Martin Luther’s ‘Table Talk’: what is left out of Volume 54 of Luther’s Works by Fortress Press?

The 1967 Table Talk of Fortress Press (Volume 54 of Luther’s Works), the only major English version, includes just 10 percent of the 1.5 million words in the German and Latin Weimarer edition (D. Martin Luthers Werke). Naturally a reader wonders about the missing 90 percent in the English version.  

 

Theodore G. Tappert 

How did the late editor/translator Theodore G. Tappert select his material?

First, editor Tappert omitted all of Johann Aurifaber’s Tischreden (Table Talk), which is so heavily doctored by Aurifaber himself.


Second, if two or more writers recorded the same conversation, editor Tappert included only the one he deemed best.


Further, Tappert endeavored to include as much as possible of Luther’s autobiographical material: his early home, parents, education, monkhood, etc. He also selected material to enlighten us about Luther's character and temperament.


Tappert proceeded not to edify the reader but to reveal the man Martin Luther. Thus, he included representative expositions on Holy Scripture but omitted voluminous similar expositions. Other subjects, so often discussed by Luther and his colleagues, were likewise ‘high-graded’. These included remarks about lawyers, aspects of marriage, and university activities.


Editor Tappert deliberately included embarrassing table talk that opponents of Luther have gloated over. This includes superstitions of the time that seem to later observers ridiculous but especially includes the coarse language and invectives of the time which Luther used to the fullest. There are numerous harangues against the pope and his allies. Nor did Tappert ignore Luther’s frequent venomous attacks against those inclined to agree with him (but not completely enough) like Zwingli, Bucer and especially Erasmus.


Lastly, note that Tappert claimed he did NOT avoid Luther’s derogatory, prejudiced comments about peasants, women and Jews – views most disturbing to Luther’s later readers (as well as 21st century readers).

Many recordings were not actually Table Talk but recorded on walks and journeys. If relevant, Tappert nevertheless considered them. He also tried to reproduce the comments in their entirety. There are no extractions as there have been by other scholars.


There seems no reason to believe this 10 percent of the original material represents a deliberately biased abridgement of the original material.


The larger problem is the interpretation of what the blustery Luther intended. Was he being sarcastic? Was he joking? Was he mocking someone else that everyone at the table knew? Was he positing conversations against his own views? Did his recorder realize this intent? This potential problem of Luther’s intent is inherent in the entire 1.5 million words. A second problem is the ‘macaroni’ (mixed German and Latin) spoken by Luther and his colleagues. There is a clear case of one recorder (Cordatus) not comprehending Latin well enough to convey the actual conversation.


Q. Assurances aside, won’t the missing 90 percent of the Weimarer German and Latin material always leave doubt that the material has been whitewashed?

Next blog: What do scholars think of Table Talk as a source?

Martin Luther’s ‘Table Talk’: what is it?

Johann Aurifaber's Tischreden (Table Talk)

Tischreden is German for ‘Table Talk’.

The word ‘Tischreden’ has become strongly identified with the talk by Martin Luther and his close friends and colleagues during and after meals at the house of Luther (the former Black Cloister in Wittenberg). The first student/colleague to record conversation at Luther's table is disputed. Conrad Cordatus claimed to be the first. In any event the thousands of notes by Cordatus and several others span the years from 1531 to 1546. Volatile Luther never indicated displeasure at that and even sometimes blustered, “Write that down!”

Martin Luther and wife Katherina (von Bora) by Lucas Cranach

Luther’s wife and touchy colleagues like Melanchthon were not so approving.

The conversation was earthy. This was not at all unusual for the time and place. Jaromir Homolka stated in Albrecht Dürer: The Feast of the Garlands (London: Spring Books, 1961) that banter between the great artist Dürer and his close friend Perkheimer “was expressed in the uncouth, jovial manner typical of Germany at the end of the Middle Ages.” But manners change. Luther scholars were long reluctant to draw on these unguarded, salty remarks. Johann Georg Walch finally incorporated ‘Table Talk’ in his twenty-four volumes of Luther’s works (Halle, 1739-1753). A much doctored version of ‘Table Talk’ had been published separately by Johann Aurifaber in 1566.  This version gave rise to equally unreliable, abridged English versions by Captain Henry Bell in 1652 and by William Hazlitt about two centuries later.
Pic aurifaber

Then, something of a miracle.

In the decades before and after 1900, scholars found more than 30 nearly contemporaneous manuscripts of Table Talk. From these as well as Aurifaber’s version, Ernst Kroker edited six volumes for the definitive Weimar edition (German and Latin) of Luther’s works (D. Martin Luthers Werke, often called the ‘Weimarer Ausgabe’ or ‘WA’). Additional Table Talk was found and included in a later volume of the Weimar edition. From this effort, Theodore G. Tappert selected and translated about 10 percent of the 1.5 million words of the Weimar edition to yield Volume 54 of Luther’s Works (Fortress Press: Philadelphia), published in 1967 as Table Talk. This Fortress Press volume is the standard English version of Table Talk (Preserved Smith had published a commendable but much smaller English version in 1907).

Q. Isn’t the 1967 English version of Table Talk, which used only 90 percent of the Weimerar German and Latin material, woefully lacking?

