May 30: Martin Luther unwittingly ensnares Frederick the Wise

May 30, 1518, Martin Luther wrote General Vicar Johann von Staupitz, his immediate superior and mentor, a letter accompanying the tract ‘Resolutions’; both letter and tract were later printed together. ‘Resolutions’ was a tract intended to elaborate on his 95 theses. Among many clarifications Luther emphasized his 95 theses were not pure assertions; they were offered as subjects of inquiry inviting debate. Luther was not rampaging through the vineyard. He followed protocol. First, he obtained permission from his more than reluctant bishop Jerome Schulte of Brandenburg who warned him he ‘was touching the Church’. Then Staupitz was to forward the Resolutions to none other than Pope Leo X.

Pope Leo X by Raphael

courtesy MBell1975 (Flickr)

***

Accompanying Resolutions was a letter directly to the pope, Luther’s personal appeal to Leo X. Luther began in his usual colorful vein, ie, “I am accused of heresy, apostasy, and perfidy, and am called by six hundred other names of ignominy. My ears shudder and my eyes are astounded.” Luther reasoned to the pope that if he had acted improperly with his theses, would not Frederick the Wise (“Most Illustrious Prince Frederick, Duke of Saxony, Imperial Elector”), a lover of catholic and apostolic truth, have condemned him? Would not Luther’s university colleagues have condemned him? Luther was so naïve in politics. These arguments alone flagged him as an extreme danger to the Roman church. Luther finished, “In your voice I shall recognize the voice of Christ directing you and speaking in you. If I have deserved death, I shall not refuse to die.” Oh my!

***

What a burden to Frederick the Wise. In February 1518, his secretary Spalatin had first read the 95 theses to Frederick. The ageing sovereign must have sighed as he grumbled, “You will see that the pope will not like this.” And how Frederick the Wise must have bristled when he learned Luther in his letter to Leo X defended himself through a convoluted argument that enmeshed him and his university as well. Frederick himself used silence like a sledge hammer.

***

‘Resolutions’ satisfied no one and probably alarmed even Luther’s supporters. In August 1518, raging against Luther were both emperor Maximilian (Luther was a ‘pernicious author’) and pope Leo X (Luther was a ‘son of iniquity’), no doubt both prompted by high-ranking clerics. By October Leo X had promoted Luther to the ‘only son of Satan’. The power alone of Frederick the Wise, magnified even more by Maximilian’s grave health and imminent replacement, staved off Luther’s deportation and execution.

***

Sources: Principal are Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation, 1483-1521 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985) and Gottfried G. Krodel, ed., Letters I, volume 48 in Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963). The letters written by Leo X and emperor Maximilian are in Preserved Smith, Luther’s Correspondence and other Contemporary Letters, Volumes I and II (Lutheran Pub. Society, 1911, 1918). Smith is particularly entertaining because he has translated not only Luther’s letters but the letters of important contemporaries.

Q: Is it possible ‘naïve’ Martin Luther deliberately pulled Frederick the Wise into his camp?

Were Frederick the Wise and the emperor Maximilian truly adversaries?

The years of political friction between the emperor Maximilian and Frederick the Wise must not cloud the real personal relationship between the two men. The emperor Maximilian was the first cousin of Frederick the Wise’s father Ernst, but the emperor was less than four years older than Frederick. Maximilian and Frederick had known each other since childhood, even tested each other in the joust as devotees of knightly ways. Through all the years Maximilian remained openly, almost wildly, fond of Frederick.

Maximilian by Dürer 1519

courtesy F. Sigurski (Flickr)

***

George Spalatin, Frederick’s private secretary and biographer wrote, “Thus I Spalatin at the Reichstag in Augsburg in 1518 have seen my miracle, how his imperial Majesty resplendent in walking and standing before all electors, princes and estates, recognized him [Frederick the Wise] more then all other electors and princes. Such waving, such hand gestures, such behavior from his Majesty if he [Frederick the Wise] stood too far from his Majesty causing delay, that certainly, if the waving did not help, his imperial Majesty stepped from his throne and drew this elector closer to him.”

