The statement made by some Catholics that he did can be traced back
to a misunderstanding of the simple word “dead.” This word he wrote
against several passages of a memorandum of Spalatin’s on matrimonial
questions submitted by the Elector in 1528, for instance, against one
which ran: “Further, brother and sister may not marry, neither may
a man take his brother’s or sister’s daughter or granddaughter. And
similarly it is forbidden to marry one’s father’s, grandfather’s,
mother’s or grandmother’s sister.”[951] The word “dead” here appended
does not mean that the prohibition has ceased to hold, but is
equivalent to “delete,” and implies that the passage should be omitted
in print. Luther considered it unnecessary or undesirable that the
impediments in question should be mentioned in this “Instruction”;
he prefers that preachers should as a general rule simply insist on
compliance with the Laws of the Empire.
The accompanying letter of the Elector, in which he requests Luther
to read through the memorandum, anticipates such a recommendation to
omit. In it the writer asks whether “it would perhaps be better to
leave this out and to advise the pastors and preachers of this fact
in the Visitation,”[952] since, in any case, the “Imperial Code,”
in which everything was contained in detail, was to be taken as the
groundwork. Against many clauses of the Instruction Luther places the
word “_placet_”; a “_non placet_” occurs nowhere; on the other hand,
we find frequently “_omittatur_, dead, all this dead” (i.e. “delete”);
he also says: “_hoc manebit, hactenus manebit textus_” (equivalent to
“stet”). If “dead” had meant the same as “this impediment no longer
holds,” then Luther would here have removed the impediment even
between father and daughter, mother and son, seeing that he writes
“dead” also against the preceding clause, which runs: “Firstly, the
marriage of persons related in the ascending and descending line is
prohibited throughout and _in infinitum_.”
_Did Luther Recommend People to Pray for Many Wives and Few Children?_
This charge, too, belongs to the old armoury of well-worn weapons
beloved of controversialists. The answer to the question may possibly
afford material of some interest to the historian and man of letters.
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