1 I

72-15,285

RYAN, Jr., John Patrick, 1944- PHILIP MELANCHTHON AND THE DIPLOMACY OF HUMANISM, 1531-1540.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1971 History, medieval f t V t I\ I University Microfilms, A XEROX Company. Ann Arbor, Michigan

© 1972

Jobs Patrick Ryan, Jr.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. PHILIP MELANCHTHDN AND THE DIPLOMACY OF HUMANISM

1531-1540

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy In the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

John P. Ryan, Jr., Ph.D.

******

The Ohio State University

1971

Approved by

Apriser Department of History PLEASE NOTE:

Some pages have indistinct print Filmed as received.

University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company PREFACE

The following essay was written during a two-year stay at

Friedrich-Karl University, Heidelberg, Germany. The grant which made that study possible came from the Deutscher Akademischer

Austauschdienst (D.A.A.D.), the exchange service of the German

Federal Government. The Intermediary agencies in the United States were the Fulbright Commission and the Institute for International

Education (I.I.E.). It is fitting that in expressing gratitude to

each of these Institutions my first thanks should go to the German people.

Among those people 1 wish to mention Professor Heinz Scheible and his staff at the Melanchthon-Fo^schungsstelle at Heidelberg.

Their warmth and kindnesses played no little role in whatever small contribution I may have made here. Along with them let me also mention Dr. and Frau Walther Muhlbeyer whose help enabled my wife,

Catherine, and me to make a good beginning.

When I turn to Professor Harold J. Grimm, I am at a loss to express the sense of gratitude I feel. With patience, tolerance, and an unimaginable depth of understanding and humanity, he has conscientiously fulfilled the role of Doktorvater. I offer in return this small token, the dedication of this essay.

il Among the others to whom I wish to offer thanks in closing

my graduate education are the members of the faculty of the Ohio

State University within both the History and German Departments with whom I have studied and by whom 1 have been examined. Two other

individuals have had to bear the burden of my studies and the fury

of these final days. These are Mrs. John P. Ryan, Sr. and Mrs.

Joseph Manfredi, my typist now and throughout all my higher education, finally, there is Catherine, my companion, inspiration, stylist, and critic.

Potsdam, N*Y., October 1971

ill VITA

February 24, 1944 B o m - Yonkers, New York

1966 ...... B.A., Fordham University New York, New York

1967 ...... M.A,, The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio

1967-1969 .... Teaching Associate, Department of History The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1968 ...... Fellow, Foundation for Reformation Research

1969-1971 .... Sprachdiplom, Friedrich-Karl Universitaet Heidelberg, Germany

1971 -...... Assistant Professor of History The State University of New York Potsdam, New York

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Renaissance-Reformatlon History

Medieval Europe. Professor Franklin Peques

Renaissance-Reformatlon. Professor Harold J. Grinin

Tudor-Stuart England. Professor R. Clayton Roberts

Early Modern Europe. Professor John C. Rule

Colonial America. Professor Paul Bowers

Medieval German Literature. Professor Wolfgang Flelschhauer

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ......

INTRODUCTION ...... ; .

PART I. THE HUMANIST PROGRAM: THE POLICIES OF A HUMANIST DIPLOMACY

Chapter I. MELANCHTHON' S PERSONAL SEARCH FOR PEACE. . . .

The function of peace; Melanchthon at the Diet of Augsburg; conversations with Cam- peggio; the Reformer's objectives; the Saxon and South German theologians; their differences; early attempts at reconcilia­ tion; Oekolampadius and Zwlngli; the Marburg Colloquy; the efforts of Philip of Hesse; contacts with Bucer; Kassel; the Wittenberg Colloquy; Melanchthon's second thoughts; the Concord; its meaning for Melanchthon's humanist diplomacy

II. THE BUILDING OF HUMANIST BRIDGES......

The necessity for broader efforts; Desiderius Erasmus; Melanchthon's first contacts; con­ tinued contacts after Erasmus' debate with Luther; Erasmus misinterprets Melanchthon's friendship; correspondence at Augsburg; the exchange in the 1530's; misunderstanding; the Liebeserklarung; parallel relationships; John Obemburger; Conrad Heresbach; his humanist credentials; Melanchthon and Heres­ bach correspond; humanist class consciousness Chapter Page IXI. THE MAKING OF A HUMANIST FOUNDATION 62

Melanchthon's constant concern for the needs of education; his understanding of contempor­ ary problems; schools and monastic communities; the new barbarism; relationship of ecclesiasti­ cal reformation; the De officio; Melanchthon's rhetorical shift; a plea for the arts; the learned men; support of young scholars; the De officio as the De iure reformandis; objec­ tions to Anabaptism; the importance of the academic scale.

PART II. THE REFORMER'S TACTICS: THE FUNCTION OF A HUMANIST DIPLOMACY

IV. IN SERVICE TO PRINCES...... 85

The nature of Melanchthon's services; Melanchthon as diplomat; first official efforts in 1531; awakened French interest in the Reformer; the efforts of inter­ mediaries; Melanchthon's willingness to go to France; reassurances; the refusal of John Frederick; second request and denial; the interest of John Frederick; England's invitation; correspondence with Henry VIII; English diplomacy in Saxony; the decision of the Elector; news of events in England; further contacts; the humanist contribution

V. IN CREATING A DIPLOMATIC SERVICE...... H 3

The problem of maintaining contacts; students as occasion of Melanchthon's bridge-building; the personal ambassadors; Melanchthon's obligations; stipends and positions; the kinds of positions; their sources; the role of the Melanchthonian letter; examples; humanist responsibilities to one another; the consensu? gnuHfntum? occasional problems; the fears of Melanch­ thon's opponents

vi Chapter Page VI. THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE SCHOOLS......

The "planting" of the Reformation; Melanch­ thon makes his first efforts; the schola private; its significance; the visitations; Eisleben; curriculum; the inaugural ceremonies; Magdeburg; the Nurnberg Upper School; Melanch­ thon attends its opening; his efforts for higher education; Wittenberg; Melanchthon's reform program; the school's problems; the actual reformation of 1536; Tubingen and its importance; the role of Camerarius; Leipzig; the reformation of 1539; Melanchthon's pro­ posals; Camerarius; Frankfurt/Oder and George Sabinus; Rostock; the Melanchthonlan contri­ bution; Marburg; the Reformer's other efforts.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 167 ABBREVIATIONS

ADB Allgemeine deutache Blographie. 56 Vols. Leipzig, 1875-1912.

CR. Corpus Reformatorum. Opera Melanchthon!s. Eds., C. G. Bretschneider and H. E. Bindseil. 28 Vols. Halle and Brunsweig, 1824-1860.

EiEa O p u s Epistolarum Des. Era ami Ed., P. S. Allen. Ox£ord: Clarendon, 1947.

LB Dr. Mart. Luthers Briefe. Sendschrelben und Bedenken. Ed., tf.M.L. Wette. 5 Vols* Berlin, 1825-1828.

Viil PHILIP MELANCHTHON AND THE DIPLOMACY OF HUMANISM

1531- 15^0 I

John P. Ryan, Jr., B.A., M.A.

I INTRODUCTION

Melanchthon was first and foremost a classicist, trained in the finest humanist tradition of his day. It was on this basis that he was called to Wittenberg. Until his death he retained his position as lec­ turer in the classics there. Like so many of his contemporary humanists, his academic interests, his personal piety, and his youthful idealism drew him to the problems of his generation. This mean, naturally, < reform of the Church. But it also meant the reform of public life.

The relationship of all estates and of all classes in society was placed in question by the great upheavals of the first half of the sixteenth century. There was a reassertion of authority on the part of local institutions against universal ones. This was Just as true of the secular world as it was of the religious world. Knights, princes, and electors challenged their overlords publicly, just as the reformers of the Church had done within Christendom proper. The peasants and burghers, the very pillars of society, in defense of their own interests, had raised cries and taken up arms in certain cases.

The fact that so many of these events had occurred within the comparatively brief period of one decade left many a thoughtful man per- » plexed. Men were caught very much unprepared and unable to deal with so much radical change in so short a time. In their desperation to find answers many individuals took mild comfort in a heightened eschatological

2 hope. Those days were for many educated men the final days of human

civilization. Things could not have been worse for them. Even the

pope, by traditional belief the Vicar of Christ on earth, had become

again for many Europeans the Anti-Christ* t The right of assertion on the part of subjects in both the secular

and religious spheres was not the only question which humanists like

Melanchthon faced. As educators, he and others tended to see in educa­

tion not only the heart of society's problems, but also a single human

hope for the solution of those problems in the future. Most agreed

that the educational process had not met the challenges of that generation.

It could not keep pace with the "new barbarism," which had settled on the

whole of Christian civilization. Its effects could be seen not only in

the superstition and error associated by reformers with Christian doctrine,

but also in the political polarization observed in the life of the Empire*

Men at all levels seemed to prefer violence rather than moderation and

reasonable discussion. Their ignorance and frustration in handling dif­

ficult religious and social questions had carried them to the limits of

civilized behavior. There was even the danger that the tendency toward

extremism might ultimately affect the relationship among those who could create a better world, the "good men," the humanists and educators.

It is only natural that when the world seemed to reach a nadir thoughtful men began to look up. They turned from the world as It was to the world as it should be. Some took occasion to write about utopias, others about ideal princes. Others awaited deliverance from above and the new Jerusalem. Still others acted. 4

Melanchthon was a little bit of each of these men. As Graecist

he had a utopia in the theoretical and philosophical writings of the men

about whom he taught. He was well acquainted with the Republic of Plato

and referred to that author in speaking to princes. The same is true

with the ethical writings of Aristotle, which he had occasion to edit

in the 1530*6. Whether he had much to add to these classical thinkers

Is an open and interesting question. If he did, he did not leave his

thoughts in the form of a well developed treatise. That doeB not mean

that he had no thought of his own on this proper form and order in

society. If he did, the researcher has to look for it in other diffuse

places— in letters and scattered essays. There is reason to believe

that a Melanchthonlan vision does exist in his papers.

One expression Is found in the letter to Bucer, which is men­

tioned in the first chap^jr. In it Melanchthon speaks of the authority

of the emperor, which he believed should be exercised only in conjunc­

tion with the voices of his magistrates, the "good men.** This may not

seem startling at first. But when one considers the place that "good men” have in Melanchthon's every thought, it does have tremendous signi­

ficance. His efforts on behalf of his students, as well as his fellow humanists, are essentially attempts to create a magisterial class of

"good men," Christian humanists, upon whose shoulders the whole fabric of society should rest. These men should become a fulcrum balancing the tensions not only within the Church and state, but also between the

Church and state. Melanchthon had here, in fact, an alternative to the philosopher-king, in those Instances where the highest magistrates were no"philosophers." Although he spoke constantly about the needs

of education and of the arts to princes, the result of his experiences

in the 1530's was generally disappointing. At the conclusion of the

Schmalkaldic War he was a completely disillusioned servant of Princes.

His alternative would have made the philosophers king. The faith that

this could and should be done lies at the center of Melanchthon's pro­

fessional life. When, therefore, the Praeceptor speaks about "good men"

and their position and rise in society, there is good reason to believe

that he is essentially making a political statement.

This paper Is not concerned with the theoretical and structural aspect of Melanchthon's ideal state. That is the challenge of the imme­ diate future. On the basis of what has already briefly been said it does not seem premature to speak of a Melanchthonian Republic, in the sense of Melanchthon's understanding of the public good. When, there­ fore, the word Republic or Melanchthonian Republic is used, the author refers to his idealism. Republic in lower case, however, refers to its original Latin form, res publlca. public affairs. These affairs may either be those of the Empire, those of another kingdom, or those of

Christendom in general.

A question may also arise in the following chapters over the expression,"diplomacy of humanism." It is based upon the portrayal of

Melanchthon as a diplomat. This becomes a problem when the author states that Melanchthon's contributions, when called upon by princes to per­ form essentially diplomatic tasks, have been minimized by scholars. He has been reduced to a "mere" secretary as some would have it, a translator and phrase maker. Although this may not be as menial and Insigni­ ficant as It seems, there Is another valid sense In which one may envision Melanchthon, the diplomat.

If In fact his services as diplomat in the normal sense were rejected, one ought not to exclude his representing the substance of his own idealism and serving as diplomat for the Melanchthonian Re­ public. This is what he does in every written page of correspondence in the 1530's. The diplomacy of humanism refers, then, to those diplomatic-like activities of the reformer, seeking moderate and contemporary solutions to contemporary problems, keeping communica­ tion between men of different persuasions open, and encouraging the development of educational institutions. Each plays an important part in the Melanchthonian ideal, of which Melanchthon was Inheritor on the basis of his humanist background,

Melanchthon acted indeed like each of several kinds of men in meeting the challenges of his generation. Although he did not write specifically about a utopia, he did at least have the outlines of one either from the classics or from his own experience. He did, moreover, have a "prince" expressed in much the same way in his letters to such men. At one point in the 1530's he did write an essay on the duty of the prince. This is discussed in Chapter 3. One even finds him awaiting the new Jerusalem. This can be found not Just in his

Christian faith, of which the Last Judgement is an integral part.

He saw it also in every sign from the Heavens, in the movements of the stars, In comets, and in other natural events. Host important in understanding Melanchthon, however, is the fact that he acted. He

was a nan constantly on the move, always pushed into the limelight

"by his fate," as he expressed it. It was a feature of his life

which he said he did not enjoy. He preferred the quiet academic life;

but he accepted the role forced on him.

This role and how he fulfilled it is the subject of the follow­

ing chapters. There are in this regard two aspects of his activity,

which are reflected here. The first three chapters seek to explain what Melanchthon wanted from his public work. Carrying the metaphoric representation of a kind of diplomacy one step further, these object­

ives are considered as a body of humanist diplomatic policy. I came

to them by observing a certain pattern in Melanchthon's behavior, a set of constantly recurring interests, about which he speaks in his letters in the 1530's. These are his interest in peace and moderation, his open contacts with other humanists, and his encourage­ ment of education. The second three chapters are in many ways related and even parallel to the first three. They attempt to answer the question of how he attempted to put these policies into effect in order to achieve the ultimate ideal. This takes into account his service to princes, his creation of a diplomatic service by placing

* students, and his reform of German universities.

There is finally another question which may arise. Why were the years 1531-1540 chosen? They are admittedly only a part of his public life. They are, however, a unit in themselves, which has been very much ignored in studies of the reformer. The period begins with the conclusion of the Diet of Augsburg. His composition of the

Augsburg Confession made him a Father of the Evangelical Church and made him its chief spokesman thereafter. The years that followed placed new pressures on Melanchthon's public life; he had to learn how to deal with the new responsibilities. This placed demands on his thought and professional life. How he responded to these chal* lenges will suggest why he acted as he did in the important years which followed, in the midst of the great colloquies of the 1540's and the tragic Schmalkaldlc War. Because these latter events form a unit in themselves, this study ends with 1540. PART I. THE HUMANIST PROGRAM: THE POLICIES

OF A HUMANIST DIPLOMACY

9 CHAPTER 1

MELANCHTHON'S SEARCH FOR PEACE

Nothing is more characteristic of the life and work of Philip

Melanchthon than the way in which he lived and worked. Contemporaries who

knew him and scholars who have studied him have found one area of agree­ ment In describing the public and private manner of the reformer. He was above all an irenicist. Most recent recognition of this fact comes

in the title of an English biography, published within the last ten

years.* In making the attribute. The Quiet Reformer. Clyde Manschreck.

reveals the essential identity between the subject's personality and the character of his work. For those of us who have been interested in

Melanchthon, this relationship has become a commonplace, like the natural connection between two things in a game of word suggestion.

It is perhaps the misfortune of church history in the sixteenth century that this quality can he attributed to and enjoyed by too few contemporaries. Among the very few, to whom the term irenicist applies

* are Erasmus of Rotterdam and Martin Bucer. The subject here is a descrip­ tion of the considered effort for peace by Melanchthon within the public sphere.

Peace, as some may suggest in speaking of Melanchthon, is not the cowardly response of a weak man, standing up against the threat of force

*Clyde Manschreck, Melanchthon. The Quiet Reformer (New York: Abingdon Press, 1958). 10 11

In public affairs. It is a positive "philosophical” good. Consider for

a moment the importance of peace in public life--the rational handling of

political and religious differences— for the smooth function of the univer­

sity, the undisturbed life of its scholars, and the successful education

of youth. Nothing can be properly achieved under uncertain, chaotic, or

violent conditions.

Peace was also an end, toward which Melanchthon had to work in a

real world. It was the immediate aim of most of his public efforts. It was the object of the Reformer's diplomatic activities on behalf of princes.

Ihis is not to suggest that the princes whom Melanchthon served wanted the kind of peace, which the reformer often attempted to negotiate.

The blunt fact is, as many students of the Reformer are quick to discover,

that the evangelical princes consistently and Increasingly rejected the opinions of the 1530's while keeping him tightly bound to their service.

