Howard Jones
The Freiheitsschrift and the letter to the Pope which introduces it were written by Luther in both German and Latin, and the German versions were published first.1 Like his other vernacular writings around this time, the German version was intended for a general audience of readers or listeners, while the Latin version was intended for the Pope and other highly educated readers (see Clemens, this volume). It is widely accepted that the Latin version of the letter was written first and then put into German,2 but the order of composition of the two versions of the Freiheit itself is a matter of debate.3 Some scholars, notably Maurer (1949) and Gasse (1984), argue for the priority of the German version, while others, notably Stolt (1969), argue for that of the Latin version.4 It is also possible that Luther worked on both versions at the same time, and that the German version had priority in some parts and the Latin version in others.
A number of comparisons will be made below between the German and Latin versions and on the way some new, linguistic arguments will be put forward for the priority of the German version, at least for certain parts of the work.
These arguments may serve as hypotheses for a more thoroughgoing analysis which would go beyond the scope of this discussion.
1. Length and structure
The Latin version of the work is, by word-count, around 8% longer than the German version. However German, as the more analytic language, generally has a higher word-count than Latin. To illustrate this, the German and Latin word-counts were compared in three paragraphs (§7, §21, and §24)5 in which the two versions are as close as any in the work. Here the German word-count is around 25% greater than the Latin, so 1.25 : 1.00 may be taken as the neutral ratio of German to Latin for this work, that is, the ratio we should expect if the two versions were close equivalents throughout. Normalizing for this, the Latin version is some 35% longer than the German.6 The greater length of the Latin partly reflects a short introduction and long end section in the Latin (preceding §1 and following §30)7 which have no counterpart in the German; these are partly offset by a dedication in the German version before §1 which has no equivalent in the Latin.
If we confine ourselves to §§1–30 in both versions, the Latin is some 25% longer than the German on the normalized basis just explained. This ratio masks considerable variation; for example, §27 in the Latin is some 75% longer than in the German, while §4 in the Latin is around 30% shorter (again on a normalized basis). The greater overall length of §§1–30 reflects three main differences: first, the Latin includes arguments which go beyond those in the German; secondly, the same arguments are developed more in the Latin than in the German; and, thirdly, there are 50% more Bible quotations in the Latin. These differences will be illustrated below.
Although only the German version is divided into numbered paragraphs,8 both versions have the same broad thematic divisions, as follows (my numbering): I introduction; II the inner person; III the outer person; IV conclusion,9 and these divisions and their subdivisions are signposted in the text in both versions.10 Stolt (1969: 91–3) maps these sections onto a tripartite structure advocated in Classical rhetoric, in which II and III should be taken together (as ‘antitheses’), to give the following structure: I, (II + III), IV. Stolt also shows (ibid) that the two parts of the antithetical middle section are of almost exactly equal length as each other in both the German and Latin versions, again as recommended in the rules of Classical rhetoric.11
2. Detailed comparisons of the two versions
To illustrate the relationship between the German and Latin versions, we analyse two extracts which show opposite extremes. In the first, from the beginning of §21, the two versions are as close as we find anywhere in the work, while in the second, corresponding to the whole of §6, the two versions are as far apart as in any part of the work which is composed in both languages.12
2a. An example of a close match between the German and Latin versions
We start with an extract from the beginning of §21. To show how similar the two versions are, the extract has been divided up into 17 linguistic units, with the German (marked ‘a’) set out above the equivalent Latin (marked ‘b’). Most of these units are clauses and separated in the German by virgulae (‘/’, probably added by the printer).
| 1a 1b |
Aber die selben werck muͤssen nit geschehn ynn der meynung / Verum ea opera oportet, non ea fieri opinione, |
| 2a 2b |
das da durch der mensch frum werd fur gott / quo per ipsa coram deo iustificetur quisquam, |
| 3a 3b |
den̄ die falsch meynung kan der glaub nit leydē / hanc enim falsam opinionem fides non feret, |
| 4a 4b |
der alleyn ist un̄ sein muß die frumkeyt fur gott / quae sola est iustitia coram deo, |
| 5a 5b |
sondern̄ nur yn der meynung / sed solum ea opinione, |
| 6a 6b |
das der leyp gehorsam werde / ut corpus in servitutem redigatur |
| 7a 7b |
und gereynigt von seynen bosen luͤsten / & purificetur a concupiscentiis suis malis, |
| 8a 8b |
un̄ dz aug nur sehe / auff die bosen luͤsten / ita ut oculum non nisi vertat ad concupiscentias |
| 9a 9b |
sie auß zu treyben / expurgandas. |
| 10a 10b |
Den̄ die weyl die seel durch den glauben reyn ist / Cum enim anima per fidem purgata sit |
| 11a 11b |
un̄ gott liebet / & amans dei facta, |
| 12a 12b |
wolt sie gern das auch also alle ding reyn weren zuvor yhr eygen leyp / vellet omnia pariter purgari, praecipue corpus proprium, |
| 13a 13b |
und yderman gott / mit yhr liebt und lobt / ut omnia secum amarent & laudarent deum. |
| 14a 14b |
So geschichts / Ita fit, |
| 15a 15b |
das der mensch seyns eygen leyps halben nit kan muͤßsig gehen / ut homo exigente corporis sui causa ociari non possit, |
| 16a 16b |
un̄ muß vil gutter werck drober uben / cogaturque ob id, multa bona operari, |
| 17a 17b |
das er yhn zwinge / ut in servitutem redigat. |
The comparison of the German and the Latin shows that, in each pair, there is a close match between the two. With very few exceptions, the two members of each pair are semantic equivalents, conveying the same sense and no more.13 They are also close matches syntactically, as illustrated by the fact that the passage in both versions can be set out into corresponding clauses of very similar length in exactly the same order. Even within clauses the order of sentence constituents is, for the most part, the same.14 This is illustrated by an analysis of units 5–7, copied below. Here there is an exact match in sense, construction type, and the order of sentence constituents between the German and the Latin.
