
There is in the public library of the orphanage in Halle a Latin manuscript of Luther's table speeches, consisting of 654 folio leaves, with the date: "transscripta anno 1560", which has been edited by Bindseil under the following title: D. Martini Lutheri colloquia, meditationes, consolationes, judicia, sententiae, narrationes, responsa, facetiae e codice MS. bibliothecae orphanotrophei Halensis cum perpetua collatione editionis Rebenstockianae edita et pro- legomenis indicibusque instructa ab Henrico Er- nesto Bindseil, Philos. Doctore, Professore etc. - Lemgoviae et Detmoldiae typis sumtibusque Meyeriani bibliopolei aulici" Large Octav, lkom. I. 1863. 465 pages and 6XXIII pages of preface. ll?ow. II. 1864. 388 pages and
X pages of preface. Tom. III. 1866. 331 pages. From pp. 332-516 various indexes. XII ropes preface.
Bindseil considers the Hall manuscript published by him to be a Latin translation of the German table speeches 1) as does Rebenstock his collection. He was therefore also unaware that the original records were mainly made in Latin with individual words and phrases left in German. He disregarded, or perhaps did not believe, what Aurifaber says in his second preface of July 1, 1568: "that the Tischreden were brought by him from Latin into German sayings," which, as we now know, is true.
Wrampelmeyer remarks in his preface p. 29: "Rebenstock offers almost nothing that could not be found in Bindseil, while the Hall manuscript - and this seems to us to be far from appreciated enough - has handed down a large amount of conversations, of which no trace is to be found in Rebenstock. This remark has prompted us to make at least a partial comparison. With respect to the first volume
1) Cf. Förstemann-Bindseil's edition of the German Tischreden, vol. IV, preface Ä. XblX.
Bindseil, we have come to the following conclusion: In the first volume of Bindseil's edition there are 120 pieces which we have not been able to find either in the German Tischreden or in the sources. Of these, 41 are introductions to the larger sections, e.g. Deus, Trinitas etc., most of which are also found in Rebenstock, obviously not written by Luther, but by the collector on whom both the Rebenstock and Bindseil editions are based.
Collection of Table Talks. Vol. I, p. 280 is an excerpt from a book; p. 303 a letter to Joh. Scultetus; p. 349 a prognosticon of Martin Luther; p. 367 a concern of Melanchthon; p. 443 a concern of Luther to Hess; p. 445 a concern of Luther to A. Lauterbach.
413. 416. 417: 423. 427. 428. 429. 430. 431. 432. 433. 434. 435. 436. 437. 442. 456. 463. - From the section De principibus alone are 28 of these pieces. Incidentally, several more of these pieces may be found in the sources.
Bindseil's comparative register between the Hall manuscript and the German Tischreden is very incomplete. We can prove many pieces in the German Tischreden which Bindseil described as being only in the Latin ones.
The fact that it was possible for Bindseil to indicate the deviations of Rebenftock's edition in notes from beginning to end proves that the similarity of both editions must be very great. Since Bindseil lists all of Rebenstock's translations, this already results in a very large number of notes. Another reason for comments are the numerous printing errors in Rebenstock.
In order to enable the reader to compare the Hall manuscript and the German Tischreden with his own eyes, we have included a table on a section from the third volume, which comprises 24 pages. From this section, "Concionatores". Concionatores", Bindseil III, 108-131, which is completely missing in Rebenstock, only one paragraph and four lines are missing in our St. Louis edition of the Tischreden. The section marked as missing on p. 123 is found in Lauterbach and is included by us in Appendix No. I.
Binding rope.
Table Talks.
Sources.
Vol. Ill, 108.
Cap. 22, § 1^7.
Cordatus No. 1245.
22, § 130.
cf. cap. 22, 811 the last para. and Cap. 22, § 55.
l Dupl. "
22?8 9.
Cordatus No. 1462. 1463. 1464. 1465.
Dupl. Ill, 128.
Dupl. "
22, § 156.
Introduction. 19
Bind rope.
Table Talk".
Source".
Vol. Ill, 114.
Cap. 22, 8 20.
Cordatus No. 721.
. Dupl. Ill, 130.
Cordatus No. 1656.
Lauterbach xaA 21.
" 22, § 56.
I Cf. Ill, 109.
Dupl. Ill, 111. 1
126.^
" 22, 8 12. .dupl. " 22, 8 64.
. Dupl. " 22, 8 143.
Cordatus No., 798.
Kummer bei Lauterbach, xaZ. 203.
It is missing em paragraph about the departure of Lauterbach to Pirna.
Cap. 22, § 73.
Lauterbach pax. 160.
There are 4 lines missing.
Cap. 22, § 82.
Dupl. Ill, 115.
Cordatus No. 1504.
Bindseil's assumption, 1) that Lauterbach was the collector of the Hall manuscript, has been completely destroyed by the discovery of Lauterbach's diary. One only needs to compare one or several pieces with each other to convince oneself of this. In the table just presented, we see that both in the Hall manuscript and in the German Tischreden, the number of pages according to Lauterbach is almost regularly greater than the number of pages in the German manuscript.
is. From this it is clear that both Aurifaber and the collector of the Hall manuscript had Lauterbach's diary in front of him in the same order as we do. Not so with the records of Cordatus.
The Hall manuscript contains a significant number of incorrect readings, some of which have been increased by Bindseil's unfortunate improvements.
Binding rope
II, 137 Huistsm instead of: souitsm. Cf. Cordatus No. 1247.
I, 289 äate nodis impsria instead of: äats impsria. Likewise Rebenstock I, IM. s
I, 383 "Where there is evil food, there they fatten themselves like pigs," instead of: "Where there is evil food, there are witty people, because they have to search. (Cordatus No. 1111.) From "must seek" seems to have arisen "fatten pigs."
II, 43 Philippus Melanchthon is transformed into the apostle Philip. Likewise with Rebenstock II, 40 d. Cf. Cordatus No. 366.
I, 289 uxorsm rnsam instead: a wife. Likewise Rebenstock I, IM. Cf. Cordatus No. 929.
II, 107 sausiala instead of: sauet". Cf. Cordatus No. 1194.
I, 220 shooting strokes held: Umbrella strokes. Cf. Cordatus No. 1642.
Ill, 106 leariuiu instead of: datiuiu. Cf. Cordatus 1473.
1, 115 fails instead of: despairs. Cf. Cordatus No. 811.
1, 186 schemender Werkheikger instead of: scheinender Weltheiliger. Cf. Cordatus No. 1590.
I, 261 eouäeinuatur instead of: eouteruuitur. Cf. Cord. No. 1615.
I, 36 äeäueeus instead of: äueeus. Likewise Rebenstock I, 20d. Cf. Cordatus No. 1032.
1, 126 ^.tiautes instead: XtNIstas. Cf. Lauterbach pag. 9.
II, 295 know instead of: tear. Cf. Cordatus No. 564.
II, 295 ersaluraru instead of: uaturam. Cf. Cordatus No. 565.
Ill, 100 Magister Rode held: M. Roth. Cf. Cordatus No. 736.
II, 302 MiLaeuiu instead: LvanKsIistam. Rebenstock II, 227 klissum. Cf. Cordatus No. 283.
Ill, 100 what I will do to it instead of: what God will do to it. Cf. Cordatus No. 736.
Ill, 139 8p68 vitas instead of: spssiss vitas.
Ill, 200 fools instead: Poor. Likewise Rebenstock II, 18d stultorum. Cf. Cordatus No. 1203.
I, 52 thuen instead: Thurm. Cf. Cordatus No. 1571.
Ill, 125 Munster instead of: fatten.
II, 108 worsf statt: Morff sSchweini. Lauterbach pas. 58.
Ill, 202 my instead of: means.
Ill, 66 the manuscript had correctly: abxy, i.e. Aphki ^-Aphkijah, pronounced according to Jtacism. This: has Bindseil erroneously changed to d. i. pride. Wrampelmeher brings several examples of similar unjustified corrections.
Among the casibus politicis, vol. m, 8, several events are recounted that occurred after Luther's death, in 1550 and 1551. Likewise, I, 214 from Christmas 1546 and III, 310, a statement by a bishop after Luther's death.
6. the german translation of the table speeches
in its various editions.
a. The Aurifaber edition.
The first German and at the same time the oldest edition of the Table Talks is organized by
1) Preface, p. XI.VII.
Johannes Aurifaber or Goldschmidt. He was Luther's table companion in 1545 and 1546 and around him, also at the end of his life in Eisleben. As court preacher in Weimar, 1551-1562, he was removed from office for attempting to insert into the Jena edition of Luther's works other than Luther's own authentic writings. 2) He then went to Eisleben in Mansfeld, where he received maintenance and salary from Vollrath, Count of Mansfeld, and his brother, in order to publish the writings of Luther.
2) Cf. Walch, old edition, Banb XXIV, Cap. 4, s 22 f., § 29 ff.
In 1564 and 1565, he also published the second volume of his letters to Luther, the first of which had already gone out of print in 1556. They appeared in 1564 and 1565. The second volume of his letters of Luther also came out in 1565; the first had already gone out in print in 1556. Then in 1566 he became pastor at the Preacher's Church and senior minister at Erfurt, where he died in 1576, aged 56. The title of the first edition of the Tischreden is: "Tischreden Oder Colloquia Doct. Mart. Luthers, So er in vielen Jaren, gegen gelarten Leute, auch frembden Gesten, vnd seinen Tischgesellen gefüret. According to the main pieces of our Christian lore, compiled. John 6, Cap. Samlet die vbrigen Brocken, Auff dass nichts vmbkome. Printed at Eisleben, by Vrban Gaubisch. 1566." Folio. The preface comprises 9 leaves and ¾ ropes. Then follow two pages of indexes of the main sections with incorrect numbering, 82 instead of 80. The table speeches take 625A leaves, including the addendum: "Andere Tischreden D. M. Luthers" etc. Finally, an index of 16-1/2 leaves, arranged alphabetically.
The preface of Aurifaber is a letter: "To the noble, honorable, honorable and wise Ammeistern, Stadtpflegern, Aelteren, Geheimbden, Bürgermeister und Rath der Kayserlichen Reichsstädte Straßburg, Augspurg, Ulm, Nürnberg, Lübeck, Hamburg, Lüneburg, Braunschweig, Frankfurth am Mayn und Regenspurg etc. My Grand Favorable Lords." With regard to this dedication, Seidemann makes a very significant remark in his preface to Lauterbach pag. V: "A letter from the Nuremberg City Council to Aurifaber of September 12, 1566, in which he thanks him for sending a copy of the Tischreden and its dedication to the city of Nuremberg, sending 20 gold gülden as a tribute to it, provides an attractive insight into Aurifaber's activity. Cf. Anzeiger für Kunde der deutschen Vorzeit. Vol. XVI. 1869. p. 336.
Most of Aurifaber's preface is of no particular interest for the history of the editions of the Table Talks, so we only reprint the end of it here: "And after I have so far read several tomos from behind the table".
than from this one may have all kinds of teaching and comfort."
"Given at Eisleben on the 7th day of July, .... Anno 1566."
"Your honor and wisdom willing servant
Johannes Aurifaber."
As early as 1567, two editions appeared in Frankfurt am Main, one in folio, the other in two octavo volumes. The title of the folio edition is: Colloquia, Oder Tischreden Doctor Martini Lutheri, so er in vielen jaren die Zeyt seiner Lebens, gegen Gelehrten Leuthen, Auch hin vnd wider bei frembden' Gesten, vnd seinen Tischgeesehret geführtt, darinn von allen Articklen vnser Religion, Auch von hohen Fragen vnnd Richtigen Antworten, vnd sonst von allerley Lehr, Rath, Trost, Weissagung, Gründlichen vnderricht zu finden. By Johann Aurifaber. John 6. cap. Samlet die vbrigen Brocken, Auff dass nichts vmbkomme. (Below a woodcut, Luther with 6 others sitting at the table and 4 children standing in front of it, who perform their table prayers with folded hands). Printed at Frankfurt am Mayn, etc. 1567." Also in this edition, as in the first edition, the section "Von etlicher Papisten schnellen und erschrecklichem Tode" is omitted in the register of the main sections, and therefore only 79 main pieces are counted, instead of 80. In the work, this section is not missing.
The octavo edition of 1567 is entitled: "Erster Theil (und: Ander Theil), der Tischreden D. Mart. Luthers, so er in vilen jaren gegen Gelehrten Leuthen, auch frömbden Gesten vnnd seinen Tischgesellen gefüret. Therefore, of all the articles of our religion, also of high pieces, questions and answers, item many remarkable historics, and otherwise of all kinds of emptiness, comfort, advice, prophecy, warning and rebuke. Report and instruction to be found. It has been compiled by M. Anthonio Lauterbach, published in certain local communes, and collected from many other scholars. By Mr. Johan Aurifaber. (Including Luther's picture.) Published at Frankfurt am Mayn, Anno M.D.LXVII." In this edition, by skipping numbers, the number of the main
The number of pieces has been brought to 83. The 26th main piece "Von Zauberey" is missing in the index, but not in the text.
Perhaps these two editions from 1567 are reprints, because no printer is named in them, and both have "By Johann Aurifaber" on the title, which Aurifaber himself would hardly have set that way. On the other hand, Aurifaber says in his preface to the edition of 1568: "As the same last German Tomus of Luther's Tischreden has been well out of print and very much available for sale, so that it has often had to be published and reprinted," by which these Frankfurt prints can well be meant. Several misprints from the folio edition of 1567 have been transferred to the edition of 1568, which Aurifaber acknowledges as his own by a new preface, from which it seems to follow that he also regarded the edition of 1567 as his own. 1) With respect to this, Walch says in his preface p. 8, note x: "Of these editions of Luther's Tischreden that have now been cited, I still note that they have not all been printed accurately and correctly, and sometimes important printing errors that were in one have been retained in the other. One will notice this clearly if one holds the two editions of 1567 and 1568 against each other. Among other things, in both p. 89 under the title: Nobody goes to heaven', these words: Christ has let his glory be seen through blasphemy and miracles', instead of 'through doctrine', as it has been improved in this present edition p. 485. So, too, in just these two editions p. Ill, under the inscription: the man
1) We do not consider it acceptable that printing errors should have been transferred from a reprint to the authentic edition. By comparing the folio edition of 1567 with the authentic one of 1568, a printing expert would like to determine from the type of printing the office in which the edition of 1567 was printed. We assume that it would turn out that the edition of 1567 was already printed by Simon Hüter, since Aurifaber says in the preface of 1568: "because my particularly dear gentleman and good friend Simon Hüter, bookseller at Frankfurt, wanted to publish and print this 'lomuna of the table speeches' again. If he wanted to print it again, he must have already printed it once.
before himself', thus: "the man who otherwise drowned in the divine being", instead of "in the ungodly being": 'in the ungodly being*, so one will find in this edition x. 603 will likewise be found changed."
In 1568, also at Frankfurt am Main, a new edition appeared in folio with a new preface by Aurifaber in which he complains about changes that had been made to his table speeches. Walch has taken his text from this edition. This preface is particularly interesting and important. We therefore place it here in its entirety from Walch's old edition. It is already written from Erfurt.
"Preface to the 1568 Edition."
"To the Christian Reader."
"After I, by God's help, had undertaken this Christian, useful and necessary work some years ago, what of the venerable and noble man of God, D. M. Luther's, holy memory, books, sermons and writings, which he read, preached and wrote in Wittenberg, and which have not come to light and day until now, to prepare them and to communicate them to the Christian Church for teaching and consolation through printing. As I have compiled and written the twelve tomos of the German and Latin books of Doctor Maxtini Luther, printed at Jena, when I was then Princely Saxon Court Preacher, in a proper order, and have included many good writings, advice and trades that had not been seen before. The godly man, M. Georg Rörer, was appointed corrector and supervisor by the noble princes and lords, the dukes of Saxony, brothers, my gracious princes and lords. And after that I surrendered to the county of Mansfeld, and had two German Tomos, also a Latin one of Epistles, and a German Tomum of the Table Talks printed at Eisleben. When the last German Tomus of Luther's Table Speeches had gone out of print and was very much for sale, so that it had to be reprinted many times, I now find that Master Klügling has come upon such my work and labor, and changed the title.
I have also moved a lot in the book, and at various times I have increased and improved my work with new table speeches, which have all been done without my knowledge and will, to whom I should otherwise give an answer and account for this work of the table speeches. This hurts me, and is not good, that one wants to sully, rummage through and destroy it according to everyone's liking, that which I have compiled with unspeakable effort, hard work and many great tastes, from books and collections written by many learned people who have gone around with Doctor Martin Luther, into an order and into certain locos communes. Such a thing is not to be suffered by me in any way. For this reason, I would like to ask and warn everyone who will reprint such a book of the Table Talks, because if there is someone who would know how to improve and increase these Table Talks, I could do it (without glory), since I still have several written books of Luther's Table Talks with me, from which one could almost read a new volume together, or improve the now much reported first printed part wonderfully and enormously. And because I have received such a tome from the next Frankfurt fair, with other table speeches and epistles renewed and improved, which appendix and addition I have read through and find that much of it was previously printed in the table speeches, and was brought from the Latin by me into the German language, so the letters are also found in part in the German Jenische: so I do not like to see that one should buy old for new, and the people are swept off their feet by the new titles and improvements. And remember well that Doctor Martin Luther, of blessed memory, complained many times that his books, which he had published in Wittenberg, were being reprinted elsewhere in Germany, and that words were often changed in them, and that the books were badly smeared, so that for this reason he issued a public admonition to the book printers in the 28th year. And because my special dear gentleman and good friend Simon Hüter, bookseller at Frankfurt, wanted to publish and print this Tomum of the Table Talks again, after the copy at Eisleben.
I have sent him my well-meaning warning against printing this book. Done on the first day of July, Anno 1568, Johannes Aurifaber, pastor of Predigern in Erfurt.
