Luther in film: Empires: Martin Luther (2002) Inaccuracies part II, The Reluctant Revolutionary

At 32 minutes into part II (The Reluctant Revolutionary), the narrator specifically names Johann Maier von Eck, a frequent papal nuncio, as present at the 1521 hearing in Worms where Luther appeared before Emperor Charles V. This is not a total bust. Johann Maier von Eck was in fact a papal nuncio for a while. However the Johann von Eck at the 1521 hearing was chancellor for the Archbishop of Trier, one of the seven imperial electors. Eck of Trier was an important figure because he had been chosen as the spokesman for the emperor. Knowledge of the time and of the Holy Roman Empire would preclude thinking a papal nuncio would ever represent the emperor. That is an absurdity. As one wag once noted: The Holy Roman Empire was not holy, not Roman, and not an empire!
 

Photo: Liam Neeson, courtesy Ossei (Ozzy)

The narrator goes on to say about the hearing that in the hall “the only person Luther knew was his own prince Frederick the Wise.” This is incorrect several times over. The day before the meeting Luther had talked with the powerful Landgrave Philipp of Hesse and probably also Count Wilhelm of Henneberg and Duke Wilhelm of Brunswick. As Luther entered the meeting hall he recognized Conrad Peutinger, city clerk of Augsburg, and spoke to him. The imperial marshall Pappenheim sharply rebuked him for speaking. Ironically, with Luther was his own jurist from Wittenberg, Jerome Schurff, who had warned Luther nearly four years earlier not to post the 95 theses! It is very likely that Luther was also well acquainted with two counselors of Frederick the Wise: Philipp von Feilitzsch and Friedrich von Thun. The final irony is that Luther had never met Frederick the Wise! (Reference: Martin Brecht, 451-456)

At 50 minutes into part II, the lie about Luther and violent rebellions is stretched into the future on the tongue of narrator. The narrator declares a “torrent of reform” and “Protestantism swept” the continent. “In England it would take a bloody Civil War before Cromwell could establish his vision of a Protestant State.” That is a stretch in many ways. The English Civil War finally culminated in the execution of King Charles I in 1653 – 107 years after Luther’s death. Does any serious historian believe the English Civil War was about Oliver Cromwell wanting a Protestant state in response to the German Reformation? A struggle for power between the monarchy and parliament is a very popular theory. Yet another favored interpretation is that the war had a more immediate cause in political blundering on all sides. Apparently some historians blamed the war on an agenda by the English Puritans. And let us not forget the theory that it was a combination of many causes! In any event, the causes of the English Civil War remain (to the Brits) a lively debate after nearly 400 years but let us hope Martin Luther seems a less likely cause with each passing year!

Q. What is the solution to preventing such errors?

Luther in film: Empires: Martin Luther (2002) Inaccuracies in part I, ‘Driven to Defiance’

When inaccuracies occur in the program ‘Empires: Martin Luther’ they invariably occur in the narration. Although one might dispute some of the statements by the six consultants the criticisms would be of interpretations, and subtle distinctions at that. In the narration however are assertions that are outright false. Most falsehoods are minor but a few are significant misrepresentations. First, consider part I, ‘Driven to Defiance’:

 

Photo: Timothy West, actor cast as Martin Luther

courtesy Annie Mole

At about 13 minutes into the program, Martin Luther has his ‘Road to Damascus’ experience of 1505. The program shows Luther being thrown from his horse in a thunderstorm. The narrator quotes Luther: “I felt constrained to vow myself to God”. In fact, Luther was walking; he was definitely not a student who could support a horse. But conjecture is not necessary. Luther himself recalled the incident. He was walking from his home in Mansfeld to the university in Erfurt. Within four miles of Erfurt, lightning knocked Luther to the ground. He said he was compelled to scream, “Help me, St. Anne! I will become a monk." St. Anne was the patron saint of miners, naturally a favorite of Luther’s father and his family. St. Anne was also regarded an intercessor against thunderstorms and sudden death. The episode was well known at the time because many interpreted the incident as direct intervention by God. [Reference: Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation, 1483-1521 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985), 48-49. This is the first book of a trilogy that form the definitive biography of Martin Luther.]