| Sentence constituent count in 5a–7b above | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| 5a | sondern̄ | nur | yn der meynung / |
| 5b | sed | solum | ea opinione, |
| 6a | das | der leyp | gehorsam werde / |
| 6b | ut | corpus | in servitutem redigatur |
| 7a | und | gereynigt | von seynen bosen luͤsten / |
| 7b | & | purificetur | a concupiscentiis suis malis, |
Overall, the German and Latin versions here are so close that it seems likely that Luther translated one from the other, rather than basing both versions merely on notes or an outline. As to which version came first, there is one general linguistic difference between German and Latin which suggests that it was the German version: the more flexible word order of Latin. If the German was composed first, the Latin, with its relatively adaptable word order, could more easily follow the German word order than the German could follow the Latin if the latter was composed first. It could be argued that Luther’s Latin word order might have been generally similar to his German word order, in which case either version could have been composed first. However, a comparison with Luther’s letter to the Pope, of which the Latin version is considered to have come first and then to have been translated into German, is instructive.
If we compare the two versions of this letter where they are closest to each other, we find a semantic match between them, but far less of a syntactic match than in the passage from the Freiheit we have just analysed. To illustrate this, here is an extract from the letter where the two versions are as close as they come:15
German:
Ich hab wol scharff angriffen, doch yn der gemeyn hyn, ettlich unchristlich lere, und auff meyne widdersacher peyssig geweßen, nit umb yhres boßen lebens, ßondern umb yhrer unchristlichen lere und schutzs willen, wilchs mych ßo gar nichts berewet, das ich myrß auch ynn synn genummen hab, ynn solcher emßickeyt und scherpff zu bleyben, unangesehen, wie myr dasselb etlich außlegen…
Latin:
Communiter quidem in impias doctrinas invectus sum acriter, et adversarios non ob malos mores sed ob impietatem non segniter momordi, cuius me adeo non poenitet, ut animum induxerim, contempto hominum iuditio, in ea vehementia zeli perseverare …
It would not be possible to set out these German and Latin extracts above one another as we did with the extract from §21 of the Freiheit because the syntactic mismatches between the German and the Latin are too great. For example:
- In the German, ‘ettlich unchristlich lere’ comes after ‘Ich hab … angriffen’, while in Latin ‘in impias doctrinas’ comes before ‘invectus sum acriter’;
- In the German, ‘nit umb yhres … willen’ comes after ‘peyssig geweßen’, while in the Latin ‘non ob malos … impietatem’ comes before ‘non segniter momordi’;
- In the German, ‘unangesehen, wie myr dasselb etlich außlegen’ comes after ‘das ich myrß auch … bleyben’, while in the Latin the equivalent (but differently constructed) ‘contempto hominum iuditio’ comes before ‘in ea vehementia zeli perseverare’.
The different relationships between the German and Latin in the letter and the Freiheit are therefore explicable if we assume that, in contrast to the letter to the Pope, the German version of the Freiheit was written first. This is far from proof, but constitutes a plausible hypothesis, which could be tested by a comprehensive linguistic comparison of the German-Latin relationship in the Freiheit with that in the letter to the Pope. A further test would involve a linguistic comparison between the Latin of the Freiheit where it is close to the German and the Latin of Luther’s original Latin compositions at around the time the Freiheit was composed; this might reveal distinctive features of the Latin in the Freiheit which could be attributed to its being a translation from German.
2b. An example of a loose relationship between the German and Latin versions
At the other extreme is §6. Apart from the opening words (‘Fragistu aber / “wilchs ist denn das wort …”’ and ‘Quaeres autem, Quod nam est verbum hoc …’) and two quotations from Romans, there are no close verbal similarities like those discussed above. However, the German and Latin deal with a similar topic and make similar arguments, and a comparison between them illustrates the sort of differences we find throughout the two versions of the Freiheit.16
Both versions open with the questions ‘What is the “word” and how is it to be used?’ and restate the point made in §5 that the word is the Gospel of God about Christ. Thereafter, however, the two versions differ on a number of levels.
First, some of the arguments in the Latin version go beyond those in the German. Thus (i) in the Latin we are told that faith is the use of the word (‘Fides enim sola est salutaris & efficax usus verbi dei’), while in the German this is not stated; (ii) in the Latin it is stated explicitly that ‘faith alone’ means ‘without works’ (e.g. ‘sola fide et nullis operibus iustificatur’), but not in the German; (iii) in the Latin the interactions between human beings and Christ are spelt out (‘Hoc enim cognito … Christi solius’), while in the German they are not; and (iv) in the Latin the contrast between faith and works is paralleled by the difference between the inner and outward person (‘Cum ergo haec fides … peccato vel opere’) in a way that has no equivalent in the German.
