It is clear, for instance, from the facts recorded, that it is
incorrect to accuse Luther of not having complied with the then
formalities, and of having consummated the marriage before even
attempting to conclude these. The distinction mentioned above between
the two acts of June 13 and 27, each of which had its special
significance, was either unknown to or ignored by these objectors.
Were we merely to consider the due observance of the formalities, then
there is no doubt that these were complied with, save that objection
might be raised as to the legal status of the pastor. But, on the other
hand, Canon Law was plainly and distinctly opposed to the validity of
a marriage contracted between parties bound by solemn monastic vows.
Thus from the point of view of civil law the regularity of Luther’s new
status was very doubtful, as both Canon Law and the Law of the Empire
did not recognise the marriages of priests and monks, and lawyers were
forced to base their decisions upon such laws. We shall have to speak
later of Luther’s anger at the “quibbles” of the lawyers, and his anger
had some reason, viz. his well-founded fear lest his marriage should
not be recognised as valid by the lawyers, and hence that his children
would be stamped as illegitimate and as incapable of inheriting.
The false though frequently repeated statement, that Catherine von
Bora was confined a fortnight after her marriage with Luther can be
traced back to a letter of Erasmus, dated December 24, 1525, giving
too hasty credence to malicious reports.[510] Erasmus himself,
however, distinctly retracted this statement in another letter of
March 13, 1526: “The previous report of the woman’s delivery,”
he writes, “was untrue, but now it is said she is in a certain
condition.”[511] As his previous statement was thought to be correct,
doubts were raised as to the authenticity of the second letter; the
objections are, however, worthless; both letters are taken from the
same set of the oldest collection of the correspondence of Erasmus,
and, from their first appearance, were ever held to be genuine.
Indeed, the assumption that Luther had unlawful intercourse with
Catherine von Bora before his marriage is founded solely and entirely
on certain reports already discussed, viz. his intimacy with the
escaped nuns generally.
It is true that soon after the marriage Luther speaks of Catherine von
Bora as his “Mistress” (“Metze”) in whose tresses he is bound,[512]
but the word he uses had not at that time the opprobrious meaning it
conveys in modern German; it simply meant a girl or woman, and was a
term of endearment in common use.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account