***

One can speculate the two ‘cousins’ thought alike, probably even sparked new ideas off each other, on how a prince should present himself. Regardless of political differences, which a prince was obligated to champion if the welfare of his subjects was at stake, they admired each other. What Frederick later told Spalatin was surely an indication of Maximilian’s charm and courteous behavior.

***

Spalatin wrote. “Oh indeed so polite was emperor Maximilian that this Elector [Frederick the Wise] said to me Spalatin, at Colditz after a Communion, how his Grace thought so highly of this Roman emperor that during his entire life he would meet no man on earth more gracious.”

***

Reference: Georg Spalatin, Friedrichs des Weisen Leben und Zeitgeschichte von Georg Spalatin (Georg Spalatins historischer Nachlaß und Briefe 1), ed. Christian Gotthold Neudecker and Ludwig Preller (Jena: 1851), 32. Quotes translated from the German by this blogger.

Q: What is more ‘real’ between the two ‘cousins’: the political animosity or the display of social friendship?

May 21 Frederick the Wise flaunts his deliberate snub of the emperor Maximilian

On 21 May 1509 Frederick the Wise appeared at the Reichstag (imperial diet of the Holy Roman Empire) in Worms. His arrival was well after the emperor Maximilian had departed for Italy. The mercurial Maximilian had double-crossed the Venetians by joining the warrior pope Julius II, Spain and the empire’s traditional enemy France (this alliance would go by various names including the Holy League). For the moment the ‘Holy League’ had the upper hand against Venice. Venice however was an enormously powerful Italian state, as Frederick well knew. And surely Frederick, who had negotiated so often for the empire, knew as well the alliance was fragile. The members did not really like each other. He might have guessed Julius II would soon realize weakening Venice, the only major power in Italy, was not wise for the papal state. The partners in the succeeding years would realign (Julius II died in 1513, France’s Louis XII in 1515) and repeatedly double-cross each other.

***

The imperial estates in the German lands knew all this as well. It must have irritated Maximilian no end when his own imperial estates deferred all help to him in the Venetian war until Frederick arrived at the 1509 Reichstag. That was how influential Frederick was. Virtually all the estates looked to him for guidance. Frederick knew how to protect his friends. Maximilian had already tried to get Frederick to assume the role of highest Field Marshall against Venice. Frederick, who could barely ride because of his health, refused. Next Maximilian had tried to get Frederick to lead negotiations with Venice. Frederick’s mind and heart were completely closed to imperial adventures, including those in Italy. He was far too shrewd however to bluntly refuse Maximilian this duty. By envoy before his arrival at the Reichstag he had asked Maximilian if he would have the power to conclude contracts and treaties. Maximilian gave no answer; he realized Frederick was too impartial for such authority. In this way Frederick caused the matter to die. Dead as well was any help from the imperial estates for Maximilian’s Italian adventure.

***

References: Ingetraut Ludolphy, Friedrich der Weise: Kurfürst von Sachsen, 1463-1525 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1984) and Hermann Wiesflecker, Maximilian I.: die Fundamente des habsburgischen Weltreiches (Oldenbourg: Munich, 1991).

Q: Is it possible these two grizzled veterans of imperial politics secretly agreed to do this so Maximilian could save face?

May 20 letter from Rome labels Frederick the Wise ‘Luther’s protector’

In a letter to Frederick the Wise dated 20 May 1520, Valentin von Tetleben, a cleric who served the archbishop of Mainz in the curia in Rome, warned Frederick that Martin Luther had caused the pope much trouble with his criticisms and furthermore the curia regarded Frederick as Luther’s protector. Before this direct accusation Frederick had feigned neutrality by insisting it was solely a church matter. Now he was being maneuvered into showing his hand. It was first time (according to scholar Martin Brecht) Frederick had to explicitly defend Luther.

***

Drafts of his reply to Tetleben exist in German, proving Frederick the Wise, as was his custom, labored over the answer that was finally sent in Latin. The letter to Tetleben stressed Frederick did not support Luther’s teachings. Frederick however would not hold Luther captive but would condone discussions involving Luther with fair, impartial judges. Frederick further emphasized that in an age of learning and curiosity even laymen were studying the Holy Scriptures. Raw ecclesiastical power was no longer an option for dealing with differences in biblical interpretations. Use of raw force by the church would ignite outrage.