Other differences between the two versions have to do with the order in which the arguments are made and the emphasis they are given. In the German version the argument that God’s word leads to a recognition of sinfulness (‘ßo du recht glaubst / wie du schuldig bist’) precedes the claim that justification is by faith alone (‘Ein rechtfertiger Christen / lebt nur von seynem glauben’ – a translation from Romans 1,17), while in the Latin the order is the opposite, with the argument that justification is by faith alone (‘Fides enim sola …’) introduced before the argument that God’s word leads to a recognition of sinfulness (‘discis, omnia quae in te sunt … damnanda’). The difference in order means that the German starts on the more negative note than the Latin (see Rieger 2007: 128). As an example of a difference in emphasis between the two versions, in the German the argument that justification is by faith alone is confined to the translation from Romans 1,17 at the end of the paragraph, while in the Latin the equivalent Latin quotation comes near the beginning and the point is then restated emphatically.
The tone in which the arguments are presented is also different in the two versions. Overall, the German is more personal and the Latin more academic – which is to be expected since the former was intended for a general audience and the latter for the Pope and other highly-educated readers. The German version includes many more personal references to the reader/listener. Thus (i) the first-personal question at the beginning of the German (‘wie sol ichs gebrauchen?’) corresponds to an impersonal phrase in the Latin (‘qua arte utendum est eo …?’); (ii) there is no equivalent of ‘du hoͤrist deynen gott zu dir reden’ in the Latin; and (iii), while the German version includes direct instructions to the reader/listener (‘so mustu an dir selber vortzweyffelnn̄’, ‘Du solt ynn den selben mit festem glauben dich ergeben’), the Latin arguments are framed in logical language (e.g. ‘Si confitearis ore tuo … salvus eris’) or are made by reference to the soul (e.g. ‘Ideo clarum est … nullis operibus iustificatur’).
Finally, the German relies less on Biblical authority than the Latin: the German has one quotation from Hosea and two from Romans, while the Latin has six quotations from, and one reference to, Romans as well as one reference to Job.
3. Bible quotations
In the German version of the Freiheit there are 36 Bible quotations and in the Latin there are 64. If we confine the comparison to §§1–30, the numbers are 36 and 54, respectively, making 50% more quotations in the Latin than the German. This reflects both the greater length of the Latin (see section 1 above) and the greater density of Bible quotations in the Latin (see section 2b above).17
While there are many Bible quotations in the Latin which have no equivalent in the German, there is only one quotation in the German which has no equivalent in the Latin: in §5 of the German we have ‘Ich byn der weg / die warheyt / und das leben’ (John 14,6), while in the Latin corresponding to it we have ‘Si filius vos liberaverit, vere liberi eritis’ (John 8,36) instead. The quotation in the Latin has been seen as an improvement on that in the German, given that the part of the work in which this section appears is about the freedom of the inner person, which is brought out more explicitly by the Latin (see Rieger 2007: 101, referencing Maurer 1949: 66).
Turning to the language of the Bible quotations, the Latin seems to be based on the Vulgate – with the edition printed in Basel in 1509 serving as a reasonable proxy for the version which Luther might have used.18 The relationship between the Latin Bible quotations in the Freiheit and the text of the Vulgate is variable. In some cases they match almost word-for-word; one example among many is the quotation from John 1,51 in §30. In other cases the Vulgate is quoted accurately, but parts are edited out; an example is in §24, where 2 Timothy 3, vv. 5 and 7 are quoted almost exactly from the Vulgate, but v. 6 is left out. Elsewhere there is a loose relationship between the Latin quotations and the Vulgate, as in a quotation from Matthew 7,18 in §23, where Luther refers to the good and bad trees in the opposite order to that in the Vulgate.
In cases where the Latin departs significantly from the wording Vulgate, the German and Latin are often close to each other.
Here are three examples:
| Reference | German | Latin | Vulgate |
| Isaiah 10,22f | Gott wirt eyn kurtz summa machen auff erden / und die kurtz summa wirt / wie ein syndflut eynfliessen die gerechtickeit (§7) | Verbum abbreviatum & consumans faciet dominus super terram: Et consummata abbreviatio inundabit iustitiam (§7) | (v. 22) … consummatio abbreviata inundabit iustitiam (v. 23) Consummationem enim et abbreviationem dominus deus exercituum, faciet in medio omnis terrae |
| Genesis 2,15 | Das gott den geschaffenen menschen / setzt ynß paradiß / das er dasselb erbeytten und hutten solt (§22) | Posuit deus hominem, quem formaverat in paradisum, ut operaretur & custodiret illum (§22) | posuit eum in paradisum voluptatis, ut operaretur et custodiret illum |
| 1 Peter 2,9 | Ihr seyt ein priesterlich kuͤnigreych / un̄ ein kuͤniglich priesterthū (§15) | Vos genus electum, populus acquisitionis, sacerdotium regale, & regnum sacerdotale (§15) | Vos autem genus electum, regale sacerdotium, gens sancta, populus in acquisitionem |
In the first of these examples, the German and the Latin both involve a reordering and reduction of the Vulgate. In the second example, both the German and the Latin refer to man being created (‘geschaffenen’, ‘quem formaverat’) but this reference has no equivalent in the Vulgate (nor, for that matter, in the Hebrew Old Testament). In the third example, the chiastic wordplay which occurs in both the German and the Latin versions (‘priesterlich kuͤnigreych … kuͤniglich priesterthū’, ‘sacerdotium regale … regnum sacerdotale’) does not occur in the Vulgate.