Though often rejected, Melanchthon continued to act in accordance with his understanding of the better interests of the princes. Where the worldly wisdom of the Praeceptor did not meet the approval of a worldly republic and a real prince, that same wisdom certainly did meet the needs of an un-worldly Republic and an ideal prince.

This seems to be of the utmost significance for the study of

Melanchthon and for the evaluation of his activity and work. In the past writers have Judged Melanchthon's political activity according to stand­ ards based upon the dubious objectives of princes, whose policies had questionable results* Consequently scholars have been accustomed to

listen with amusement to talk of Melanchthon as a diplomat. Weakness 12

and wavering have been synonyms of Melanchthon's irenicisra. Yet within

its proper context his "un-dlplomatic" activity becomes quite the opposite,

bearing qualities of real strength and consistency.

Melanchthon's activity at Augsburg (1530) offers a good example

of this policy at work. On the one hand he makes his finest contribu­

tions to the history of the Reformation— the Augsburg Confession. The.

document itself was not simply a Lutheran statement of belief. It was

not a manifesto and it did not seek to Justify a decisive split in the

Christian community. It was rather, as Elert emphasized, a religious

statement intended to hold Christianity together.^ Interesting, further,

is Lackmann's more recent view that the Confession makes no special

Lutheran plea.^ Its consciousness Is peculiarly catholic. It seeks to

Identify with the ancient symbols of the universal Church and to demon­

strate that unity. The emphasis is positive. It dwells upon the common

points of belief rather than the differences. Accepting this inter"

pretation, then, we might look upon the Confession as a first public

policy of peace--a type of public diplomacy— to which Melanchthon dedi­

cated himself.

On the other hand, we find Melanchthon exercising a personal

diplomacy. He detached himself from the people whom he represented and

acted as a third party. This was the case when he confronted men with

whom he could personally Identify. Even when they represented an eccle­

siastical or political opposition. The best of his activity is seen in

2Walter Elert, Die Augustana und der Gedankfj der christlichen Solidaritat. 1931. To be found among the Universitats-Reden of the University at Erlangen. 3 Max Lackmann, The Augsburg Confession and Catholic Unity (New York: Herder, 1963). 13 his letters to Cardinal Campeggio, the papal legate to the Diet of

Augsburg. Convinced of the cardinal's good will he wrote at the begin* nlng of July that the evangelical princes were also motivated by the same desire for a peaceful settlement. He stated that the princes would prefer to see the cardinal not retreat from his moderate position and that he continue to make positive efforts toward peace. Such a policy was in the better interest of the entire republic since princes had never tolerated articles contrary to Scripture of the Catholic Church.

He assured the legate that they privately recognized his authority and publicly promised that they would accept those terms which they deemed pertinent for the strengthening and re-establishing of ecclesiastical authority.4

In other conversations with Campeggio, Melanchthon made a more personal effort to reduce differences to four questions and to effect a reconciliation on this basis. These included the marriage of priests, the conferral of the Sacrament under two species, the dispensation of vows from regular religious life, and the elimination of private Masses.

In a letter written by Melanchthon to Veit Dietrich, the Reformer indi­ cated that his efforts met with some disappointment. The Cardinal agreed in principle to the first two of these requests, but rejected the 5 remaining points.

Although the events of Augsburg fall outside of the period of discussion, this particular example of Melanchthon's activity is of some significance and raises important questions not only with regard

4cR.II. 172 (July 6, 1530).

5CR.II. 174 (July 8 , 1530). 14

to the evaluation of his policy, but also to his credibility as a diplomat.

The policy he expressed represented in his mind the better interests of

evangelical Christianity.

For some historians Melanchthon's actions at Augsburg presented

some serious problems. He was the representative of the evangelical

cause since Luther could not make an appearance. Melanchthon was there­

fore of particular importance. How could the author of the Augsburg

Confession attempt to reduce differences and effect a reconciliation on

the basis of four points, without dealing directly with the doctrine of

Justification? Historians are more often than not at a loss to explain

such behavior. Was he a sincere man, a great reformer, and a scholar

but weak in the face of public danger? Did he waver and was he uncertain

of himself? With less kindness some find in his actions traces of the

insidious humanist and skeptic. Others made hi;j appear a secret Roman

Catholic. There was a general tendency to minimize Melanchthon's ability

and contribution as a diplomat. The Humanist, with his trusting and

conciliatory nature was thought to make a very poor politician. The

kinds of peace that he wanted would have been a disastrous sell-out of

the evangelical cause if it had been pursued as public policy. The princes,

thinking in these terms, suspected his political judgment and often went

their own way after asking for' his counsel.

These judgments are wrong because they fail to see "what Melan­

chthon was all about." Another letter written on July 7, one day after

the one mentioned above, and at about the same time that Melanchthon met

personally with Cardinal Campeggio, related to his objectives and ulti­ mately to the evaluation of his work. He maintained -that he was willing 15 to Stand judgment if his opponents could find a dogma in the evangelical confession which dissents from Scripture or from the Roman Church. He would accept the harshest punishment if such were the case. He was con­ vinced that there would be much less disturbance and more agreement if the matter were judged by good and learned men, gifted with a degree of common sense. He urged that the reader help reduce the differences in the Church and not increase them by savagery. Of one thing he was certain- the turmoil would be even greater if one attempted to solve disagreements by arms.

this letter shared with the previous one the conviction that the Confession did not differ from the symbols of the ancient Church.

It differed from the reading of the other in that it used the specific expression "Roman Church" rather than the general term Catholic.7 Just as important, however, are two other points* which are constantly repeated in Melanchthon's thinking in the course of the next ten years. The first is the suggestion that agreement in ecclesiastical affairs was hindered

Q by the involvement of intemperate and uneducated men.

6CR.II. 172 f.

7There is an alternative reading given by Bretschneider which reads "a catholica ecclesia." The editor of the Corpus Reformatorum, however, gives the other as the regular reading. ®The words improbi et illiterati are problematic. We ought to ask the question whether they have a definite reference in this document and in the others in which it is used. For they are used quite often. One thing is certain; they are terms used to refer to opponents in general. It would be tempting to believe that Melanchthon applied the words only to Roman Christians. If this were in fact the case* however, he would not have used it in speaking to a cardinal or to the cardinal's secretary. That is not to say that in some cases he does not have Roman Christians in mind in using it. He will apply it often to monks--theological critics in the re­ ligious orders* If we carefully observe the use of these pronominal adjec­ tives in the next ten years, we notice that it need not refer to Roman Christians at all. The usage varies. It may in fact mean other 16

The second was the conviction that a violent attempt to settle outstanding

differences would be the worst of all possible solutions. This sheds a

different light on Melanchthon*s activities and value as a diplomat. His

suggestion that a reconciliation be made on the basis of four matters of

practice is not, when considered at length, a reduction of evangelical

truth, as it appeared to many in his own and later generations. It would

hardly be fair or do justice to the man who had so recently written the

Augsburg Confession to accuse him of acting as If he did not. The man was

too Intelligent and too highly motivated to be guilty of such unexplainable

or unreasonable behavior. The answer for his peace proposals lies somewhere

else.

That a violent solution would lead to only greater problems for the

Republic would justify extraordinary methods to avoid making a bad situa­

tion worse. The proposals to Campeggio were precisely these extraordinary

measures. That they took the form they did is best explained by Melan­

chthon 's concern that Intemperate and uneducated men were hindering active

agreement among ecclesiastics. Melanchthon1s concessions were not retreats,

but rather attempts to do two things, first to remove emotional and sensi­

tive issues which provoked the intemperate men and second, to remove from

public debate the crucial and difficult issues which could only be discussed q and worked out by specialists--well-educated humanists. Melanchthon did

Protestants— either members of Melanchthon*s own community or those outside of it. What is shared by all those to whom it is applied is a lack of humanist Identity. This is, I submit, the best of all translations. It applies in all cases. Important is that the words have no direct confes­ sional reference; it crosses those barriers. A reading In one Instance may not give us the direct reference in another.

^Cf. Letter to Veit Dietrich, CR.II. 252 (August 6 , 1530); also CR.1I. 246, 253. 17 not want to diminish religious truth; he only wanted to withdraw sensitive questions from the public arena, where misunderstanding could only lead to violence. He hoped that after offering a reasonable expression of good will— his concessions--all other questions would eventually solve themselves— by their public exposure.

There seemed to be a deep awareness on the reformer's part that these concessions would have meaning for all parties. Aside from the serious doctrinaL questions, there had developed an entire host of human and emotional issues, which dictated the attitude of each side toward the other.

One could not, for example, expect a former religious to return to the observation of his vows when he had convinced himself that they were unsuitable. A pastor could hardly be expected to give up his family or his vocation. Nor could one expect the pastor to drop a ritual prac- tice, the justice of which he had already demonstrated to his congregation.

Melanchthon knew the solutions to these problems when he asked Campeggio for the concessions. And he also knew how easily a positive reply might defuse the tense religious atmosphere. He knew how much easier it would be to meet and agree on the important issues once suspicion and name calling had ceased.

This was, then, a diplomatic tactic of considerable significance, which clarifies Melanchthon's activities. That it failed is true. Cardi­ nal Campeggio may neither have understood it; he may not have desired that it succeed; or he may have had objectives of his own. These are of little significance here; they do not change the nature of the action.

10CR.1I. 537 f. (Sept. 9, 1531). 18 This is particularly true of the Praeceptor in the months and

years that followed Augsburg. He left the Diet convinced that the un­

solved difficulties, which still plagued the churches and the Empire,

were rapidly coming to a climax. His thoughts about public affairs

expressed recurring concerns. He felt a sense of urgency. To Joachim

Camerarlus, in March, 1531, he said that he had a certain Joy in having

little news about the world; but he feared that that joy would not last

very long. For the age in which they lived seemed destined for upheaval.

He knew that couriers were moving about and prayed for the aid of Christ.

For no people, he believed, were ever in greater danger, or ever suffered

greater hatred than they.H

The convictions were strengthened by a trait in his character

and a series of uncommon events. Melanchthon had a tendency to see super­

natural meaning in natural events. The letters to Camerarlus in this

period refer to the threatening conjunction of signs--of eclipses and 12 of comets. In a letter to Cordatus he spoke of a woman from Kltzingen

who had recently prophesied the approach of the greatest of all wars, waged

by the enemies of the Gospel. This confirmed Melanchthon's fear about the

course of events.13 This served to give immediacy to all his efforts and

his diplomatic activity. It also produced a significant change in his entire approach to the south Germans--the Swiss and Alsatian reformers.

The difference between the reformers of Wittenberg and those of Zurich

11CR.II. 488 (March 17, 1531).

^CR.Il. 598 (June 24, 1532), which gives an example of what is a common feature in many others.

^CR.II. 491 (March 1531); cf. Letter to Baumgartner, CR.II. 491 f. (March 1531). 19 and Strsssburg lay in their attitude toward questions relating to the

Eucharist. Chief among these was the question of the presence of Christ

in the Sacrament. The Wittenbergers, represented by Luther, held to the

Real Presence of Christ. They distinguished themselves from the medieval

theologians in the manner in which this event took place. They did not

give assent to the Thomlstlc explanation of the miraculous presence of

Christ by the complete transformation of the substance of the bread and

wine (Transubstantiation). As a consequence many of the rites giving

adoration to the Sacrament--Processions (Corpus Christ!), Benediction, and

similar liturgical practices had no place among Lutherans and distinguished

them from Roman Christians.

The south Germans found their representatives theologian in

Zwlngll, whose position had offered a more radical reform than that among

Lutherans. Based upon his own exegisis of the words of institution as

well as upon his own philosophical approach to theological questions, he

concluded that Christ could not be present in the Sacrament. It was

Impossible for Christ to be present in two places— Heaven and Earth-- at

the same time.*^ The words of institution, further, were to be understood

simply. "This is My Body," metaphysically understood, meant "this repre­

sents Ify Body." Consequently, Zwingll saw no conferral of grace in the

Sacrament. The Sacramentarians, as Zwingli's followers were called, would define the Sacrament as the distinguishing character of believing Christians

a witness of faith. They would recognize one another in the common rite.

It was, moreover, a memorial practice instituted by Christ to comemorate

^Zwingll demonstrated from Scripture the validity of his position by reference to Christ's leaving his apostles. 20 his suffering and death. In only one respect--the rejection of all other secondary rites--did the Swiss stand with the Saxons.

The differences in Eucharistlc doctrine played a very important role in the interrelation among the German Evangelicals. It divided them as much as they were each divided from the Romans. The position of each side was anathema to the other. The Wittenberg position was for the Swiss undlstinguishable from the Roman heresy; the doctrine of the Zurich theologians was for the Wittenberger synonymous with

Anabaptlsm.

The division offered some embarrassment to the evangelical princes, who attempted to unite all protesting regimes into a common front against imperial opposition. When, however, before the end of the Diet of Speyer (1527) the princes of Saxony and Hesse concluded a secret alliance with the city governments of Strassburg, Ulm, and if Numberg (April 22, 1529), Saxon theologians raised serious objections.

Therefore, Nurnberg withdrew. Melanchthon protested to the three prominent personalities of the city of Nurnberg against the actions of the allied governments, and this may be an important element in the with­ drawal of that commune from the alliance.This convinced Philip of

Hesse that serious efforts had to be made to solve the doctrinal problems which separated the south Germans from the Saxons.

•

^Schmidt, in his biography of Melanchthon (Elberfeld: Friderichs, 1661) demonstrates how the reformer exercised his influence in letters written to Camerarlus, the director of the Nurnberg Upper School; Baum­ gartner, an important lawyer and diplomat for the city; and Spengler, the secretary of the City Council. He raised objections on two counts: (1) the defense of religion by arms, and (2) alliance with the Zwlngllans. Vid. Schmidt, p. 165 f.; or CR 1.1068 (May 17, 1529), CR 1.1069 (May 17, 1529), CR 1.1070 (May 17, 1529). 21 Philip made other attempts in the course of the next two years.

The first occurred in 1528. when he, with the aid of the Duke of Wlirttenberg,

tried to bring Melanchthon and Oekolampadius together.He did not

succeed. That did not prevent him from trying again at the beginning

of the next year. He raised the possibility of such a meeting to

Melanchthon and his prince, while both were on their way to the Diet

of Speyer (1529). The interest of the Landgrave, not to speak of his

arguments, made it difficult for Melanchthon to refuse to make some

effort toward reconciliation. That the Basle reformer, Oekolampadius,

an associate of Zwingli, had been a colleague of the Praeceptor when

II both were students at Tubingen made this renewed attempt easier.

Melanchthon wrote, then, in April, 1529, to his friend and expressed

his personal regard for him, his regrets that the question of the Last

Supper had come between them, and his continued good will. After ex­

plaining the elements of his position with regard to the doctrinal

question, Melanchthon suggested a colloquium between responsible men,

who would use yardsticks other than their own reason to measure the

matter.17

One practical outcome of this first step was Melanchthon*s

refusal to condemn the Swiss at the Diet. The Marburger Colloquy was

a result of continued efforts by Melanchthon after his return to Witten­

^Melanchthon* s acquaintance with Oekolampadius (1482-1531), the reformer from Basle and the associate of Zwingli (1484-1531) will play an important role in Melanchthon*s becoming a leading irenicist in the next decade. Vid. Schmidt,p. 170 f. who makes us aware of their early correspondence, q.v., C&.I. 786 (Feb. 18, 1526). Cf. Hottinger, Historic der Reformation in der Eidgenossenschaft Zurich (1708), IV. 484.

17CR.I. 1048 (April 8, 1529). Vid. Schmidt, ibid. for a trans­ lation of the letter into German. 22

berg. Despite Luther's doubts that such a venture would bear fruit,

the meeting did take place. Not the least of the considerations which

helped to bring about the Colloquy was the state of Saxon-Hessian

relations after a rejection of the Landgrave's proposals. Another

was the growing awareness on the part of some that the Saxon-Swiss

division was rapidly becoming crucial to the question of peace in

the finpire.

The conference finally took place in the fall of 1529. In

personal confrontations Luther faced Oekolampadius; Melanchthon.

Zwingli.

There were two significant results. First, the conference

eliminated a number of misconceptions which each side believed about the

other. Zwingli, for example, convinced Melanchthon that the Swiss were not In fact Anabaptists. Second, they reached a general agreement over

the entire range of Christian doctrine. The notable exception lay, unfortunately, in the question of the Eucharist.