With regard to Aurifaber's above-mentioned complaint about changes to the Tischreden, Walch, Preface p. 8, remarks: "What Aurifaber actually meant by this for editions: if, where and under what title they were printed, I cannot say. Among those editions that I have at hand and that were printed before Aurifaber made the noted complaint, I find none that would have been changed to the extent he reported. It would have been good if he had given special notice of such altered editions." Bindseil remarks on this in the preface to the German edition Vol. IV, p. XXVII: "I also have the same opinion, after I compared both Frankfurt editions of 1567 with the one of 1566 in general; for with the exception of the slight alteration of the title and a part of the spelling, I have not perceived any significant deviation,"
In 1569, a new edition was published in folio in Frankfurt am Main, with the same preface that preceded the first edition of 1566. This year, however, is changed in this edition to the year 1569, as such a change in the year was also made in other later editions, according to the years in which they appeared. In this edition there is a special appendix with the inscription: "Colloguia or Table Talks of D. M. L., so the dear man of God has led against learned theologians and pastors shortly before his end and blessed departure from this world, satmt many comfort writings, missives, and histories, answers to manifold questions" etc. It is accompanied by a letter to the council of the city of Rauschenburg, dated March 24, 1568, from Johann Finck, who reports in it that he has drawn these speeches of Luther from several written books and from the writings of the same. This appendix is followed by: "Prophecies of D. M. Luther, for the Remembrance and Incentive to Christian Penance, Neatly and Diligently Compiled".
carried by M. Georg Walther, preacher at Halle in Saxony". Walch notes in his preface p. 9, note g.: "Such an appendix of table speeches, which the aforementioned Johann Finck added, has been omitted from both other and subsequent editions, and rather that which is found at the end of the 1566 and 1567 editions has been retained; in the 1568 edition, however, it has been inserted, except for a few pieces, into the work itself at the appropriate place. The Propheceyungen Lutheri are found in the newest editions of the Tischreden Lutheri of 1700 and 1723, of which I will speak hereafter, but they are not found in the older editions.
In addition to these, two other editions of Luther's Tischreden are listed, which were published in Eisleben by Urban Gaubisch in 1569 and 1577 in folio, shown in des Fabricii centifolio Lutheran. p. 801. The first edition of 1569 mentioned above, published in Frankfurt, is probably a reprint, because in the same year the publisher of the first edition, Urban Gaubisch in Eisleben, also published the edition just mentioned, and no printer is named in the Frankfurt edition.
All these editions are only different imprints of Aurifaber's first edition of 1566.
d. Stangwald's edition.
According to the time, the closest to these Aurifaber editions is the one by Andreas Stangwald, Candidate of Theology from Prussia. Until now, the difference between this edition and Aurifaber's has been presented as greater than it really is. We have compared Stangwald's edition of 1700, in which, according to Walch's testimony1) "nothing has been left out, nothing has been added to it", with the first Aurifaber edition of 1566. The result of this comparison is the following: In Stangwald's edition, everything is found that is in Aurifaber's edition, with the exception of ea. 146 pieces, which
1) Preface vol. XXII, p. 12d. -
Stangwald has rightly omitted as duplicates, and the following 17 pieces, which are either completely or partially missing from Stangwald. Only the following 7 pieces are missing in their entirety: Cap. 7, §§ 36. 165. 182; Cap. 11, § 13; Cap. 14, § 4; Cap. 37, .§ 84 and Cap. 43, § 136. Of these, Cap. 11, § 13 does not belong in the Table Talks because it is a collection of Luther's sayings, probably drawn from his writings. Of the piece Cap. 14, § 4, we think that it must still be found somewhere in Luther's writings, perhaps also Cap. 7, § 36. 10 pieces are partially missing: Cap. 4, §46, Cord. No. 1274; the conclusion of Cap. 4, §65, Cord. No. 434; the first paragraph of Cap. 7, §47; the second half of Cap. 9, § 53; Cap. 13, § 12, paras. 1. 2. 6. 7; Cap. 13, § 66, para. 2; Cap. 14, § 14, the last paragraph; Cap. 22, § 132, the last paragraph; Cap. 74, § 23, para. 1; Cap. 75- the fifth paragraph from the end. 1)
Other pieces than these mentioned by name are not missing in Stangwald's edition. In the Förstemann-Bindseil and Erlangen editions, for many other pieces only the proof is not provided where they can be found in Stangwald.
The first edition of Stängwald's Redaction appeared in folio in Frankfurt in 1571 under the title: "Colloquia, Oder Tischreden Doctor Mart. Luthers, So er in vielen Jaren gegen Gelärten Leute, auch frembden Gesten, vnd seinen Tischgesellen geführtet, Nach den Hauptstücken unserer Christlichen Lehre zusammengetragen. And now, in a new way, brought into a correct order, and according to the written table speeches of Doct. Mari. Luch. Corrected. Johan. on the 6th Samlei the remaining chunks so that nothing is lost. (Below is a woodcut depicting Luther sitting with 6 table companions, and 4 boys standing in front of the table, saying grace). Printed at Frankfurt am Mayn, by Thomas Rebart's Blessed Heirs, Anno M. D. LXXI." Fol. 2-9" is Aurifaber's preface from 1566 with the signature: "Anno 1569." Fol. 10 is the register of the same 43
1) Stangwald probably omitted this last small piece of 2j lines because of the year 1553, for which reason he considered it not to be by Luther. We consider this to be a printing error instead of 1530.
The first chapter is in the same order as in the later edition of 1591 and in the Selnecker editions. Fol. 11 is a "Kurzes Register der fuernembsten Materien, nach Ordnung deß Alphabets" etc. The same is also in the Selnecker editions. Fol. 12 is an "Index biblicus". The latter, as well as the preceding index, also correspond exactly with Selnecker's. The work itself comprises 44 folios. The work itself comprises 442 folio leaves. The appendix of 27 unfoliated leaves has the following title: "Appendix. Or appendix of the free matters, which were occasionally included among the table speeches, and yet do not really belong to the table speeches. In part also Doct. Mari. Luther's are not at all. According to the order of the chapters of the Table Talks. Printed at Frankfurt am Mayn, by Thomas Rebart's blessed heirs, Anno M. D. I^XXI." In this edition, the name of the publisher is not mentioned anywhere. 2) Only in the preface of the 1591 edition, twenty years after the first edition, does Stangwald sign himself at the end: "Andreas Stangwaldus, Borussus, S. Theologiae Candidatus."
This preface from 1591 is a letter: "to the mayors and councilmen of the Imperial Imperial City of Mulhouse in Thuringia. The part of the preface which, in our opinion, is of historical interest only, we share here:
"Because the first printing of Luther's Table Talks, which was published in Eisleben in 66, was not only deficient in its order in many ways, but also contained much extraneous material, which either did not correspond to Luther at all, or did not correspond to the title of this work, and was in part also incorrect and unfounded, the entire work was also falsified and distorted in many places due to the carelessness of the printers and others in the reprinting: Therefore, out of love for the precious treasure of Luther's writings, and at the well-meant request and desire of kind-hearted people, for the general benefit of all, I have even put the entire work into a new, correct order in the year 71.
L) This first edition does not have its own, but only Aurifaber's first preface.
The same copy was printed in Frankfurt am Main by Thomas Rebärt's blessed heirs, and was subsequently printed several times in Leipzig.
"But because the copies had all been distributed, so that none could be obtained, I have, at the suggestion of good friends and with the foreknowledge and permission of the venerable Consistorii at Weimar, taken the copy again under hand, with the written table speeches, which I had together in good number, diligently and faithfully conferiret, and after the same corrigiret and in such Correctur diligently before eyes had the Notationes of the venerable, hochgelahrten Herr Doctoris Joachimi Moerlini blessed, which he in his copy of the 1st print of the TischReden with his own. (as he belonged to Luther for several years, and as he was then deacon of the churches at Wittenberg, had been much around Luther), and of other Christian theologians, have also added to the work other such memorable speeches and colloquies of Luther, which Mathesius and other faithful disciples of Luther mentioned in their writings, and have also occasionally, for further instruction and explanation, taken from other proven writings of Luther. Luther's writings,' something little added, finally also prepared with industrious registers in such a way that my hope is that it can now be used by men only for benefit and fruit. In its time (God willing), in the other part, the Colloquia Lutheri, and other gentlemen who lived with and beside Luther, which are still in the background, are also to be given to the Christian reader in proper order, along with all kinds of Apophthegmata and memorable speeches of the Christian emperors, kings, princes and chieftains who lived in these last times, and finally also Apophthegmata Sanctorum Dei in veteri Ecclesia. 2) Since then also in a
ll This is what our 1700 edition says, while the 1591 edition is supposed to have: "reprinted". Cf. Förstemann-Binds. Ausg. Vorr. P. XXIX.
2) Such a second part of the Tischreden has never appeared.
special appendices all sorts of Microgtapha Lutheri, that is, short memorial writings, which D. Luther, either to himself or to others, as a memory in the books, on notes, on the walls etc. listed.. Item, his Latin poemata. Item, his proverbs, his Onomastioon or Namen-Büchlein, his Fabulae Aesopi, and other joke writings, and what such, so actually does not belong in the Tomos of Luther's witty writings, should be communicated to the Christian reader, so that with knowledge also not the slightest of D. Luther's work, so as to serve edification, is left behind."
"Concerning the Historia of the Life and the Blessed Departure of Doctor Martin Luther, as a short excerpt of which was included in the Leipzig printing of the Tisch-Reden before this time, I have omitted it from this printing for considerable reasons; since in the Narrationibus de Vita Lutheri that have been published up to this time, I have found various inaccuracies and displeasures. But (God willing) a detailed Historia, not only of the life and departure, but also of the books and writings of D. Luther, and especially of the German Biblia, and the Church Postillen, so also Tomorum Lutheri, printed at Wittenberg, Jena, and Eisleben, shall be given to the Christian reader.
In the 1700 edition, Stangwald's appendix comprises pages 821-868, i.e. 48 folio pages. Everything in this appendix is also found in all of Aurifaber's editions, but scattered throughout the work, except for a small section on p. 822, which is another version of Appendix § 4, and a small section on p. 844, which offers in Latin what Cap. 37, § 127 in German translation. This appendix is also found in Selnecker's editions.
The whole difference between Stangwald's and Aurifaber's editions comes down to the following: 1. the order of Stangwald's edition is completely different from that of Aurifaber's edition. In order to make this clear to the reader, we will show, with reference to a part of a chapter, how far the order given in that chapter is different from that of the Aurifaber edition.
The sections contained therein are scattered in Aurisaber's edition. 1) We choose Cap. 19: Of the Cross, Challenge, Persecution etc. and compare Stangwald's
Edition of 1700 with the Erlangen edition, which, like Förstemann-Bindseil, brings a reprint of Aurifaber's first edition of 1566:
Stangwald
Erlangen edition
Page 327*. Duplicate p. 99.
Vol. 61. p. 129. Duplicate Vol. 58. p. 81.
" 58, S. 411; 60, 99 ; 60, 109 ; 60, 111; 59, 139; 57, 211.
" 61, 130 f. 145.
" 330. duplicate p. 201 *, end of para.
" 330*. Duplicate p. 81.
"59, 143. Dupl. 58, 113; 59, 139 ; 61, 139.
"331. Other redaction m of the same column. " 60, 95 ; 62, 37.
" 331*. Duplicate p. 137*.
"60, 112. duplicate 57, 153.
" 331*. Dupl. in the same column.
" 60, 112. duplicate 57, 154 ; 60, 102 ; 60, 114.
"332. duplicate p. 100.
"333. duplicate p. 59*.
" 57, p. 167. duplicate 57, 131.
" 60, 122. 86. 96 ; 60, 106. Dupl. S. 99; 60, 174.
"335. duplicate p. 152*.
"60, 107. Dupl. S. 61; 60, 123 ; 57, 328.
" 61, 119 ; 60, 98. 118. 102, 164 ; 59, 124.
"337. in other redaction p. 138*.
" 60, 121. 104; 59, 143; 60, 113.
As a proof for the complete change of the arrangement in Stangwald's edition, this will probably be sufficient. On these 10 pages of Stangwald, we encounter 8 duplicates, of which he has 6 in common with Aurifaber. The content of these 10 pages is widely scattered through 5 volumes in the Erlangen edition, and it is quite the same with any other section, from beginning to end.
2. stangwald has about 146 duplicates less than the aurifaber edition. He has the great mass of duplicates in common with Aurifaber. The following 6 duplicates are peculiar to him: p. 225* and 768; p. 228. 249 and 838*; p. 405 * and second appendix p. 6 in another translation; p. 100 and 332; p. 201* and 330; p. 388 and 826.
Stangwald first attempted to separate the extraneous items that do not actually belong to the Tischreden, and relegated them to an appendix of 48 pages. These include pieces borrowed or translated from other writings of Luther, sermons, prefaces, letters, concerns, inscriptions in books, verses, disputations, and other things that are not by Luther, and he has always provided proof of their origin, where he himself was aware of it.
1) It is therefore very difficult to find the pieces of Stangwald's edition in Aurisaber's, and vies vsrka.
In Stangwald's work, however, about 100 passages taken from elsewhere are interspersed here and there in the text, and for 81 of them the source from which they flowed is given. Most of them are from Luther's own writings, from the sermons of Joh. Mathesius, Justus Jonas, Georg Buchholzer etc. We leave here the complete list of the pieces that are found in Stangwald's edition, but not in Aurisaber's edition:
From Mathesius' Sermons on Luther's Life 37 sections, in Stangwald: p. 62*. 114*. 144. 316*. 332. 2) 349. 383*. 411. 413. 413*. 418*. 430*. 436*. 469. 523. 591*. 600*. 608. 648. 663. 693. 693*. 712*. 729*. 766. 797*. 798. 813. 818*. 798* is excerpted in Aurrfaber's edition Cap. 48, § 28 and Cap. 47, § 15. from the latter's sermon in Lurepta 7 sections, pp. 110*. 225. 371*. 528*. 534*. 545*. 602*. From the sermon de profundis A section p. 318*.
From the sermons of Justus Jonas, 5 sections, namely from the sermon at Luther's funeral: p 96*. 370. 372*. 605*. From his sermon on Act. 1. S. 812.
From the Schmalkaldic Articles 2 sections: pp. 540. 608.
From other writings of Luther 19 sections: p. 2* (From the Preface to the Aus-.
2) Duplicate of page 100.
Exposition on the Psalms. Walch, old edition, vol. IV, 267 d; p. 71 (From the church postilion. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XI, 280 ff, §§ 118-121); p. 87 (From the exhortation to prayer against the Turk. Walch, old edition, vol. XX, 2770, §49); p. 102 (The three Symbola. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol.X, 1004 f., §§ 11. 12); p. 110 (Preface to Ambros. Moibani interpretation on Ps. 29. Walch, old edition, vol. XIV, 180 ^false pag. 176], §2); p. 154 (Church postilion. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XI, 1207 ff, §§ 31 to 34); p. 164 (Interpretation of the 14th chapter of Johannis. Walch, old edition, vol. VIII, 112, §§ 185-187); p. 190* (Interpretation of 1 Cap. Isaiah); p. 293 (Brief Confession of Luther of the Holy Sacrament. Walch, old edition, vol. XX, 2214 f., §§ 47. 48); p. 322*. (Wider den Meuchler zu Dresden. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2085, § 51); p. 382* (Interpretation of the 101st Ps. Walch, old edition, vol. V, 1244, §§ 124. 125); p. 555 (Responsibility of the imposed sedition of Hz. Georg. Jen. Ausg. VI, 6d., 2. Ausg. VI, 9d. Walch, old ed. vol. XIX, 2290, § 21); p. 574 (The small answer to Herz. Georgs nähestes Buch. Walch, old edition, vol. XIX, 2305, §§ 22. 23. 24); p. 578 (Preface to the writing: Der Barfüßer Mönche Eulenspiege) and Alcoran. Walch, old edition, vol. XIX, 2443, § 3); p. 582 (Die kleine Antwort auf Herz. Georgs nähestes Buch. Walch, old edition, vol. XIX, 2333, § 67); p. 622* (Wider den Meuchler zu Dresden. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2068, §§ 14-25.); p. 678* (Interpretation on the 15th Cap. St. Johannis. Walch, old edition, vol. VIII, 392, § 133); p. 716 (Preface to the Confession of D. Rob. Barns. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 189*, § 6); p. 816 (Ueber das 15. Cap. des 1. Corintherbriefs. Walch, old edition, vol. VHI, 1287, § 203).
From the Hortulo animae printed at
Wittenberg 1546 by Georg Rhaw, 2 sections p. 62. 110.
From Dom. IV declamationum Witteber- gensium p. 224.
From another manuscript printed at Wittenberg. S, 696.
From a letter from Dietrich to Melanchthon. S. 315*.
From Melanchthon's funeral oration at Luther's funeral. S. 316.
From Winsheim's funeral oration at Melanchthon's funeral. S. 319.
From the preface of Erasmus Alber to the Franciscan Eulenspiegel. S. 578.
From St. Svevu's Book of Spiritual Pilgrimage. S. 263*.
From Antonius Otto's preface to Luther's Prayer Book 65. p. 415.
Frogs! äs Osiauäro. S. 428*.
C. Cruciger, Enarrat. Ps. Anno 46.
S. 617.
in a preface. S. 632.
G. Buchholzer, Predigt über das Ey. von der Himmelfahrt Mariä. p. 668; on the Ev. of Martha and Mary Luc. 10. p. 748 *.
G. Sabinus in lid. 13. metamorph. Ovidii. S. 693*.
S.788-
A note by D. Joachim Mörlin's comment on Cap. 7, § 139. p. 30.
No indication of where the sections are taken from: S. 23. 38. 47. 52. 66. 132. 137 *. 152. 221. 239*. 256*. 327. 332. 349. 377. 410. 425. 623*. 743*. 759. 807. These unaccounted pieces are mostly small ünd insignificant.
4 Instead of Aurifaber's 80 chapters, Stangwald, and also Selnecker, have 43 chapters and in these exactly the same material, only the just listed 100 new sections from other writings are missing in Aurifaber.
On the whole, Stangwald and also Selnecker have adopted Aurifaber's translation. He has almost everywhere the same wrong readings as Aurifaber. Therefore, not much can be drawn from his edition with respect to essential textual correction. However, it must be acknowledged with gratitude that Stangwald has made many real improvements to the text, but they seem to us to have been introduced more by good sound judgment than from manuscript sources. We have also made use of some of them.
Stangwald has often softened the coarseness of Aurifaber's edition.
The manuscript sources that Stangwald had at his disposal do not seem to us to have been of particular concern, although he mentions them already on the title of the first edition in 1571 and refers to them again in his preface of 1591. His "written table speeches" must, as we have to conclude from the text, which differs little from Aurifaber's, have been just as corrupt as those that Aurifaber, Rebenstock and the collector of the Hall manuscript had at their disposal. The many good improvements in detail may well come mainly from the "Notationes des Ehrwürdigen, Hochgelahrten Herrn Doctoris Joa- chimi Morlini, seligen, welche er in seinem Exemplar des ersten Drucks der Tischreden mit eigener Hand verzeichnet". Apart from Mörlin's one note on page 30 of our Stangwald edition, we find nothing else indicated as originating from him.