At 37 minutes the narrator states that an important Augustinian monk Johann von Staupitz sent Luther to the university in Wittenberg in 1511, hoping to release Luther from his cycle of despair. The unspoken implication is that this is about the time of their first encounter. In fact Staupitz was not only Vicar General of the Augustinians but also an old acquaintance of Frederick the Wise, the most powerful prince in Saxony. Staupitz helped set up Frederick’s new university. Staupitz had also sent Luther there in 1508 to teach one semester at the university. Staupitz was also instrumental in sending Luther to Rome in 1510. The truth is that some time before 1509, possibly as early as 1506, Staupitz had become well-acquainted with Luther as one of his confessors. Luther was so troubled in those early days as a monk his confession once took six hours! The actions by Staupitz confirm the point the program makes in a sloppy way. Staupitz knew Luther was a tormented monk who could not be left alone with his devil; he had to be kept very busy. (Later, Luther would give this same advice to brooders.)
(Reference: Martin Brecht, 54-55, 69, 71, etal)

At 40 minutes we learn from the narrator that Luther, as teacher of the Bible at Wittenberg beginning in 1513, read not only the standard Latin version (Vulgate) but also versions in Greek and Hebrew. Luther did indeed read the Greek New Testament  but even the first edition (compiled by Erasmus) was not available until 1516.

At 44 minutes, the narrator recites the much-abused version of the indulgence scandal that gives one of several sub-commissioners too much credit. As pointed out in a previous blog, sub-commissioner Johann Tetzel, little more than an enthusiastic foot soldier for Rome, had the bad luck to tangle with the fiery Luther.

At 57 minutes, the narrator states “he has unleashed a hurricane…a storm of violence that will rage across Europe…change the face of western civilization forever.” Perhaps that statement as metaphor is correct. Yet the visuals show otherwise. Even PBS can’t resist exploiting the colossal emotional impact of the Peasants’ War. Once again the great tragedy of the time, the Peasants’ War of 1525 and its 100,000 deaths, is tied to Luther. A previous blog [July 14, 2010: Martin Luther in film: Luther (2003) and the Peasants’ War] refuted this well-worn lie by surveying opinions of eminent historians. 

Q. Should the six academics have protested inaccuracies in the re-enacted episodes if they had seen part I before the final version aired? Did they?

Luther in film: Empires: Martin Luther (2002) - Cast & Presenters

Photo: Liam Neeson, courtesy Osei (Ozzy)

The tone of the feature ‘Empires: Martin Luther’ is low-key and academic. Superstar Liam Neeson is unseen and narrates soothingly. Timothy West emotes very effectively as Luther in his last days alive, reflecting wearily on what had happened. Except for the comments by six academic consultants there is no other dialogue. The academics -- including devout Christians, nominal Christians and a Jew -- are not universally Luther sympathizers. They all have excellent credentials. All research the historical period and are competent enough in German to have delved into primary sources. Their competence in Latin, the language used by the very earliest Luther, is not evident. This blog summarizes them because in large measure they shape the interpretation of Martin Luther within the ‘Empires: Martin Luther’. The position of the six consultants shown below is current (2010), not that in 2002 during the release of ‘Empires: Martin Luther’. They appear in the following order:

Photo: Alister McGrath, courtesy Mattei A.

• Alister McGrath (PhD, Oxford Un., Biophysics; DD, Oxford Un.) is an ordained deacon in the Church of England and chairs the Center for Theology, Religion and Culture at King's College, Un. of London.
• Michael Mullett (PhD, Un. Lancaster, History) is Professor Emeritus in History at the University of Lancaster (UK).
• Susan Karant-Nunn (PhD, Indiana Un., History) is Director of the Division for Late Medieval and Reformation Studies in the Department of History at the University of Arizona.
• Mark U. Edwards, Jr. (PhD, Stanford Un., History) is Advisory Member of the Faculty of Divinity and Senior Adviser to the Dean at Harvard Divinity School.
• Miri Rubin (PhD, Cambridge, History) is Professor of Medieval and Early Modern History at Queen Mary College, Un. of London.
• Euan Kerr Cameron (PhD, Oxford Un., History) is Henry Luce III Professor of Reformation Church History at Union Theological Seminary in NYC.