***

Rome forged ahead. Surely they did not have Frederick’s reply when the papal office executed on June 15 the Exsurge domine (bill of excommunication). By September the news was sweeping through Saxony. Luther was just as volatile as his opponents. “Jacta est alea,” he seethed. (trans. "The die has been cast", a favorite expression of a Luther ally even more volatile: Ulrich von Hutten) When his opponents began burning his books, Luther by the Elster Gate in Wittenberg burned the papal bull as well as the volumes of canon law!

***

Main references used: Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation, 1483-1521 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985) and Paul Kirn, Friedrich der Weise und die Kirche (Leipzig/Berlin, 1926). Also Leif Grane, Martinus noster: Luther in the German Reform movement 1518-1521 (Mainz: von Zabern, 1994).

Q: Was Frederick the Wise threatening Rome about ‘igniting outrage’?

May 18: one more monarch in the extended family of Frederick the Wise

On May 18, 1483, Hans, son of Christian I, was crowned king of Denmark. Two months later Hans became also king of Norway. And who was queen of Denmark and Norway?

Frederick the Wise’s older sister Christina.

***

Frederick was 15 years old in 1478 when his older sister Christina (born 1461) married Hans, the son of the king of Denmark and Norway. It was but the first of many powerful arrangements Frederick’s father Elector Ernst made for his sons and daughters, all of course to benefit Electoral Saxony. In 1480 Ernst had journeyed to Rome and secured from the pope very powerful ecclesiastical positions for two of his sons. The one for Frederick’s brother Albrecht was the coveted position of the Archbishop of Mainz, who was also an electoral prince.

Q: Was the power marriage an effective strategy in general?

May 17: The end of a dangerous ‘friend’ in the life of Frederick the Wise

On May 17, 1523, Peter Maier, secretary to the Archbishop of Trier, reported that the bombardment of Nanstein castle near Landstuhl had consumed 6426 cannon balls and 400 tons of powder. Artillery units of the armies of the Archbishop of Trier, the Elector of Palatine and the Landgrave of Hesse had simultaneously bombarded Franz von Sickingen’s Nanstein castle from three directions. The event was notable for two reasons.

***

The bombardment on Nanstein was the most intense and sustained in history up to that point and virtually marked the end of castle defenses against such artillery. On April 30 the cannons of the three armies erupted, especially against the castle’s gun tower with its 20-feet thick walls. Within half a day the tower was dusty rubble. Old veterans of war said they had never heard such shooting before. If Franz von Sickingen had mastered the use of such an artillery attack and used it against the city of Trier eight months earlier there never would have been an attack on Nanstein.

***

The bombardment on Nanstein was notable also because it caused the demise of the most feared knight in the Holy Roman Empire. On May 2, flying timber from a blast almost gutted Franz von Sickingen. The wound was so ghastly the knight beside Sickingen fainted. Yet on May 2 the feisty Sickingen wrote a letter in ciphers to Schloer (who had left the castle with Sickingen’s youngest son) , admitting only that he was wounded ‘a little’. The infamous knight was barely alive when the conquering contingent entered the castle on May 7. The three great princes themselves walked in the contingent. This was after all Franz von Sickingen. Each in turn talked to the dying knight. Finally the Archbishop of Trier rudely asked, “What caused you to invade and shell me and my poor people?” “I did nothing without reason,” answered Sickingen testily. To another in the chamber, he said, “I am not the bride around whom one dances.” His moment had passed with his failed attack on Trier. The three princes departed. Sickingen died within the hour.