All in all, we consider the Stangwald edition or, what is the same, the Selnecker edition, to be the best of all editions published so far. That we have nevertheless not based our treatment on this, but on the Aurifaber edition, is due to the fact that Walch, and after him the Stuttgart-Leipzig edition, also Förstemann-Bindseil and the Erlangen edition, which have the widest distribution, and after which the most citations are made, have followed the Aurifaber arrangement. 1)
In 1591 a new edition appeared. As we can see from the preface, Stangwald was responsible for this edition, which was published under the title: "Colloquia, Oder, Christliche, nützliche Tischreden Doctoris Martini Lutheri, von den Heuptartickeln Christlicher Lehre, vnd andere Christlichen vnd nützlichen Sachen, welche er in Collationen, am Tisch vnd sonst gegen Gelegen Leute, gegen seine getrewen Mitgehülffen, auch gegen seine Tischgenoffen, frembden Gesten, vnd andere bekümmerten vnd angefochtenen Personen geführtet. First, by M. Joannem Aurifabrum, Vinariensem, Anno
1) Since only the Aurifaber edition by Walch is provided with paragraph numbers, it alone can be cited exactly.
1566. put into print etc. Now (as can be seen from the following preface) brought into proper order, according to the written table speeches, and according to the notationibus of several godly theologians, faithfully corrected, with
The following is a summary of the many memorable table speeches and sayings of Luther, so that all Christians can use them usefully and blessedly, and find in them all kinds of teaching, instruction, comfort, prophecy, revelation, and warning. Joan 6: Samlet the remaining fragments, so that nothing gets lost. Printed at Jhena, by Tobiam Steinmann, in the year M. D. Xcj." Folio. This is followed by Aurifaber's preface to the first edition of 1566, which we have partially translated into German in our discussion of Cordatus' diary, 2) and which here bears the title: "Protestatio R. Patris D. Martini Lutheri etc.". Martini Lutheri etc." Below this is a passage from a Latin letter of Luther, entitled: "Lutherus in Epistola quadam", in which he complains bitterly about the printing of two private letters. Then follow 2 pages in German: "Judicia und Testimonia etlicher Gottseliger Theologen von den Colloquiis und Tischreden D. Lutheri. 3) D. Vrbanus Rhegius, in a missive to a good friend, Anno 1530." After that, a 2 page long Latin poem: De viro Sancto Martino Luthero, etc.. Joannis Stigelii. On the following 4 pages the German translation of this poem by M. Johannem Stigelium. The following page is taken up by another Latin poem: "Cantio vera et pia, de Martino Luthero** etc.". ,,Urbano Rhegio autore" etc. On the two following pages is the "Synopsis et methodus totius operis colloquiorum Lutheri. Order of the Chapters of the Table Talks." 4) Then follow the Tischreden on 556-1/2 leaves. From 556 d on the already be-
2) It is complete in Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XI, p. 1859.
3) These judgments are about Luther's speeches, not about the "work of the table speeches". *
4) Everything mentioned so far is also found before the edition of 1700, except for the poem by Urbanus Rbssius and the register, which we mention here in order not to have to count it again in that edition.
The appendix. At the end the words: "Printed at Jehna, by Tobiam Steinmann. In the year. M. D. X. C j." The improvement of this edition will probably consist mainly in the use of the already mentioned annotations of D. Joachim Mörlin; the increase will have been made by the pieces of Mathesius, from Luther's writings etc.
This edition of 1591 was printed several times later. Once at Jena in 1603 in folio, printed by Tobias Steinmann; another time at Leipzig in 1621, quite similar to the earlier edition, in the publishing house of Bartholomäus Voigt. In the latter edition, however, it says on the last leaf: "printed in Jena by Tobias Steinmann in 1603". Either a new title was printed for the old copies that were still available or, which seems more plausible, as Walch also assumes, this was inserted again by mistake by the printers when printing the earlier edition. 1)
All of Stangwald's editions mentioned so far, like Selnecker's editions, have the 43 chapters of the work under 9 main headings: Scriptura, Verbum Dei. Deus. Creatura. Homo et Hominis cum Deo êïéíùíßá. Ecclesia. Oeconomia. Schola. Politia. Consummatio seu novissima mundi dies. In the following editions, however, these main headings are omitted and the 43 title headings are no longer listed in a special index, but are only distributed throughout the sections of the work.
Another edition is the one from 1700 in folio, published by Andreas Zeidler in Leipzig, which we have used in our work. In front is an engraving by Daucher, on which Luther is depicted with Melanchthon, Cruciger, Jonas, Paul Eber, Veit Dietrich, Joh. Bugenhagen and Joh. Förster sitting at the table. On the next sheet, the main title is: "Colloquia or Table Talks and Other Christian Very Edifying Talks by the Highly Enlightened Man of God D. Martin Luther, Which He Gave at Collations, and Else
1) The Erlangen edition has vol. 87, p. XV, the news: ^Another edition of 1669, frkf. in fol. shows.
He has led his faithful companions, table companions, and other afflicted and challenged people. Previously, from godly and learned men, notes and collectaneis, in order of the most noble articles of faith faithfully compiled, before now, however, after diligent translation and counterpart of some of the best editions in this previously required and convenient form, which at the same time attached strange and remarkable prophecies Mr. D. M. Lutheri! from his other writings now and then previously extracted. With the Royal Majesty in Poland and the Electorate of Saxony. Durchl. zu Sachsen allergnädigsten Special Privilegio. Leipzig, Printed and published by Andreas Zeidlern, Anno MDCC."
The prefaces of this edition have already been reported in the edition of 1591. Then follow the table speeches together with an appendix of 868 two-column pages. This is followed by the prophecies of Mag. Georg Walther, preacher at Halle in Saxony, taken from the Frankfurt edition of 1569, which fill 23 pages. Finally, an alphabetical index of 11 leaves follows. With the exception of Stangwald's preface, the entire edition is printed in split columns. The page number is often wrong, namely from the 795th page by 100 too large! which Förstemann-Bindseil and the Erlangen edition have overlooked. Otherwise, the printing is very correct.
This edition is followed by the folio edition, which was published and edited in 1723 in Dresden and Leipzig by Johann Christoph Zimmermann and Johann Nicolaus Gerlach. Walch remarks in his preface about it: "the reason why I bring these two newest editions here is this, because in the reprinting of the same, one followed Stangwald's edition in everything: no change was made, nothing was omitted, nothing was added, except, as intended, the prophecies.
o. The Selnecker edition.
Three editions of the Table Talks bear the name of Nicolaus Selnecker, born Dec. 6, 1530, at Hersbruck in Franconia. He studied in Wittenberg. In 1557
He was court preacher in Dresden, professor of theology in Jena in 1565, professor of theology in Leipzig in 1568, court preacher and general superintendent in Wolfenbüttel in 1570. In 1574 he went back to Leipzig and again took over the theological professorship he had held before; in 1576 he also assumed the office of superintendent there. When in 1589, at the instigation of those secretly associated with Calvin, he was deprived of these offices, he initially went to Halle and later to Magdeburg, but the following year, in 1590, he came to Hildesheim as superintendent, and from there again to Leipzig in 1592, where he died soon after his arrival. 1)
This famous theologian published soon after Aurifaber's death (1576), in 1577 at Leipzig an edition of the Table Talks, in folio, which is only a reprint of the so-called first Stangwald's 2) edition published in 1571 at Frankfurt. Selnecker notes in his preface, Leipzig in February 1577, only this, that "now des Tewren Mans, Doctoris Mart. Lutheri Gottseligen, our German prophet's Tischreden, allhie zu Leipzig, nicht auf grosse vrsachen, fleißiger und förmlicher, denn anderswo zuvor geschehen, gedruckt worden, wie dieselbigen Er Johannes Aurifaber seliger, trewlich colligirt, vnd vns mitgetheilet hat". This preface is signed Nicolaus Selneccerus D., pastor of Leipzig. It is dedicated "to the Most Illustrious, Highborn Prince and Lord, Mr. Ludwigen Pfaltzgraffen bey Reyn, of the H. Roman Empire Ertz Truchses vnd Churfürsten, Hertzogen in Bayern etc." Then follows Aurifaber's first preface of 1566, but in this edition, as in the Frankfurt edition of 1571, erroneously dated 1569. This is followed by: "Historica oratio Nicolai Sel-.
1) About Selnecker's life and writings cf. Georg Heinrich Götz: Oisssrtutiones äs Moolno 8s1n6666ro; Joh. Andr. Gleich unnÄl68 666l68ia8t. I, p. 89; Zedlers Universal-Lexicon vol. 36, p. 1715 ff. The latter deviates from Walch, Vorrede, p. 12, Note in that he places his birth in the year 1532, the professorship in Jena in the year 1561, the first return to Leipzig in the year 1577.
2) One remembers that this edition of 1571 does not mention the name of the editor, and that it is attached to Stangwald solely on what the latter says in his preface of 1591.
necceri vom Leben und Wandel des ehrwürdigen Herrn und theuren Mannes GOttes v. M. Luthers", which Stangwald mentions in his preface in 1591 in a disapproving manner. Selnecker had already had this description of his life specially printed in octavo in Leipzig in 1576. In his first edition of the Tischreden, it fills 26½ unfoliated leaves. Then follows a "register of the chapters as they follow one another". These are the same 43 chapters as in the Frankfurt edition of 1571, with the same 9 main Latin headings. This is followed by 3 pages of "Kurzes Register der fuernembsten Materien nach Ordnung des Alphabets", which is followed on 2 pages by a "Judex biblicus". Then follows the work itself on 505 foliated leaves. On sheet 505 b begins the "Appendix. Or Appendix of several matters, so D. M. Luther erkleret" etc., which occupies 23½ not numbered leaves. This is followed by 5 leaves "Register der deutschen auslegung D. Lutheri, vber die Bücher der Bibel, Gerichtet auff die Wittenbergischen, Jenischen und Eißlebischen Tomos" with a prefatory note "Dem Christlichen Leser Nicolaus Selnecceruss". "Datum Leipzig 1577." On the last leaf, "Gedruckt zu Leipzig, durch Jacob Berwalds Erben, Anno M.D.LXXVII." The title of this edition is as follows: "Colloquia. Or Christliche Nützliche Tischreden Doctoris Martini Lutheri, so er in vielen Jaren, gegen Gelehrten Leute, und frembden Gesten und seinen Tischgenossen, nach den Hauptstücken unserer Christlichen Lehre, gehalten,: First by Mr. M. Johannem Aurisabrum blessed, diligently compiled, and put into print. Now they have been brought into a new order, and prepared in such a way that they are very necessary, useful, and comforting for all Christians to read, especially in these miserable last times. Together with a new preface, and a short description of the life and life of Doctor Luther, and a very useful register at the end of this book, all the books and chapters of the Divine, Holy Scripture, where, and when the same Doctor Lutherus has interpreted, and explained, and in which Tomis such interpretation can be found.
3) The title of the 1581 edition is quite similar to this one.
Quae semel edocuit divina mente Lutherus, Hacc retinet verae grex pietatis amans. Nicolaus Selneccerus. D.
John 6: "Samlet the necessary fragments, so that nothing perishes. Leipzig M. D. LXXVII. 1. 2. 3. 6." 1)
New editions appeared in 1580 and 1581. The edition of 1577 was in the hands of the editor of the Erlangen edition, the one of 1580 was used by Walch, the one of 1581 by Förstemann and Bindseil. This last edition was unknown to Walch. According to the description of the 1581 edition by FörstemannBindseil, it is quite similar to the first one of 1577.
About the Selnecker edition Walch says, Preface p. 13: "In this edition itself, the same order has been retained that Stangwald used in his edition, and the latter has been reprinted almost in its entirety, except that here and there one or the other difference is apparent; However, since Stangwald's edition came to light before Selnecker's, and since in the latter a different arrangement was first made than one finds in Aurifaber's, then, if one wants to show the difference between such editions, If one wants to show the difference between such editions, one should not contrast both Selnecker's, as is generally done, and Stangwald's with Aurifaber's, whether the latter, or Selnecker's, can to a certain extent also be considered a special one, and where one does this, three different editions can be noted."
The editor of the Erlangen edition has had the oldest editions of Stangwald's and Selnecker's editions in his hands, and makes the following judgment about the mutual relationship of these two editions to each other.The editor of Erlangen has had his hands on the oldest editions of the Stangwald and Selnecker editions and makes the following judgment about the mutual relationship of these two editions to each other: 2) "About the relationship of the Selnecker edition to the Stangwald edition, which have a great similarity with each other, one was so far in uncertainty and even Bindseil was not able to solve the question of whether Selnecker followed Stangwald or Stangwald followed Selnecker in the arrangement of the material, because the first Stangwald edition of 1571 and the first Selnecker edition of 1577 were lost to him. We were so
1) What these numbers mean is unknown to us. They are also found in the 1581 edition.
2) Erl. Ed. vol. 57, p. XVIII f.
fortunate to obtain both editions, and have found that the Jnhalts-Verzeichniss of Selnecker's first edition of 1577 agrees so literally and literally with that of Stangwald's of 1571 that only the following two variants had to be applied. Namely, in the heading of chapter 28, the word "Co- nuenten" is printed in Latin letters in Stangwald's edition, and in German letters ("Conuenten") in Selnecker's edition, and in the heading of chapter 33, the word "D." is printed in Stangwald's edition, but in Selnecker's edition it is "Doct. printed. This is the whole difference in the table of contents. The "Kurze Register der fürnehmsten Materien", which follows, consists in both editions of 187 identical headings, and in the "Index bibli- cus" Stangwald has only 4 more biblical passages than Selnecker, everything else is the same. The sequence of the material and individual sections has been the same in both editions everywhere we have looked up and compared them, except that Selnecker has often omitted headings of the paragraphs in Stangwald's work, thus combining several smaller sections into one larger one and sometimes skipping a section that he may have placed elsewhere. Selnecker has also taken the marginal glosses verbatim from Stangwald and even in the appendix no other deviation of both editions from each other is noticeable, except that Selnecker has omitted several Latin verses and citations, which are found in Stangwald, and added at the end the aforementioned register of 4½ sheets. Yes, even Stangwald's explanatory notes in small print, in which he speaks of himself in the first person, are included verbatim in Selnecker's edition, as for example in "Melanchthon's Disputation with Luther on Justification" and in the "Book of the Birth of the Desolate Abomination of the Antichrist". We can therefore consider Selnecker's edition to be nothing more than a reprint of Stangwald's Redaction, as Stangwald himself correctly called it in the preface to his new edition of 1591, and we must agree with Walch when he asserts that one should not oppose Aurifaber's Redaction with Selnecker's, but only with Stangwald's.
Both editions, Stangwald's and Selnecker's, have not been distinguished from each other even by learned, famous theologians; thus Walch mentions in his preface p. 14, 2nd column: "When the famous Mr. Johann Albr. Fabricius 1)
various editions of the Tischreden, so he also remembers two that came out in Leipzig, namely 1581 and 1621 jn Fol. and immediately adds: in ordinem redacta per D. Nicolaum Selneccerum, qui majorem etiam delectum adhibuit, adjecta vita Lutheri et appendice argumentorum quorumdam Christiane et utiliter ab eo explicatorum et admonitione de dictis quibusdam, quae Lutheri esse, non videnturr, which message can be improved and expanded in one and the other. For the edition that came to light in Leipzig in 1621 is not Selnecker's, but a new edition of the one that Stangwald was in charge of. In this edition, there is no information about Luther's life, and as far as the appendix is concerned, it is not only attached to the Selnecker edition, but also to other editions. On the same page, Walch states that the famous Leipzig theologian Adam Rechenberg, in his schediasmate historico de beati Lutheri colloquiis, declares the editions of 1581 and 1621 to be the best, mentions Selnecker's name in the former, but not Stangwald's name in the latter, nor that it had been printed several times before. Likewise, Johann Gottlieb Möller makes the same judgment about the 1581 edition, with Selnecker's name, but does not mention Stangwald's editions in his dissertation: de auctoritate scripti sub titulo: Lutheri colloquiorum mensalium in Germanico, Anglico et latino idiomate editi. Rostock. 1693. p. 6.
Before the year 1591, Stangwald's name did not come to light, and only in the preface to the edition of that year, twenty years after the first edition of 1571, one year before Selnecker's death, does he for the first time refer to the edition of 1571 as his own. In contrast, in the three intervening. Sel-
The name of the editor is mentioned in each of Aurifaber's editions, 1577, 1580 and 1581. However, this was done only one year after Aurifaber's death, with Selnecker's remark that he published Aurifaber's collection, which he "has communicated to us".
We cannot help but notice that it is very striking to us that Selnecker, one of the most famous Lutheran theologians, should have reprinted the work of Stangwald, a candidate of theology. Conversely, it would be much easier for us to understand. In our opinion, we are dealing here not with two, but only with one redaction of the Tischreden. One edition is as similar to the other as one egg to the other. Everything we have written about Stangwald's edition applies equally to Selnecker's edition.
Stangwald says in his preface of 1591: "But because the copies had all been sold, so that none could be obtained, I took the copy again at the suggestion of good friends and with the knowledge and approval of the Honorable Consistorii of Weymar" etc. The first edition, differing in order from Aurifaber, appeared in 1571, without a name. The following three editions 1577, 1580, 1581 are, according to all testimonies, only a reprint of the edition of 1571, under Selnecker's name, and the edition of 1591 quite similar to the previous ones, except for Selnecker's preface, Selnecker's life of Luther and the pieces behind the appendix. From this we conclude that Stangwald's and Selnecker's editions are not two different editions, but only different imprints of the One Edition of 1571. The matter may perhaps lie like this: During Aurifaber's lifetime, Selnecker did not want to give his name to the altered Aurisaber edition, but put Stangwald in front. As soon as Aurifaber is dead, he appears in the following year, 1577, with his name. Fourteen years later, at Selnecker's advanced age, when he probably no longer wanted to deal with the publication of the Tischreden, Stangwald reappeared and gave his name in 1591,
A year before Selnecker's death, for the first time and also claims the edition of 1571 as his own. Whether the matter is one way or the other, factually it is certain that we are dealing with only one, not two different editions. Our assumption is also confirmed by the fact that Stangwald says: "Because all copies have been distributed, so that none more have been available", and he himself has not made the attempt to a new edition in the 20 years from 1571 to 1591. Three editions of Selnecker's edition were completely sold out during this time. Stangwald's first edition of 1571 will hardly have lasted that long. The version of the words in our edition of 1700: "und nachmals zu Leipzig etliche Mal gedruckt worden", seems to us to be much more appropriate to the circumstances than the one we find in the edition of 1591: "etliche mal nach gedruckt worden". These last words probably only mean "reprinted" because the supply was exhausted. Thus, the old famous theologians may be completely right in that they not only do not distinguish between Stangwald's and Selnecker's editions, but even, like Rechenberg and Fabricius, refer to the reprints of the 1591 edition, e.g., the print of 1621, as Selnecker's editions.