A plea on the part of the south Germans that the Colloquy end on the note of brotherhood--a statement declaring the comnon Brotherhood of those concerned--was not accepted. It was the occasion for Luther's often quoted remark that the Zwinglians were of another spirit. Even

Melanchthon, who was as a- rule not often so inclined, was guilty of uncharitable remarks. He disputed the seriousness of the Swiss in the declaration of brotherhood and referred to it as foolishness. He charac­ terised their position as childish philosophising. W

W i n one case Melanchthon's attitude may be attributed to the cir­ cumstances in which it was made. His name was attached to a letter, written to Luther. Vid. L.B. III.513 (October 12, 1529). The other comment can be found in a letter to Martin Gorlits in March 1530; q.v. CR 11.25. See also Schmidt, sec. 2,c,xl. 23 Melanchthon, however, kept corresponding with Oekolampadius. In

the first month of the new year the former wrote that he was more con­

vinced of the stand which he had taken in the previous year.*-9 In

response Oekolampadius wrote his apologetic work, Dialogos quid de

eucharistia veteres turn graece. turn latlni senserint (1530) and sent

it to Melanchthon. His argument was that Melanchthon was one-sided in his patristic references. The Fathers were themselves often rhetorical and contradictory. In many cases, they presented the position held by the

Swiss. From Oekolampadius* point of view, the doctrine of the Last Supper had not been formulated in the Patristic period. There were varying theo­

logical attitudes, all of which were tolerated. He concluded that more research into the question was needed. The work made a tremendous 20 impression on the Praeceptor. The Basle reformer approached the ques­ tion in a way which Melanchthon approved.

During the Diet of Augsburg, when the Strassburg theologians made a special plea to Melanchthon that another colloquium be held, circum­ stances were different. Melanchthon was impressed when they pointed out that the opponents of the Gospel were numerous; the true believers were few. Why then, they asked, should they split over doctrine upon which they could still agree?2*

To suggest that Meldnchthon's attitude had completely changed would be false. Looking at Melanchthon1s behavior with regard to the

l9CR.II.ll (January 12, 1530).

2®Vld. Schmidt, p. 183.

2lCR.II. 187 (July 12, 1530); cf. CR.II. 221 (July 25, 1530). 24

south Germans there Is no apparent change. He showed little Inclination

to talk with either Bucer or Capito in person; their communications were

handled in writing. The difficulty which Melanchthon faced here was one

of timing. He was involved in a series of negotiations with the papal

legate and feared being too closely associated with the suspected

"Anabaptists"— as the Zwinglians were popularly and erroneously labelled—

because that connection could destroy any chance of agreement with Rome,

At the Diet the concern of the Wittenberg theologians for their

public image had found expression earlier. Philip of Hesse, for example,

had made another of his efforts to bring the south Germans and Saxons

together. It failed. Toward the middle of June— before the Strassburg

reformers had even arrived at the Diet, Melanchthon confided his uncertain­

ty to Veit Dietrich. He indicated that the difficulties of the Saxons

would not be so great if the Zwinglians had not been present. The Witten- 22 berg reformers would be less distrusted and hated. Another example

of this sensitivity was Nurnberg's refusal to Join Basle, Strassburg,

Bern, and Zurich in an alliance which carried a taint of Zwingllanism.2^

When it became evident to Melanchthon that Rome would not nego­

tiate generously, the reformer-humanist gave closer attention to culti­ vating a consensus and unity among the divided evangelicals. His inten- tion was not simply to make possible a military alliance among Protestant * regimes; it was to create a solid and acceptable doctrinal and moral

22CR.II.103 (June 13, 1530).

23CR.II.108 (June 16, 1530). voice, with which all temperate and learned men could face one another regardless of their confessional adherences.

It is of significance that Melanchthon, in writing the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, touched briefly upon the Sacrament or that in doing so he avoided entirely the differences with the Strassburgers and the Swiss. He did not desire to start more controversy. This was in one sense the negative side of his policy.

The positive aspect expressed itself in the growing friendship between Melanchthon and Bucer. That the former failed to move Rome with his concessions was not the most Important factor in cultivating this relationship. The experiences at Augsburg Indicated that the em­ pire was dangerously close to civil war.2^ Melanchthon was not alone in fearing an approaching catastrophe. Others were also quick to speak about a blood bath. Natural phenomena, moreover, gave urgency to his 25 efforts. These were not the only factors that moved him closer to 26 his alsatian counterpart.

In 1531 religious differences in Switzerland again became desperate. At Kappel Zwingli fell victim to the violence which he had failed to prevent. When Melanchthon heard of his death, he asked for 27 ‘ confirmation of the report from Camerarlus. The event had a practi­ cal lesson for those who expected similar occurrences. But more

Vid. supra n. 11.

25CR,II.546 f. (September 29, 1531) 26Vid. supra n. 13.

27CR.II. 553 f. (December 22, 1531). important for Melanchthon is the fact that the death of Zwingli made

Martin Bucer more approachable. Without the controversial and militant

Zwingli, the surviving Protestants could work out a solution for the inter-evangelical conflict. That Zwingli*s associate, Oekolampadius, 2ft also died in this same year enhanced the possibility of an agreement. 9

The first sign of Melanchthon's new attitude after Augsburg came in a letter to Martin Bucer in April, 1531.29 It is not the only sign of Melanchthon's good will toward Bucer in this period. He had previously sent his regards to the Strassburg reformer in another letter. In this letter, however, the Praeceptor assured his correspondent that he had made that greeting candidly; if Bucer had taken it as such, then he properly understood Melanchthon's intentions for Melanchthon had no objection to his friendship. Bucer was aware of the moderation which the Praeceptor exercised in the disagreements which they had. He could only say that he had always sought to free men's minds from doubt; he knew that Bucer too had actively worked for the arrangement of a peace.

Although he declined to evaluate the success of both efforts, he appealed to Bucer to continue to reduce rather than enflame their difficulties.

Melanchthon in relating Bucer's request for a conservative formula, indicated that he had read his letter to Luther, and assured him of a favorable response— if Luther's health was better. The matter • - was one which depended upon a number of considerations. The changes in the evangelical churches arose from the people as a whole rather than

28CR.II 552 (November 8, 1531). N.B.: cf.CR.II. 641 f.; March 1533

29CR.II. 498 (April 1531). from Che learned, however; the people seemed to take a certain joy In freedom and were impatient with human customs even at the expense of discipline or order, Melanchthon himself did not approve all the things which people did; but, he was not in a position to stop them. He ventured to guess that Bucer shared the same experience.

Not long thereafter, Melanchthon sent another letter to Bucer.

He repeated his personal desire to see a true and firm concord between them and confessed that he never liked the violence and dueling between

Luther and Zwingli. It would have been more advisable for the whole affair if both men had allowed the differences to settle. Matters ought to be allowed to calm down. The consistent element here was Melanchthon’s adversion to exciting human emotions. This was the same tactic applied in his conversations with Cardinal Campeggio, a first step in arranging 30 peace.

That still another letter was sent to Bucer in the same period signified something of importance with regard to Melanchthon's new efforts.

Here he assured Bucer that if he answered his letters, Melanchthon would consider it a favor. For he was open in all matters in which they had an interest. He wanted to serve the unity of the Church in a way in which pious men would approve. He hoped that this would be possible and 31 requested that Bucer keep him informed.

Some time thereafter Melanchthon re-established contact with

Bucer. The occasion for another letter was the rapid growth of Anabaptists

30CR.II. 498 ff. (April 1531).

31CR.II. 675 f. (October 10, 1533). in Strassburg. This narked another phase in their relationship and a first step in finding a common formula which would unite the south

Germans and the Saxons.3^ Five months later the Praeceptor wrote again.

Acknowledging that agreement with the Roman Pontiff seemed unrealistic, he restated his frequently made comment that he wished to act with good men who supported this view with their pious study. Bucer ought to

Interpret his generosity to adversaries as a willingness to accommodate to the attitudes of good men among whom reconciliation was possible. He had tried to eliminate a number of contradictions hoping that his modera­ tion would please learned men. He desired nothing more than the ending of the great scandal, their dissension, because it impeded the progress of the Gospel.33

One important factor in the successful growth of their friend­ ship in this period was Melanchthon's openness and his academic approach to questions. A letter in March raised the important question, offered the objections of his opponents, while recognizing the validity of their interests, and suggested a workable answer. He seemed to solve problems by clarifying the questions. For example, he had once suggested the use of suppression against Anabaptists. Bucer feared that granting this power to the Magistrate would start a precedent which could under dif­ ferent circumstances be employed against themselves. Melanchthon agreed that it could be a problem only if one did not fully realize that the

32CR.II. 710 ff. (March 15, 1534).

33CR.II. 775 f. (August 1, 1534). 29 magistrate did not exercise his authority alone for he acted with

the consent of the learned.3^

Other letters restated not only his desire to deal exclusively with good men, but also the conviction that Rome was uncompromising.

More dramatic evidence of his openness was an Incident in which Mel­ anchthon saw a conflict in Luther's doctrine of the real presence.

The Praeceptor felt that if Luther put too much stress upon a corporal explanation of the presence of Christ he would violate the omnipresence of God. He suggested that Thomas Blaurer mention this to Luther and get his reaction. It is important to note that Thomas' brother,

Ambrosius, passed the contents of the letter to Bucer. Bucer then wrote a formula which asserted as true and essential the presence of 35 Christ with both bread and wine.

When Melanchthon finally received Bucer*s statement, he brought it to Luther, who agreed with it in principle. The door to concord had been opened. In September Melanchthon communicated these facts to Erhard Schnepf, one of the most Important Luther Apologists in South Germany as well as to Philip of Hesse.3®

Philip tried again to mediate. Everyone desired a synod, although Melanchthon wanted a more representative one than that requested by either Sturm or Bucer. To help solve these and other questions

Melanchthon and Bucer met at Kassel in December, 1534.

34Vid. supra n. 31. 35Vid. Schmidt, III.3.V. 36CR.II. 786 f. (September 16, 1534) which is a plea to Schnepf that he be cooperative in the making of concord. Cf. CR.II. 787 ff(ipsa die)

37CR.II. 822 (January 10, 1535); cf. CR.II. 807. 30

The position which Melanchthon carried from Luther to Bucer

demonstrated a return to Luther's earlier attitude, which the Strass-

burger had always found unacceptable. Luther maintained "the true

body of Christ is bitten with the teeth in the Sacrament." Melanch­

thon's embarrassment with Luther's statement was evident when he

declared that he was only an ambassador— in this case a messenger.

With time, he understood his role to be that of consensus

maker* He could not act alone. He was, in fact, an ambassador.

Melanchthon returned from Kassel with this awareness and

began mediating again with Bucer in February, 1535. Melanchthon

reported to Bucer that he had discussed with Luther the Formula of

Concord which they had agreed upon. The Praeceptor mentioned further

that he had taken steps to gain Schnepf's support, asking him to

follow Luther's example and to play down the differences that still

remained.

Melanchthon had evidently learned the difficulties in leading without full knowledge that someone was following. He would not repeat

the Kassel experience or chance a deeper split between the Evangelicals.

He expressed this two days later to Bucer, when he stated that there would be a final delay in the approval of the Concord until all the

Lutherans, especially those in Strassburg, could be consulted.This was done in a series of letters written during the next several days.

3®Vid. Schmidt

39CR.II. 837 f. (February 1, 1535).

*°CR,II. 841 f. (February 3. 1535). 31

Copies of the tentative agreement were sent to Rhegius, Brenz,

Amsdorf, Osiander, and Agricola. By April 23, 1535, the Reformer could make a favorable report to Martin Bucer.

Bucer took this opportunity to suggest to Luther a colloquy

for the Autumn of 1535. The latter, while not objecting to the sugges­

tion, left the decision to his prince, John Frederick. As a consequence,

Bucer's suggestion was not then accepted. Formal unity was not achieved in 1535.

In January, 1536, Bucer took another significant step toward unity by bringing the Swiss and associated South Germans together at

Basel for a preliminary and preparatory meeting. At that time he succeeded in creating a working basis for his efforts with the Saxons.

This achievement had no parallel at Wittenberg. In the time between Melanchthon's report to Bucer that his associates had essen­ tially agreed on the proposed Formula of Concord, and the first months of 1536, the conditions at Wittenberg must have changed again. For, although Luther had designated Cantate Sunday (May 14, 1536) as the date of a formal meeting of the representatives of both traditions, Melan­ chthon began to have doubts about what was actually going to happen at

Eisenach on Cantate Sunday.

His fears were so real that he wrote to the Landgrave express­ ing a concern about a wider breach.A week later he wrote a letter 43 to Philip of Hesse recounting this same fear. He believed that the

41CR.II. 873 (April 23, 1535).

42CR.III. 54 (April 11, 1536).

43CR.III. 56 (April 19, 1536). 32 meeting with Bncer would end tragically and create a greater conflict.

Melanchthon wanted a preliminary synod so that they could clarify cer­ tain teachings and eliminate traces of sophistry and play games. He asked that the planned meeting with Bucer and Capito be delayed.

In April he wrote to Veit Dietrich, his close friend in Nurn­ berg, to indicate his uncertainties and to make his own suggestions; he pointed to the fact that the Wittenberg theologians were not yet prepared to enter the synod and bring the discussions to a successful conclusion because they could not achieve a consensus among themselves, a factor which Melanchthon considered absolutely essential In arriving at the ultimate objective. To Veit he stated that few questions con­ cerned him more. He desired that the disputes he worked out in the coming days and that it be demonstrated to their associates that they leave to posterity a plain and simple doctrine. Such an accomplish­ ment would probably have an attractive effect on other nations, ftie divergence of opinion indicated to him that few of the "learned" men understood their doctrine correctly. The correction of this situation would be the objective of the Saxons in the synod.^

There was a startling change in Melanchthon's stance with regard to a formal meeting with the Swiss and South Germans. In the years leading to the Wittenberg meeting there was a strong desire to bring both sides together for the formulation of a concord which would give witness to the unity and truth of the evangelical doctrine. There was an interest in a large, representative, almost dramatic convocation.

^CR.III. 65 f. (April 1536). 33 Events at Kassel and the final event itself caused doubts as to the

possibility of a convocation. That this reversal may be attributed

to irritations suffered by and from Luther and/or both the lack of coop­

erativeness of some South German Lutherans and the lack of a real

consensus among the Wittenbergers is a reasonable assertion. Melanchthon's 45 reactions to these factors is of special interest.

His behavior is best explained as humanist diplomacy. The single

objective was to bring the Evangelicals together. Convocation was the answer and when circumstances made It obvious that the Convocation could,

In effect, produce just the opposite result— that a large and generally representative gathering of all evangelical theologians would bring

"scholars" of uncertain sympathy and questionable motivation together, raising the real possibility of an unexpected fight--the Praeceptor changed his tactics. More time was needed to arrange and solve unresolved questions. People still had to be convinced. From his point of view, a smaller meeting with fewer men was needed to achieve results. In no cir­ cumstances did he wish to chance a wider breach which would split the humanist-academic community,W

No other interpretation of the facts seems to explain the Prae­ ceptor *s pattern of behavior In the final weeks before the Wittenberg meeting. In his letters he encouraged the Landgrave to Sturn to post- 47 pone the matter indefinitely. But Bucer and Capito had already accepted

45 It is important to note that Luther was seriously sick and was consequently bedridden for several weeks. He was sick just before the meeting at Kassel, as well as before the discussions at Wittenberg.

W C R .HI. 70 (May 1536).

«Cf. Letter to the Landgrave, CR.III. 74 (May 26, 1536). 3*

Che invitations to Eisenach for the 14th of May. Even assuming that

the Landgrave himself would have had sympathy for this suggestion, it

would have been difficult to carry through. Then when Luther became

111, the meeting was rescheduled for the 21st of May at Grinina, Instead

of Eisenach. Melanchthon became very uncomfortable and confided his

apprehensions again to Veit Dietrich.

The waiting did not become easier as May 21 approached. Luther

remained ill and again a change had to be made. Since Luther could not

go to them, Melanchthon and his colleague Cruciger went to Grimma to

meet the others and bring them into Wittenberg, All arrived at the

University in time. Quite contrary to Melanchthon's expectations the

first meetings were peaceful. On May 29, 1536, the Concord was placed

before the assembly. It was then that Melanchthon's suspicions found

justification. Amsdorf and Oslander objected and demanded first a

recantation from Bucer. Under the circumstances, Melanchthon refused

even to think about It, Only to Veit Dietrich did he write otherwise

and in other places vaguely expressed complaints about Ignorant and unlearned men.48

The Wittenberg formula of Concord succeeded in bringing together the most Important German Evangelicals in a meaningful union despite the difficulties created by longstanding doctrinal disagreement and by former personal animosity. The success of these efforts may be best attributed to the lrenicism and good will of both Martin Bucer and Philip Melanchthon, if not also to the political instinct of Philip of Hesse.

48CR.III. 97 (July 4, 1536); cf. Letter to Jonas, CR.III.95 (June 21, 1536). 35

While the Concord was a success in itself, it was at the same

time s good yardstick in measuring the value of Melanchthon's efforts

in applying a humanist diplomacy. By building humanist bridges he was able to consolidate different points of view. The humanism of both

Bucer and Melanchthon provided a common ground on which two varying parties could find agreement. Melanchthon used the mutual interest

of such colleagues to achieve a meaningful union.