Some final comments by the consultants in the program suggest their evaluation of Luther and/or his impact (It should be noted the consultants abhorred his extreme rhetoric aimed against the peasants and the Jews.):

• Alistair McGrath: Luther’s ideas “were much more radical than he realized”. Religion became local with “local rules”.
• Michael Mullett: Luther was “…one of the great emancipators of human history”.
• Susan Karant-Nunn: Luther was “irrepressible…outrageous…witty” and he “remains highly relevant in our imaginations”.
• Mark U. Edwards, Jr.: Luther “resonates”. He was “an elementary force”.
• Miri Rubin: Luther was “savvy enough” to realize violence would sour secular rulers on his ideas. There was “no longer one Christian Europe”. “Moreover, it becomes a global story.”
• Euan Kerr Cameron: “no half measures”.

And Luther himself in his final days? “When I die I want to be a ghost and pester the bishops, priests, and godless monks so that they have more trouble with a dead Luther than they could have had before with a thousand living ones.”*

*Though this quote is given by Luther in his last days in ‘Empires: Martin Luther’, the quote is actually attributed to Luther in 1532 (14 years before his death).

Q. Are the six academics too pro-Lutheran?

Luther in film: Empires: Martin Luther (2002) - Introduction

A significant and very serious entry within those to be discussed in ‘Luther in Film’ is the two-hour Martin Luther  (2002), the seventh offering in the ‘Empires’ series achieved jointly by PBS and Devillier Donegan Enterprises. PBS touts the ‘Empires’ series this way:

“Within the long history of civilization are great eras of struggle, triumph, and loss. These periods are reflective of the best and worst of humanity: explosive creativity, ultimate depravity, the use and abuse of power, and war.”

Comprising the ‘Empires’ series (to 2010) are 12 entries:

• Napoleon 2000 [216 min.]
• The Greeks: Crucible of Civilization 2000 [150 min.]
• Islam: Empire of Faith 2001 [180 min.]
• The Roman Empire in the First Century 2001 [219 min.]
• Queen Victoria's Empire 2001 [240 min.]
• Egypt's Golden Empire 2002 [160 min.]
• Martin Luther 2002 [120 min.]
• Peter and Paul and the Christian Revolution 2003 [120 min.]
• Kingdom of David: The Saga of the Israelites 2003 [240 min.]
• Japan: Memoirs of a Secret Empire 2004 [180 min.]
• The Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance 2004 [240 min.]
• Holy Warriors 2005 (Richard The Lionheart and Saladin) [120 min.]

PBS described Empires: Martin Luther (2002) this way:

Learn how one man reluctantly took on the most powerful institution of his day and won. Martin Luther is credited with expounding a new vision of man's relationship with God and, by extension, a redefinition of man's relationship with authority. Filmed across Europe -- from the rustic rural Germany to the opulence of the Vatican City -- you'll witness the collapse of the medieval world and the birth of the modern age.

Empires: Martin Luther (2002) consists of two 55-minute parts:
 
Part I: Driven to Defiance

This episode is essentially pre-Reformation, i.e., the events affecting Martin Luther in the Holy Roman Empire to the end of 1517. This half culminates in the first reactions to the 95 theses and their dissemination all the way to the pope. Highlighted are Luther’s:

• ‘Road to Damascus’ experience
• Tormented life as a monk
• Trip to Rome and exposure to blatant sacrilege and corruption
• Bible study and conviction that faith alone saves the believer
• Anger at the indulgence fraud that caused him to post the 95 theses

Part I ends with the reaction of Pope Leo X to a Saxon monk’s rash attack on indulgences.

Part II: The Reluctant Revolutionary

This episode is essentially the Reformation up to Luther’s death in 1546 at the age of 62. The episode begins by repeating the well-worn lie that the Reformation caused the blood-bath of the Peasants’ War, i.e., it unleashed “a storm of violence that will rage across Europe”. The storyline then rights itself to cover the familiar story of Luther’s scrapes with authorities, his shield in Frederick the Wise, his confrontation at Worms in 1521 and the subsequent rapid dissemination of his ideas through the new print medium. The episode makes other not so well-known points, including Luther’s vicious condemnations of Jews and of peasants. The episode makes a point perhaps least appreciated of all today: Luther’s ‘Babylonian Captivity’ paper of 1520 gutted over half the sacraments of the old faith. The split was beyond mending.