For the sake of an easier overview, we give here a compilation of all known editions of the German Tischreden published before Walch.
Aurifaber issues:
1566. Eisleben. Urban Gaub isch.
1567 ^ct*av Frankfurt. No indication of the printer. 1568. Frankfurt. Simon Hüter.
1569. Frankfurt. No indication of the printer. Appendix Finck's. Prophecies of Walther.
1569. Eisleben. Urban Gaubisch.
1577. Eisleben. Urban Gaubisch. After Aurifaber's death.
Stangwald-Selnecker editions with modified order and appendix:
Without name: 1571. Frankfurt. Thos. Rebart's heirs. Selnecker: 1577. Leipzig. Jacob Berwaldt's heirs.
Stangwald: 1591. Jena. Tobias Steinmann. "
Stangwald: 1603. Jena. Tobias Steinmann.
Zimmermann and Joh. Nie. Gerlach.
All these editions, with the exception of the one from 1567, have folio format. After them, until our days, only four editions have appeared, all of them reprints of Aurifaber's edition, namely: 1. the edition by Walch, reprinted from the edition of 1568; 2. the Stuttgart-Leipzig edition, reprinted from Walch; 3. the Förstemann-Bindseil edition, reprinted from Aurifaber's first edition of 1566, and 4. the Erlangen edition, reprinted with minor changes by Förstemann-Bindseil.
d. Walch's edition.
For the first time in a complete edition of Luther's works, Walch's Table Talks are included. Walch gives the following information in the preface, p. 15, § 11, as to why they were not previously included in the collections: "They were not included in the collections of his complete writings, which could not have been the case, since all of them, with the exception of the Leipzig one, had been written and produced before they saw the light of day for the first time. Although the Wittenberg, Jenische and Eislebische parts were subsequently reprinted, they were not increased, and if this had been done, one might have had misgivings about including the said Tischreden. This is probably at least the reason why they were omitted from the Leipzig collection. The work is not regarded by all in the same way. Some think that it is more important to suppress it than to spread it by new imprints and to give the enemies even more opportunity for all kinds of slander against the blessed Luther's person and teachings". But what motivated him to include the Tischreden in the collection of Luther's writings, he writes the following in the last two paragraphs of his preface: "What finally prompted the present printing of Luther's Tischreden?
As far as this is concerned, I cannot help but be concerned that various people considered it questionable and thought it would be more advisable not to include such table speeches in this new collection of Luther's complete writings. For in this way, the work would not only be spread out even more, but it would also be given a reputation, as it were, as if it belonged to the true writings of Luther, since until now, there had been misgivings about assigning such a place to him. I also cannot deny that I myself was of this opinion, and if it had gone according to the same, then these table speeches would have been omitted. But since the work has already become more than too well known through the many editions and is in so many hands, since it cannot be denied to the blessed Luther, and since much good can be found in it, since enemies gain nothing against Luther and his teachings through what is offensive and questionable, as has been sufficiently demonstrated in the present preface, as well as previously by others: Indeed, since for this very reason, if it were now to be suppressed as it were, they would be likely to give rise to blasphemies, and since very many have soon expressly requested that they not be omitted from this collection, the publisher has been moved by this to undertake this new printing, and has believed that if it were omitted, the collection of Luther's writings would not be complete, in which I do not wish to oppose him. However, one does not take more part in it than that these table speeches are presented as they first came to light. They are considered no more than an appendix to Luther's writings and have therefore been placed in the last part of this collection.
"The printing itself was not done according to the Stangwaldian or Selneckerian editions, but according to the Aurifabrian editions. This has been done for the following reasons: because in this collection of Luther's writings, one promised to deliver everything correctly according to the first editions; because the three editions differ noticeably from one another, and it would not have been practical to show such a difference at all times.
The reason for this is that much of what is subsequently included in these Table Talks is already found in other writings that are in this collection and would therefore have had to be included twice. In particular, the edition of 1568 has been used for the reprint, which is consistent with the first editions of 1566 and 1567. The content of each chapter has been placed in front of it, as was done previously with the other writings. The larger Latin passages have been translated into German, while the smaller ones have remained. The many errors found in the first editions have been improved. Some have thought that it would have been good if one had made notes about the oerter, in which something questionable and offensive occurred; however, one has found reservations about this, and thought that Luther had already been saved enough because of these table speeches.
The title of this edition is: "D. Martin Luthers sowohl in Deutscher als Lateinischer Sprache verfertigte und aus der letzern in die erstere übersetzte Sämmtliche Schriften. Zwey und zwanzigster Theil, welcher die Colloquia oder Tischreden, so von Johann Aurifaber mit Fleiß zusammengetragen, und nach den Hauptstücken der Christlichen Lehre und Glaubens verfasset worden worden, enthält; Herausgegeben von Johann Georg Walch, der heiligen Schrift D. und Prof. Publ. Ordin. at the University of Jena, as well as Hochfürstl. Sächs. u. Brandenb. Onolzb. Church and Consistorial Council. Halle in Magdeburg. Printed and published by Joh. Justinus Gebauer. 1743." Quarto.
This edition has three prefaces. 1) An excellent, instructive preface by Walch of March 16, 1743, pp. 2-39, from which we have taken a great deal into our preface. Then follows the entire preface or attribution of Aurifaber's first edition of 1566, pp. 40-54, from which we have already included what is necessary. Finally, Aurifaber's preface to the edition of 1568, p. 54 f., which we have printed in its entirety above. On p. 56 is the "Verzeichniß der Hauptstücke" (index of the main parts).
1) As far as the prefaces go, not the individual columns, but the whole pages are numbered.
or the 80 chapters contained in the Table Talks. Then follow the Table Talks themselves with appendices on 2407 colums. At the end, there is a small register of the "Sayings of the Holy Scriptures, so in the Table Talks usefully explained and interpreted", on Col. 2408-2413, which we have also retained.
We must mention one printing error here, namely that in Cap. 74 the paragraphs from 12-20 are counted incorrectly. We have corrected this in such a way that we have designated the second § 12 as § 12a, because this incorrect counting has passed over into all editions after Walch's. Walch was the first to assign a number to each of the 80 main parts or chapters and to designate the subsections of each chapter with paragraph numbers. At the beginning of each chapter, the headings of the paragraphs of this chapter are then compiled, so that the order of the same and the content can be easily surveyed. Walch also first introduced the chapter and verse numbering of the biblical passages, which later editions have made full use of without mentioning Walch. Walch's spelling is modernized.
e. The Stuttgart-Leipzig edition.
As far as we know, a new edition of the Table Talks did not appear until 1836 under the title: "D. Martin Luthers sinnreiche Tischreden. Written according to the main pieces of Christian doctrine. A new, well-written edition. 2 volumes. Stuttgart and Leipzig, published by L. F. Rieger and Comp. in 1836. Volume I contains the first 23 chapters on 631 pages, Volume II the remaining 57 chapters, whose counting starts again at one, plus appendix on 760 pages. Everything is arranged in the same way as in Walch's edition. Here, too, the language has been changed according to the times without affecting the content.
f. The Förstemann - Bindseil edition.
The title of this critical edition is: "D. Martin Luthers Tischreden oder Colloquien, so er in vielen Jahren gegen gelahrten
The book is a compilation of the main points of our Christian doctrine, which is also given to foreign guests and his table companions. After Aurifaber's first edition with careful comparison of both Stangwald's and Selnecker's redaction edited by Karl Eduard Förstemann, Doctor of Theology and Philosophy" etc. "and Heinrich Ernst Bindseil, Doctor of Philosophy" etc. Abtheilung I-IV in 4 volumes. Gr. Octav. In the edition we have, the place and year of printing are affixed with a note that reads: Evangelische Buchhandlung in Berlin (Otto Kritz). We therefore take the following information from the Erlangen edition: "Abth. 1-3. Leipzig 1844-1846. Abth. 4. Berlin 1848. Gebauersche Buchhandlung." The first three volumes were edited by Förstemann, who prefaced the first volume with a 4-page preface. After his death, Bindseil continued the work in the 4th volume, which he provided with a preface of little over one page and an introduction of CXX pages. From page LIX to p. CXX is an exposition on the "plan of this new critical edition of the Tischreden". Each volume is provided with an index of the half of the chapters printed in the volume in the same manner as Walch did before each individual chapter. The first volume with indexes comprises 435 pages; vol. II 460 pages; vol. Ill 450 pages; vol. IV 750 pages. As the last leaf of each volume indicates, the first three volumes are printed by B. G. Teubner in Leipzig, the fourth volume by Ed. Heynemann in Halle. The main index of the 80 chapters of the Tischreden is found at the end of the fourth volume.
Because the Erlangen edition offers only a review of this edition, we include its review here and let its external description precede for the sake of discussion.
g. The Erlangen Edition.
This critical edition of the Tischreden forms the 57th-62nd volume of the Erlanger Ausgabe von D. M. Luthers sämmtlichen Werken. The title is: "D. Martin Luthers vermischte deutsche Schriften. After the oldest editions critically and historically edited by D. Johann Kon-.
rad Jrmischer, k. second pastor at the Neustadtkirche and second university librarian at Erlangen. II Table Talks. Vol. 1-6. Frankfurt a. M. and Erlangen. Published by Heyder and Zimmer. 1854." Octav. With a preface by Jrmischer of XXXVII pages. In this preface, Jrmischer justifies himself because of the great similarity of his edition with that of Förstemann-Bindseil and gives p. XXXIV of the preface as the reason for it: Förstemann and Bindseil "applied a formal system of rules, where we merely continued to follow our simple general principles in the usual manner. That, therefore, the independence of our edition cannot be harmed by its similarity to that of Förstemann is, I hope, clear. A little earlier he says that he also had to "correct the biblical passages" and p. XXXV that he also compared Walch and Stangwald.
Now we can return to the consideration of the Förstemann-Bindseil edition.
In this edition, it is to be acknowledged that the comparison of Stangwald's and Selnecker's editions has really been done, which requires a laborious, lengthy work of which no one has a concept who has never done such things himself; it is to be regretted, however, that Förstemann and Bindseil have not made use of the good variants in these editions to improve Aurifaber's text from them.
In view of the difficulty already mentioned in finding a piece of Aurifaber's edition in Stangwald's or Selnecker's, it is not surprising that Förstemann and Bindseil have not provided proof for a fairly large number of them.
where they are to be found in these editions. It is, however, surprising that the Erlangen edition has also not found one piece of those which are missing in Förstemann-Bindfeil - but which are nevertheless all in the Stangwald edition. From this, we must conclude that the editor of the Erlangen edition did not compare the Stangwald edition at all, but printed it from Förstemann-Bindseil. Such passages are the following: 1)
Table speeches
stands by^
l Pole forest
Cap. 63, § 12/
i. Page
" 60, § 15
ffff
446*.
" 7, § 79
e/ff
ff
10*.
" 9, § 62
ff
" 3, § 90
,f
ff
" 4, § 82
l771.
.604*.
f,
223*.
ffff
ff
" 7, § 171
* "
603*.
" 26, § 28
ffff
811*.
" 15, § 47
ffff
" 43, § 171
ffff
ff
" 59, § 6
" (Erl. 62, 132^para. 2.)
Cap. 7, § 115
ffff
Page
" 43, § 4
ffff
ff
376*
" 43, § 150
" 47, § 15
798*.
" 48, § 28
This proof is still strengthened by the fact that the Erlangen edition has reprinted all proofs, which Förstemann and Bindseil have indicated wrongly, likewise. This has taken place, for example, in the following places:
Table speeches Cap
57 is wrong 8t.
406 *s
" 78*, p.74. (Same omission.)
" 555. (Selnecker twice; St. omitted.)
2 " " 8t.
181*
191*
194*
" 194*'.
13 " " 8t.
184*
" 8. 184*.
158*
" 8t. 558*.
364*
" " 346*.
323*
" " 328*.
365*
" " 335*.
/,
223*
" " 323*.
385*
" " 345*
1) We quote from Stangwald's edition of 1700.
In addition to the proofs provided by FörstemannBindseil from Stangwald's edition of 1603 and Selnecker's edition of 1581, the Erlangen edition has added the deviating leaf numbers of the editions of 1591 and 1577. This offered no difficulty in the otherwise quite identical editions, but was a purely mechanical work.
Furthermore, Förstemann and Bindseil bring everything that deviates in Walch from the first Aurifaber edition, continuously through the entire work, as variants. This seems to us to be quite unjustified and it seems to us that it would have been better to leave these deviations completely unconsidered, because Walch did not want to deliver anything new, not even an improved edition, but only an improved edition.
print the edition of 1568. It is not customary to make the printing errors the subject of continuous variants and marginal notes. The variants could only concern carelessness, misprints and accidental small improvements. Nevertheless, Förstemann and Bindseil have recorded all the variants found in Walch. The complete comparison of Walch had to serve to insert the biblical passages from Walch, which was also done in such a way that all of Walch's printing errors, with the exception of six, have been transferred to the Förstemann-Bindseil edition. The Erlangen edition has faithfully reprinted all the printing errors from the Förstemann-Bindseil edition. These are the following:
1 Cor. 1, 11.
instead of 1 Cor. 1, 21.
Walch XXII,
F.-B.
Erl.
Edition.
1. ep. 3, 18.
2. ep. 3, 18.
Matth. 18, 22.
Matth. 18, 20.
Cap. 38, 23.
Cap. 38, 2. 3.
Ill, 15.
Cap. 5, 6.
Cap. 5, 16.
Verse 12.
Verse 16.
Tit. at 3. cap.
Tit. at 1. Cap.
Joh. 11, 18.
Joh. 11, 48.
Offenb. 13, 17.
Offenb. 13, 7.
Ill, 174.
Ill, 174.
Cap. 12, 14.
Cap. 7, 25.
Joh. 21, 19.
Joh. 21, 15.
Ill, 174.
Genes. 20, 7.
Exod. 20, 7.
Ill, 408.
Tit. 3, 8.
Tit. 3, 5.
1 Tim. 2, 5.
1 Tim. 2, 15.
Matth. 5, 17.
Matth. 17, 5.
Ill, 242.
1 Cor. 6, 2.
1 Cor. 6, 3.
Ill, 49.
? §
Joh. 8, 25. 26.
Joh. 11, 25. 26.
Ill, 152.
Ion. 4, 3. 9.
Ion. 4, 3. 8.
Luc. 16, 1d.
Luc. 18, 11.
2 Petr. 2, 4.
2 Petr. 2, 14.
Jer. on 3 Cap.
Jer. on 7 Cap. [V. 22.] "
//
/ Erl.: 1 Cor. 2, 23. " >
1 Cor. 1, 23.
//
Deut. 32:15.
Deut. 32:13.
Isa. 23.
2 Thess. 2, 10.
Jer. 23.
2Thess. 2, 11.
Ps. 50, 4.
Ps. 50, 14.
1 Cor. 12, 9.
2 Cok. 12, 9.
Ps. 2, 2.i)
Ps. 2, 12.
Jer. 49, 21.
Jer. 49, 19.
Luc. 7, 4.
Luc. 7, 45.
Ps. 50, 5.
Ps. 50, 15.
Luc. 19, 16.
Luc. 10, 16.
Joel 2, 1.
Joel 3, 1.
2 Cor. 6, 12.
2 Cor. 6, 10.
Matth. 11, 22.
Matth. 11, 24.
,/
Ps. 143, 11.
Ps. 143, 10.
1 Cor. 15, 54.
1 Cor. 15, 55.
1 Sam. 1, 6.
1 Sam. 2, 6.
Ill, 19.
Isa. 7, 4.
Isa. 7, 14.
Ill; 26.
1) Deficient Letter.
Job 2, 11. Job 39, 37.
Ex. 4, 24. Ps. 2, 4. 5. 8. ITHess.
Rom. 10, 2.
Hohel. 5, 1. Ezech. 16, 52. apost. 7, 59.
1 Cor. 15, 15. Psalm 104, 6.
2 Chron.
Isa. 6, 5. Psalm 148. Ebr. 12, 4.
instead of Job 3:11.
" Job 42:3.
" 2Mos. 4, 25.
" Ps. 2, 4.5. 9.
" 2 Thess.
" Rom. 16, 18.
" Prov. 9, 5.
"Ezek. 16, 51.
"Apost. 7, 58.
" I Cor. 15, 50.
" Psalm 104:9.
" 2 Kings. (Sam.)
" Isa. 6, 1.
" Psalm 145.
" Ebr. 13, 4.
Walch XXII, 1218.
F.-B. Ill, 105th " 111th, 106th " 111th, 123rd " 111th, 186th " III, 194th " 111th, 372nd " 111th, 404th " IVth, 24th " IVth, 277th " IVth, 286th " I, 154th " IIth, 170th " IVth, 417th.
Erl. ed. 60, 87.
Lauterbach made this last mistake and it runs through all the issues.
It follows from the foregoing that Forste mann-Bindseil and the Erlangen edition do not look up the biblical passages.
but reprinted from Walch.
The Förstemann-Bindseil edition improved the following six printing errors in Walch; the Erlanger reprinted these six improvements:
Incorrect: 2 Petr. 2, 13. Correct: 1 Petr. 2, 13.
Walch XXII, 2184.
F.-B. I V, 500.
Erl. ed. 62, 239.
Matth. 18, 15.
Jer. 9, 24.
Act. 5, 24.
Act. 24, 5.
Matth. 5, 9.
Matth. 15, 9.
/,
2Thefs. 1, 13. "
1 Thess. 2, 13.
//
A printing error in the biblical quotations is peculiar to the Förstemann-Bindseil edition; the Erlanger has reprinted it:
Joh. 5, 18. instead of Joh. 3, 18. F.-B. 111, 406. Erl. A. 61, 89.
From this follows: the Erlangen edition has direct from the Bible also not One
The book is not corrected in any place, but the few improvements from FörstemannBindseil are reprinted.
The following variants, mostly from Walch, are incorrectly given in Förstemann - Bindseil and also reprinted in the Erlangen edition:
F.-B. Var. 3 "one" in the Ausgg. instead of: once Walch XXII, 1323.
F.-B. Ill, 186.
Erl. ed. 60, 195.