When the German diverges from the Latin, it often resembles a paraphrase rather than a translation, as in the following examples (in which the Latin is close to the Vulgate):19
| Reference | German | Latin | Vulgate |
| Psalm 107,20 | Er hat seyn wort auß gesandt / damit er yhn hatt geholffen (§5) | Misit verbum suum & sanavit eos, & eripuit eos de interitionibus eorum (§5) | Misit verbum suum et sanavit eos et eripuit eos de interitionibus eorum |
| Hosea 13,9 | O Israel yn dir ist nichts / denn deyn vorterben / alleyn aber yn mir steht deyn hulff (§6) | Perditio tua Israel, tantum in me auxilium tuum (§8) | Perditio tua, Israel, tantummodo in me auxilium tuum |
In the first example, the words ‘damit er yhn hatt geholffen’ in the German are an abbreviated paraphrase of ‘sanavit eos, & eripuit eos de interitionibus eorum’. In the second example, the words ‘yn dir ist nichts / denn deyn vorterben’ are an expanded paraphrase of ‘Perditio tua’.
In certain quotations the German departs from the Latin in ways which contribute to Luther’s message in the work, as in these three examples:
| Reference | German | Latin | Vulgate |
| Romans 1,17 | Ein rechtfertiger Christen / lebt nur von seynem glauben (§6) | Iustus ex fide sua vivet20 (§6) | Iustus autem ex fide vivit |
| John 6,29 | Das ist das eynige gotliche werck / das yhr glaubt yn denen / den gott gesandt hatt (§7) | Hoc est opus dei, ut credatis in eum, quem misit ille (§7) | Hoc est opus dei, ut credatis in eum, quem misit ille |
| 1 Cor. 4,1 | Wir wollen nichts mehr von den leuthen gehalten seyn / denn Christ’ diener / und schaffner des Evangelii (§17) | Sic nos existimet homo, sicut ministros Christi & dispensatores mysteriorum dei (§17) | Sic nos existimet homo ut ministros christi et dispensatores mysteriorum dei |
An examination of Luther’s quotations from these verses elsewhere, both in his Bible translations and in his other works, reveals that his additions here are unusual, and may have been motivated by the particular needs of this work.21
At this time Luther was familiar with the Bible primarily through the Vulgate, so we might assume that the Latin quotations came first and that Luther translated them into German. This would certainly explain why, in most cases, the quotations in the two versions correspond closely. On the other hand there are a number of instances, illustrated above, in which the German and Latin do not match up, including cases in which the German is more of a paraphrase than a translation. Maurer (1949: 66), in arguing that Luther wrote the German version first, suggests that he might have checked some of the Bible quotations against the Vulgate when he came to write the Latin version; this would explain the greater accuracy of the Latin in the quotations from Psalm 107,20 and Hosea 13,9 above. In other cases, like the quotations from Isaiah 10,22–3, Genesis 2,15, and 1 Peter 2,9 above, in which the German and Latin match each other but not the Vulgate, Luther could have started with the German and rendered it into Latin without checking the Vulgate. An examination of Latin quotations in the work which are not matched by a German quotation, including in the end section of the Latin which has no German equivalent, does not show the same degree of lexical independence from the Vulgate as when the Latin is closely matched by the German.22 This lends support to the case that the German version was written first, but would have to be confirmed by a comprehensive analysis of all Bible quotations in the Freiheit, as well as a comparison with Luther’s quotations of the same passages in his other works.
4. Righteousness vocabulary
Our final comparison between the two versions of the work concerns the language of righteousness, in particular the way in which the German gerecht and frum (and their derivatives) and the Latin iustus (and its derivatives) correspond.23 In Jones (2018b) it was argued that, in his 1522 New Testament translation, Luther imposed a separation of function on gerecht and frum when they were used to translate the Greek δίκαιος (which in most cases corresponds to the Latin iustus); accordingly, gerecht was used to refer to righteousness in Luther’s conception of it at the time, while frum was used to refer to worldly goodness. However, outside his Bible translations Luther used both gerecht and frum to refer to righteousness according to his own theology, while also using frum for worldly goodness. The explanation put forward was that, in his Bible translations, where Luther could not spell out for the reader when he was referring to righteousness and when he was referring to worldly goodness, he encoded this distinction in the lexical choice of gerecht and frum, respectively. By contrast, in his other works, Luther could make it clear in context when he was referring to which, and therefore did not have to be so strict in his lexical choice.