***

By early 1520 Sickingen had embraced the Luther ideas and made his sympathies known. Martin Luther had dedicated his paper on confession to Sickingen. The threat from the dreaded Sickingen was yet another reason in 1521 that anti-Luther forces hesitated to move on Martin Luther at Worms. Sickingen’s main stronghold at Ebernburg castle was a mere 30 miles from Worms. Still, both Luther and Frederick the Wise regarded Sickingen as unacceptably lawless and violent. Moreover, Frederick the Wise was good friends with the Archbishop of Trier. Regarding Sickingen’s attack on Trier, Luther wrote, “This will be a horrible affair.” Later, Luther noted Sickingen’s death was “a wondrous judgment of God”.

***

Main sources: Heinrich Ulmann, Franz von Sickingen (Leipzig, 1872) and Reinhold Scholzen, Franz von Sickingen (Kaiserslautern, 1996). Much of the contemporary eyewitness reporting was by Caspar Sturm, the very imperial herald who had escorted Martin Luther to and from Worms in 1521. Sturm was present during the bombardment of Nanstein as well as present at the death of Franz von Sickingen.

Q: Sickingen is known to have used cipher, suggesting it was common to use code in those days. Is it possible the constant and inordinate amount of chatter about jousting in letters between Frederick and his brother Johann was some form of code?

May 14 Frederick the Wise writes the greatest scholar in Europe: Erasmus

In November 1518, one year after the posting of the 95 theses, the Basel printer Johann Froben published the first collected edition of Luther's Latin writings. The result was electric. By early 1519 scholars all over Europe were discussing Luther ideas. The greatest of them all and one of the most cautious, Erasmus of Rotterdam, reluctantly tiptoed into the storm. He complained in an April 14 letter to Frederick the Wise that many accused him of being a confederate with Luther. As usual Erasmus claimed to be only vaguely acquainted with Luther ideas (he had in fact written Luther’s friend Johann Lang the previous October reproaching Luther for being too bold). Erasmus did note however in his letter to Frederick the Wise that Luther’s enemies ‘did not admonish him, did not instruct him, did not try to correct him’ (hinting they only wanted to permanently silence him). Erasmus moreover gave his approval of Frederick the Wise’s policy: “... since it is the task of your sovereign to protect the Christian religion... it behooves your wisdom not to permit any innocent to be extradited... under the pretext of piety by the Godless.”

***

On 14 May 1519 Frederick replied to Erasmus (in a letter probably drafted by himself but polished into elegant Latin by his secretary Spalatin) that Luther continued to live in Saxony, so far unthreatened bodily but attacked in all other ways. Frederick emphasized it would be “unfair to try to press punishment on that one who was worth all honor”. Could Frederick’s mindset about Luther have been more lucid? As noted previously in these blogs, as the grand old man of the electors who would soon replace the dead Maximilian with a new emperor, Frederick for the moment was the most influential figure in the Holy Roman Empire. Perhaps outside the empire as well because all three monarchs -- King François I of France, King Henry VIII of England and Charles I of Spain -- aspired to replace Maximilian. They all (including the pope) knew the ‘kingmaker’ was Frederick the Wise.

***

References: Ingetraut Ludolphy, Friedrich der Weise: Kurfürst von Sachsen, 1463-1525 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1984) and Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation, 1483-1521 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985)

Q: Do these letters not clarify the positions of both Frederick and Erasmus on the ‘Luther affair’?

Nexus of Legends: Frederick the Wise, Martin Luther and the jester Claus Narr

In the 1430s the Saxon Elector, Frederick the Wise’s grandfather, was “heartily amused” by a young gooseboy’s “naively brutal treatment of some geese he was tending.” The Elector took the boy Claus Narr into the electoral court as a jester. He was a dwarf, impetuous, foulmouthed and quick-witted. Claus eventually became the jester of Frederick the Wise. According to Martin Luther himself, once Frederick the Wise tried to embarrass Claus by asking him how much a precious stone was worth. Claus quipped the stone was “so valuable he must have a wealthier jester to esteem and evaluate it.” The Wettins valued the jester Claus at 3000 guldens in 1485 for the Leipzig Division of Saxony. In those days a lawyer would earn 200 guldens in a year.