The Wittenberg Concord of 1536 should also be evaluated for its importance In the Roman-Wittenberg efforts over the calling of a church council. The accord was not, naturally, written In a vacuum.

The period which led to its creation was filled not only with rumors of a Roman conciliar offensive, but was also filled with important missions by Roman legates to open the way for a papal council. Although it would be wrong to maintain that the accord was singularly motivated by the threat of a council, it would be just as wrong to hold that the threat of a council played a minor role in the final achievement of a union among German Evangelicals. The significance of an agreement was appreciated by Melanchthon; that he had the council always in mind can be demonstrated.

Melanchthon's personal search for peace had characteristics of a program. Only under circumstances resembling peace, could the Melanch­ thon Republic ever find real existence. At Augsburg he tried to clear the way for such a peace by offering a generous set of terms to Cardinal

Campeggio which, in removing the emotion laden issues, could actually lead to the solution of the decisive Roman-Saxon questions. When those proposals found little reception, he turned to the scandalous division among Evangelicals and attempted to settle those differences by cultivating the humanist-evangelical interest which he shared with

Bucer. He hoped that through their friendship the two communities would find an open door which would lead to unity. Without this friendship it is questionable if the Concord could ever have been resolved. Although these efforts did not immediately touch upon his interest Ln Roman-Saxon unity, better expressed perhaps as Catholic unity, or the unity of the universal church, such efforts were not isolated from them. The Concord offered not only the obvious advantage of uniting Protestant Germans, but more important gave them an author!* tative teaching voice within the Church universal, one which would apeak louder and with greater weight in the constantly awaited, promised, and talked about Church council. The latter may also be seen as the third concerted effort of the Praeceptor in the thirties which was Intended to bring his program and diplomacy for peace to a successful conclusion.

In his appeal for reasonable acceptance of proposals from imperial authorities and by his realistic, in some cases optimistic, interpre­ tation of these proposals, he carried one step further the consistent pattern of behavior, which is justifiably described as a diplomacy.

Finally, where even these efforts failed, the Praeceptor drew a constant advantage from his lack of success. He dedicated himself and exhorted others to the creation and acceptance of a consensus eruditiorum. which lay equally at the heart of the diplomacy of humanism. CHAPTER 2

THE BUILDING OF HUMANIST BRIDGES

There was more to Melanchthon's diplomacy than the desire to

create peace. There were serious and generous attempts to work with

Cardinal Campeggio to reach a solution to the rift between Wittenberg

and Rome. Later there was an attempt to bring Evangelicals together;

this was achieved to some extent through Melanchthon's growing friend­

ship with Martin Bucer* Thereafter he made numerous attempts to find a reasonable and realistic basis for the calling of a church council.

Whenever* in each of these cases* his suggestions or programs were not accepted by the authorities to whom they were offered* Melanch­

thon gave his attention to preventing further division in the com­ munity and to encouraging the idea of a consensus erudltorum.

These efforts* however* serve to demonstrate only one aspect of his personality and activity. The ultimate objective of Melanch­ thon's humanist diplomacy was the creation of a Republic* based upon the ancient ideals of the state expressed by Greek and Roman philoso­ phers and modified by the realities of the sixteenth century. This was the goal to which he directed his personal search for peace.

Another aspect lies within the sphere of his broad contact with other humanists* both secular and ecclesiastical. In this area

37 38 there exists a pattern in his behavior. It is evident in his making contacts with other scholars and his cultivating humanist friendships wherever he found mutual interest. This policy will be called, for the sake of clarity, the building of humanist bridges.

Melanchthon's actions suggest that be believed that the problems of the Empire could never be solved, or a Republic ever be created, as long as he worked within the narrow confines of partisan or confessional circles* Peace among evangelicals alone could never bring a real peace, nor could it ever lead to a general reformation of the entire Church.

It was necessary then that door of communication be kept open and that bridges be built to all who could serve in the achievement of each of these objectives. He turned, therefore, to those members of the conaunity who were moved by a common spirit and who shared a common humanist faith, both of which promised a hidden desire for a common end.

Who were the people with whom Melanchthon encouraged and kept open contacts? They were reformers in many cases, but not necessarily evangelical. Many held high positions; not all were public authorities.

They may have been teachers, secretaries, or magistrates. One element they all had in comaon was a public reputation and a certain degree of

Influence which they had earned, often by virtue of their humanism. They were men to whom Melanchthon often felt compelled to write and to offer friendship; they were men whom he respected and to whom he finally appealed in the name of the republic--and/or in the name of the Republic.

The most important of these contacts— at least for its symbolic value, if not its actual significance--was Desiderius Erasmus. Luther's 39 evaluation of Erasmus did not determine Melanchthon's attitude toward

him. Melanchthon was not so much a disciple of the former that he would

let the former choose his friends. If he had allowed Luther to deter­ mine his associates, there would have been no contact with Oekolampadius

and Bucer, not to speak of Campeggio.

Melanchthon's friendship for Erasmus was based upon a deep regard

and respect for his work. For these men had many interests in consnon, such

as education of the young, love of Latin and Greek, interest in the Scrip­

tures and the writings of the Fathers of the Church, and a certain reli­

gious "liberalism"— a concern in the reform of the Church. The resem­ blance was even deeper than the confessional differences which might normally seem to deny them. They were humanists with considerable public reputation and recognition.

According to Schmidt, the most prominent and perhaps the most

complete nineteenth-century Melanchthon biographer, the difficulties between Luther and Erasmus, which affected the relationship of Melanch­

thon with both men had already begun when, at the end of May, 1522,

Melanchthon wrote a letter to a Professor Casper Borner, in which he

spoke about the two Important elements in the Evangelicals' point of view. The first was a consolation which the Evangelical received from

the death of Christ and the Justice of God. The second was the realiza­

tion that one should live honorably. Melanchthon expanded his thoughts ‘ on both points, saying that the first was the subject of evangelical and Christian preaching, which was by its nature unknown to the world and the unaided human reason. It was from Justice of the heart that all good works flowed. Luther, he added, had made his contribution to 40

the Church by this teaching. The second element, the awareness that

one should live an honorable life, had found its great contemporary

teacher in Erasmus, who simply restated the position of the heathen

philosophers. The Praeceptor then underlined the point that the latter

really had nothing to do with Christ. True love, he concluded, was

that which flowed from faith. In his final remarks, he admitted that

Erasmus was certainly preferable to the ancients.*

Erasmus found the consnents of the Wittenberg humanist, whom he

had praised highly in the past, a little too patronizing, or perhaps,

not quite patronizing enough. Regardless, Melanchthon continued to reveal what was basically a positive attitude toward the latter. He

condemned, for example, the attack of Ulrich von Hutten against Erasmus^

in a letter to Spalatin^ and one to Oswald Ulian.4 Von Hutten*s actions were basically unworthy and should have been carefully considered before

they were perpetrated. He attempted to indicate his personal concern by sending Hieronymous Schurff with a message to the Prince of Humanists in the Fall of 1523.5

This special embassy led Erasmus to believe that there was a division between Melanchthon and Hutten. He further felt that it was

Melanchthon who was personally responsible for preventing an even greater number of attacks against him. In a letter to Godenius4 Erasmus expressed

lVld. Schmidt p. 113 ff. ^Expostulatlo cum Erasure.

3CR.I. 616. (July 3, 1523); vid. CR.I. 626 (August 23, 1523). 4CR.I. 627. (August 24, 1523). ^CR. I. 639 (September 23, 1523). 4Vld. Schmidt, op. loc. 41

this belief. Unfortunately, as the report of Melanchthon's regard

passed from letter to letter, or rather from mouth to mouth, It

received an Interesting interpretation. In Strassburg, for Instance,

It was generally accepted that Melanchthon and Luther feared an

encounter— a duel, to use the contemporary expression— with the

famous humanist.

It was under these conditions that the controversy between

Erasmus and Luther erupted publicly. In the Fall of 1524, Erasmus published his treatise on the Freedom of the Will. Shortly thereafter he sent a copy to Melanchthon, indicating his regrets that the latter had not paid him a personal visit when he had recently visited his homeland, Swabia. The Prince of the Humanists let his admiration for

Melanchthon be known despite the differences in their views. He stated further that he had not dealt with the question of the Will previously because he considered the renewal of Evangelical freedom beneficial, and because he had hoped that Luther would eventually moderate his tone. Now, however, he saw a different state of affairs. The Lutheran

Reformation had awakened the cry for an even more radical change, to which he implied he could not give assent. He could not understand how Melanchthon could associate with Zwingll, who preached only revolu­ tion. Men such as he were new despots, with minute traces of the

Christian spirit. In conclusion he turned to the treatise itself. He spoke about his treatment of the question of free will and explained that others accused him of holding views which he did not actually approve. Nonetheless he remained comnitted to peace and moderation-- 42 if only because persecution served only to strengthen the cause which 7 it intended to destroy.

On September 30, 1524, Melanchthon answered Erasmus. He agreed that the behavior of those who confessed the Gospel was regrettable.

This was particularly true of those who attacked the honor of Erasmus;

they set aside both humanity and religion. So it was with the revolu­ tionary preachers who stirred the emotions of the people; they not only turned deaf ears to the academicians, but also encouraged dis­ obedience. They were only interested in personal rule and did not teach Christianity. Melanchthon assured Erasmus that Luther was not one of these. Those, he stated, who would wage war with the Phari­

saical Papacy, wore only the cloak of religion. As upset as he was by these unfortunate circumstances, Melanchthon would never leave

public life. He was motivated by the same sense of obligation which compelled him to fight against those satanic obstacles which even

Erasmus was forced to endure. In so far as Erasmus* treatise was concerned, he expressed the belief that, despite his justifiable motives, only the Gospel would suffer from such conflict. For Luther was undeniably interested in the Gospel. Was his doctrine really worthy of condemnation, he asked? And ought he to have been condemned because of the improprieties of others? Melanchthon could not con­ demn him; for he, like Luther, could only Judge according to Scripture*

That others misread the Reformer's writings and condemned them as

7K.E. V. 544 (September 6, 1524) superstitious or Ignorant was really Irrelevant. Erasmus1 recent essay was welcomed in Wittenberg. His moderation was particularly pleasing* despite an occasional slip in tone. Luther, however, was not so excitable that he could not take some pointed comments. As a matter of fact he would be no less moderate in his answer than Erasmus was in his. Still the entire question needed more research. Erasmus had

A to recognize that Luther held him in high esteem and sent his regards.

Erasmus could hardly have been displeased with such a communica­ tion from the Wittenberg professor. His pleasure was evident in several letters, noting that Helanchthon felt that Luther's case could be pre- q judiced if Erasmus continued to write.

The contact between them did not end amidst the formalities of a treatise and a note of gratitude. In December of that year, Erasmus corresponded with Melanchthon and dealt with his own problems. He made reference to the difficulties which he had undergone In Basel and men­ tioned his dislike for such eventB. Erasmus was not against the Reforma­ tion; he was against the vehemence which came with it. A moderate free­ dom, unlike that assumed in Switzerland, was desirable. He added that he was not concerned with Luther's attitude toward him and was, contrary to Melanchthon's belief, not so sure that Luther's answer to his treatise would be very calm. It would be better if Luther replied in his normal manner so that the conflict would not appear contrived to the public.^

a CR. I. 674 f.; cf. Letter to Spalatin, CR.X. 674 (September 1524).

^Letter to Louis Vives, E.E. V. 611 (December 27, 1524)

10E.E. V. 593-599 (December 10, 1524); vid. CR.I. 688 ff. u u

Luther's rebuttal came about a year later. In December, 1525,

the De Servo Arbltrio.a bitter and sharply worded retort to Erasmus'

treatise, was published. In several of his letters Erasmus expressed

wonder at the harshness of Luther's answer.Despite this fact the

mutual respect of Erasmus and Melanchthon toward each other was not

affected. Erasmus brushed aside the rumor that Melanchthon assisted

in the writing of Luther's paper.^ In the Hvperaspltes dlatribae ad-

versus servum arbitrlum M. Lutheri, Erasmus struck back against

Luther's reply.

Melanchthon was t o m by the struggle of the two men whom he

admired. A reflection of his feelings was apparent in a letter to

Camerarius written in April, 1526. He asked his friend if he had

ever read anything sharper than Erasmus* Hvperaspltes and indicated

that he did not know how Luther had taken the reply. He had strongly

advised Luther to write a short, simple, and moderately worded answer.

Melanchthon regretted only that he had gotten involved in the matter

and had to bear part of the brunt of the dispute. He wished that

Luther would keep silent for the Praeceptor had long hoped that Luther

would become more moderate as his experience grew; whereas, in fact, he

became more vociferous as the opponents and the subjects under debate

became more important. This Melanchthon found displeasing.^

^Letter to Reginald Pole, E.E. VI. 281 ff. (March 8, 1526).

12Letter to Pirkhelmer, E.E. VII. 364 (March 20, 1528).

^ Hyperaspltes dlatribae adversus servum arbitrlum M. Lutheri.

^CR.I. 793 (April 11, 1526); cf. Letter to Spalatin, CR.I. 880 (July 3, 1527), to which Schmidt also refers. 45 The advice which Melanchthon had wanted to give to Luther was given after Erasmus published the second part of the Hyperaspites in the Fall of 1527. He asked Luther not to answer since the treatise was long and involved.^

During the next several months Erasmus sent an extremely friendly letter to Melanchthon, indicating his regard for him. In return the latter thanked Erasmus for his expression of friendliness and consented that he was happy. Melanchthon had been led to conclude from the Hyperaspites that such was not the case. He affirmed that he would not do anything which would harm Erasmus, to whom he owed so much. On the other hand Melanchthon would not do anything to irritate

Luther although he was concerned about Luther's reputation in the conflict. Melanchthon took both men to task for the treatment which they had given each other and granted only that both studies would be beneficial to the church.*®

Whether Melanchthon was primarily responsible or whether

Luther alone decided to drop the matter the result was the same.

Erasmus received no further answer.

Schmidt made the following observations concerning the debate on the Freedom of the Will. First, it did not settle the differences between Luther and Erasmus. It divided them all the more and hardened their attitudes towards each other. It convinced Erasmus that learning was on the decline among Evangelicals; he expressed this conviction

15c r .I. 893 (October 2, 1527).

16CR.I. 496 (March 22, 1528). 46 to Wilibald Pirckheimer In 1 5 2 8 . Finally, It led Erasmus to believe

that he had been victorious In the dispute and that Melanchthon had 18 brought Luther to that realization. As doubtful as the last two of

these conclusions may be, they did have an Influence on the future

relationship of Melanchthon and Erasmus. A door had been left open which provided a reasonable basis for the application of Melanchthon*

lan diplomacy in the thirties. v

At Augsburg, for instance, Melanchthon wrote to Erasmus, applauding his appeal to the ftnperor, In which he had dissuaded

Charles V from violent actions and encouraged him to add his Influence to the cause of moderation to which Melanchthon had been committed.^

Was this merely a standard humanist appeal? In its form, perhaps It was. It compares favorably to letters written to others who could be classified as humanists and to whom Melanchthon often wrote. It was not, however, sent pro forma. It had meaning and pur­ pose. Conditions during the Diet of Augsburg, not to speak of the serious and critical nature of the negotiations and Melanchthon*s feeling of imminent danger, prevented Melanchthon*s appeal from fall­ ing into the category of "standard" behavior.

It fits consistently within his other activities. One example was Melanchthon*s relationship, or rather, his conversation with

Campegglo in 1530.

17Supra. E.E. VII. 364 (March 20, 1528). This Is the same letter in which he vows to continue to wage war against the Lutherans despite Melanchthon. It seems that he regards Melanchthon as an exception to the general Lutheran.

18Ibid. 19CR.I.807 (July 27, 1530). Erasmus* answer to Melanchthon was dated August 2, 1530.. He

Informed the tflttenberger that he was misinformed, and that he had not

sent a letter to Charles. Actually he had written to Cardinal Campegglo,

the Bishop of Augsburg, and several other friends. The little appre-

elated attitude, to which Melanchthon had made reference, did, however,

reflect his point of view. Melanchthon, Erasmus continued, ought to warn his own colleagues to cease their own hardheadedness and smear

tactics which encouraged princes to make war. In closing, he offered

hope that God might protect Melanchthon for them all and keep him un- . .20 harmed.

Erasmus had a positive respect for the work which Melanchthon was doing, especially at Augsburg. Kawerau gave further evidence of

Erasmus' regard. In a letter to Julius von Pflug, Erasmus praised the

Wittenberger*s labor and equated it with the type of effort which his correspondent had been making. Had his own health been better at that

time he would have done everything possible with the associates of 91 Melanchthon. 1 that would not have been without its danger, Erasmus noted, since at Augsburg many men called anyone a heretic who con­ versed with Melanchthon. He recognized that Melanchthon, aside from his excellent education, possessed a certain irresistable grace, which he owed more to his natural Inclinations than to his natural abilities.