Next blog: 'Martin Luther (2002) - Presenters' will discuss the interesting mix of Superstar Liam Neeson, esteemed actor Timothy West and six highly qualified historians.

Q. Do you notice some definitive candidates for ‘ultimate depravity, the use and abuse of power, and war’ missing from the Empires series? Do these missing candidates virtually condemn a certain century?

Martin Luther in film: Luther (2003) – Is it worth watching as history?

Consider Luther (2003) as history. Noted historian/fiction writer Ian Mortimer/James Forrester has opined that for historical fiction "accurate = good" or "inaccurate = bad" are not necessarily valid. He discusses just how far historical fiction or historical movies can go with artistic license [http://tinyurl.com/2w8cgw4]. Mortimer asks if the ‘lie’ is deliberate or a mistake of ignorance. Is the ‘lie’ so grievous the reader/auditor cannot suspend disbelief? Previous blogs have noted historical inaccuracies in Luther (2003). Let us reconsider these inaccuracies, and then answer the question: Is the movie Luther (2003) worth watching as history? And then answer the ultimate question: Is the movie Luther (2003) worth watching at all? 

Many distortions in the movie are clearly for the sake of simplifying a time of great affairs with many events occurring simultaneously. The movie uses dramatically-licensed tricks of compressing time, combining characters to thread scenes together, juxtaposing and juggling elements in time and creating conversations that are not illogical but for which there is no proof.

Frederick the Wise (Peter Ustinov) lamenting the future 

One scene in particular is brain-warping. It concentrates a swarm of falsehoods. The scene occurs after the 1525 Peasants’ War. Luther finds Frederick the Wise alone in his study. Frederick whimpers, “Martin Luther?”, and then exclaims, “We meet at last!” Luther presents him with his translation of the New Testament into German. “This will separate us from Rome forever,” laments an amazed but troubled Frederick. He goes on to predict all the dire things that may happen.
 
What are the historical truths?

• Frederick the Wise was already dead and buried in the castle church in Wittenberg.
• A powerful prince at the time was virtually never alone; certainly Luther could never have approached Frederick in such away.
• It is unrealistic for a powerful prince to be in cluttered, drab quarters.
• Even opponents to the Reformation generally agreed Luther never exchanged one word with Frederick.
• Luther’s New Testament had been printed nearly three years earlier in September 1522.

Even this scene for artistic reasons can be swallowed.

Other smaller ‘lies’ or omissions:

• For this time of transition from the Middle Ages to the early modern times, knights were ubiquitous. They were an ever present group of generally dissatisfied, very violent, heavily armed men. The most dreaded knight in the empire, Franz von Sickingen, brought entire cities to their knees. He and his gadfly Ulrich von Hutten made it known to both Frederick the Wise and Luther that they supported Luther.
• The cruel, unjust confinement of boys in monasteries and girls in nunneries is not amplified. Besides Katherina von Bora, another famous escapee was Ulrich von Hutten who fled his monastery well before the Reformation.

There is however one Big Lie in the movie: Luther (2003) connects the unruly behavior in 1522 in Wittenberg spurred by Karlstadt to the eruption and tragic culmination of the Peasants’ War in 1525. The dialogue leaves no doubt at all that Luther’s stand on the Bible is accountable for the chaos and slaughter of 100,000 peasants (many of them children, according to the movie). The VHS/DVD Product blurb leaves no doubt either, stating “Even when threatened with violent death, Luther refuses to back down, sparking a bloody revolution that shakes the entire continent to its core.” This is an immense, indulgent lie, invalidating the movie as history.

Is Luther (2003) then worth watching? Yes, the dramatic story, authentic locations and acting are excellent. Just watch it with this caveat:  The movie is in the long tradition of Hollywood spectaculars that do not allow facts to get in the way of a good story.

Q. Does an inaccurate ‘historical’ movie or ‘historical-fiction’ book do more harm than good?