1 pushes instead of: pushes
" l, 313.
5 suppressed instead of: suppressed
2 beats it " beats it
1 X. 8t. u. IV. instead of: 8t.
2 real instead of: right
* //
1 Will " will
2 there is missing instead of: that is missing
3 such instead of: false
//
//
/,
//
61, 71st (Var.l.).
Accordingly, it will probably follow that the Erlangen edition did not compare Walch, but reprinted everything related to Walch from Förstemann-Bindseil.
The Förstemann-Bindseil edition has from Cap. 28 to 31 incl. inverted counting, both in the text and in the registers; for Cap. 27 is set twice, once correctly, the other time incorrectly above Cap. 28, and then continues in the wrong counting until Cap. 31. 31. the superscription
of Cap. 32 is then correct again. Quite the same in the Erlangen edition, in the text and in the registers. From this we would almost like to conclude that the Erlangen edition has not printed its text from the first Aurifaber edition, but from Förstemann-Bindseil. This assumption gains probability from the fact that the Erlangen edition vol. 58, 258, Cap. 11, § 14, Walch XLll, Col. 628, refers to Aurifaber's note as Förstemann's note.
Only one case has struck us in the Erlangen edition, where the same does not include an error of Förstemann-Bindseil, namely vol. 57, 105, note 5. The F.-B.'sche edition vol. I, 81, has noted note 4, in relation to Walch's translation from the 2nd Psalm: "IV. und die Herzen (!) rathschlagen mit einander." There the Erlangen edition offers "gentlemen" as Walch really has it at that point. Förstemann had not read well. Such an obvious printing error, even if it had been there, should nevertheless have been let slip without an exclamation mark. But also in other places such printing errors are emphasized by exclamation marks, e.g. F.-B. Vol. I, 24, Note I "thätliches"; W. gives instead "tödtliches"!
The Förstemann-Bindseil edition has a large number of quite useless e.r variants:
F.-B.
I, 27 datauf lieget instead of: lieget darauf.
I, 40 one shall instead of: shall one.
I, 45 Doctor Martinus Luther once said instead: Once said D. M. Luther.
I, 52 without fruit not instead: not without fruit.
I, 64 since they nevertheless the Aristotle instead: since they the Aristotle nevertheless.
idiä. him the sophists instead: the sophists him.
I, 318 Affects instead of: Affectus.
I, 322 remain seated instead of: remain seated.
I, 323 St. Paul instead: Paul.
I, 324 Christos instead of: Christ.
I, 328 the letters instead: Letters.
I, 336 shall go over it instead of: shall go over it.
The advantage in these insignificant variants is usually on the side of Walch, who, without changing anything essential', has mostly made the language somewhat smoother than it is found in Aurifaber. It should be noted that the variants listed are taken by us at random from a small circle, namely F:-B. Bd. I, 27-64, and I, 318-336. Many hundreds of similar variants are noted by F.-B.. The Erlangen edition has omitted quite a number of these useless variants.
Neither F.-B. nor the Erlangen editions have accepted any of Walch's variants, even when an incorrectness is palpably improved, as in Cap. 43, § 115, where Walch, according to the sense, has written "not" instead of "also". Cf. F.-B. IV, 106, note 1, and Erl. Ausg. 61, 248, note 2.
That Förstemann and Bindseil did not make use of the HallischeHandschrift 1) to improve and correct Aurifaber's text is no longer surprising to us after we have become acquainted with it in Bindseil's Latin edition. Both the Hallische Handschrift and Rebenstock are, as we have shown above, just as much, if not worse, corrupted and contaminated with additions, bad readings and changes than the German editions.
D. The English translation.
In 1652, an English translation of the Table Talks appeared in folio under the following title: "Dris Martini Lutheri Colloquia Mensalia, or Divine Discourses at his Table, etc. . . . Collected first together by D* Antonius Lauterbach, and afterward disposed into certain Common places by John Aurifaber Dr in Divinitie. Translated but of the high Germane into the English Tongue by Capt. Henrie. Bell. . . London, Printed by William Du Gard, dwelling in Suffolk-lane near London-stone. 1652." Folio. 541 pp. 20 leaves of dedication, prefaces, index etc. Dedicates: "To the Right Hpnorable John Hendrick Lord Major, The Right Worshipful the Sheriffs and Aldennen, the Common Council and the other Worthie Senatore and Citizens of the famous Citie of London", signed by Thomas Thorowgood. The preface comprises 9 pages and contains remarks against the Papists and praises of Luther taken from the writings of the Calvinists. From p. 11 on is "Capitain Henrie Bell's Narrati ve or Relation of the miraculous preserving of Dr. Martin Lutheri Book, entituled Colloquia Mensalia", dated July 1650. From this narrative, which appears quite fabulous, Walch has given the essentials in his preface p. 15 ff, § XII. We do not consider it necessary to repeat it here. On p. 14 is the verdict of Charls Herle and Edw. Corbett, who were also ordered to censor the book, dated November 10, 1646: "We find many excellent things are conteined in
L^t Mspt"^ bEint with the so often attracted
the Book worthy of the light and publick view. Amongst which Luther professed that he ac- knowledgeth his error which he formerly held touching the real presence corporaliter in Coena Domini. "There is no need to prove that those who have judged in this way have deviated from the truth; for Luther never deviated from the true doctrine, nor did he put up with the opinion of the Reformed. 1) Under the preceding narrative, there is a "Copy of the Order from the House of Commons" of February 24, 1646, executed by Henrie Elsing, in which a privilege is granted to Henrie Bell for the sole sale of his English translation of the Table Talks for 14 years. It is remarkable that such a privilege was granted on February 24, before the censorship of November 10. Then follows a testimony from Aurifaber's preface and three letters from Protestant clergymen about Luther's Table Talks, and finally the English translation of Aurifaber's preface complete on 9 sheets, along with a sheet index of the 80 sections of the Table Talks in the same order as Aurifaber. Now follows the work itself and finally the prophecies of Luther collected by Georg Walther. From this last appendix of the prophecies, it can be concluded that the English translation will be made according to the Frankfurt edition of 1569, which is presumably to be considered a reprint. The prophecies are attached only to this edition and to the later so-called Stangwald editions of 1700 and 1723. This edition was published again in London in 1791 in folio. Copies of the first edition
1) Walch Vorr. S. 18, § XIII: It is wrong what some want to pretend, as if he had left this true doctrine before his end and had put up with the opinion of the reformers, or had repented that he had written against them. When in 1546 D. Geortzius Major went to Regensburg to attend the Colloquio there, and Lutherus considered him, along with some others, suspicious because of the article on the Holy Supper, he confronted him with this and reminded him seriously, after he had apologized and made his confession correctly, to do the same in sermons, lectures and private conversations, and not to make himself suspicious, as before, with silence. Luther also said shortly before his death in Eisleben: if he should live longer, he would once again shout against the sacramentarians. Leoksnä. rist. Lutk. lid. Ill, 8161, x. 693.
are in the Royal Library in Copenhageri and in the Frankfurt City Library.
Of the translation itself, Joh. Gottl. Möller (x. 17) that it deviates from the German original, especially from the first edition of 1566, in some parts, without being able to decide whether the translator himself made these changes, or whether he had deviating editions of the original in front of him. We believe that this question would be settled by comparing the English translation with the Frankfurt edition of 1569.
Nature of the table talks.
In the discussion of the various editions of the Table Talks, we have shown that we are actually dealing with only one, Aurifaber's, from which all the others have flowed, in such a way that all of them reproduce the same Aurifaber translation, all of them have exactly the same content, which is found in Stangwald and Selnecker only in a different order, what is therefore said about the Aurifaber edition covers all the others. Thus, we can now proceed to the consideration of the nature of the table speeches. It is not necessary to separate the external from the internal characteristics, because the presentation of the former will also make the latter completely clear.
Duplicates in the table talks.
Through all previous editions of the Tischreden, without exception, from the first, the Aurifabersche, in 1566 to the last, the Erlanger, in 1854, there are a very large number of duplicates, now already 320 years. The number of duplicates, from which we have freed the Tischreden, amounts to about 520. Of these, the largest number, namely about 380, are duplicates in the Tischreden themselves; about 140 are pieces taken from other writings of Luther into the Tischreden. The latter are all interpolated by Aurifaber 2), who has added them several times with an insertion.
2) They are not found in the Latin editions.
The first part of the text is the first part of a paragraph, and the last part is not the same as the first part of a paragraph or paragraph. In the writings from which they are taken, these pieces rarely form the beginning of a paragraph, nor does the conclusion of them coincide with the conclusion of a paragraph or section, but they are usually torn out of the middle of a section, and the paragraphs are divided differently, which makes them very difficult to find.
The Stangwald and Selnecker editions are advantageously different from the Aurifaber editions in this respect, for they have 146 fewer duplicates than the latter. Also, in those editions, a large number of pieces that Aurifaber inserted from Luther's writings into the Table Talks are removed from the Table Talks and placed in the appendix with an indication of the writings from which they are taken. Walch and the later editions have not made use of this really significant improvement. Urged only by his publisher to include the Tischreden in his collection, Walch did not want to bother with an editing and improvement of the Tischreden. FörstemannBindseil referred to the duplicate only in 84 pieces that they recognized as duplicate by comparing Stangwald's and Selnecker's, but only in five of them did they decide to omit them. Förstemann and Bindseil did not notice 56 of the duplicates omitted by Stangwald and Selnecker, although several of them refer to the same place in Stangwald, e.g. to
Of these 84 pieces, 9 are also duplicated by Stangwald.
The Erlangen edition, on the other hand, has reinserted all duplicates. Only in 9 places, according to the F.-B. edition, it has referred to duplicates. Yes, the inattention of the editor of the Erlangen edition goes so far that e.g. the
second paragraph of Cap. 61, § 10, which is another relation of Cap. 26, § 52, is printed again in its entirety in the latter place as a note. Likewise compare Cap. 22, § 151 and Cap. 43, § 2, where in the Erlangen edition to each of these two different relations the deviations of the others are printed as notes, thus one and the same thing is actually reproduced four times. Such a thing is repeated even more often, e.g. Cap. 20, § 14 and Cap. 1, § 89, in general almost every time when the notes referring to Stangwald assume a larger extent, e.g. Cap. 20, § 29 compared with Cap. 20, § 4; Cap. 27, § 95 compared with Cap. 22, § 104 etc. yi.
Walch left out only 5 pieces:
and the long note, which the Ert. Ausg" vol. 60, 18 f. to Cap. 24, 8 74, Walch did not bring, because already printed Walch, alteAusg., Bd. IX, 1421.
A large number of these pieces are already duplicated, as different relations, which completely cover each other in thought, in the sources themselves, namely in the diary of Cordatus, from No. 1770 on. We have not included them, because we considered them dispensable due to the great similarity with their doppelgängers.
We have not printed the following numbers from Cordatus: No. 31, because contained in Lauterbach pag. 19; further, because duplicated in Cordatus itself: No. 1124. 1267. 1356. 1365. 1393. 1412. 1442-1449 (Melanchthon's letter to Brenz). 1450 (Luther's addition to the previous letter. Walch, old ed.,XXI, 1349). 1439. 1620. 1677. 1715. 1770. 1771. 1772. 1773-1780. 1783-1814. 1816-1825. - To be found in other writings 359-362. 1186-1192. Not suitable for communication No. 614. So there are altogether 85 pieces of the 1843 numbers of the Cordatus, of which we have made no use.
At Lauterbach are only two duplicates namely:
S. 150 Table Talks Cap. 27, § 65 contained in p. 49 Tischreden Cap. 27, § 134.
Binding rope
Table speeches
Rebenftock
I. 49 and 11, 122.
Cap. 12, § 71.
I, 28b and II, 105 b.
" 7, § 16.
" 38, § 3
" 18, § 2
" 2, § 103
" 50, § 2.
" 27, § 35.
111, 245.^
' " 27, § 36.
" " 30, § 5.
. " 56, § 4, cl. 2
" " 56, § 9.
" 27, § 37.
" 27, § 38.
" 29, § 1
" 77, § 1.
I, 89 " II, 14b.
Missing.
I, 89b " 1, 198.
" 4, § 63.
" 66, § 50
" 24, § 12.
1, 116 " II, 228b.
" 3, § 55.
I, 133b " II, 94b.
" 73, § 1
" 66, § 4.
" 16, § 8.
Lauterb. pag. 58.
Grief at L. pss. 199.
" 75, § 1(Turkish Empire),, " 27, § 2 (Antichrist) II, 60 (Antichrist.)
" 22, § 77.
" " 27, § 85 Conclusion.
" 67, § 2
" " 76, § 16.
" 37, § 7. -
" 9, § 44.
11, 100 and II, 180.
" 11, § 16
" " 9, § 19.
" 52, § 1.
" 27, § 64
" " 19, § 7.
" 43, § 9.
" 59, § 6.
II, 28b and II, 201b.
" 26, § 68.
" 43, § 39.
" 3, § 91.
" 22, § 12
" " 22, § 64.
" 22, § 25 x
As this register shows, 16 of the 39 duplicates in the Hall manuscript are also duplicates in the German Tischreden, of all those in Rebenftock only 13, i.e. just one third. The duplicates in Rebenftock are almost all small and insignificant, mostly only other redactions. The duplicate Bindseil I, 68 and II, 367 can hardly be named in the same way in Rebenftock, because it is only hinted at, but not widely executed, as in Bindseil. This makes us inclined to attribute priority to the Rebenftock collection over the Höllische manuscript.
We consider it superfluous to print here the register of the 520 duplicates we have proved in the German Tischreden, because
we have accounted for every omission of any piece and provided the necessary proof. Such an index would fill 12 entire columns of our edition.
We have already spoken above about the presumed cause of the duplicate in Cordatus.
In the Tischreden, the same pieces are often assigned to different sections at the same time. By combining related material and reducing the number of chapters from 80 to 43, Slangwald noticed the 146 duplicates from which he has removed from the Tischreden.
The difference of the duplicate of a-
other often comes from the fact that they are different translations, e.g. Cap. 4, § 34, and 15, § 17; Cap. 1, § 18 and 4, § 35.
More often, through inattention, such repetitions are also found in the same section, e.g., Cap. 15, § 6 and 15, § 39; Cap. 15, § 10 and-15, § 21."
Frequently, different relations that completely coincide with each other, e.g., Cap. 27, § 36 is found three more times, namely Cap. 30, § 5; Cap. 56, § 4 and Cap. 56, § 9. Of these we have retained Cap. 56, § 4, authenticated by Lauterbach p. 174, and Cap. 27, § 36, authenticated by Cordatus No. 643.
Other miscellaneous relations, one of which is dispensable, include the beginning of Cap. 15, §12, and the last paragraph of Cap. 12, §35; Cap. 4, §33, Cap. 13, §72, and Cap. 21, § 1 (Cordatus No. 1631); the second paragraph of Cap. 4, §78 and the last paragraph of Cap. 15, §19 (Lauterbach pag. 21).
Even some of the pieces taken from Luther's own writings are found twice, e.g., Cap. 17, § 22 and Cap. 19, §25 from the Great Catechism. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 130, § 232; Cap. 6, § 5, para. 3 and 8, § 8, last para. from the Kirchenpostille. Walch, St. Louis ed. vol. XIII, 674, § 25; cap. 24, § 35 and 7, § 130 from Interpretation of the Epistle to the Galatians Cap. 1. Walch, old edition, vol. VM, §§ 87. 88.
We are firmly convinced that, despite all our efforts, we have not succeeded in freeing the Tischreden from all the pieces that Aurifaber has inserted from other writings of Luther, but that quite a number of such passages can still be found. Pieces of which we assume that they can still be found in other writings are, for example, Cap. 2, § 84, of the provision; Cap. 10, § 4 and § 10, of free will; Cap. 11, § 11 and § 12, of the 1st commandment; Cap. 12, .§§ 77-82, the law does not serve for justification; Cap. 17, § 23, of baptism, and others.
To make it clear to the reader how immensely altered the appearance of the Tischreden is in our edition by omitting the duplicates and pieces taken from other writings of Luther, we give
the proof about it at Cap. 12, "of the law and Evangelio". At the same time, we indicate the sources from which pieces are newly translated. Where the pieces omitted from Luther's writings are to be found, can be found in the relevant paragraphs in our edition. The paragraphs marked f in the front are omitted.
Table Talks.
Cap. 12,? 1.
Where printed elsewhere. ' Sources.
Cap. 12, § 20. Letter to the Galatians.
Cordatus No. 7-10.
Epistle to the Galatians.
Cordatus No. 498.
" 24, ?15.
" 12,? 43.
UNdl.,, 7,? 154.
" 12,? 31.
and(" 3?! ?50^ last para. letter to the Galatians.
Para. 2. / Cap. 7,? 170.
and l "13,? 46.
Cap. 12,? 55, para. 1.
" 26,? 1. Kummer bei Lauterbach, pas. 203.
" 26,? 16, para. 1. end.
cf. cap. 12,? 22.
" 37,? 64.
f
51, para. 1. " 12, 8 60.
f
55, para. 1. " 12, 8 41.
55,letz.para. " 15, 8 12.
Cf. Lauterbach pas. 141.
66, para. 1. Preface to the A. T.
67, para. 2. 3. Letter to the Galatians.
f
73.- . Epistle to the Galatians.
79/Cap. 12, § 32.
and l " 37, § 50, last. Para.
andl " 11, § 22.
84, par. 1-^. "13, § 78. Cordatus No. 1327.
84, paras. 5-11. " 26, § 11.
In this chapter, 36 paragraphs had to be deleted, partly because they are duplicates, partly because they are taken from other writings of Luther. Paragraphs 26. 35. 43. 44. 46. 83. 84 are also duplicates, which are not deleted here, but in other chapters. If all these pieces were here
Furthermore, other paragraphs than the ones we have indicated may have been taken from other writings of Luther, e.g., §§ 77-82, which are often repeated in Luther's great interpretation of the Epistle to the Galatians. 26 paragraphs of this section have been newly translated by us according to the originals. Thus, only 24 paragraphs remain in their old form.
Admixture of foreign things.