20E.E. IX.1 ff.; cf. CR.II. 817. Vid. Kawerau, DieVersuche, Melanchthon zur Katholische Klrche zuruckzufUhren (Halle: Verein Pur Reformationsgeschlchte, 1902), p. 30. The author gives a German trans­ lation for the letter. It need not be, as he maintains that the letter is cool and sarcastic. These characteristics may find expression in the tone of his translation; but they are not Inherent in the original Latin text. The translator seems only to reveal his own biases.

21Vid. Kawerau, p. 30 ff HQ

This grace was the reason for the very high praise which men of rank held for h im.^

Consistent with his policy of trying to help shape a consensus

eruditjorum by submitting his work to the scrutiny and judgment of his peers, Melanchthon sent a copy of his Commentary on the Letter to St.

Paul to the Romans to Erasmus.^ Erasmus, however, misread Melanch-

thon's intentions, seeing in the letter's actions the first step in his leaving the Protestant camp. How Erasmus could be led to such a conclusion despite their favorable relationship is difficult to under­

stand. Although Melanchthon regretted every conflict between Luther and Erasmus,^ evidence indicates that he was not prepared to desert

Luther as Erasmus wanted to believe. The relationship remained favor­ able and was thrown into question only once in the remaining years of

their acquaintance.

In 1535, Melanchthon issued his second edition of the Loci, to which he added a new introduction. In this preface he spoke about a

^Kawerau makes reference to a letter from Hepler, BeitrUee sur Geschichte des Humanismus (Braunschweig, 1890), p. 45, written by Cochlaeus to Dantiscus, in which the former admits that he was himself very much attracted to Melanchthon. This stands in support of the observations by Erasmus about Melanchthon's personality. More important it demonstrates the threat which Cochlaeus felt in Melanchthon's activity and success. Vid. infra c. 5 n.28. 23 E.E. XI. 43 f. Erasmus acknowledges receipt of the Commen­ taries and tells the Praeceptor that he has copied them and sent them to several others. Sadoleto was one; cf. E.E. XI.44 f. 24 Letter to Bucer, CR.II. 713 (March 15, 1534). Doleo Lutherum renovare certamen cum Erasmo. He sees this, however, as a necessary evil: Sed video haec esse plane ararxaia xaxa. cf. Letter to Camerarius, CR.II. 708 (March 11, 1534), in which he says essentially the same. 49 new type of Sophist, about which the reader ought constantly be aware.

He described him as sly and inclined to the service of mighty men, attributing to him the attempt to make old practices palatable by giving them pliant and plausible meanings. This meant essentially that the sophist held firm to the decisive point of a superstitious faith. Melanchthon feared these "sirens" no less than the scholastic monks. They exploited their humanist education and thereby stood in the favor of powerful men. Good men who did not agree with them were called peevish and " s i m p l e , " ^

Melanchthon*s words resembled the criticism leveled against the older humanist. Erasmus took the reference to the new sophist to refer to himself. In a letter written some time thereafter Erasmus asked whether his statement was actually intended for him.

Toward the middle of May, 1536, Erasmus received an amazing response from the Wittenberg humanist. In essence Melanchthon assured him that his suspicions were not grounded, and then spoke of his dif- ficulties in the evangelical camp. He began by openly facing the problem; by recognizing the fact that in a recent letter Erasmus had harbored doubts about his friendship. He saw that this frankness, how­ ever , was a clearer proof of the regard which Erasmus held for him.

Although he desired to see things set straight, he did not intend to resort to an extended apology, knowing that Erasmus had the wisdom to see Melanchthon*s real self and knowing that Erasmus possessed a

25 CR.XXI. 344 ff. There was also reference to the skepticism of the new sophistry. This might have had an effect on Erasmus too. 50 nature which was easily satisfied.

He was sure that Erasmus agreed that those mentioned in the loci ought to be condemned more often. Then, in Greek, he confessed

that he had absolutely no Joy in the atmosphere at Wittenberg, or in harsh and paradoxical talk. He was always working to find a proper formula--this had its dangers.

He stated further that he had now come to the age when it would be irresponsible on his part if he did not learn to treat ques­ tions of faith more carefully. His change of attitude was not acti­ vated by an unwillingness to condemn error, although that activity which was foreign to his nature was motivated by concern for those in­ experienced people who read both his and Erasmus* writings. He never wanted a conflict with the Prince of the humanists, whose judgment he valued and whose benevolence he praised. He recognized that he had derived from Erasmus certain methods which he had used in solving doctrinal questions. Melanchthon was not so brash that he wished to become involved in more strife.

He saw that much of the present public discord was inflamed more by those who had been over-excited by new ideas. In articles of faith he required a certain balance in promises and law. Those matters outside the realm of Scripture had their place within the academic world.

Even in this there was no disagreement. His custom was to make it plain to people that uncertain and absurd ideas could not be encouraged and that they should look for a firm doctrine and one which was suitable to good behavior and pious practices. He stated that he was not the author 51 of any new doctrine and was not the supporter of any. He believed he had consolidated as simply as possible the universal religious doc­ trine of the church, while not defending the paradoxes of his asso­ ciates. It would have been too involved for him, he continued, to recount the reasons which compelled him to edit the Loci. He conceded that in times of confusion it was practical to put in print the methods for theological inquiry and the doctrines themselves.

Then turning to the consensus, he reminded his correspondent that he would willingly follow the judgments of the learned (judicia erudltorumj in matters of doctrine; that he would not propose that principle to others if they were not prepared to follow. This was his only apology.

He added an entreaty in a somewhat rhetorical vein. He had trustworthy witnesses to testify to his respect for Erasmus. He not only honored him for his genius, intelligence, and achievements, but also agreed with him in many controversies. He asked that Erasmus reject any hostile suspicions about him and that he believe that Mel­ anchthon had great regard for his authority and friendship. He would not mention the writings published against Erasmus at Wittenberg, because they were not only unpleasant for personal reasons but very impractical for the public good. And in this matter he had never remained silent. 2ft

The final chapter in the history of this seemingly impqrtant relationship was written, so to speak, by Erasmus. Three weeks later,

26CR.I1I. 68 f. (May 12, 1536); cf. E.E. XI. 322. five weeks before his death, Erasmus answered Melanchthon with a letter.

He expressed Joy that Melanchthon had removed the dark clouds of sus­

picion with his letter and conceded that he had actually held no sense

of hostility against him. He was more surprised than offended by the

controversial essay. He denied, moreover, that he was a person who

could easily become an enemy because of a friend's offense. He explained

the reasons for his doubts: there was Luther's customary abuse in treat­

ing with him and the recent remarks which Amsdorf had made about him in

a letter to Melanchthon, Perhaps, he thought, one of these caused Mel­

anchthon to mention him in the preface of the Loci. Whatever the case 27 he could have removed his misgivings with three words. He liked the

method outlined in the Loci: its moderation and the improvements over

the last edition pleased him. He acknowledged that Melanchthon clari*

fled in every edition the reasons for every change. The work recog­

nized the important problem— who handed down the principles of the

Catholic faith, which had to be consistent if they were to be firm. This was Indeed significant for the less critical and less sincere Judges,

as well as for those to whom it was less important what one believed

than what one did.2®

Melanchthon's regard for his fellow humanist was Indirectly

coamunicated about the time when the death of Erasmus became known. It had been Erasmus1 special desire that the Wittenberger visit hfm at his

^Erasmus never stipulates what three words. We can well imagine what he had in mind.

28E.E. XI. 332 ff. (June 6, 1536); cf. C&.III. 86 f. Erasmus died on July 11, 1536. 53 home in Basel. Time and circumstances had made the fulfillment of

that wish Impossible for Melanchthon. After their last correspond­

ence Melanchthon apparently gave it consideration and made plans to

visit Erasmus with several of his associates in the course of a

trip to his home in Wurttenberg. The report of his intention came 29 from a letter written July 29, 1536, by one of his students.

Kawerau called Melanchthon1s last letter to Erasmus a •i 30 Liebeserklarung. Whether he intended it pejoratively or not, such

an expression does not demonstrate what Melanchthon meant or actually

did write.

There is no reason to doubt the sincerity, warmth, or the

frankness of his words. To speak only of it— not to see this letter

or these words--in the broader context of his activities and all of

his associations raises the possibility of misinterpreting the Prae- ceptor.

Such a Liebeserklarung. if it were one of its kind, would Indeed be extraordinary. It might lead to the conclusion that many suspicions of Melanchthon's devotion to his associates and to his principle, were-- at least at certain times— correct. It The fact of the matter is that Melanchthon's Liebeserklarung is not an exception to his normal behavior. It was an expression of his personality which is found in Melanchthon's work, a pattern visible in

r

29vid. Schmidt.

3®Vid. Kawerau, p. 32 ff. "Declaration of Love" 54 his behavior. It was conscious and Melanchthon's readers could expect it. But it was not directed only toward Erasmus but to other humanists as well.

tv>p correspondence between Erasmus and Melanchthon could be classified as typical not only of the general humanist interaction but also of Melanchthon's own efforts at the Diet of Augsburg. To another extent Melanchthon's association and attempted endeavors with

Cardinal Campeggio fall into the same category. There are, however, a limited number of records. The majority of encounters at Augsburg— the personal and indirect conversations between representatives— remain a mystery; regarding their nature and content nothing is certain. That personal relationships existed outside the area of recorded history is certain. There is evidence of that fact in occasional references and testimonies about such events. With Melanchthon some letters bear wit­ ness that unrecorded contacts existed; one example is Melanchthon's let­ ter to John Obemburger.

Unfortunately little can be said blographically about the latter.

All that is available is what Melanchthon mentioned about the corres­ pondent by way of praise and what the editor of the Corpus Reformatorum stated in his introduction to the letter. Obemburger was, however, a secretary to Charles V. From Melanchthon's letter the assumption is 31 that he was of some importance.

In June, 1532, two years after the Diet of Augsburg, where the

31Karl Brandi makes mention of Obemburger in his biography, Kaiser Karl V (rfinchen, 1937), q.v. The reference is, however, only dropped; there is no elaboration. 55

two men had met, Melanchthon wrote a Letter to Obemburger. He regretted

that the recent Diet was filled with so many tribulations, but conceded

that some good came of It. The good was contained in the friendships

which were contracted among those who attended. Recollecting, he said,

that otherwise he received no pleasure in the thought of the Diet, in

which they^ were violently condemned, yet, he was convinced that he

owed much to it, because it gave him the opportunity to develop friend- 33 ships with other humanists. He placed Obemburger in a special place

3^The "damati sumus" which we find written here may refer to the Ulttenbergers. He cannot be certain, however; the proper ante­ cedent is lacking. This leads us to several possibilities: 1) Melanch­ thon was inexact In his writing because he assumed Obemburger would understand; 2) Obemburger was himself one of the supporters of the Lutheran cause--or at least gave it a sympathetic ear. Therefore Mel­ anchthon uses the third person plural in the exact and proper sense, in­ cluding the addressee; 3) Melanchthon did not actually mean the Protest­ ants. He had the humanist community at-large In mind, regardless of their doctrinal position. Here we include the irenicists— those members of both parties who attempted to moderate the extremes to which the Diet tended. The first possibility, while entirely possible, is Improbable, since Melanchthon, the rhetorician, is never vague. This seems to be especially the case in this instance because Melanchthon was writing to Obemburger for the first time. He would not have allowed such an ambiguity to stand, when it could have been embarrassing to his reader. Regarding the second possibility, there is no evidence that Obemburger was a supporter of the Lutherans. There is likewise no further means of demonstrating that Melanchthon meant his use of the "we" in this sense. The third reading is both possible and probable, when one con­ siders the content of the entire letter. Later segments of the letter, for example, indicate a very conscious usage of the third person plural. This is the case when he speaks of bringing back the memory of their meetings. Haoc eo ad te scrlbo, ut tibi nostrorum congressman memoriam renovem, ac ut intelieges, me tuae amicltiae cupidissimum esse. Still later he uses the first person plural in a clearer way. De Republica nihil libet scribere. Video hoc pertinaciter a nostris adversarlls agi, ut res ad arma deducantur. This seems both to decide the issue and to tell us something more about the role of Obemburger, as well as to make evident the rationale behind Melanchthon's activities. ^"cum nonnullis bonis viris." because of his learning and the ease of his rhetoric. For, these gifts bound Melanchthon to Obemburger in a special way. He thought further that it was his greatest misfortune that he was not able or In a posi­ tion to enjoy social ties with him. The religious controversies in which Melanchthon was fatefully involved made it impossible. Xn view of these debates he appealed to Obemburger not to think that pub­ lic controversies ought to effect negatively or hinder the growth of their relationship. This was especially the case for Melanchthon because he was involved in them unwillingly. He actively sought for peace to do only that which would retain, stabilise, and do justice to the purity of religion. He hated violent debates* He had written the letter to remind Obemburger about those meetings and to let him know that Hel- anchthon desired his friendship more than anything else. If Obemburger would accept his friendship, he would confirm Melanchthon's judgment of his character.^

Erasmus may have been the most important humanist with whom the Wittenberger was accustomed and eager to keep contact, and this correspondence may have overshadowed that with other acquaintances, such as Obemburger. Neither Erasmus nor Obemburger was the only person with whom Melanchthon attempted to construct bridges.

Conrad Heresbach, a native of Hertrbach/Dussel, was another such individual. He was almost an exact contemporary of Melanchthon, although

3^CR*II. 602 f. Bretschneider places the letter simply in the month of June. Kawerau, however, by making reference to a letter to Camerarius, CR.II. 596, feels Justified in dating it on June 23, 1534. he was born several years before the latter (August 2, 1496) and died

seventeen years after him. Their period of productivity as well as their Interests were, despite their religious affiliations, similar,

Heresbach was educated at tferden, Hamm, and Munster. From the Univer­ sity of Cologne, he appeared to have received his primary degree (1512) as well as the Magister in 1515. His interests led him to study law and took him, in the next several years, to a number of French univer­ sities. Cologne granted him recognition for his legal studies in 1519.

Later, he became Professor of Greek at Freiburg. He then went to

Ferrara (1522), where he received a doctorate in law. It was there that he learned Hebrew from the Genoese Hebraist Justinian! before re­ turning to Freiburg. Thereafter he served in the court of the Duke of

Cleves and became one of the Duke's closest advisers.

Heresbach belonged to that group of men who fought hard against obscurancy in matters of religion. He distinguished himself from others by remaining essentially true to medieval Christian principles and to the Christian ideal in scholarship and daily life. Irenic in nature, he sought to reconcile humanism with both the Protestant and Catholic traditions which had appeared in his lifetime. Despite his loyalty to traditional Catholicism, he was remembered as a strong supporter of the

German territorial church; he looked upon it as the common ground on which the supporters of the medieval and evangelical traditions could find ultimate agreement. Like Melanchthon, he also dedicated himself to the elimination of educational barbarism and understood the singular

Importance of schools within the theoretical conception of 58 35 reformation.

With a man such as this, Melanchthon received the greatest

pleasure and consolation in correspondence. The exchange of letters

between them occurred occasionally in the course of the 1530*8. The

letters contained constant regrets that their coramunication was so in­

frequent. Yet, as few as the letters may be, the correspondence was constant and illustrated an interesting professional relationship between

two humanists within different reform traditions and under different ecclesiastical jurisdictions.

The letters to Erasmus and Obemburger have common character­ istics. The letter to Heresbach falls into the same category* Hot knowing the biography of Heresbach would properly assume that he was a humanist. In fact Melanchthon's letter to Heresbach in the summer of 1531 serves to confirm his qualifications. That he wrote infre­ quently can be attributed to the absence of trustworthy messengers* for he was away from his regular duties then. Under other circumstances he would have liked to communicate daily. He confessed that he had always held the latter in the highest regard because of his wisdom,

^-*ADB. XII. 103 ff. Ennen, the author of the article on Heresbach makes the following further comment on him: Zu Heresbachs Zeit waren die politischen Fragen mit den kirchlichen so eng verwachsen, dass ein politischer Character ohne bestinmte kirchliche FHrbung nicht denkbar war. Heresbach gehorte zu der versohnlichen Cassander' schen Richtung in der katholischen Kirche, stand in freundschaftllchem Verkehr mit den am Rhein wohnenden Vertretem < dieser Partei .... Er kannte recht wohl die Bedeutung, welche die Schule fur seine Reformpl&ne habe. Es war aber nicht die Volksschule, sondera die gelehrte Schule, welcher er seine Pflege an- gedeihen Hess. Es gelang ihm seine fitlgkeiten das Schulwesen durch Grundung einer Hochschule zu Duisburg zu kronen. He shared, therefore, Melanchthon's Weltanschauung: or rather they held a conanon humanist vision of the world. 59 compassion, and charm. Melanchthon recognized all these qualities in

Heresbach's letter and thoroughly enjoyed them. Later, he made reference to their mutual concerns, refusing to discuss them in detail other than to say that their adversaries acted as if driven by some "evil." He thought, however, that they would see an honorable resolution of many of their problems in the next year. In conclusion he spoke about

John Campanus, a man whose religious inclinations tended toward Ana- baptiam and who had recently written against Luther and the post-aportolic church. Warning Heresbach about the man he asked that he do what he 37 could to mitigate the conflict.