The two versions of the Freiheit provide an opportunity to examine the distribution of frum, gerecht, and iustus in this light. The table below shows which Latin words gerecht and frum (and their derivatives) correspond to and which German words iustus (together with its derivatives) corresponds to. Where two words are shown (e.g. frum + gerecht), both of them (or their derivatives) occur in the German and correspond to only one word in the Latin.24
| Latin v. German lexeme (incl. derivatives) | |||||||
| gerecht | frum | frum + gerecht | frum + gutt | recht-fertig | recht | Total | |
| iustus | 11 | 49 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 72 | |
| bonus | 4 | 6 | 10 | ||||
| verax | 1 | 1 | |||||
| pius | 2 | 2 | |||||
| Total | 11 | 56 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 85 |
As the breakdown shows, gerecht corresponds only to iustus, while frum corresponds to iustus as well as to Latin words which are not equated with righteousness in Luther’s theology.25 Moreover, when frum and gerecht are paired (in the column frum + gerecht), they correspond to iustus, but when frum and gutt are paired, they correspond to bonus. This is consistent with the general finding in Jones (2018b) that, outside Luther’s Bible translations, gerecht is used to refer to righteousness, while frum is used to refer to both righteousness and worldly goodness.
The choice of gerecht, frum, and iustus in the German and Latin versions of the work is not revealing in itself about the order of composition of the two versions. After all, their distribution is consistent with that in Luther’s non-Bible works in general. However, there is one feature of the context in which these words occur that is easier to explain by assuming that the German was written first. As the following examples show, Luther sometimes includes words about righteousness in lists of several related terms (underlined here):
| German | Latin |
| Und alßo durch den glauben / die seele von dem gottis wort / heylig / gerecht / warhafftig / fridsam / frey / und aller guͤtte voll / eyn warhafftig kind gottis wirt (§10) | Hoc igitur modo anima per fidem solam, sine operibus e verbo dei iustificatur, sanctificatur, veri-ficatur, pacificatur, liberatur, & omni bono repletur, vereque filia dei efficitur (§10) |
| Und wo er ßo toͤricht were und meynet / durch ein gutt werck / frum / frey / selig odder Christen werden / ßo vorluͤr er den glauben mit allen dingen (§16) | Quod si sic desiperet, ut per ullum opus bonum praesumeret, iustus, liber, salvus, Christianus fieri, statim amitteret fidem cum omnibus bonis (§16) |
Such lists are an abiding feature of Luther’s vernacular writing.26 In the examples above, and on numerous occasions elsewhere in §§1─30, lists containing words associated with righteousness occur in both German and Latin. However, in the end section of the Latin version, which has no German counterpart, such lists are absent, even though that section continues to deal with righteousness and includes iustus and its derivatives many times.27 This would be consistent with the German version having been written first if it could be demonstrated that such lists were as a rule not a feature of Luther’s original Latin compositions, because those in the Latin version of the Freiheit could then be explained as having been carried over from the German. To verify this interpretation, an analysis of Luther’s other Latin works written around the time of the Freiheit would reveal whether such stylistic mannerisms were as absent from his original Latin compositions in general as they are from the Latin at the end of the Freiheit.
5. Conclusion
Some of the differences between the German and Latin versions identified above can be explained by their different target audiences: general readers/listeners on the one hand and the Pope and other highly educated readers on the other. Thus the German version is simpler, shorter, more personal, and less academic than the Latin.
In some ways, however, differences between the two versions are consistent with the German version, or at least some parts of it, having been written first. These relate to the syntactic relationship between the two versions when they are close, to the relationship between German and Latin Bible quotations, and to the inclusion in the Latin version of lists which may have been taken over from the German. These differences, which are discussed above at the end of sections 2a, 3, and 4, respectively, provide us with hypotheses to be tested in a more comprehensive comparison between the two versions of the Freiheit.
Bibliography
Anderas, Philip (2017): ‘Augustine and Augustinianism’ in Derek R. Nelson and Paul R. Hinlicky (eds) The Oxford Encyclopedia of Martin Luther, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benzing, Josef and Helmut Claus (1966): Lutherbibliographie. Verzeichnis der gedruckten Schriften Martin Luthers bis zu dessen Tod, Baden-Baden: Librairie Heitz.
Benzing, Josef (1956): ‘Josef Eckhart. Ein Nachdrucker zu Speyer (1521?–1526)’ in Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 1956, 184–192.
Benzing, Josef (1963): Die Buchdrucker des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts im deutschen Sprachgebiet, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Blickle, Peter (1981): The Revolution of 1525. The German Peasants War from a new perspective, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bluhm, Heinz (1969): ‘An “Unknown” Luther Translation of the Bible’, PMLA 84(6), 1537–44.
Böcking, Eduard (1854): Epistolae Ulrich Hutteni (= vol. 1), Leipzig: Teubner.
Brower, Jeffrey E. and Susan Brower-Toland, (2008): ‘Aquinas on Mental Representation. Concepts and Intentionality’ in The Philosophical Review 117.2, 193–243.
CSEL = Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vindobonae: Gerold u.a., (1866–)
Dieter, Theodor (2014): ‘Luther as Late Medieval Theologian: His Positive and Negative Use of Nominalism and Realism’, in Robert Kolb et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 31–48.
Dingel, Irene (2014): ‘Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen (1520) – Historische und theologische Aspekte’ in Irene Dingel and Henning P. Jürgens (eds) Meilensteine der Reformation. Schlüsseldokumente der frühen Wirksamkeit Martin Luthers. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 122–31.
Zu Dohna, Lothar et al. (eds) (2012): Johann von Staupitz, Libellus de Executione Aeternae Praedestinationis. Lateinische Schriften II (= Spätmittelalter und Reformation), Meuchen: De Gruyter.
Ebeling, Gerhard (1980): Luther. An introduction to his thought, Minneapolis.