***

Anecdotes relate that Claus Narr remarked on Luther but that is highly unlikely. Claus died in 1515 at perhaps 90 years old. Luther took the Saxon world by storm only after October 1517. Luther and his mentor Johann von Staupitz however knew all about Claus Narr. Claus not only disgusted them with his mocking and foul humor but frightened them with his clairvoyance. Both thought he was truly prophetic but possessed by a demon.

***

The image of Claus as an old man was very likely preserved by Frederick’s court painter Lucas Cranach. See http://arthistory.about.com/od/from_exhibitions/ig/cranach_stadel/lce1107_04.htm. The middle panel of so-called Torgau altarpiece of the Holy Kinship from about 1509 includes a sleeping (or bored) jester in a classic jester’s cap. He is indeed a dwarf and very old. No doubt Cranach’s ears burned from the little tyro. It should be noted however the more quick-witted and caustic the court jesters were, the more they were teased, even beaten.

***

About 50 years after the death of Claus Narr, Wolfgang Büttner compiled a folkbook of Claus Narr stories, much like the earlier, popular book of Till Eulenspiegel stories. Though the folkbook popularized Claus Narr the stories are problematical. A much more reliable account of Claus Narr had been written by Petrus Ackermann of Weida in 1536.

***

References for this blog were Ingetraut Ludolphy, Friedrich der Weise: Kurfürst von Sachsen, 1463-1525 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1984) and H.C. Erik Midelfort, A History of Madness in Sixteenth-Century Germany (Stanford Univ. Press, 1999).

Q: Were there any powerful figures of this time who condemned the use and abuse of jesters?

Dürer's 1524 portrayal of Frederick the Wise

How stunning is the auction in Berlin (and online) of several Dürer prints from the 16C? See http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/7432184. Apparently the Kupferstichkabinett of the great art museum complex in Berlin (near Potsdamer Platz) has consigned (I count 23) etchings of the great Albrecht Dürer to the Galerie Bassenge (Erdener Straße 5a, 14193 Berlin) in Berlin. Among the 23 prints, Lot 5112 is none other than Albrecht’s 1524 etching of Frederick the Wise. The print is in nearly perfect condition according to the description and bidding starts at a mere €4000. I'm joking, of course. But how I wish I could own such a prize. Bidding, already under way online, is in increments of €200. Bidding closes in June.

***

In 1524 Frederick the Wise was mortally ill. The following year he would die agonizingly from ‘stones’ in the gallbladder and kidney, the cause established by examining his organs before embalming. One stone in the kidney was two fingers long (“fast zweier Fingerglieder lang”) and prevented urination. His face is bloated in Dürer’s etching. Knowing the results of the ‘autopsy’, one can’t conclude from portraits of a bloated face that he was fat. Certainly pain can be seen in his bloated face. Another feature of interest is the bubbly lower lip. I suggest that this lip was actually malformed, probably from a jousting injury in his youth. If one looks closely at Dürer’s 1496 tempera portrait (http://www.wga.hu/support/viewer/z.html) of Frederick the same injury may be visible and actually extend down into the chin as a scar. It is not conclusive, only suggested because it appears asymmetrical.

Q: Do you agree that Frederick the Wise may have been disfigured?

May 11: This date in the life of Frederick the Wise

On 11 May 521 years ago, Hungarian troops menaced Frederick the Wise just two days from his favored residence in Torgau. Frederick was a mere 26 years old in 1489, ruling electoral Saxony not yet three years. Abruptly on that date the mercurial and very dangerous Hungarian King Matthias stopped his invasion, even declared peace.

***

On 11 May 491 years ago, Frederick the Wise received a demand from the Vatican envoy Miltitz to have a hearing with one of Frederick's subjects, the irksome monk Luther. Frederick at 56 in 1519 was ailing. Nevertheless as the grand old man of the electors who would replace the dead Maximilian with a new emperor, Frederick for the moment was the most powerful figure in the Holy Roman Empire. He politely but firmly brushed Miltitz aside.

***

Reference is Ingetraut Ludolphy, Friedrich der Weise: Kurfürst von Sachsen, 1463-1525 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1984).

Q: Do you agree that this blog illustrates the change in Frederick the Wise over 30 years from an inexperienced but lucky sovereign to a commanding figure in the empire?