This letter was characteristic of those which followed in the next several years. There was in each one a reaffirmation of the Prae- ceptor's affection and his humanist inclinations. He always raised a matter of mutual interest and made a request. Concern for the state of the republic, an act of faith in moderation, and a report or recent ecclesiastical and professional events were constant points in his corres* pondence. These recurring elements appeared in letters to men of the same mind.

In 1534 he wrote to Heresbach requesting aid for a certain youth and appealing on behalf of the needs of their generation. He reported the approaching peace between the King of the Romans and the Landgrave, expressing confidence that the agreement between the two lords would please him. Melanchthon spoke about his own attempts co reduce rhllglous

3*>Contra to turn post apostolum mundum.

37CR.II.512 f. (July 15, 1531). 60 38 conflicts and about the terrible state of the world.

In November, 1535, he wrote a Llebserklarung to Heresbach.

In time, however, it precedes the one to Erasmus. In the introduction he told Heresbach how happy his letters made him. He made mention of their practice of approaching each other with songs of praise, an effort which was not difficult for Melanchthon, who was delighted by Heresbach's letters and signs of admiration. Heresbach would have seen more clearly

Melanchthon's affection for him if, as Heresbach himself admitted, he would have been inclined to the Lutherans. For they would have been able to speak at greater length about studies, their friendship, and the state of the republic, Melanchthon's reason in writing the letter was to explain his part in and his authorship of a treatise to the King of France which had received attention in 1535. The articles, however, were changed in places without his approval and Melanchthon wished to see the situation corrected. He briefly explained the circumstances and stated that Francis 1 actually approved of them and wanted him to go to France for a fuller hearing. Then, as if playing for the sympathy of his associate, he added that the Duke of Saxony did not want him to leave Wittenberg. The prince did not desire a settlement with Francis because it would affect the delicate situation in the ftnplre. He asked, finally, that Heresbach continue to hold him in his affection; for Mel- anchthon placed great value on this friendship since Heresbach possessed 39 those exemplary virtues, wisdom and prudence.

38CR.II. 739 f. (July 1534).

35CR.II. 976 f. (November 20. 1535). More noteworthy than either the number of these letters or even their contents was Melanchthon's openness> which enabled him to deal with men who shared similar attitudes. That he developed this openness and tried to cultivate Important friendships was of the utmost significance. Such was the case with both Erasmus and Obemburger.

A comnon interest, a sense of Identity, was developed through something as innocent as the use of the third person plural. These epistles attract attention to the group consciousness of the humanists and the real interests that made that consciousness possible--the bonds of favor and obligation. Among men of humble origins there was nothing more important. CHAPTER 3

THE MAKING OF A HUMANIST FOUNDATION

Another characteristic of Melanchthon's activities which deserves mention and may be justly regarded as evidence of a humanist diplomacy was his interest in schools. TWo patterns have been men­ tioned. When considered singly with all their related events, they suggest motivation and policy. The first of these lay within the realm of Melanchthon's irenlc activity— his efforts made within the context of his personal search for peace and conciliation through moderation. The second pattern rested within the area of his profes­ sional life. He tried to maintain and cultivate frienshlps with an extraordinary number of well-known humanists. Of the dozen or so interesting and influential men with whom he corresponded only a few who were representative of the type of work in which he was engaged are considered here. That many of these men were religiously loyal to Rome and were to some extent opponents of Wittenberg and the radi­ cal Reformation leads one to conclude that Melanchthon had embarked upon a policy of building bridges, maintaining meaningful contacts with many scholars in the face of a growing radicalism, possible mis­ understanding, and even mistrust.

The third and last of these policies was likewise based upon a pattern in his behavior. It was his constant interest in laying the

62 63 foundation for a society properly reformed along humanist lines. It

found expression in his ceaseless devotion to the problems of educa­

tion.

That he should do so is no surprise because Melanchthon was essentially an educator. In writing to other humanists who were them­

selves educators, it would be natural that in cultivating their friend­

ship he should give attention to matters of mutual interest--the question of educational reform.

As obvious as this point is, one might still ask if it really was that simple. Would Melanchthon have expended so much energy and time belaboring what had been as obvious for himself as it seems to be for us? It is possible that he would have pondered the question If he had not been convinced that it was very Important for his generation.

He might not have done it at the same time if it had not been so crucial to his view of the world. That could also be true if he had not been quite convinced that his ideas were generally accepted by those to whom he wrote or those with whom he came into contact. That is to say that he probably held a somewhat different view with regard to the importance of education and its role in society as well as the reform of that society.

Melanchthon tended to see the problems of his day in a way peculiar to himself. He did not merely accept them as they were; he attempted rather to understand them on the basis of their causes.

The reform of the Church, for example, was not necessitated by the growth of obscurantism, which had made the Christian truths of the apostolic period unapparent. The Church*s problem was basically 64

the failure of the educational process, which had occurred in the

post^Apostolic period. Melanchthon believed that in the years between

the Apostolic period and the sixteenth century a break, or a collapse

in the classical methods of education, had taken place. Education

had become the domain of monks, canonists, and other ecclesiastics,

who had professional obligations, ideals, and Interests which were

not always compatible with their roles as educators. They had as a

result neglected their duties toward the liberal arts.

How did he arrive at this conclusion? Melanchthon observed

that the obligation to educate had become an ecclesiastical function.

His evidence for this was the schools attached to the monasteries.ffith

this he had no argument but, he also perceived that education had

reached a definite point of decline. Standards were low; schools were

poorly attended or they were not fulfilling their obligations. That

there was in Europe a "crisis" in education was evident at all levels

of public life— at least in Melanchthon's mind.

Both observations on the Reformer's part were related and

spanned the entire range of social evils. Monastic comminities had

been given public property and had accepted the role of educators in

return. Schools had been established and built to serve the community.

Unfortunately the religious communities which operated the schools had

subordinated desirable educational goals to the norms of their life.

They became primarily interested in supporting social, political, or

ascetic objectives.

Such was the case in the Innumerable conflicts between the

Papacy and the empire in the course of a half millenium of European 65

history. The schools seemed only to produce combatants and propagandists

for any of a number of parties. Other manifestations of the Church's

failure In the educational sphere may be seen In the frequent inter-

religlous rivalries. These conflicts made the various coummlties'

schools into training grounds for the apologists of established theo­

logical systems. Dominicans were the bearers of Thomism; the Francis­

cans represented any one of their theologians; and the Augustinians

stood firmly behind their patron St. Augustine. This was an accepted

and long established tradition. It gave a certain character to the universities and religious life for centuries.

Melanchthon's experience, however, drew a different picture.

Intellectual life in the preceding half century of European history had offered other alternatives. As an Inheritor of a rich and broad humanist and classical education, he came to an entirely different evaluation of the situation.

Developments in the history of the Church in the Middle Ages had led education to barbarism and decay. Men Improperly trained in schools had obscured the tradition which had been handed on to their fathers. Their inability to handle language, to master curricula,or to discipline themselves had left a trail of uncertainty in all fields of knowledge, especially in theology. The consequence of, as well as the proof for such a condition was the need for Church reform which

Luther had undertaken,

Melanchthon saw the needed remedies at the same time. One of these lay in the clarification of doctrine. As Fraenkel has pointed out in his study of the patristic argument in Melanchthon's writing, there was a need to scrape off the encrustations of centuries in order that the purer and clearer doctrine of the Apostolic and Patristic periods of Church history could once again shine through. This one remedy was a type of "mop up" work which followed and only could follow the principal task before the reformers of the sixteenth century.

The primary obligation rested in the field of education and the restore* tlon of the arts which alone could make the other possible. Melanchthon asked himself what purpose it would serve, if Luther and his contempo­ raries restored Christian doctrine to its pristine condition only to have it lost in the next generation. Without the education of youth, preaching and teaching would fall sterile. Without proper training capable young men would not be able to keep the truth as Luther and he understood it. And without a humanist education one could not understand the essential points of faith.

For Melanchthon the European and ecclesiastical solution was

Improperly described with reference to the corruption of the Church.

It was broader and deeper. It was principally educational. In fact, one can conclude from Melanchthon*s writing that if education at all levels were reformed one would essentially resolve the question of the

Church. Reform the schools and you have reformed the Church. Cor­ ruption in education was a result, if not the cause, of corruption in the Church. He believed that if one attacked the former he could resolve the latter.

This was the driving force behind the humanist reformer. A teacher by profession, he gave his attention to the related and practical 67 questions touching his work. Simultaneously, it is the proper light in which to see Melanchthon, the religious Reformer. The systematic theology, The Loci, through which he made his reputation as theologian is no abstract effort. It was, naturally enough, a textbook often revised whenever necessity and occasion demanded. It was not intended to be a reference work, an encyclopedia of theological knowledge, or the theological memoirs of a reknowned theologian* It was written rather as an introduction to theology; it was not only concerned with the content of the subject Itself but also interested in the method of handling questions in that area.

Nothing was more consistent throughout the work of the Reformer than the faith in education and the belief that it had to be reformed at all levels. The consequence was that it played a role in all his activities, public and private, and deserves attention as an Integral part in what we call the Diplomacy of Humanism. Reform of this aspect of public life became a policy which complemented and actually lay at the center of his "diplomatic" activity. The creation of peace and the encouragement of peace was only a first step, which when taken in conjunction with efforts to keep open humanists friendships, could lead to a reform in the field of education. That was his hope. It was significant not only for education but for an ideal society— with both a reformed church and a reformed state.

A notable statement regarding the importance of education in the question of reformation was the "De officio." which was given to us by Bretschneider as the De lure reformandis of 1537.* The later title

^CR.III. 240-258 (January 1537). 68

suggests one crucial theme of the work: the problem of reformation

and the method in which the reformation ought to take place.

The former title, under which the treatise stood, was only

a starting point, however. The Humanist set as his objective the

answering of the questions: do princes have the right to reform

the Church, and do they have this right over and above the objections of high ecclesiastical authorities.

The document is especially interesting in Its treatment of

this problem. One expects that Melanchthon would answer the question

and lay down a legal and theoretical basis for his reply. This he

did do for the most part, but it was not all he did. In concluding

his answer, for example, he began a subtle shift of emphasis, leaving

the question of whether the prince had the right to reform in order

to examine the more vital question: why must there be a reformation

and how should the prince undertake it? The prince, who was at

first central to his argument, was pushed aside and made Instrumental

to the method of reforming. In so doing Melanchthon addressed himself

to the relationship of education and reformation.

The shift is best explained by the rhetorical technique which

the Humanist exercised and which was not unusual in his work. In many of his most important treatises and letters, especially in those

to the greatest personalities of his generation, this stylistic change

of topic or change of approach was clearly evident. In fact it acts

as a key to Melanchthon's thinking and his personal diplomacy. One

feels intuitively that at such a point the Humanist began to speak his mind and tackle a host of essential problems. The De officio

served as merely one example of Melanchthon*s masterful usage of rhetoric to make a point and to win a diplomatic victory.

In the case of the De officio the Reformer took occasion

to address himself to the question of secular authorities' assump­

tion of ecclesiastical prerogatives in dealing with abuses in the

Church. He developed the topic by listing eight reasons in support of his contention that the prince and magistrate should regulate ecclesiastical affairs, where the ordinary authorities either have not done so, or simply refuse to accept their responsibilities.

Thus at the point of conclusion, when one most expects an exhortation,

Melanchthon turned his attention to the duty of the princes.

He stated that these leaders of society were put in their position to envoke the name of God; they were to enjoy the prayers of the faithful and to see to it that their office served both the glory of God and that of the Church. They were not to be at odds with the will of Christ. For He governed all dangers in order that the true Church be saved. The princes were obliged to be diligent in reform, to set ecclesiastical affairs in proper order, and to do honor to the Church. Using this occasion Melanchthon explained how the princes should achieve these goals. They were to do so by taking care that funds were set aside for ministers and by encouraging the study of the arts, to which the Church had an obli­ gation. Turning to the Apostolic past for both precedent and support he pointed to the conmunities of scholars which then existed in the 70 Church and reminded his readers that both John and Polycarp had

schools. They had transferred the resources of the community and 2 of the monasteries to meet their needs.

From this point on, the essay continued with Melanchthon

repeatedly turning his attention to the obligation of the prince

toward education. One example of his Interest was evident when he

discussed the related question whether the prince or magistrate might

assume an obligation which was not naturally his— as in the case when

assuming the bishop's responsibilities to maintain the churches. In

solving this problem he was open in his response and in his sugges­

tions. The magistrate had his obligation toward public discipline

and the selection of pious teachers. This did not violate the teach­

ing role of the bishop, however, because whenever the bishops were

the enemies of true doctrine, they relinquished the right to rule

the churches. The remaining members of the church had the responsi­ bility to remove them from their offices and appoint devout and

learned teachers. This principle, he continued, pertained to all members of the Church who were obligated to condemn and reject unfit teachers.

Recapitulating, he added, that since the function of the princes and the magistrates ought primarily to give honor and glory to God and since the rest of the people admired the judgment of these authorities, then it was only right that they, as special members in

2CR.III. 249 71 society, aid the true Church with their authority by removing impious

teachers and appointing pious ones.

Melanchthon clearly used the authority of the secular official

as it applied to public education to regulate the bishop as public

teacher. He had, as indicated above, placed education and relevant

public authority in the service of reform— "to aid the Church." He

not only established the right of public authorities to tackle the

problem of the Church but went far in telling them how to do so.

His suggestions were more apparent when he asked his readers how many or how rich were the communities of canons and monks in which there were ignorant or intelligent men who obfuscated the

truth and damaged the Christian Church. As a consequence, he continued, innumerous forms of idolatry were then exercised--in the

Mass, the invocation of the saints, and in the lives of the clergy.

As long as the princes did not take an active hand in correcting the problem, and did not choose suitable teachers, then the abuses would continue. This, he maintained, only strengthened and supported the problem.

Here as in other examples, the critical point remained the question of academic credentials— the qualification of falling into the category "learned," From Melanchthon*s background, attitudes, and usage, it was unimaginable if not used synonymously with the

Humanist, about whom he was accustomed to speak, fliere are few acceptable alternatives. He found it difficult to accept that there 72 were such men in the monastic communities. Either they were illiterate,

or, if they were literate, he conceded that they obfuscated the truth.

This was hardly a real concession, unless we see In Melanchthon's words

the attempt to establish motivation. The fact is that he did not see

learned men in his opponents and no opponents in learned men.

At still another point he denied that the popes and their

supporters were the Church; rather they were the enemies of the Gospel.

The witness of this fact— and this seems to be important--was the un­

justified violence which they used against everyone who was sympathetic

with the reformers. In the same vein, he added that he had also spoken with many men who pretended to be moderate; but they actually acted to

cover the real abuses of the church with a new form of sophistry and

did not attempt to correct them.

He asserted further that the public debates about religion had

attracted men in the second category. They were usually a little more

learned (doctiores) and usually realized the errors of the Church

better than their colleagues. The reformers saw their own banners in

the attacks of the more learned Romans. These sophists wrote their

opinions, however, in blood and rejoiced when the reformers were killed.^

Just as revealing about Melanchthon's attitude toward the ques­

tion of reform, which was at the center of this treatise, was the

rhetorical appeal which came at the conclusion of the work. All pious men, he declared, were sincerely pleased with and appealed to those

princes who were then restoring the churches and who were aiding and

4CR.III. 253 encouraging the study of letters and the arts since it was an obligation of the Christian Church to see to it that poor scholars in the schools were supported by public gifts, educated properly, and governed by a strong discipline. For in Germany, their adversaries acted without

Interest in the Gospel; in whatever way they could, they would suppress and extinguish all the study of the letters, which they knew to be the true doctrine. They acted in the belief, as certain abbots had once said, that monks should not be involved in letters simply because it was not fitting that a monk be or appear to be more learned than his

Abbot. This was a stupidity more obnoxious than tyranny. And it created devastation in the Church, allowing neither pious nor learned teachers. In this manner they tried to produce a "one-eyed barbarism"

In all public behavior.

Would that the people acted in the interest of Christ's glory, he cried, so that the study of letters might flourish. God had decreed that His children be joined together in His tabernacle through the schools, where older men taught and disciplined them in letters, in divine law, in history, in music, and in medicine. For priests handled these arts in the past. Thus, Melanchthon reminded his readers, did Samuel act; and even the prophets Elias and John the Baptist had scholarly circles. So Christ remained true to the custom; and later the apostles and their disciples imitated it. John of Ephesus had students, and after him there was Folycarp of Smyrna.