Edwards, Mark U. (1995): ‘The Reception of Luther’s Understanding of Freedom in the early modern period’ in Lutherjahrbuch 62, 104–120.
Gaskell, Philip (2015): A New Introduction to Bibliography. 2nd revised and reprinted ed. New Castle: Oak Knoll Press.
Gasse, Jean-Louis (1984): Le traité de la liberté du chrétien de Martin Luther: Étude comparative des deux versions, allemande et latine, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (Publications de l’Université de Poitiers Lettres et Sciences Humaines, XXI).
Gerhardt, Volker (2018): ‘Freiheit in der Reformation. Erasmus und Luther im paradigmatischen Streit’ in Jörg Noller and Georg Sans (eds) Luther und Erasmus über Freiheit. Rezeption und Relevanz eines gelehrten Streits, Freiburg im Breisgau: Verlag Karl Alber, 13–36.
Gerleman, Gillis (2011): Ruth Das Hohelied. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Gilmont, Jean-François (2016): The Reformation and the Book, Abingdon: Routledge. (transl. by Karin Maag)
Habenicht, Georg (2020): Ablass. Wertpapiere der Gnade. Wie es zur Reformation kommen musste, Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag.
Hauschild, Wolf-Dieter (2001): Lehrbuch der Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte. Volume 2: Reformation und Neuzeit, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.
Heiles, Maco (2016): Beschreibung des Sammelbandes Arch. 8o.G.1519 (11) der Taylor Institution Library, Oxford, https://www.academia.edu/ 10742571/Beschreibung_des_Sammelbandes_Arch_8o_G_1519_11_der_Taylor_Institution_Library_Oxford.
Hirstein, James (2015): ‘Corrections autographes de Martin Luther. Le “Tractatus de libertate christiana” d’après les éditions de 1520 et de 1521: des suggestions d’émendation’, Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 95(2), 129–63.
Hirstein, James(2017a): ‘Des modes d’expression sublimes dans l’Epistola ad Leonem decimum et le Tractatus de libertate christiana corrigés par Martin Luther, par Beatus Rhenanus et par l’officine d’Adam Petri en vue de l’édition de 1521’ in Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses, 97.3, 385–422.
Hirstein, James (2017b): ‘Publizistische Netzwerke der Reformation. Die Schlettstädter Druckvorlage von Luthers Freiheitsschrift’ in Ruth Slenczka (ed.) Reformation und Freiheit. Luther und die Folgen für Preußen und Brandenburg. Potsdam: Michael Imhof, 60–65.
Iserloh, Erwin (1981): Johannes Eck (1486–1543). Scholastiker, Humanist, Kontroverstheologe, Münster Westfalen: Aschendorffsche Buchdruckerei.
Jones, Howard (2017): Martin Luther: Ein Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, translation and introduction. Oxford: Taylor Institution Library.
Jones, Howard (2018a): ‘Language and Style’ in Howard Jones, Martin Keßler, Henrike Lähnemann, and Christina Ostermann (eds) Martin Luther: Sermon von Ablass und Gnade & 95 Theses Oxford: Taylor Institution Library.
Jones, Howard (2018b): ‘The vocabulary of righteousness in Martin Luther’s New Testament translations’, Oxford German Studies 47(4), 381–416.
Jürgens, Henning P. (2014): ‘Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen (1520) – Zur Druckgeschichte’ in Irene Dingel and Henning P. Jürgens (eds) Meilensteine der Reformation: Schlüsseldokumente der frühen Wirksamkeit Martin Luthers. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.
Kant, Immanuel, Kritik der Praktischen Vernunft, Akademie-Ausgabe.
Kaufmann, Thomas (2017), ‘Luthers Traktat über die christliche Freiheit als publizistisches Phänomen und theologisches Programm’, in Ruth Slenczka (ed.) Reformation und Freiheit. Luther und die Folgen für Preußen und Brandenburg, Potsdam: Michael Imhof, 43–59.
Kingreen, Jan (2017): Martin Luther, Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen – kommentiert und herausgegeben (= Uni-Taschenbücher, Vol. 4884), Tübingen: Uni-Taschenbücher.
Köhler, Hans-Joachim (1986): ‘Erste Schritte zu einem Meinungsprofil der frühen Reformationszeit’ in Volker Press et al. (eds) Martin Luther: Probleme seiner Zeit. Stuttgart, 244–281 (256).
Leppin, Volker (2014): ‘Luther’s Roots in Monastic-Mystical Piety’ in Robert Kolb et al. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s theology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maurer, Wilhelm (1949): Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen. Zwei Untersuchungen zu Luthers Reformationsschriften 1520/21, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
McDougall, Sara (2013): ‘Women and Gender in Canon Law’ in Judith Bennett and Ruth Karras (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Women and Gender in Medieval Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 164–176.
McKenna, Michael and D. Justin Coates (2020): ‘Compatibilism’ in Edward N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/compatibilism/>.
Merker, Paul (1918): ‘Thomas Murner, Von dem großen lutherischen Narren’ in Volume 9: Thomas Murners Deutsche Schriften. Straßburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner.
Moeller, Bernd (1991): ‘Die deutschen Humanisten und die Anfänge der Reformation’ in Bernd Moeller and Johannes Schilling (eds) Die Reformation und das Mittelalter. Kirchenhistorische Aufsätze. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 98–110.