In the collection of table speeches there is a rather large number of pieces that are not table speeches. We are not talking here about the pieces that Aurifaber took from Luther's writings and trimmed to make them appear as table speeches, but about those that openly stand out as strange pieces. It was already in the plan of the first collectors to include not only table speeches in the narrower sense, but also advice, concerns, consolations, letters, rhymes, interpretations of sayings, and so on. We encounter such things already, though rarely, in Cordatus and Lauterbach; much more in Rebenstock and the Hall manuscript; in considerable numbers, however, in the German Tischreden, including those that are not by Luther at all. Stangwald and Selnecker have relegated such things to their appendix. We, too, have not wanted to proceed too radically with these things, but have omitted only those pieces in which Luther obviously has no part, such as Melanchthon's letter to Brenz, and those which are already printed in other volumes of Luther's works. The others we have retained, namely because otherwise no place would have been found for their inclusion in Luther's writings and some of them are nevertheless very valuable and instructive, such as Luther's disputation with Melanchthon on justification, Cap. 13, §§ 2-11., This piece we have even newly translated from Oeem Latin, because the Aurifaber translation was not sufficient. Which of these pieces we have retained, and which we have omitted, may be found in the paragraphs concerned. They are the following:
Cap. 1, § 64. Luther's rhymes from the Reum Testament.
" 11, K 13. Interpretation of the Catechism. (Some of it in Cordatus.)
13, § 2-11. Luther's disputation with Melanchthon.
"Melanchthon's letter to Brenz with a postscript by Luther.
"19, § 42. Luther's speech with Bucer and Lycosthenes.
"21, § 5. admonition from the ban after the sermon Invocavit 1539.
24, § 60. Interpretation of the saying Joh. 8, 44. (Cordatus No. 657.)
"43, § 136. Luther's prayer for his marriage state.
" 47, p 6. verses from human life, told by Luther.
66,'? 24. sermon to lawyers on how to study law.
Appendix § 13. little verse: What money has for violence in the world.
Furthermore, a number of pieces appear to be spurious:
Cap. 1, § 9, the last paragraph, seems to be Aurifaber's translation of No. 3 of the next 810.
" 3, § 13, " 1 probably em to the following formed entrance.
" 7, § 179' probably "an expansion of Cordatus A'o. 1322. "
Lauterbach paK. 96.
" 26, § 13 probably formed from Cordatus No. 891.
Table Talks.
" 37, § 114, para. 2, probably an adaptation of Cordatus No. 1338.
"47, § 3 will probably be just another version of Cap. 48, § 38.
That these assumptions of ours are not made up out of thin air, but have good reason, will be seen immediately from the following.
Arbitrary treatment of the originals in the table speeches.
In the table speeches, the originals have been dealt with in a highly arbitrary manner and much has been fictionalized.
Cap. 2, § 17, Vine I, 3a. Zd, Bindseil l,^. 6, compared with Cordatus No. 517, offer, as D. Wrampelmeyer correctly remarks, a rather characteristic example of the way in which the original form of Luther's words is distorted by later additions and alterations.
From Cordatus No. 435, a single sentence, Aurifaber has spun two whole paragraphs, namely Cap. 7, §§80 and 81; Bindseil III, 37, on the other hand, gives only the first half of the sentence in Cordatus.
From Cordatus No. 1208, two and a half rows, Aurifaber has made the extensive first paragraph of Cap. 19, § 26.
Cap. 24, § 115 Aurifaber tells that one fainted in the presence of Luther, while according to Cordatus No. 453 Luther himself was afflicted by it. On this occasion, a whole consolation speech to the sick person is invented from the thoughts with which Luther comforted himself.
In Cap. 26, § 52, what was reported by Cordatus No. 1129 is illustrated by a set of
Additions brought to about four times the size.
Cap. 43, § 13, the last three paragraphs, Luther's words are horribly distorted. Cf. Cordatus No. 1513.
In Cap. 66, § 48, Cordatus No. 649, how the nobility deals with theologians and jurists, is transformed into a dispute of theologians and jurists.
From Cordatus No. 1097, One Paragraph, Cap. 74, § 2 three paragraphs are made.
Cordatus No. 555 has become more than threefold in Cap. 76, § 3.
In Cap. 3, § 14, No. 1761-1763 of the Cordatus are interwoven, rearranged, changed and provided with various additions.
An interesting example of how the originals were handled in the Tischreden is provided by Cap. 9, § 19 and 44, § 3, which are based on Cordatus No. 1743. 1745 and 734. Also included in these two paragraphs are Cap. 9, § 45 and § 46; Cap. 50, § 2; Cap. 2, § 42; Cap. 11, § 16;.Cap. 2, § 61; Cap. 37, § 100; Cap. 44, § 3, and similarly Cap. 37, § 75. Of these 11 pieces, 8 had to be deleted.
The above information contains only a few samples of the deviation of the table speeches from the originals. The deviations from the records of Lauterbach are by far not as substantial as those of Cordatus. Nevertheless, what D. Wrampelmeyer has said in his preface p. 30 f. about this in relation to Cordatus, also finds its full application to the table speeches after Lauterbach, namely: "In many cases, the version of the Latin and German records is similar. This similarity, of course, almost never goes so far that one could speak of a literal correspondence of the Latin table speeches or claim that a paragraph of the German table speeches is similar.
By tearing apart the original records, one felt compelled to make new connections, to form introductions and conclusions, and to make other additions, some of which are correct, however, others are demonstrably wrong.
Spoiled state of the table talks.
With regard to the Latin editions of the Table Talks, we have already demonstrated that they have a very corrupted text. Some false readings of the Table Talks run through all editions, e.g.: -
"45, § 24: not much without blood instead of: not long in bloom; wrong also in Lauterbach paZ. 176. i, 352. cf. cap. 76, § 27, para. 2. Stangwald omitted the word.
1) This assumption seems too high to us. What we have eliminated, is, according to our surplus, about one sixth. With knowledge and will, we have not left much in the way of actual repetitions, and what we have missed will probably not be significant.
Other false readings run through all German editions, again confirming their complete dependence on Aurifaber. This is the case, for example:
Cap. 3, § 22: Lock legs instead of: Schooßbeine. Cord. No. 704.
" 30, § 2 to end: lice instead of: People. Cord. No. 806.
" 39, § 12: Scorpion [scorpio] instead of: Ostrich [struthio]. Cord. No. 230.
" 43, § 183: India instead of: Italia. Cord. No. 1538. Stangwald omitted the word.
" 48, § 17, para. 1 End: Altvater instead of: Adam. Lauterb. 104.
"48, § 25: Monks instead of: Dying. Kummer at Lauterb. pag. 202.
"54, § 27 Last paragraph: Johann XIII. instead: Johann XXIII Lauterb. pag. 83.
" 57, § 4, 2 rows are omitted, one in the middle, the other towards the end. Lauterb. pag. 192.
" 69, § 3, para. I, end: drunkenness instead of: Dryness. Lauterbach pag. 184.
"75, § 1, para. 11 Begin: on loud wars [militia] instead of: loud malice [malitia]. Cord. No. 1599.
" 76, § 4, para. 1 middle: more miserable instead of: more internal. Lauterb. pag. 10.
" 76, § 16, sub. 2: Willows instead: Waid sFärbekraut): Lauterb. pag. 185.
In quite a few cases, Stangwald has chosen duplicates that contain the correct reading, e.g.
Aurifaber: Cap. 3, § 60: violence; Stangw.: has will [gewollt.] Cord. No. 949. cf. cap. 43, § 158. " 24, § 117: klage. Stangw.: schlage. Cord. No. 654. cf. cap. 26, § 27.
In other places, Stangwald noticed that not everything was in order, and then tried to put an end to the difficulty by circumventing it, e.g.
Aurifaber: Cap. 43, § 33: D. Phil., Lauterbach pas. 133: D. Pistor. Stangw.: N. N.
Stangwald has omitted here the word truth, which belongs to the following, as we have already seen above twice that he has omitted the word that is burdensome to him.
Stangwald has actually corrected the following passages, for example:
Aurifaber: Cap. 37, § 114: Oil. Stangwald: Eel.
In his preface p. 33, Wrampelmeyer has named a whole number of wrong readings in the table speeches.
Incorrect timing.'
Very often there are wrong time indications in the table speeches, even more often the time indications made in the originals are omitted.
Cap. 2, § 99 towards the end: 1541 instead of: 1532. Cordatus No. 848.
" 4, § 116: 1542 instead of: 1538. Lauterbach pag. 5.
Vine II? 21b.: 1532 instead of 1533. Cordatus No. 1248.
Other information that differs from each other is also not uncommon:
Cord. No. 907: at Wittenberg. Vine and binding rope: at Nuremberg.
Lauterbach xaZ. 140: (The wives not specified.); she had had 9 husbands.
Cap. 22, § 53: 500 parishes in Würzburg unoccupied.
"48, § 30: the cellar had collapsed behind Luther and his wife. Cord. No. 1607: a wall and a beam had fallen down next to Luther.
" 76, § 26, para. 7: The pope says: Christ will remain, instead of: Christ is inauthentic [manserem]. (Cf. the wrong translations below).
" 4, 8108: DaD. M. L. was in his garden, against Cordatus No 1553.
With a small piece we want to show the reader an example of the changes that the Tischreden have undergone through the various editors:
Lauterbach, pag. 174: Deinde legit in libro Campani, propria manu scripto et Mun- steri reperto, cujus titulus erat etc. (After that he read in the book of Campanus, which he had written with his own hand and which had been found at Münster, whose title was etc.).
Bindseil II, 30: D. Martinus Luthel-us librum Campani legens manu ejus propria subscripta et Munsterii, cujus titulus erat etc. (Since D. M. Luther read the book of Campanus, which was signed by his own hand and by that of Munster, its title was etc.).
Rebenstock II, 33 a: D. M. L. librum Campani legens, manu illius propria scriptum et a Munstero relictum, cujus titulus erat etc. (Since D. M. L. read the book of Campanus, which he had written with his own hand and which Münster had left behind, its title was etc.).
Aurifaber, cap. 37, § 6: D. Martinus Lutherus read in the Campani book, which he had written with his own hand and had overlooked and crossed out Münsterus, which title was etc. Likewise Stangwald.
Aurifaber, Cap. 2, §39: As he was reading in the book of Campani, the gusher, so he was with
1) In order to understand how it was possible that the editors of the Tischreden made a person out of the city of Münster, one must note that "Sebastian Münster" attacked Luther because of his translation of the Bible, in that he wanted to judge everything according to grammatical rules. Cf. Lauterbach's Tageb. paz. In our edition: Appendix 1, No. 106.
of his own hand, the title was etc. (Here "Münster." is missing.) This last redaction is missing in Stangwald, who has omitted it as a duplicate.
In a large number of pieces, it can be seen that the editors did not even replace them, e.g., Cap. 24, § 123, cf. with Cord. No. 86; 23, § 2, cf. with Laüterb. pag. 137; 14, § 21, cf. with Cord. No. 320. 321; 26, § 42, cf. with Lauterb. pag. 34; Cap. 12, § 23, cf. with Cord. No. 74. 75; 43, § 75, cf. with Cord. No. 35 and 38; 21, § 17, cf. with Cord. No. 1703. 1704; 7, § 148, cf. with Lauterb. pag. 69; 7, § 98, cf. with Cord. No. 48; 7, § 9, cf. with Cord. No. 42; 1, § 54, cf. with Cord. No. 1568; 7, § 152, cf. with Cord. No. 519; 19, § 4, cf. with Cord. No. 1350. In other ones, the straight opposite is reported of what the sources bring, e.g. 26, § 30, para. 1: Therefore come to me, my dear Schlainhauffen, item to Magister Philippo, Co.rdato etc. In contrast, Cordatus No. 378, the challenged one is directed away from Philippus and Cordatus, to Christo. - Cap. 27, § 15 it is said that "the pope made an alliance with the emperor," while Cordatus No. 609 reports that the pope made an alliance with the emperor's enemy, the king of France^- Cap. 48, § 30, the Latin words are the exact opposite of Cordatus No. 1311. The "not" is omitted. - In Cordatus No. 1252, private citizens and authorities are placed "opposite" each other; in the corresponding paragraph of the Table Talks, Cap. 44, §§ 7. 8, both are blended and drawn together.
In many cases, the German table speeches
v. Cord. No. 1226; in Cap. 55, tz 5, against Cord. No. 1268; on the other hand, omitted in Cap. 75, tz 2, compared with Lauterb. pag. 35; in Cap. 57, tz 4, compared with Lauterb. pag.
Cordatus, No. 1666: Daemon signo dato visus est exire, i.e.: That one has seen as if the evil spirit goes out on a given sign.
Cordatus, No. 1707: Tantum admittantur consolationes, i.e.: Only the consolation should be accepted.
Lauterbach, pag. 192: homines attoniti ac ôåôõöùìßíïé, i.e. senseless, deluded.
People.
Lauterbach, pag. 120: qui lectorem suspensum relinquerent, i.e. which left the reader in uncertainty.
Lauterbach, pag. 47: Alii juristae impii eua tantum quaerentes habent jus in armis, i.e. other godless jurists, who only seek their own, have the law in arms.
191 f.; in Cap. 37, tz 109, cf. with Cord. No. 1102. U. a. m.
Very extensive translations are found, e.g., Cap. 1, tz 79, cf. with Cord. No. 1605; 7, tz 166, cf. with Cord. No. 1759; 9, tz 42, cf. with Cord. No. 1318; 12, tz 26, cf. with Cord. 1637; 20, tz 2, cf. with Ed. No. 1415; 22, tz 62, cf. with Lauterb. pag. 178; 26, tz 42, cf. with Lauterb. pag. 34; 26, § 43, cf. with Lauterb. pag. 49 f.; 37, tz 61, cf. with Cord. No. 194; 37, tz 94, cf. with Cord. No. 1695; 37, 126^, cf. with Cord. No. 246; 37, tz 126, cf. with Cord. No. 394; 43, tz 84, cf. with Lauterb. pag. 164; 45, tz 34, cf. with Lauterb. pag. 121; 47, tz 4, cf. with Cord. No. 1828; 55, tz 5, cf. with Cordatus No. 1268; 59, tz 2, cf. with Cord. No. 1347; 66, tz 56, cf. with Cord. No. 1040; 74, tz 2, cf. with Cord.-No. 1097; Appendix tz 5, cf. with Cord. No. 1368.
In order to give the reader an idea of the immense prolixity of the translations in the German Tischreden, we let follow here some translation samples, compared with the originals.
Aurifaber, Cap. 24, § 17, penultimate paragraph: But that the devil has gone out by invoking papist monks and priests, and has left a sign after himself, such as breaking panes of glass or a window, or tearing a piece of the wall, that he has done etc.
Aurif. Cap. 26, § 68, conclusion: And again, those who are in such temptations should also be comforted, or make a measure and an end of it, believing God's word more than their thoughts and Satan's input and corrupt arrows.
Aurif. Cap. 57, § 4, para. 3, middle: And darkened people who go drowning in their thoughts and respect no one, and melancholy heads, and hopeful, stubborn spirits.
Aurif. Cap. 57, § 6, beginning: Therein they let the reader hang between heaven and earth, stamping, concluding nothing certain.
Aurif. Cap. 66, § 25, para. 3, conclusion: "The others in general are godless, seek only their own enjoyment and benefit, draw the law and twist it to their advantage, make wrong out of right and right out of wrong, with their interpretation and sophistry, solely for the sake of money.
If you want to study further the way Aurifaber translates, compare Cap. 76, § 26, para. 3 with Lauterbach pag. 165 and Cap. 66, § 53 with Lauterbach 187.
After a close inspection of these translation examples, we hope that no one will want to agree with us that we have (probably the greatest thing we have allowed ourselves), e.g., Cap. 24, § 1 and Cap. 24, § 127 have been deleted as contained m Cap. 24, § 2, and deleted the last paragraph of Cap. 24, § 2 deleted, as contained in Cap. 5, § 5.
Incorrect translations.
There are a large number of mistranslations in Aurifaber, which run through all German editions.
Cap. 1, § 28, para. 7, middle, Lauterbach pag. 78 at the end: [verbum] vehiculum Dei Aurifaber translated: "GOtt wirkt durchs Wort, welches gleich wie ein Wagen ist", instead of: GOtt wirkt durchs Wort, welches sein Träger und Werkzeug [im Herzen] ist.
Cap. 4, § 111, para. 2, end, has^Aurifaber: [The booksellers] get a bad name to their copies, where Bindseil I, 411 correctly offers: "take maculatur for good paper to their copies." There Aurifaber seems to have read: nomen maculatur [i.e. the name is stained) instead of: nomen maculatur sd. i. take bad paper).
Cap. 15, § 21, beginning, Lauterbach xa§. 194: in festo Natali, Aurifaber translates: "on his [Luther's] birthday," instead of: am Weihnachtsfeste.
Cap. 18, § 7, Lauterbach pag. 27: certius responsum, Aurifaber translates: "an answer after eating, if he had washed his hands", instead of: a more reliable answer.
Cap. 22, § 42, Lauterb. pag. 33: olim magistratus percacavit papatum, Aurifaber translates: "the pope has insulted the secular authorities who elevated him," instead of: the authorities have made nothing of the pope. (Here again is the opposite.)
Cap. 22, § 50, Lauterbach pag. 115: an con- cionatores publice sint arguendi, Aurifaber translates: "whether a preacher should punish publicly", instead of the other way around: whether preachers should be punished publicly.
Cap. 25, § 5, Lauterb. p>a§. 121: ex gallinis: "from the hens' nests," instead of: from the chickens.
Cap. 27, § 78, toward the end, Lauterbach pag. 77, vappas: "cows," instead of: unworthy people.
Cap. 33, § 1, Lauterb. pa§. 126: in ipsa bona feria sextae: "on Friday and during the fasts," instead of: on Char Friday.
Cap. 35, § 8, Lauterb. pa§. 186: offa: "a soup," instead of: a morsel.
Cap. 37, § 1, beginning, Cord. No. 1059: suavissimis Verdis et moridus: "he was very kind in words, but frivolous in gestures and in life", instead of: of winning words and manners.
Cap. 37, § 99, Lauterb. pag. 8: seductore
L. -. "as G. K. boasted of his spirit", instead of: the seducer of Georg Karg.
Cap. ö4, § 27, para. 2, beginning, Lauterbach pag. 83: praesumptio: "presumption," instead: Anmaßung.
Cap. 75, § 1, at the beginning, Cord. No. 626: ponet arcem suam: "he will carry his bow," instead of: he will build his castle.
Cap. 75, § 1, para. 9 at end, Cord. No. 880: vulpes ex antris proveniens Caucasi montiss: "a fox, which from the hole Caucasus herfürwischet and creeps", instead: [the Turk), which emerges from the caves of the Caucasus Mountains.
Cap. 76, § 26, para. 7 at the beginning, Cord. No. 539: Christum manserem esse: "Christ shall remain," instead of: Christum manserem esse.