Communities of scholars, he believed, made it possible for the Gospel to be preached. Thereafter came communities of canons Chat posterity might know from whom It should accept Its doctrine.

In this way, Melanchthon continued, Dionysius learned from Alexander, and Alexander learned from Athanasius* And Basil sent his own teachers out saying that they ought to start their own personal schools. Later wealth brought luxury to these institutions; then came pride, which was even more harmful to studies. Accordingly the Church died among the canons, and they lost the succession ofwLsdom.

Melanchthon warned that special care had to be taken by all pious Christians, and especially those who were leaders, that the old examples be retained, that letters might flourish In those places where the true Church was found. What was more absurd, he asked, than that the kings and princes have reputations as enemies of the Gospel, that they defend the old forms of the church, and that they fight for a number of ridiculous rights. Their God-appointed role was to call the colleges back to study.

He declared, further, that he would not cease to speak about these inadequacies. It was their necessary and princely duty to encourage study, for without wisdom the purity of the Gospel could not be pre­ served. It was important to know from whom and with what faith doctrine was propagated. The ecclesiastical controversies could not be clari­ fied without great learning.

And although few riches cultivated those ecclesiastical studies, it was necessary that grants be established for positions of the church and for teachers and students in the schools. The wealth of the canon- ries and the monasteries must be transferred for this end, as Scripture 75

stated: And the Lord decreed that those who preach the Gospel will

live from it. The authority of the kings who gave wealth to the com­ munities must not be dismissed. Thus, they had given to the church;

they did not want pastors to be killed, studies extinguished, or those revenues devoured by laziness and impiety. Therefore, he finally con­ cluded, it was the duty of the princes to take care of the churches.

Melanchthon*s treatise was important and interesting for a number of reasons. One editor refers to it as the De officio, since it began and ended on the note of magisterial obligation and duty.

Although he handled and treated this question quite thoroughly, the paper had a greater significance for what it added to the topic and for what it continued to say. firetschneider, by entitling the work the

De lure reformandis, turned our attention to a "secondary" theme and lifted it to its proper, primary, role. To what did Melanchthon actually address himself here, the editor asked. His answer, quite convincingly, is the "law of reform" itself— ius reformandis. And this he saw as essentially an educational— a pedagogical--phenomenon, dependent upon "suitable" teachers fliterati or doctores), and under­ taken primarily in the schools. The prince's or magistrate's function rested in the establishment and maintenance of good schools. When higher secular or ecclesiastical lords failed to perform their duties in this area, then there were others to initiate the proper measures.

The reform of the Church took place through the school and in the final analysis the true Church would be recognised in the schools. "For wherever the true Church is there flourish the arts." 76

There were, moreover, a host of Interesting points related to

the ideas expressed in this work which further demonstrated how Mel­

anchthon subordinated so many contemporary religious questions into

the educational process. One ought to note his observation that with­

out schools and without wisdom the purity of the Gospel could not be

preserved and his stress on the importance of handing down and knowing

about the source and nature of the faith which the believer received.

With these elements, one understands Melanchthon's basic objec­

tions to Anabaptism. What frightened Melanchthon most about these radi­

cal reformers and what convinced him of their error was not the anarchy with which they threatened society, but the anarchy which characterized

their wisdom--the body of their doctrine. It was, in short, unteachable.

It defied application to the school.

Underlying his treatment of the Anabaptist problem— whether in

treatise or in active pastoral work--was the thought expressed to Frederich

Myconius in October, 1531. The generally agreed principle in Wittenberg, he said, was that the sect was diabolical and, therefore, must not be

tolerated. For through the efforts of the Anabaptists, the churches were being destroyed. They lacked a specific doctrine. There was nothing to that sect, he maintained, but confusion and the destruction of the public churches. This was clearly the case in their condemnation of the ministry of the word. Melanchthon recoranended that a final appeal be made to the leaders of that faction and that his reader address himself to the better nature of those fanatical and seditious men and Impress upon them the

degree of evil in a sect, which possessed no defined positions regarding 77

the body of Christ in doctrine.^ Again the measure was based on an educational standard.

Melanchthon1s redefining of the problem and his attempt to get at essential questions and solutions, all of which were evident in the treatise De jure reformandis. was not intended to be lost on the printed page. What Melanchthon so carefully argued was prelimi­ nary to a direct confrontation with the men for whom he had made so much effort. The ideas developed and put down in black and white in

January, 1537 were openly reiterated in February of that same year in a letter to the assembled princes at the Schmalkaldic Conference, It was written by Melanchthon in the name of all reformers***

Essential was his exhortation that the princes care for the churches and the schools. He turned his attention in one section of the letter to provisions made for the churches and schools and observed that in several principalities and cities the servants of the church were very well taken care of and that from the incomes of churches and cloisters not only the local ministers and the schools were supported but also the hospitals were being improved. Moreover, many people had expressed the view that such properties ought to be used in the most ought to be used in the most Christian manner— to aid the Church. At the same time, he continued, there was a great discrepancy in this regard. That was to say that the churchmen were poorly or perhaps not provided for and that not only public authorities but also private individuals had taken cloisters and churches for themselves. Then

5CR. II. 549 f . < October 31, 1531).

6CR.III. 288 ff. (February 24, 1537). 78

addressing himself directly to his audience he stated that it was of

the greatest necessity to maintain the churches and the schools* which were attached to them, in order that society might have sober men.

Since the common people could do little, the grants must come from the

princes, as was the case in the Scripture. That was the way, he con­ cluded, that God had commanded princes and rulers to act, when he required that they take care of, protect, and further his worship. This included also provision for his servants. Melanchthon also warned his

listeners how difficult it would be to collect revenues for the new churches if the present revenues were scattered. He pointed out further that the churches would suffer great harm before they could again obtain such properties.

Melanchthon*s concern for the state of, as well as the growth of, the schools was no isolated event in his life and work. It was character­ istic of the vision which he applied to all efforts he made. The shift of interest which was expressed in the De lure reformandis appeared in letter after letter and in treatise after treatise. He took advantage of every and any occasion to bring the problems of educational institu- tions--of education itself— to the attention of his listeners.

This was Just as true of the Concilium gallis scripturn as of the De lure. Written during the summer of 1534, the Concilium was occasioned by the interest which the King of France and the members of his court had shown toward the Wittenberg Humanist. The Intention of the author was to explain the areas of conflict between the Saxons and the Roman Pontiff. It was addressed to the King of France— or at least was designed to find its way to his attentlon»and was decidedly irenic 79 In Its motivation and attitude. It was moderate, while at the same

time not losing sight of the fundamental insights of the Lutheran

Reformation.7

Yet as one might by now suspect, Melanchthon saw in it a

golden opportunity, in which he could touch upon the deeper questions

of reform and of education, which were from his point of view funda­ mental social problems. That is not to suggest that he spoke only of education. But out of some fifteen pages of text he devoted more

space to this than to any other single question Including Justification.

In one of the undisputed sections consnon to both traditions of this document, Melanchthon handled the problem of justification by saying that the last few years had eased this controversy; for, he continued, there was agreement among many learned men about those questions which were once disputed. Rarely did anyone defend the obscure doctrines which had been written by the scholastics— that men could satisfy the law of God, that they merited the remission of their sins by virtue of their own works, that they were Just on account of their own worth and their fulfillment of the law. All confessed, he said further, that there was a work in faith--a reliance on Christ and a reliance on the remission of sins. There was, he quickly pointed out, no mention of this faith or reliance by the scholastics.

All men maintained that it was in the interest of Christ's glory that o this faith be taught to men.

7CR.II. 741-775 (August 1534).

8CR.II. 747. 80

The cause for Melanchthon's optimism and the basis for hia hope for the future lay within the expression, convenit inter doctog-- there was agreement among the teachers. This conviction was repeated in his discussion of free will and of original sin. His advice was that if the pope and the kings would see to it that learned and prudent men could converse with one another it would be possible to settle and conclude these controversies.

Melanchthon's motivation, optimism, and interests were the same when he turned his attention to the question of vows. This be­ came the subject which gave him his golden opportunity. He believed that the question of monastic vows and celibacy were clear and rested entirely in the hands of the pope. It was not his Intention to destroy the monasteries, he said; he wanted only a restoration of their original purpose. Their schools should be reinstated. He approved of the principle that the monastic vow should not be a chain of iniquity, that the monastery ought to do good for the conscience and that it ought not to burden them. There naturally were men who were not suit­ able for that type of life and ought to be allowed to leave freely.

Those who remained, if they possessed the proper doctrine, could enjoy their practices and customs as long as they did so without traces of superstition. These practices themselves were not sufficient reason alone for condemning the communities, although the excessive fear and the irreverent certainty to which they often gave cause were matters of the most serious condemnation. 81

Melanchthon admitted that he did not know the financial state

of the monasteries In other kingdoms. He knew that In Germany there

existed no learning and no wisdom In them. Only Ignorant and lazy men

were kept In those Institutions In his country. Yet by the authority

of the popes and the kings, these communities could be transformed

back Into schools. In those places where the states had occupied

deserted monasteries, new academic communities could be established.

In them students of the sacred sciences could be supported at public

expense In order that the churches would not lack pastors. Another alternative wlch Melanchthon envisioned was that those same public

authorities maintain poor scholars from the incomes of those proper*

ties. For the rich--those who could afford to finance their own edu­

cation— never turned to the study of the sacred sciences. And the monasteries as they were then constituted always avoided them. In

the beginning, though, these conmunltles were established with the

intent to train leaders for the Church. While he conceded that there was evidence that there was some learning In the poorer cloisters he

saw in general no trend for the better. Only when episcopal dispensa­

tion was granted and only when those communities were freed from super­

stition by a general agreement in the matters of doctrine could proper

*cred studies begin to flourish again.

There would be some people, he admitted, who would scoff at him and say that he was dreaming of some platonic state whenever he

spoke about the purity of the Church. In answer to his critics he could only state that he had no conscious intention to weed out all 82 vices from human life. He sought to find a certain number of moderate

remedies for the most serious problems, which were possible to treat

with the assistance of the pope and the kings. If, on the other hand,

these authorities decided in favor of the former state of affairs,

retained all of the abuses of the Church with force, and defended them

by the exercise of violence, there would be greater tumult in the Q future and the churches would be torn further apart.

Melanchthon’s comments demonstrate that his program was in many

respects conservative. He was motivated negatively by the belief that

if no remedy were applied to the problems of the Church, there would

be greater problems and turmoil in the iimediate future.

There are two points here worth mentioning. The first is that

he expressed the belief when speaking about the situation in the monas­

teries and not at some other point in the treatise. This served to underline the importance of the problem by suggesting what would happen

if the princes failed to act immediately on the issues of the Church.

This indicated the central question facing public authorities. The

second point is that the basic difficulty was not really monasticlsm

or vows. For Melanchthon granted the practice to suitable individuals.

He had no argument with the ideal life of a monk. The most important problem facing his generation was the failure of monastic coomrunities

to fulfill their chief social function, their role as educators.

It must be emphasized that Melanchthon*s attitude toward educa­ tion was not simply a naive faith that the academies by imparting a body of knowledge could solve all social and religious problems. It was more

9CR.II. 759. 83

than that for Melanchthon, What education offered was the experience and process of educating. The effect of education held the kernel of his hope.

In a series of letters to a Leipzig lawyer and his sons, as well as in the dedicatory epistles to numerous didactic works, he developed a deeper theory of education, which revrlved around a con­ cept which he called "the difficulty of studies. ' In ee■;'nee he said that it was character which the academies offered their ^ons whenever they— the students— struggled to overcome"the difficulty of studies." It was not the mathematics or the geometry, he told his readers, but the discipline and desire to know the truth, which were the treasures offered by learning. The student who acquired these gifts was in the best position to offer them to the Church and the r>tate or, better said , to the republic.1®

The manner in which he indicated this and the way he did it constituted a third policy and pattern in the Melanchthona^ diplomacy of humanism.

iOcR.III.251-254. PART II. THE REFORMER'S TACTICS: THE FUNCTION

OF A HUMANIST DIPLOMACY

84 CHAPTER 4

IK SERVICE TO PRINCES

In the last several chapters Melanchthon's activities were viewed with one point in mind. An attempt was made to categorize Melanchthon*s efforts and reduce them to a series of attitudes. His endeavors possessed the appearance of regular behavioral patterns characteristic of a consist­ ent vision, which when expressed in actions or words resembled a policy.

This policy is the basis of the term the diplomacy of humanism. Three positions were distinguishable. The first was Melanchthon*s personal pursuit of a program of peace and moderation, which provided a necessary starting point for all his work. The second was embodied within his cul­ tivation of humanist relationships. He envisioned an exchange of ideas that could cement together a true humanist society through which an effect­ ive standard for reform could be created. The final and most central element in this picture of Melanchthon*s diplomacy was his program for the reform of the schools. This was Melanchthon*s response, his answer, and his contribution to the challenges of his generation. t One might conceive of it as a series of concentric circles, a series of interdependent, yet different, policies which were intended ultimately to lead to the creation of a reformed society. It had aspects of a develop­ ment often found in Melanchthon*s letters: the profession of his personal cosaitment to ireniciam, and the praise of the same in the activity of his

85 86

correspondents; the recognition of a professional kinship between men,

and the assertion of a program of scholastic reform which would serve

to transform the whole of society.

Such policies are meaningless unless they find tangible expres­

sion outside the documents In which they are reiterated, and unless

they carry— or at least attempt to carry— the Ideal they envision to

some form of reality. Leaving the world of ideas can bring the world

of activity. Diplomatically this means parting with the world of

policy and entering the world of tactics.

The Important question in the next several chapters is how

Melanchthon tried to make his policy a reality. How did he act, given his assumption and his goal?

There are, however, several critical points which should be clarified before the following pages are misunderstood. The first is the question of success. In no case should one suggest that the vision which Melanchthon attempted to make a reality was in any tangible way successful. That he achieved his goal— or even that he successfully communicated his ideals and his passion for them— is of secondary impor­ tance. Hie only significance in raising the question of Melanchthon*s activity is that he tried. The degree of realization is not being evaluated.

The temptation to ask whether Melanchthon really was a diplomat is a very cosmon response. One often questions whether Protestantism in the sixteenth century would have been in a terrible state, if the princes had actually adhered to his advice, or whether anybody actually listened to him. These reactions to the suggestion of a Melanchthonian

diplomacy ought to be strictly avoided if real justice is to be done to

the man. Such standards are hardly placed upon ourselves or those of

our contemporaries in important places. Impressive in the last analysis

is his belief In the things he thought right and a reasonable attempt on

his part to support them.

It is obvious that the word diplomacy is used in an unusual

context. It is justified by the nature of Melanchthon1s activities, as

was suggested in the first chapter. A diplomat might well be loosely

defined as one who attempts to achieve an idealogical or political ob­

jective of an entity greater than himself. This has been called the

Melanchthonian Republic, which promised an ideal and a real social structure

for that generation. His activity, in so far as it possessed a pattern,

can be characterized as a considered activity or as a form of diplomacy*

The use of this expression is better justified by the fact that it gives

Melanchthon's work a setting and an occasion for unity— albeit ideal— which makes his efforts more easily understandable and appreciated.

This had to be repeated because it will touch upon the vital ques­

tion of Melanchthon*s service to princes, which is the subject of the next

several pages. One would misunderstand the intention of this essay if one believed that it was said that Melanchthon was a Saxon diplomat in the ordinary sense and that he made policy, or recommended such, or even faith­ fully represented state Interests.

If that were being said, there would have to be a readjustment in the proposed position, in that case Melanchthon*s activity was something 88

less than that suggested. It is probable that the humanist was in fact

a mere secretary in the service he rendered to the princes. Or perhaps

even a copy boy and translator.

If one looks at a portion of Melanchthon*s literary--humanist—

efforts undertaken on behalf of the political establishment, one observes

that his works are apparent explanations or clarifications of the prince's

policies with regard to ecclesiastical or political affairs. In some

instances, his work is a translation.

There is always, of course, the temptation to say "merely trans­

lation," until one recalls that it means to make "merely a translation,"

at least a good one. How much of the translator goes into the trans­

lation is a legitimate and important question. And, if, after the ques­

tion is given serious consideration, one begins to understand what being

a translator in Melanchthon's circumstances could really mean.

The problem related to Melanchthon*s service to princes seems

to center around a skepticism regarding the possibility either that a man of his capabilities and position could have been employed as a "mere

copy boy" by any group of men no matter what their role, or that he would

have allowed this to occur to him without at least drawing some advantage

from it at all. Of course, both possibilities exist. One could well argue with some success that Melanchthon's mild personality would make

him a prime subject for some such form of exploitation. That Melanch­

thon could have played a passive role in the events of his time, contri­ buting nothing to those great events except his own placet and respected name, is not very far from the realm of possibility. Indeed, as a 89 scholar he could have been used. This would make him a mere secretary in someone's service. It is not really terrible; Just a wasteful use of talent if it should reflect his entire role in his own community.