Molhuysen, P.C., ‘Een onuitgegeven brief von Frans von Sickingen’, in NAKG 3 (1905), 93–95.
Nieden, Marcel (2012): ‘Die Reformation als Medienereignis’, in Europäische Geschichte Online, http://ieg-ego.eu/de/threads/europaeische-medien/europaeische-medienereignisse/marcel-nieden-die-wittenberger-reformation-als-medienereignis.
Reske, Christoph (2015): ‘Die Anfänge des Buchdrucks im vorreformatorischen Wittenberg’ in Stefan Oehmig (ed.) Buchdruck und Buchkultur im Wittenberg der Reformationszeit. Leipzig: Evangelischer Verlag-Anst., 35–69.
Rieger, Reinhold (2007): Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen/De libertate christiana. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Roper, Lyndal (2016) Martin Luther. Renegade and Prophet, London: Bodley Head.
Sammel, Rebecca (1996): ‘The Passio Lutheri’ in Journal of English and Germanic Philology 95(2), 157–74.
Scheible, Heinz (1996): ‘Die Gravamina, Luther und der Wormser Reichstag 1521’ in Heinz Scheible and Gerhard May (eds) Melanchthon und die Reformation. Forschungsbeiträge. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 393–409.
Schmidt, Georg (2010): ‘Luthers Freiheitsvorstellungen in ihrem sozialen und rhetorischen Kontext (1517–1521)’ in Dietrich Korsch and Volker Leppin (eds) Volume 53: Martin Luther – Biographie und Theologie (= Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 9–29.
Schneider-Lastin, Wolfram (1990): Johann von Staupitz, Salzburger Predigten 1512: eine textkritische Edition, Tübingen.
Slenczka, Ruth (ed.) (2017): Reformation und Freiheit. Luther und die Folgen für Preußen und Brandenburg, Potsdam: Michael Imhof.
Slenczka, Notger (2017): ‘Luthers Freiheitsverständnis’, in Ruth Slenczka (ed.) Reformation und Freiheit. Luther und die Folgen für Preußen und Brandenburg, Potsdam: Michael Imhof, 26–41.
Stolt, Birgit (1969): Studien zu Luthers Freiheitstraktat mit besonderer Rücksicht auf das Verhältnis der lateinischen und der deutschen Fassung zu einander und die Stilmittel der Rhetorik. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Stupperich, Robert (ed.) (1960): Martin Bucer, Deutsche Schriften. Band 1: Frühschriften 1520–1524, Gütersloh: Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn.
Taylor Editions Online, https://editions.mml.ox.ac.uk/topics/reformation.shtml.
Thomas, David (2019): The Faithful Shephard and me. A Personal Odyssey. The Taylor Institution Library’s editions of II Pastor fido, by G.B. Guarini (1538–1612). Part II. The Once and Future Guarinian, https://blogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/taylorian/2019/03/15/the-faithful-shepherd-and-me-a-personal-odyssey-part-ii/.
Tomlin, Graham (2017): Luther then and now, New York.
WA = D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 120 vols (Weimar, 1883–2009) with WA.TR = Tischreden and WA.Br = Briefe.
Wallmann, Johannes (2012): Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands seit der Reformation, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Weber, Hanna-Christina (2017), ‘Buchdrucker’, in Helga Schnabel-Schüle (ed.) Reformation. Historisch-Kulturwissenschaftliches Handbuch, Stuttgart: Metzler, 93–108 (107).
Wengert, Timothy J. (2015): ‘The Freedom of a Christian’ in Timothy J. Wengert. (ed) The Annotated Luther. Volume 1: The Roots of Reform. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Wenzel, Horst (2005), ‘Botschaften und Briefe. Die Spur des Körpers in der Schrift’, in Gisela Fehrmann, Erika Linz, and Cornelia Epping-Jäger (eds) Spuren, Lektüren. Praktiken des Symbolischen, München: Fink, 259–76.
Wolf, Susan (1990): Freedom within Reason, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zimmerling, Peter (2017): Martin Luther: Vater der evangelischen Mystik? Akademie der Diözese Rottenburg Stuttgart.
Zumthor, Paul (1972): Essai de poétique médiévale, Paris: Seuil.
Notes
1.
I thank the following for their generous and valuable help with this piece of work: Ulrich Bubenheimer, John Flood, Martin Jones, Martin Keßler, Henrike Lähnemann, Ralf Plate, Jonathan Reinert, Reinhold Rieger, and William Thurlwell.
2.
See Rieger (2007: 2), Jürgens (2014: 133), and Stolt (1969: 8).
3.
When the German and Latin versions are not distinguished, the work is referred to as the Freiheit; when the German or Latin versions are referred to separately, this will be made clear in context.
4.
Maurer (1949) and Stolt (1969) allow for the existence of a plan or outline which preceded both versions. Their arguments are summarized in Rieger (2007: 5–12), who comes out in favour of Maurer.
5.
Although only the German version is divided into numbered paragraphs, these numbers will be used also to refer to the Latin text corresponding to them. For convenience, the numbers have been marked against the Latin transcription in this volume.
6.
Thus, if the two versions were close equivalents throughout, 125 German words would correspond to 100 Latin words on average. In fact, 125 German words correspond to
125×108%=135
Latin words on average throughout the two versions.
7.
The end section in the Latin begins ‘In fine’.
8.