Cap. 5, § 19 in the beginning, Cord. No. 945: Maximilianus valde superstitiosus fuit in re militari. Gentes in periculis mactaverunt etiam dilectissima: "Emperor Maximilianus is said to have been very superstitious in servitude; in perils he vowed to God and slaughtered what he encountered first." (Quite likewise the Hallische Handschrift Binds. I, 188 f.) instead: Emperor Maximilian was very superstitious in matters of war. The pagans slaughtered even their dearest in danger.
Unreliable data.
There are very many unreliable statements in the table speeches. Often the same sayings are put into the mouths of different people.
Cap. 45, § 84, the saying is attributed to the Elector John Frederick, which, according to Cap. 19, § 32, Luther is said to have made.
Cap. 28, § 5 is attributed to a nobleman in Meissen, which according to Cap. 29, § 1 and Cordatus No. 1014 to the chancellor of Trier, Caesar Pflug. This seems to have come from the fact that Rudolph of Bunan, of whom a similar saying is told in the same, paragraphs in Bindseil 1, 151 and Rebenftock I, 825, was confused by Aurifaber with Caesar Pflug. In both places of the Latin table speeches, Caesar Pflug is called praefectus Lipsiensis.
Cap. 22, § 9, the process is attributed to Antonius Lauterbach, who, according to Cord. No. 1462 refers to the Cordatus. Likewise wrong Bindseil m, 109.
Cap. 26, § 70 is according to. Kummer at Lauterbach pag. 62 copied from Luther's hand psalter, while according to Aurifaber and Bindseil III, 219 it is supposed to be a consolation writing that Luther sent to Justus Jonas.
Cap. 27, § 56, the statement is attributed to Campegius at the Imperial Diet in Augsburg in 1530/which, according to Cordatus No. 1480, Aleander made in Worms in 1521.
Cap. 17, § 4 is attributed in part to Luther's wife, in part erroneously to the wife of M. A. Lauterbach, against Cordatus No. 1205.
Cap. 15, §30 is titled: Prayer for a Child-Bearer. The title is fictitious. Cf. Cordatus No. 933; also incorrectly Bindseil II, 184.
Cap. 7, § 25, para. 3, middle: "da nun Magister Rörer sagte"; whereas Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1595: "da sprach die Frau."
Cap. 27, § 10, last paragraph, Veit Dietrich is introduced against Cord. No. 920. Likewise Bindseil III, 228>.
1) This statement and some of the following ones may be correct: but we do not consider them reliable at all, because the originals do not mention anything about it.
Cap. 71, § 2, Bindseil I, 209, Rebenst. I, 110K, Veit Dietrich is introduced against Cordatus No. 672.
Cap. 69, § 1, para. 4, where Hebrew is mentioned, Mag. Förster must help to speak, in Bindseil If 261 and Rebenstock I, 1856 the professor of Hebrew, Matthias Aurogallus, is added against Cord. No. 1615.
Cap. 51, § 3, middle, M. Leonhard the Mathematicus joins in the astronomy against Cordatus No. 953. Likewise Binds. I, 86 and Rebenst. I, 49a. Förstemann-Pindseil and the Erlangen edition make in a note the pastor Leonhard Beier in Zwickau to this Mathematicus.
Cap. 26, § 30 and Bindseil II, 292, Schlaginhaufen is introduced against Cord. No. 378.
Cap. 26, § 20 Aurifaber brings Melanchthon and Pommer, in against Cord. No. 475 and Binds. II, '302.
Cap. 4, § 124 at the beginning and Binds. II, 292, D. Henning is introduced against Cordatus No. 970. Likewise Cap. 13, § 67 against Cord. No. 1072 "and Cap. 9, § 63 against Cordatus No. 1501.
Cap. 4, § 58, Bindseil I, 184 and Rebenst. I, 99a, Valentin Mellerstädt is introduced against Cord. No. 1266.
Cap. 72, § 2 Doctor Johann Cellarius v. Cord. No. 1709.
Cap. 19, § 4, Binds. Ill, 25 and Rebenst. II, 133a Mag. Hausmann v. Cord. No. 1350. In the German Tischreden he is called pastor in Zwickau, Rebenstock calls him pastor in Dessau and Bindseil says that he officiated in Dessau.
Cap. 27, § 153, D. Jonas is introduced against Cord. No. 1363. Likewise Binds. I, 130 and Rebenst. I, 76a.
Cap. 22, § 34 Aurifaber introduces M. Joh. Mathesius against Cord. No. 1688, also against Binds. I, 38 and Rebenst. l, 216.
Pointless stuff.
It is not uncommon to find quite meaningless sayings in the "Table Talks" that run through all the editions.
Cap. 76, § 14: The right worship and invocation of the prophet Elijah and the Baali-
Cap. 37, § 30: Arch-heretics were said to have no hope for their fatherland.
Cap. 15, § 41: Then the eyes of all the horses were full of gnats and flew out to the country.
Cap. 78, § 2: Therefore one should get used to being industrious in time, even in the least, otherwise nothing will come of such rascals.
Cap. 62, § 2: No strength nor manhood can help against guns; he is dead before he is seen. Likewise Bindseil II, 194.
Cap. 76, § 19, para. 2 at the end: Christ is called an anointed one; with this they anointed and crowned kings.
Cap. 27, § 82: Finally, the fraud and deception was revealed by a boy and driven out of the country by the king.
Cap. 14, § 19: cups, which they touch with a little finger, instead of: they "do not" touch.
Cap. 43, § 5: A hen and she, instead of: a he [male] and a she.
Cap. 76, § 27, para. 4: Arragon and Pinskay are mountainous countries, pour water into the flour and put it outside on a hot stove and thus bake bread from it. (This sentence is improved from Slangwald.)
Cap. 43, § 167b, middle of the paragraph: who had a pig's spit standing by him, which also jumped out of bed and fiercely defended itself.
The Latin table talks also offer something similar. Bindseil 1, 145, middle: Erat enim depicta virgo Eva a Drotz, cum qua dux Bruns. Henricus genuit tres liberos in virginitate, et quinque post mortem martern. After martern, perhaps uxoriL 8uae will have to be added, and virZinit8, 8 to be understood from the time before he was married. Likewise Rebenstock I, 79 b.
Knowingly counterfeiting.
Aurifaber seems to have had Lauterbach's diary in front of him in a fairly original form, but a form of Cordatus' diary that had been corrupted by multiple copying and editing. He himself also contributed to making these deviations even greater. From the Lauterbach
The German is mostly quite faithfully reproduced in his notes, but the Latin, which forms the main part, is often mistranslated, expanded, shortened, often not understood at all. The difficult passages are mostly skipped and omitted, or, if he has dared to translate them, wrongly rendered, not infrequently the exact opposite of what the originals offer.
But not only from ignorance and lack of understanding come many inaccuracies, false statements, etc. in the table talks, but often, unfortunately we must say, they are deliberate falsifications. What may have caused Aurifaber to do this, we leave undecided. Also during the publication of the Jena edition of Luther's works, he would have tried, as already mentioned above, to include other writings than those published by Luther himself, but fell into disfavor over this and was therefore deposed from his office as court preacher in Weimar by Duke John Frederick the Middle. 1) With respect to the two Eislebische Theile published by Aurifaber, Walch, old edition, Vol. XXIV, p. 645, § 31 states: "One has wanted to pretend that some things were printed here under Luther's name, which he did not do, but Aurifaber wanted to assure the opposite. So much is clear to us that one has to be very careful and cautious in what goes back to the Eislebian volumes as the first source. Many errors in the editions are due to the Eislebic edition. For example, the letter to Joachim von Anhalt is given by Aurifaber in the Eisl. Ausg. Ü, 499 as not having been printed before. However, it is found in the Wittenbergische Ausg., vol. Xll, 162d and in the Jenaische, vol. VI, 167. Cf. Walch, St. Louiser Ausg., vol. X, 1808 and again old edition, vol. XXI, 1407. De Wette IV, 460 and IV, 536.
The "Concern and Instruction of the Monasteries, and all Spiritual Vows," which is part of the sermon on the day of the Three Kings,
1) Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XXIV, the fourth chapter, especially p. 641, h 29 ff.
is also marked in the Eislebische Ausgabe as not having been printed before, but it is found in the Wittenb. Ausg. vol. IV, 464 and twice in Walch, alte Ausg. vol. XIX, 2053 and St. Louis Ausg. vol. XI, 391-414, §§ 253-312.
In the Eislebische Sammlung II, 112, the "German short interpretation of the 23rd, 24th and 25th Psalms" is preceded by the remark: "The following interpretation of three Psalms is taken and added from D. Luther's own handwriting. Luther's own manuscript." Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. IV, 2220. The Latin edition Eri. Tom. XVII, 276, which is procured by the children and heirs of Veit Dietrich in 1559, is also prefixed: De autographo D. Lutheri expressa". Thus we have two autograph originals by Luther of the same writing.
The text: "Die zehn Gebote GOttes mit einer kurzen Auslegung ihrer Erfüllung und Uebertretung", Walch, old edition, vol. Ill, 1994-2005, is a German translation of the Latin text Eri. Tom. XII, 219 ff, rearranged and somewhat changed and shortened at the end. Only a small section Eri. Tom. XU, 226, item (e) septem - gratiae is missing. In the Wittenberg and Jena editions only in Latin. Viteb. I, 199, Ion. 1, 175. This German Uebersetzung first appeared in d^r Eislebische Ausgabe I, 21 and from there passed into the other editions. The other authentic German version is found in Wittenb. Ausg., vol. VI, 104 (108); Jen. I. 244 (319b); Walch, St. Louiser Ausg., vol. X, 148 ff.
What, in the case of these and similar pieces, only suggests itself as a suspicion that Aurifaber may not have proceeded with complete honesty in the publication of Luther's writings, becomes an undoubted, irrefutable certainty when we look at his edition of the Table Talks. Already among the pieces that Aurifaber, as the first writer, handed down, we encountered in Cap. 1, § 95, Para. 1 an excerpt from Luther's writing: "Wider den Meuchler zu Dresden" (Against the Assassin at Dresden), Walch, old edition, Vol. XVI, 2069, § 6. If we look around further in the Table Talks, we encounter in more than 140 paragraphs of the Table Talks probably more than two
The author has inserted, omitted, made introductions, conclusions, and applications to a hundred sections that have escaped from other, already printed writings of Luther, which Aurifaber has remodeled according to his liking. All the pieces he took from Luther's writings were more or less changed by him to make them appear as table speeches.
Because we have referred to the relevant passages in Luther's works for all such pieces that we have discovered, we will limit ourselves here to indicating only some of the most obvious ones.
Cap. 10, § 12, Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2044 f., is from Luther's gloss on the supposed imperial edict, but prefaced: "Dear Sirs, said v. Martinus Luther."
Cap. 1, § 40, Walch, St. Louis ed. vol. XI, 523, § 19 and 519, § 9, is from the Church Postilla, but prefaced: "Of this saying one asked D. M. Luthern."
Cap. 1, § 49, Walch, St. Louis ed. vol. XI, 546, § 2 and § 4, is from the church postilion, but introduced: "Es fragete einer über D. Luthers Tische."
Cap. 9, § 33. 34. 35., Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XIII, 541, § 5 and 6; 542, § ch 543, § 8; 550, § 31; 545, § 15; 543, § 9; 545, § 16; 543, § 11. 12. 13; 546, § 20. 21; 549, § 27. 28, divided into 13 pieces and mixed together, with expletives and additions, formed entrances and concluding speeches. They are all from the same sermon on Sunday Quasimodogeniti in the house postille, but prefaced, "Since D. Martinus was asked..." "he answered."
Cap. 10, § 4, Walch, St. Louis ed. vol. XIII, 1623 f., § 15. 16, is from the house postilla, but introduced: "sprach D. Martinus."
Cap. 10, § 6, Walch, St. Louis ed. vol. XI, 555, § 7. 8. 9. 10; 557, § 12; 558, § 14; 559, § 16. 17, is from the church postilion, but introduced, "What, said D. M. Luther."
Cap. 10, § 7, Walch, St. Louis ed,
Vol. XI, 1268, §61, is from the Church Postilla, but prefaced: "Since on the third Sunday after Trinity the Gospel of the Good Shepherd, who sought the lost sheep, was commemorated."
Cap. 19, § 25, Walch, St. Louis ed. vol. X, 137, § 246 and 130, § 232, is from the Great Catechism, but prefaced, "It was asked."
Cap. ^l8, § 12, Walch, St. Louis ed. vol. X, 2158, § 1-8, is from the brief instruction on how to confess.
Cap. I, § 61, Walch, old ed. vol. VIII, Cap. 2, § 55. 56. 63. 67. 68, is from the great interpretation of the Epistle to the Galatians, but introduced: "D. Luther sagete."
Lap. 2, § 151, Walch, old edition, vol. VIII, ibid, Cap. I, § 60 and 59, transposed and abridged and introduced: "I have often said it, said D. Martinus, and still say it."
Cap. 7, § I, paras. 4 and 5, ibid. Walch, Vol. VIII, Cap. 4, §46, introduced: "So gedachte sein abermal D. M. Luther."
Cap. 7, § 57, ibid, Walch, vol. VIII, 1524, § 1, introduced: "In my heart, said D. Martinus."
Cap. 9, § 7, ibid, Walch, vol. VIH, cap. I, § 68, introduced: "Since one asked."
Cap. 12, § 67, is compiled from Luther's Preface on the New Testament of 1545, Walch, old edition, vol. XlV. 103, § 14. 15 and (paras. 2 and 3) from the great interpretation of the Epistle to the Galatians, Walch, vol. VIII, Cap. 2, § 137, introduced: "Therefore I say."
Cap. 12, § 73, Walch, Vol. VIII, Interpretation of the Epistle to the Galatians, Cap. 2, § 128 and § 152, introduced: "I say truly, said D. Martin."
As an indication, this will probably be enough. More than ten times as much proof can be found in our new edition, and yet Aurifaber says quite naively in his preface to the edition of 1568, which is included above: "so I do not like to see that one buys old for new and that the people are changed by the new titles and improvements on the nose." And yet only he, and no one else, sets the
The author is not interested in the content of the book, but rather in the way it is presented to the public.
Credibility of Table Talks.
Not all information even from the first recorders of the Table Talks is completely reliable. Cordatus No. 338 has quite a number of erroneous statements about? Incidents from Luther's life. The name of Luther's mother is incorrectly given, Hanna instead of Margaretha, the year of Luther's birth is only corrected by an old hand, probably from 1484 to 1483, the time of the omission of the theses is set in the year 1516 instead of 1517, the time of the first papal bull of excommunication in the year 1519 instead of 1518, as it is correctly stated in Cord. No. 569 is correctly stated.
In No. 343, Cordatus says that Luther omitted his theses in the second year after he became a doctor, even though Luther had already received his doctorate in 1512. The same error is also found by Kummer in Lauterbach pag. 102. - In Nö. 930 it is stated that Luther became a doctor in his 27th year, instead of in his 29th year, cf. Cord. No. 892.
Cord. No. 632 the relation is in several details different from what Luther himself writes to Amsdorf in 1525, 1) 2000 florins instead of 4000 florins at Cordatus. The latter does not state that Luther had the Polish Jew imprisoned, which is stated in this letter as well as in the letter to Spalatin 2), and that Luther had him set free because he did not want him to be martyred.
Therefore, we should not be surprised that we encounter many more and grosser errors among the later collectors of the Table Talks. We know that Luther had five living children, namely John, Martin, Paul and Magdalena. Elisabeth, about one year old, died again on August 3, 1528. Rebenstock, however, lets Luther himself tell in a conversation, which falls into the year 1532, and where Cordatus speaks only of three children, that he had six children.
4) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 951, § 5.
2) Walch, old edition,,Ban- XXI, 955, § 1.
Rebenftock adds a fourth, Andreas, to Luther's three boys. In the Höllische Handschrift 1) Luther already has six children and the wife is pregnant with the seventh.
Especially from Cordatus, Veit Dietrich and Schlaginhaufen we know (not so definitely from Lauterbach) that they made their notes on the spot, in the presence of Luther. Nevertheless, with respect to the table speeches copied from Luther, what Walch said at the end of his preface p. 23 b remains true. 23 b at the end: "One does not deny that, because it has not been possible to memorize all the words as they were spoken, and therefore to record them always in the most exact manner, it soon happens that one person, when he hears another's speech, sometimes does not quite grasp and understand it, and therefore cannot put it down on paper correctly: Also, since such collected speeches have been copied by others, some errors can creep in, and these table speeches have been marked differently in some parts and subsequently printed, than the same Lutherus really spoke. But this in itself does nothing. The inaccuracies that have been incorporated do not overthrow the work itself, Lutherus remains the author, and what I noted earlier, that those who collected these speeches could and would have written down the truth, also remains true. One only makes a distinction between the thing itself and some special circumstances of it."
Other questions, which should be discussed in a preface to the Table Talks, are answered by Walch in his preface so appropriately and aptly that we are unable to put anything better in its place and therefore place the relevant paragraphs here.
§ The other question which I have to deal with here is: if Lutherus is to be regarded as the author of the Table Talks per se, whether it would have been advisable to have made them known through printing after his death? To this I answer in the negative, and believe that it would have been better if they had never been published.
1) BiNdkeil II. 353.
and would have published them. For the fact that one writes down another's speeches, which one hears from him over the table or otherwise in familiar company, and thereby has the intention of using them only for oneself, is not in itself wrong; that they are subsequently, when their author is dead, disseminated to all the world through printing, is a thing that one cannot approve of so generally. It happens, without dispute, against the intention of the one who spoke it. To a certain extent, one does him an injustice after his death by having him print something that he did not want to have printed. Many things are spoken in confidence at the table and to good friends: one speaks something that one has misgivings about saying at another time and in another place; indeed, if one worries that it might be spread and brought among other people, one even holds back. The publication of such table speeches was also not necessary. Blessed Luther had left behind so many splendid and excellent books that one could be satisfied with them and have reason to praise and glorify God for this noble treasure: not to think how one gave the papists the opportunity for many blasphemies and slanders against Luther's person and life.
To prove this, Walch refers to the unanimous judgment of many eminent men, Christians and pagans, and finally, to Luther's Latin preface to the "conciunculae", which has already been touched upon several times. 2)
Then Walch continues, § XXII: "If one had wanted to promote Luther's Table Talks for printing, it would have been good if one had made a proper selection and not found all those who had written miau, but only those who could not give any offense. This has already been mentioned here and there. Among others, Mr. D. Rechen berg 3 writes: rrectius colloquiorum illorum collec-
2) Walch, page 27, has the following comment on this: "e) Nicolaus Selnecker, in the preface; or rather, in the letter, which he made to these table speeches in 1577, is not satisfied with those who think that such speeches should not have been printed." Selnecker then seeks to refute the reasons of those who opposed the printing.