Next blog: What did Dr. Tappert leave out of Fortress Press’s English version of Table Talk?

Luther in Film: Martin Luther (1953) with Niall MacGinnis. How well does the movie portray Frederick the Wise?

British actor David Horne

Brit David Horne (1898–1970) portrays Frederick the Wise. Over the years Horne appeared as a supporting actor in movies with the cream of British actors: Laurence Olivier, Vivien Leigh, Robert Donat, James Mason, Alastair Sim, John Mills, Robert Newton, Eric Portman, Michael Redgrave, Emlyn Williams, Rex Harrison, Deborah Kerr, Ralph Richardson, Leslie Howard, David Niven, etc.. Horne seems never to have ‘gone Hollywood’, although he appeared in ‘Lust for Life’ and ‘The Devil's Disciple’.

David Horne as Duke Frederick of Saxony

Horne’s portrayal of Frederick the Wise in this film is the best of all such film portrayals. He is never called Frederick the Wise but Duke Frederick of Saxony. He is fiftyish and overweight. He is confident and forceful but openminded. He initially reacts to situations like a sovereign who must be obeyed but who nevertheless pauses to reflect. When Frederick hears Luther is discrediting the value of his relics he fumes but finally mutters, “Maybe he’s right. Let him debate it.” 

After Luther’s famous confrontation with the emperor in Worms in 1521, threats against Luther alarm Frederick. Luther was granted safe conduct by the emperor but Frederick knows many high officials regard safe conduct void for a heretic. As soon as Luther’s travel party back to Wittenberg reaches Frederick’s territory, riders ‘kidnap’ Luther. Frederick’s plan is so secret that only a handful knows for sure if Luther is still alive.

In a fabricated scene with the great scholar Erasmus and the papal nuncio Aleander Frederick is openly disdainful of the papists. His words however carry Frederick’s true sentiment: “A man accused shall have a fair trial before his own countryman”. He emphasizes, “Luther is my subject.”

This essentially correct version of Frederick the Wise is possibly due to advice from the two consulting Luther experts, Drs. Pelikan and Tappert.

Q. Is it more reasonable that the real Frederick the Wise was like the bewildered bystander as depicted by Peter Ustinov in Luther (2003) or that he was like the astute protector as portrayed by David Horne in Martin Luther (1953)?

Luther in Film: Martin Luther (1953) with Niall MacGinnis. Is it entertaining?

This version of the Luther story, though meant to be entertaining, is more cerebral than the incendiary 2003 version with Joseph Fiennes. Clearly it is more stage-like with virtually no violence. Nevertheless, the quality of writing is excellent -- as is the acting by stolid, experienced actors.

The Martin Luther of Niall MacGinnis is a thoughtful monk disturbed by doubts. He is more resolute than fiery. Even in the ‘big scene’ with the emperor he is more sincere than defiant. MacGinnis delivers it compellingly in a mood that builds into overt defiance only during his famous conclusion:

 “My conscience is captive to the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Therefore I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen."

Even in this well researched 1953 version it seems the producers missed an opportunity by failing to portray the emperor as the 19-year-old he was. The historical Charles V (raised in the Netherlands) was unsure of himself in alien German-speaking Worms. Rogue knights who supported Luther like the nearby and very dangerous Franz von Sickingen must have given the young emperor nightmares. His immaturity let Luther slip through his fingers. (Frederick the Wise was not certain of his timidity however, so he had Luther ‘kidnapped’)

 

Annette Carell as Katherina von Bora confidently confronting Luther, her potential bridegroom

Though some characters are so bland they are indistinct, the cast is nevertheless fine. If critics thought Claire Cox was coquettish as Katherina von Bora in the 2003 movie, what must they have thought of Annette Carell in this 1953 movie? What celibate ex-monk could resist her sultry mannerisms? Luther obviously could not. Six children in the first nine years of their marriage suggest the relationship of the ex-monk and the ex-nun was often far from a prayer meeting.

Annette Carell as Katherina von Bora, Luther's triumphant bride.

The most confusing portion of the movie is the concluding 10 or so minutes. The movie leaps five years ahead to 1530, determined to introduce new characters and squeeze in the events of the Augsburg Confession. This was a meeting of the great princes of the empire with Charles V, supposedly to state and resolve their religious differences. Charles V was no boy now. He had defeated France, even sacked Rome. In spite of it all, nothing was resolved. Luther himself was banned from the meeting. Prince Johann of Saxony, Frederick the Wise’s brother and successor, stood firm as a rock on Lutheranism. He was backed by the Elector of Brandenburg and the firebrand, Landgrave Philipp of Hesse. Perhaps viewers can glean this standoff from the movie but the payoff seems trivial.

Overall, the movie is commendable as entertainment. Voters on IMD rate it highly. On a scale of 1 to 10, 44 percent of viewers rated it superior (9 or 10). Median was 8. Luther 2003 was rated superior by 24 percent. Median was 7. The PBS documentary of 2002 garnered 18 percent superior. Median was 7. 

Q. What does it say about art that contemporary viewers of the ‘Luther story’ rate an old black and white movie higher than a contemporary state-of-the-art color film?