Luther often used numbering in his German works (e.g. Sermon von Ablass und Gnade 1518, Von den guten Werken 1520, An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation 1520) as well as in those of his Latin works which were set out in the form of ‘theses’ (e.g. ‘95 Theses’ 1517, ‘Heidelberg Disputation’ 1518).
9.
I: §§1–2; II: §§3–18; III: §§19–29; IV: §30 (as well as the extra end section of the Latin).
10.
For a more detailed breakdown, see Rieger (2007: 12–15). The signposting of the arguments is somewhat clearer in the Latin version; for example, in the Latin §11 opens, ‘Haec prima fidei virtus esto. Alteram quoque videamus’, and §12 starts, ‘Tertia fidei gratia incomparabilis est haec …’. The corresponding German paragraphs do not make the tripartite virtue of faith so explicit. For further details of the way in which arguments are connected in the two versions, see Gasse (1984: 41–4).
11.
For divisions of the work based on medieval rhetoric, see the introduction to the English translation of the Latin version in Wengert (2015: 470–3). In the Latin version of the present volume, the marginal glosses which summarize the text are those used in editions from that of Adam Petri in 1521 (Basel) onwards. Hirstein (2015) shows that these glosses were added, not by Luther, but by Beatus Rhenanus.
12.
A translation of the Latin version of this extract can be found in this volume as a footnote to the translation of the German version.
13.
Main semantic differences between the two versions: ‘der mensch’ (2a) vs ‘quisquam’ (2b), ‘ist un̄ sein muß’ (4a) vs ‘est’ (4b), ‘yderman’ (13a) vs ‘omnia’ (13b).
14.
A sentence constituent is defined as a group of words which can be taken together as a syntactic unit.
15.
WA 7, 4, 17–21 and WA 7, 43, 20–23.
16.
A translation of the Latin version of this paragraph can be found in this volume as a footnote to the translation of the German version.
17.
A Bible quotation is defined here as any text which Luther presents as such in one or both versions of the Freiheit. Three of the Bible quotations in the Latin version (from Romans 10,10, Galatians 2,20, and 1 Timothy 1,9) appear twice. In addition to Bible quotations, there are numerous biblical allusions and echoes in both versions. For a discussion of other differences between the German and Latin Bible references in the Freiheit, see Gasse (1984: 44–51).
18.
It is not claimed here that this was the edition, or even one of the editions, of the Vulgate used by Luther. Ulrich Bubenheimer (p.c.) has established that editions of the Vulgate printed in the following locations were in use at Wittenberg by Luther’s contemporaries (named in parentheses): Lyon 1513 (Heinrich Stackmann); Lyon 1514 (Andreas Karlstadt); Basel 1514 (Johannes Lang). Comparing the Latin quotations in this work with the Latin (and Greek) of Erasmus’s 1516 and 1519 versions of the New Testament, I find no strong evidence that Luther’s Bible quotations were influenced by these (for one example of possible influence, see the footnote on Luther’s use of the future tense in the Latin quotation from Romans 1,17 below). For a study of some of Luther’s Bible translations before his 1522 Septembertestament (his first translation of the New Testament), see Bluhm (1969).
19.
Comparing the German quotations in this work with the text of the 1466 Mentel Bible, I found no evidence that Luther’s translations in the Freiheit were influenced by it.
20.
In his use of the future ‘vivet’ against the Vulgate’s ‘vivit’, it is possible that Luther was following Erasmus’s 1516/1519 Greek/Latin edition of the New Testament here: Erasmus has the Greek future ‘ζησεται’ (translated by the Latin periphrastic future ‘victurus est’).
21.
The closest I can find to any of these three additions are two references which parallel Romans 1,17. In a sermon from 1521 Luther cites Habakkuk 2,4 (of which Paul’s words in Romans 1,17 are an echo) as follows: ‘der gerecht lebt allain in seinem glauben’ (WA 7, 240, 14), and in a 1530 letter from Luther to Justus Jonas he writes, ‘Discimus nunc re ipsa, quid sit iustum ex fide vivere et fide sola’ (WA Letters 5, 500, 3─4).
22.
By ‘lexical independence’ is meant a departure from the wording in the Vulgate. The Latin-only quotations in the Freiheit include cases in which the Luther combines, reorders, or selects from different verses, but in such cases the wording is still close to that of the Vulgate.
23.
The main derivatives of frum are frumkeit, frum machen/werden; those of gerecht are gerechtigkeit, gerecht machen/werden; and those of iustus are iustitia, iustificare, iustum facere.
24.
In such cases the German words may be in either order, e.g. frum und gerecht or gerecht und frum.
25.
Note that, when translating iustus, Luther uses frum many more times than he uses gerecht. As Luther explains in his 1522 Weihnachtspostille, he finds frum, etc. more natural in German than gerecht, etc. (WA 10, I, 2, 36, 4─8).
26.
See Jones (2018a: lxxvi).
27.
There is a similar pattern with doublets (pairings of near-synonyms or related words) involving righteousness vocabulary. As Gasse (1984: 53–54) points out, doublets in the German version of the Freiheit generally correspond to a single word in the Latin. In the language of righteousness, such doublets, typically of iustus/verax or iustus/salvus (and their derivatives), occur in both the German and Latin versions of §§1─30 but do not occur in the extra end section in the Latin version.