3) In the dissertation cited above, § XV.
tores fecissent, si graviores ejus sententias a lepidis, quae ipsi, forte remissionum tempore, in mensa cum jucundis amicis confabulanti, exciderunt, separassent et has non conjecissent in chartas et postea typis mandassent publicis, ac adeo sycophantarum turbae, cui tantopere exosus est Lutherus, calumniandi ansam praebuissent. This did not happen, and Joh. Aurifaber, who first brought the work to light, made a mistake in it, not only because of a lack of reflection that clung to him, as some believe, but rather out of excessive respect for Luther, by virtue of which he thought that nothing of what he had said and written should be left behind, but that everything should be published and made known through printing. And even if this respect prevented the proper and sufficient insight, the oversight that occurred originally came not from a corruption of the intellect, but of the will.
§ XXOOl: "The third question, which I have to discuss here, is: 'Since Luther's table speeches have been made common by printing, whether anything can be proved from them that is detrimental to the best person and doctrine? It is known what kind of slander, special-
1) Walch's note p. 27: "Z) In the Höllische auserlesenen Anmerkungen part. II. p. 161, it is said that the ludicrous Anton Lauterbach had first compiled Luther's table speeches, but Aurifaber had made them common to Luther's extreme prostitution out of a pedantic simplicity and lack of understanding through printing, which judgment seems to be somewhat too harshly formulated. Of the same opinion is Just Christoph Motschmann in Lrkkoräia utsrata, namely in the second collection p. 222, but he expresses it somewhat less harshly, noting that Aurifabro's power of judgment was weak, and that this could be seen especially clearly in the table speeches of Lutheri that he compiled, since he did not keep the slightest selectum, but gathered together everything that occurred to him, without considering whether it was spoken in jest or in earnest: whether it could be interpreted as good or bad. Therefore, those with understanding often wished that such collection had either been omitted altogether, or had been done with more caution."-In Walch's note p. 28, 6) it is said that D. Heu mann in poscil. torn. II, lidr. I. p. 6, Luther would never have given his consent to the publication of the Tischreden. ^urikai-er autsrn I^utberurn babobat pro oraoulo ynociarn, at^ue 6tiain svnta OZN8 ornnia pntabat 6886 1ins6nda. - Seckendorf in bistor. Krittler. lidr. Ill, z 134, p. 643 calls the table speeches: lidrurn minus osuts eompositurn, aut VulMtum.
The first time, Satan needed unfaithful and ungrateful disciples. In the beginning, Satan needed unfaithful and ungrateful disciples, people to whom Luther had done many good deeds. The most distinguished among them were: Georg Wicelius, Johann Agricola and Friedr. Staphylus. After the Table Talks came out, one thought to have found all sorts of things in them by which one could, as it were, make him stink with everyone, or paint a color on these and those slanders. One has sometimes mounted something against his person, sometimes against his teachings, and wanted to take the proof from such speeches. This has now been done without reason, and it is considered reasonable that nothing can be proven from the Table Talks that could be detrimental to Luther. For even if they came from him, as I have noted before, they are and remain table speeches: speeches that he spoke without prior deliberation, that were written out without his care and will, and after his death a special book of them was brought to light, which he could neither see nor read through. Our scholars of God have long since remembered this, not without reason. I refer to Johann Gerhard, 2) Leonhard Hutter, Johann Adam Schertzer, Joh. Adam Osiander, Georg Zeämann, not to think of others."
§ XXIV: "In order to elaborate on this, I will add a few special remarks. The first is that one encounters many learned and excellent things in Luther's Table Talks, according to all kinds of matter of which they deal. Of the main articles of our Christian religion, many beautiful thoughts are found here, as of the Word of God, of Christ, of free will, of the difference between the Law and the Gospel, of justification etc. It
2) Walch's note p. 28: "N He writes in 6X6F68. artio. <is seriptura saer. § OXXXIII, p. 51: Iib6r eonvivialium 86rrnonuni " ibntlmro nee visus, noo l66tU8, N66 aä probat U8 68t, qnin multoti68 xrivato ynoruruckarn arbitrio mutatus, mutilatus, auetn8, iä yuoä üäoin autbsnticam illi inorito äero^at. So he also judges in eoniessiono eatbolioa p. 331 and in äi8putationibn8 tkoolosio. p. 1210." An apt, sharp-witted judgment!
is emphatically taught about the Roman Antichrist and the Pabstacy is presented in its right form. From time to time, many serious and moving admonitions and warnings are given. The book can be read and used with benefit; it serves not only for learning, but also for edification. Andreas Stangwald 1) presents this with several others, and adds: It can be said without falsehood that in these miscellanea the whole Christian doctrine is abundantly, brightly and clearly set forth, so that in it every Christian can have rich and full instruction of all that he needs to know for his soul's bliss. Johann Aurifaber notes exactly this, and Nicolaus Selnecker says that there are many great teachings, spirit and comfort in these table speeches, so that one must hold it in high esteem."
Then Walch defends Luther against the accusation that he spoke too disdainfully of some books of the Holy Scriptures and of the church teachers, "and then continues:
ß XXVII: "Thirdly, I add that even if one encounters one and the other in Luther's table speeches that one cannot approve of and endorse per se, he is nevertheless to be excused for this reason, or nothing is to be proven against his person and teaching. This remark is also of such a nature that it is based on good reasons. Blessed Luther was a human being and the grace of God, which proved itself in him powerfully, did not go any extraordinary ways with him, which made him not only gradually enlightened and sanctified, but also constantly clung to human errors and weaknesses, and he therefore spoke and did many things that did not come from the spirit of God dwelling in him, but from flesh and blood, and from the remnants of his corrupt nature. He himself knew this very well and confessed it freely. He says in one place: 2) In St. Augustine's office
1) In his attribution of the Table Talks.
2) Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XIII, 1976, § 7, Hauspostille, Pred. über das Ev. am Sonnt. Jubilate.
In the books one finds many sayings that flesh and blood have spoken, and I must also confess of myself that I speak many words that are not God's words when I speak outside the preaching ministry, at home over the table, or otherwise. He had spoken and written many things in the heat, which he later recognized as a mistake and complained about it. In another place, he remembers how he puts down on paper in a few words one thing and another that he has in mind, so that he does not forget it: There are in them (as we are human beings) such things as are human, even tasting of the flesh. For when we are alone and disputing, we are also often angry; and God laughs at our excellent wisdom, with which we show ourselves whimsical before him; only believe that he also delights in such of his fools, who teach him how to rule, which I have not seldom done and still often do.'"
§ XXVIII: "Out of such human weakness, or out of the corruption of a lively, bright, and hot temper, some of Luther's speeches have flowed, which, considered in themselves, are not to be condoned; but he is to be excused. For if he sometimes made joking speeches; if he used an expression that does not completely correspond to decency, he did not do so out of a special inclination to what is dishonorable and indecent, but out of carelessness and thus indicated that he was a human being. It remains to be seen whether all idioms, words and expressions really flowed out of his mouth as they were distinguished by his table companions and other acquaintances and subsequently made common through printing. Thus, here too, one must not lose sight of the nature of the time in which he lived. The way of speaking
3) Wülch, St. Louiser Ausg., Vol. XII, 1859 f. in the preface to some short sermons, given to a good friend as a rule.
and writing was much harder then than it is now. That which is called decent is changeable. Herr von Seckendorf 1) says: multa verba et dicteria, quae hodie vilia aut spurca habentur, illo tempore sine turpitudine dici poterant et inter facetias non inhonestas locum habebant, quod ex collatione veterum et recentiorum librorum haud difficulter demonstrari posset. Many times it happened that Luther showed his zeal against shameful things, and then he thought that it was not necessary for him to measure the words according to the art, not to think how Luther's enemies often took them out of context and twisted them in many ways."
Wrampelmeyer in his preface p. 37 says: "Also the reproach could be made to the records of Cordatus that they contain just like the later table speeches some coarse, for us offensive. Of course, they do not contain as much offensiveness as the Latin and German table speeches, but at least enough. Here we' certainly must not apply the standard of the present time. Luther's manner has certainly often not been a fine one. But he speaks the language of his people and of his time, and at that time people not only did not take offense at such expressions, but even counted them among the good jokes." Further, in the third note to No. 124 of Cordatus: "Such expressions of Luther's prove very often in the German table speeches, in the pieces which transmit them together with Cordatus, to be later additions not originating from Luther." .. . "The strongest such expressions tend as a rule to occur in Luther only," . "when he wishes to lend the strongest expression to his abhorrence of the devil, his instruments and works." To this we have to add: At that time, when a court jester could put something in his prince's boots and then, to the general amusement of the people, could excuse himself with impunity by saying that a little bird had done it 2), many things were considered proper that are judged quite differently in our time. Therefore, one should not be surprised if such things happen to us.
1) In 6i8tor. 6ut6. likr. Ill, § 134, n. 643.
2) Bindseil I, 250.
Offensive things also occur here and there in the table speeches. By our standards, indecency is found several times, but in our edition, which has been renewed according to the originals, not nearly as much as in the old editions; however, Luther never contains anything truly indecent, no matter how much his enemies would like to burden him with it.
Some people also take offense at some of Luther's harsh statements. Often Luther speaks very harshly about the peasants, as well as about burghers and nobles. That in this Luther, who calls himself the son of a farmer, is not a haughty contempt of honest classes, especially the peasantry, but the expression of the truth: "that the more blessings God pours out on people, the more ungrateful they are," is evident from what we read in Cordatus No. 700, in our Table Talks Cap. 4, §20: "Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jsaat were not only farmers and tillers of the soil, but also theologians, for the Scripture says (Gen. 24, 63.) that Isaac went into his field to signify the gifts of God and the creatures that are perceived in the field."
According to this, Luther also declares our faithful, godly peasants to be theologians who do not fall under his harsh judgments.
Something similar is laid down by Walch in his preface in the 29th paragraph. Then he continues in § XXX: "The enemies and the ill-minded can carefully read out of the Table Talks everything that, according to their imagination, serves against the blessed Luther, and therefore take the opportunity to blaspheme and slander in many ways; but if they wanted to show themselves honest and impartial, then they should not forget the many good and useful things that are in it, and for this reason let both Luther himself and the book receive what is right and fair. This must be done here all the more, because one finds far more to praise than to blame in this work. Nicolaus Selnecker 3) writes, not without good reason: "It is a sin and a disgrace that the unholy slanderers have come out of a great, beautiful, excellent garden,
3) In the letter to the table speeches.
If there are all kinds of noble trees, fruits, herbs and fragrant flowers in it, and among them a prickly sour herb is found for the wild pigs, they will soon turn their eyes and judgment on such a bitter herb and for that reason reject and destroy the whole garden along with all noble trees and fruits and not think that just such a prickly herb was put there for the wild, desolate pigs. It can be seen from this how Luther always spoke of important and useful things at his table and also presented a teacher to his table guests here, not without some advantage. That is why Herr von Seckendorf also says: 1) Joci aliquantum liberiores in conviviis et inter familiares ei exciderunt; sed conversatio illa amoenior et amorem ei conciliavit, et plurimis profuit; sale enim condire noverat jocos, et in conviviis proponere etiam solebat, quae ad firmandam fidem christianam et corrigendos mores facerent, ut vel ex libro colloquiorum mensalium, minus quidem caute composito aut vulgato, constare potest, et scriptorum fide dignorum testimonio adseritur."
§ XXXI: "But as it is abundantly clear from what I have just said that blessed Luther must be excused if things occur in the Table Talks that are not in themselves to be approved of; so in truth his enemies can cite nothing from it or prove anything that would be detrimental to him and the best doctrine. Let it be said that there is something in them that is either false and erroneous, or evil and dishonorable; does one know that such passages have been so carefully noted and correctly recorded by those at the table that they are in all respects as Luther really spoke them? Is it not fair that those writings which he himself brought to light, or which came out during his lifetime and with the best of his knowledge and will, should be preferred to the table speeches, and that his teachings and opinions should not be judged both by these and by those? For since the aforementioned table speeches are, according to his-
1) In the Historia Lutk. lid. Ill, § 134, x. 643.
Since it is not known whether they were understood and written out correctly in all respects, since they are table speeches and thus conversations that were brought forward without prior consideration, it would be astonishing if one wanted to derive and prove the best doctrines from them, and not rather from the writings that Luther himself edited. To prove this, Walch then states that according to Cap. 17, § 3, Para. 3, in case of need, baptism can also be done with wine, beer, milk, and the like, whereas Luther, in his sermon on baptism 2) from 1540, says that it must be water, not wine, beer, lye, or any other thing. On the basis of this, the papists also accused Luther of error. But now we see from the originals of the Table Talks, 3) that Luther said nothing of the kind, so the accusations of the papists are completely groundless.
Then Walch continues, § XXXII: "And how may the admirers of the Roman bishop bear with Luther's table speeches? How might they judge his person and teachings according to them, and therefore take their accusations against him in the first place? since they would certainly not approve if one were to seduce them and their own in the same way. If one were to record the table speeches of popes, cardinals, bishops, prelates and others, there would certainly be such evil, ungodly, shameful things that one would not easily hear. If they were to be compiled and made known through printing, the papists would in truth be doing a bad favor. Yes, what would they say if one were to judge the character and doctrine of this and that person on the basis of such speeches and therefore wanted to get the proof, since one could perhaps do this with more justification than with Luther's table speeches and also add the shameful deeds? This is what our people have long since recalled against them, and not without reason. Among others, Joh. Ernst Gerhard says: 4) 'et sane
2) Walch, old edition, vol. VII, 1011, § 13; Col. 1015, 8 19.
4) In the letter to his father Joh. Gerhard patroloK.
si, ut sermones conviviales, quos adversarii beati Lutheri super mensa in familiari colloquio proferre saepe adsolent, in publicum spargerentur, contingeret, nae futurum, ut quam plurimi erubescant notabiliter'. And Adam Rechenberg1 ) writes: ,aegre ipsi pontificii ferunt, si, quae de pontificum Romanorum, episcoporum et aliorum sacri ordinis hominum sermonibus aut dicteriis, parum Christianis, passim memorant historici, illis exprobrantur. Cur ergo Lutherani reprehendunt, si forte aliquando inter familiares amicos liberius paulo de hac, vel illa re loquutus sit? Nemo sane unqam ex illo vel tam turpes voces audivit, vel in colloquiis ejus consarcinatis legit, quales in pontificum et episcoporum Romanensium vitis, aut scriptis leguntur. '"
Our issue.
We have removed 520 "duplicates" from the Table Talks, which are found partly in the Table Talks themselves and partly elsewhere in Luther's writings.
The diaries of Cordatus and Lauterbach are entirely translated by us from Latin and included in our edition.
In the diary of Cordatus there are 1843 numbers in total. Of these, 1031 are included in the Table Talks, 727 in Appendix No. II; not used because Duplicate etc., 85 numbers.
Lauterbach has a total of 488 numbers. Of these, 356 numbers are housed in the Tischreden, 127 in Appendix No. I.; 5 numbers are not used. Of these, two are duplicates, two are not by Luther, and one number is not suitable for sharing.
From sorrow 24 pieces are placed in the table speeches.
All Bible passages are looked up and many other errors are improved.
1) In the Dissert. äs solloquiis rnenssliduslmtkeri 8 XXII. one thue add: Ioh.Gerhard in sontsssion, eatkolis. p. 331. Joh. Möller in äslsnsions Imtksri äsksnsi v. 13. and Ernst S a l. Cyprian in the Überzeugende Belehrung vom Ursprung und Wachstumhum des Pabstthums x. 692.
To bring pieces that have been torn apart back together, the following is transferirt:
Cap. 1,§ 62 after
Cap. 66, 8 33.
Partial
In
" 17, § 10 is Cord. No. 1183 to 1155 inserted.
Cap. 12, 8 71
According to Cap. 27, 8106.
" 22, § 10. ,
" 26, § 35
" 37, § 29
" 30, § 14. '
Partial
" . 45, § 65
" 13, § 44.
The last paragraph
Partial
Annex § 10.
Cap. 69, § 1.
" 67, § 2.
In the case of a number of other pieces, which are also separate, the transfer was not necessary because, as often happens in conversations, there was no internal connection.
Only one heading has been changed by us, Cap. 39, § 12 after Cord. No. 230, where the manuscript offers struthio, not scorpio.
Some pieces are given by us twice, both according to the redaction of Lauterbach and according to that of Cordatus, namely Cap. 3, § 16; Cap. 27, § 11 and 30, § 10; Cäp. 27, § 36 and 56, § 4; Cap. 43, § 63 and Cap. 62, § I and 75, § 2.
Twice, according to Cordatus and Kummer, we have communicated: Cap. 4, § 82 and 24, § 59: Cap. 15, § 11 and Cap. 2, § 121; Cap. 22, § 6; Cap. 22, § 12 and 73, § 14; Cap. 73, § 17; Cap. 75, § 1; Cap. 76, § 23.
In the choice of pieces we have been bound by the old table speeches, and have left many a paragraph which, if the choice had been with us, we would not have given. But because these
pieces have often been brought to light in corrupted and mutilated form, justice demands that they now be published in proper form as well.
The external arrangement of the table speeches into chapters, as in Aurifaber, and into paragraphs, as in Walch, even the headings of the paragraphs, we have left unchanged, because they have often been cited and we did not want to cut off the possibility for the buyers of our edition to look up such pieces.
We have often used Wrampelmeyer's remarks without using his own words. We consider it necessary to note this explicitly here.
We have left unchanged those pieces of Aurifaber's edition with respect to which we could not draw anything from the originals. There is still much of value among them.
We have made use of square brackets [ ] several times in our edition: The word [ ] inserted in such
Brackets enclosed contains either an addition made by us, e.g. additions of initial letters of names, historical additions, additions of omissions, necessary word explanations, Bible passages inserted by us, translations where the Latin had to remain, or handwritten words, if they are particularly interesting, if a concise, untranslatable word is in the original, In the case of scholastic expressions, for a better understanding of our translation, sometimes also when the word we had at our disposal did not seem to completely cover the meaning of the original, or when we were not quite sure whether we had hit the right note.
Where it is a matter of a revelatory citation, the scriptural sayings are not reproduced by us in the version of the originals, nor, where it could be otherwise, according to the wording of the Vulgate, but according to Luther's translation of the Bible.