While the idea is not ultimately far-reaching, his rhetorical abilities, combined with his we11-developed and considered positions do make it difficult to accept. His proximity to the center of vital activity in the sixteenth century would lead one to believe that he was tempted to inject some of himself into the services he performed--even as mere secretary--and to draw the best out of the least ideal situation.

The important question is whether Melanchthon did add to the decisions of his day, even if he did not conceive of them and carry them through to their acceptance and expression. What was Melanchthon1s role in the Protestant community in the 1530's? Did he play a part different than other Individuals of his station? And— if only for the sake of curiosity— did he leave any tangible evidence of it and of his success?

Available records seem to suggest a cautious first answer to these questions. Melanchthon's first and most evident role was that of a spokesman. He composed and clarified Protestant policy out of the often rough sketches presented to him. There is no evidence that he played a greater part than any other individual— other, of course, than the princes themselves--in forming these positions. He acted in many cases as a "public relations man." He faced the public— the only mean­ ingful public in the sixteenth century— and transmitted to it a repre­ sentation of his own community of interest. In doing this, however, he did something more. 90 First, he raised the level of discussion to a different plane.

In the previous chapter Melanchthon was seen subtly changing the

direction of a question, carrying his reader from surface problems

or to the question of causes which were deeper. He compelled his

reader, by sheer force of his rhetoric, to the acceptance of his view

of some problem and the solution which he believed to be necessary,

ttils is precisely what he did in those public statements which he helped

to shape. This structuring of an outlined policy is in the long run

crucial. It is said that the way in which something is stated is at

least as Important— and perhaps more important— as what one says. To

stress one point and not another within any work which a writer under-

takes, can mean not merely modifying the thrust of the whole argument

but also, depending upon one's own sympathies, altering its final shape.

This is at the center of Melanchthon*s service to princeB.

In this regard one must make two observations. The first is

that the humanist in the service of a prince need not be aware that he is pouring very much of himself into his efforts in order to do it.

The second is that, in some cases, the writer may be offering his under­

standing of a problem in the service he performs. This action may be either an imposition of one's better opinion on that of another, or a contribution based upon a simple misunderstanding. This is not too unjustified an assumption in considering Melanchthon1 a contribution to the service of princes.

The second point with regard to his services as spokesman for his cause was that he lent both his name and his personal reputation to the political and religious objectives of the man whom he served. 91

He doubtlessly did this, even assuming that he made no other personal

contribution to the contents of his literary efforts.

It seems interesting that a type of public relations effort

should be his major public task immediately after the Diet of Augsburg.

The writing of one letter, which with minor introductory changes, served

to achieve the same end for two different monarchs, was one of the tasks

facing the humanist in the first month of 1531.

The problem before the German Frotestants was that they had to

withstand unfavorable publicity in foreign courts for the failure at the

Diet of Augsburg. The religious schism in Germany had not been healed.

By their firm stand on the Augsburg Confession they were cast as the

party most responsible for this situation. At the same time, the

electors and princes of the evangelical tradition wanted, or at least would not have found unwelcome, some form of international support

should the emperor have Intended to impose a solution on the religious

conmunities.

Melanchthon was consequently commissioned to write a letter

in the name of the collective leadership of the Protestant community.

It was issued in the middle of February, 1531. In addressing himself

to Francis I, Melanchthon mentioned the traditional good will of the

French kings toward the peoples of those territories involved in the religious debate. He Indicated that he felt free to v rite about those matters which were being argued within the Empire since they were not

the affairs of Germany alone. They pertained in general to the state 92 of tranquility of the entire churcht on behalf of which the king of

France had always shown great devotion.

Turning to the origins of their difficulties, Melanchthon made a startling presentation. He spoke not a word about the questions which led Luther to make his original protest. He addressed himself to the problem of moderation, saying that the reformers had admonished the traditional theologians of the church with regard to certain abuses. But the "good and learned men," who had done the admonishing, were insnediately attacked by their opponents. It was this lack of moderation which brought with it a series of difficulties and compli­ cations. And since the doctrine which the reformers held had no official or legal status, it was automatically condemned as erroneous.

Moreover, the traditionalists misrepresented what was stated by the reformers in an obvious attempt to influence the emperor negatively.

This wrong, he continued, led to the Diet of Augsburg. After the Protestants presented their Confession of Faith, they found that they were faced with a number of unacceptable choices with regard to their obedience to the emperor and their obligation to conscience.

What Melanchthon, and naturally the generality of Protestants in whose name he wrote, was concerned about were the calumnies which were spread abroad. The first was the accusation that the desire to plunder church lands was one of the chief motives for an ecclesiasti­ cal reformation. Melanchthon objected because this did not do Justice to what had been done in the reformed German churches* What they had succeeded in doing was to put church property to better use than it had 93 been before. The second was the question of obedience to magisterial authority. This was a very tender point for the evangelicals who, In making their stand on conscience, found themselves in opposition to

the will of their highest temporal magistrate, the finperor. No doubt

their opponents argued that such behavior was comparable to that of

the Anabaptists whose doctrine allowed absolutely no recognition of magisterial authority.

Against each argument of his opponents Melanchthon made a defense. His first point was that the secular management of church goods Intended to handle church property efficiently. The second re­ jected anarchistic notions among Protestants represented by the under­ signed princes and their associates, and pointed out that the princes would suffer from the extension of Anabaptist principles to its logi­ cal conclusion. It would dissolve the obedience of their own subjects.

This, he concluded, could hardly be their position,

Melanchthon then felt it necessary to clearly state the object­ ives of the princes. This took the form of a sunmary to which he added a request not unlike the structure of the appeals he had made in other documents, where he begged for consideration of the needs of education.

First, they wanted to purge these false rumors, which had spread abroad.

At Augsburg, the princes wanted to give a response and then make a de­ fense of themselves before emperor, kings, all Christian estates, and the body of the Christian Church. Just as important, he continued, was their appeal to the king of France In order that he would employ his authority to urge, perhaps even pressure, the finperor to support and 94 initiate a free and Christian council which would discuss the question of church reform.

Kith the exception of the introduction, in which Melanchthon addressed the King of France— or the French monarchy--the letter to

Henry VIII was an exact duplicate. In the former Introduction Melanch­ thon flattered the French Monarch for his piety; in Henry's letter Mel­ anchthon saw fit to mention the wisdom of his addressee and to praise the contribution of the English humanist, John Colet,*

The question that has to be asked is whether Melanchthon made any significant contribution of his own when he rendered this kind of service. If there is an affirmative answer to this question, then the solution has to be found in Melanchthon himself. The general charac­ teristics of his service will reflect the humanist's vision of the good. It ought to express his conviction that "good men and learned men" stand as guideposts for what is right; that lack of moderation is a major difficulty of their troubled times, and that the better use of Church property would provide the basis of reformation through education. In airing these ideas Melanchthon made his first contri­ bution.

Admittedly, these points did not play the same role in the letter as they did in other places in Melanchthon*s writings. Then again it should be remembered that Melanchthon was not speaking for himself. What is Important is that they do play some role. They were indicative of his message and they did bring the author personally

*011.11. 472-478 (February 16, 1531). 95

Into his contemporary situation. If the letters are considered at length, Melanchthon*s readers notice that his own interests were not lost within the context of his work. They could not, in fact, be eliminated without altering the effectiveness of the letters.

Melanchthon*s second contribution is measured by the rhetori­ cal talents which he brought to bear in his work when acting in be­ half of magistrates. Melanchthonian rhetoric enabled the humanist to address his correspondent in such a way that he could make a plea, which under normal circumstances would be difficult to reject. To delve deeper Into the structure of Melanchthon*s letter would, however, serve little purpose since this particular document is not typical of his more Interesting letters and is not relatively unimportant when compared to others. At the same time, it is technically not Melanch­ thon *s, but that of the evangelical princes.

A second question which one might raise after looking at this letter is whether it Is very significant for the topic discussed in this chapter. One might ask whether he actually served the princes and whether he acted in the context of his own interests and as he saw his obligation to them. Did it encourage the attainment of the goals outlined in the first chapters?

The answer to the first is decidedly yes. By giving the Pro­ testants a refined and polished exposure to the two monarchs, Melanch­ thon' s letters were beneficial for the princes. This is not, however, the best answer to the question. What we really want to know is whether this service achieved the desired objectives of those who commissioned it. 96 That is the important element in determining the value of his effort.

Was it in some sense crucial? That is not to suggest that there is a

definitive solution. The difficulty is how one determines the proper

answer. How does one measure the effectiveness of someone's rhetoric

at a distance of several centuries. One way to propose an answer is

to reach the question differently. Would the Monarchs have looked favorably

upon the Protestants after Augusburg without Melanchthon1s epistle?

Both England and France would most likely have made the same overtures

to the German Protestants, as they did in the next several years, as

their own diplomatic interests demanded. But, would they have done so with the same self-assurance without Melanchthon's letter?

There is reason to believe that their attitude would have been

different. For there is a certain moral foundation behind notions such as "good and learned men," moderation, and the better use of church property, which compel assent. They may not have been the monopolies of Melanchthon, but they did not simultaneously have the same signi­

ficance for others. Everyone could stand behind them. If Rome did not effectively use them as diplomatic tools and the basis for its propaganda,

Melanchthon did.

One might suggest, at the same time, that the service performed by the Wittenberg Humanist in behalf of other men also served the inter­ ests of the Melanchthonian Republic. One could ask if these foreign monarchs, Francis I and Henry VIII, noticed the typically Melanchthonian eleaienta. 97 In attempting to deal with secular inquiry, we might wonder if Melanchthon'a authorship was generally known. It is hard to imagine that it was not. If, then, he was recognized as its author, one might conclude who would have been the actual correspondent in the eyes of the recipients. It must have been Melanchthon. nils tends to place him automatically in a position to exercise a special personal and moral leadership, similar to the type which is usually associated with Luther in the years imnediately following 1517. And this is precisely Melanchthon's role after 1530, when the Evangelical confes­ sion was closely connected with his name.

If there was a personal and moral leadership of some importance, one would expect a response and recognition, which would validate what

I have said regarding the value of these letters for Melanchtonian diplomacy. The problem then is to find and measure the effectiveness of Melanchthonian leadership. Is there, one ought to ask, such a response to Melanchthon?

There is reason to believe that there is such a response. It comes in the form of requests by both the kings of France and England in which the Wittenberg Humanist was invited to visit each kingdom to inquire into the state of the churches and to explore means in which the abuses of the church could best be eliminated. These invitations were in themselves victories for Melanchthonian diplomacy.

Melanchthon was deeply interested in the state and affairs of both nations because he was concerned about the condition of the whole church end its reaction to events in Germany. When, for example, he

wrote in April, 1531 to Bucer, who was at that time still a suspicious

character to many Lutherans, he asked specifically that Bucer corres­

pond with him about the state of religion in France; he believed Bucer 2 was highly qualified to do so because of his proximity to that kingdom*

Finally, in the early summer of 1531, when Francis responded to the

letter which Melanchthon had written in January, the Wittenberg Human­

ist reported the event to his Numberg colleague, Camerarius, with

enthusiasm. The King of France, he wrote had responded to them very

kindly and it seemed to him that the former could not have written more

benignly considering their times and the circumstances. The King had

also expressed his interest in a council and, at the same time, praised

the efforts of the Evangelicals because they had initiated the appeal

to call one. The King did not seem to be disinclined toward the Saxons

and shared their views regarding the freedom necessary in such a council.^

More than a week later, Melanchthon repeated these ideas to Myconius,

convinced that the King's heart was in the hands of God.^

In the weeks that followed the Wittenberger diligently kept

abreast of events in France. He eagerly accepted and read the reports

coming from Paris. He had learned that the Gospel was being taught, on

the other hand, in the apartments of the Queen of Navarre and that evan­ gelical theologians had been, on the other hand, expelled from the city

2CR.II. 499 (April 1531).

^CR.II. 503 f. (June 5, 1531); cf. Letter from John Brenz, CR.II. 504 (June 7, 1531)

4CR.II. 506 f. (June 14, 1531). Itself. At the end of July he circulated copies of these stories to

his associates and reported his findings to Spa 1st In. ^ To Canterarlus

he rejected Campegglo's warning against friendship with the French.*

For Melanchthon, France was an open arena for evangelical activity and,

apparently, for political discussion.

It took time for Melanchthon*s actions to bear real fruit;

three summers later Melanchthon had reason to use his pen in addressing.

Margaret of Navarre. He conceded that under normal circumstances such

a letter to a queen might seem impudent. Yet, he was compelled to do

so by the request of a young scholar and dared to write because he was

aware of her reputation for piety. He appealed to the charity of the

queen, and asked her to support the cause of studies in her country. 7 For such, he concluded, was a truly regal act. More important than

its message or the occasion for which it was written was that it marked

the beginning of Melanchthon*s correspondence with the French court.

His venture was to bloom in the course of the next year with the attempt of the French King to attract and entertain him.

It was at thlB time that Guillaume du Bellay ,the brother of the

Bishop of Paris, requested that Melanchthon send a treatment concerning

the question of church abuses to France in order that the matter be brought to the King. One may assume that Melanchthon worked on the docu­ ment in the month of July, since the finished paper, the Concilium Gaulls

5CR.II. 588 f, (July 22, 1531).

6CR.II. 517 f. (July 28, 1531).

7CR.U. 732 (June 13, 1534). ft scripturn, was dated August 1, 1534. That he sent it and that Guillaume

du Belly requested It was reported to Camerarius in a letter of Septem­

ber 13, 1534.9

One might well conclude that, aside from the purely political

objectives, which may have motivated the King of France to call for

Melanchthon, the Reformer's own efforts between 1531-1534 had a

positive effect upon the French court.

Despite the rumors that the Hapsburg-Va1ois controversy was

to be reopened and despite the violence inflicted against the French

Evangelicals^ there were several influential men in Paris who suc­

ceeded In convincing Francis to call for Melanchthon. One was du Belly.

Another was Barnabe Vor/, who claimed to have been a student of

Melanchthon.

The personal motivation for Francis I's call raises some

interesting questions. Was the king interested in church reform or wooing an alliance from the Evangelicals? Was Melanchthon to be used

then as a tool in getting this alliance? In giving answers there does not seem to be any reason to believe that Francis was overwhelmingly devoted to the well-being of the church or that an interest in eccles­ iastical affairs even played an equal role with his political, diplomatic, and military goals to humiliate and defeat the Hapsburgs. The events of his reign as well as the character of the man allow one to stress the

®CR.II. 741-775. Jid. supra, p. 93.

9CR.II. 795 f. (September 13, 1534).

l0CR.II. 822 f. (January 10, 1535). 101

Importance of his diplomatic objectives in determining his motivation

in inviting Melanchthon to France. He wanted a coalition with the

Protestants against the Bnperor; and Melanchthon might help him obtain

it.

It is not unthinkable that a mild and moderate reformer in

order to achieve his goal would have been unacceptable. And Melanch­

thon. whose scholarship and moderation were well known, was the only

man of some Importance and reputation who could offer that possibility

to a conservative French Church. It la difficult to believe that the

King would not have been aware of this and had not acted with this

in mind.

The King's Interests need not have been the only motivation

in the call to Melanchthon. There were those friends of the reformer

who were at the court and who. probably in contrast to the king, saw

in the danger of war and the need for a union the best possible chance

to win France for the Reformation, which the scholarly and amiably

gentle Melanchthon alone could make acceptable to King and church.

Since Melanchthon had indicated his humanist program of church reform

in the Consilium, one might assume that these friends were also influenced

by a Melanchthonism in an idealogical sense, and that their promotion of

his call is. in view of the Consilium, proof of its acceptance as a

statement.

At the beginning of February. 1535. Francis sent a letter to the

Protestant electors and princes rejecting the anti-German allegations which had been made against him and his nation. He spoke about his 102 desire to see a church council called and suggested that the princes

request several of their preachers and scholars to study the disputed

ecclesiastical questions which separated French and German Protestants.

Finally, he made reference to a document which he received the previous

Autumn, which had addressed itself to these problems and which had

given him cause to hope that the matter could actually be resolved

to everyone's satisfaction.

Bamabe Vot4 was consnissioned with the personal aspect of the

Ring's diplomacy. He took the request for German scholars, by which

the King meant Melanchthon and Bucer, to Germany.

With him he took a letter from Johann Sturm, the Strassburg

humanist, which is one of the most urgent appeals in all of the corres­

pondence in those years. Sturm pointed out to Melanchthon that the

King was very much aware of his good reputation, which he had upon

occasion highly praised, Francis even said, without being asked, that

he was a disciple of Melanchthon*s and had demonstrated it by expound­

ing upon the humanist's life and motivations of his religion. The King wanted Melanchthon to come and be In his presence. He, Sturm continued, was troubled and it seemed that he believed that calamities sent by God determined the nature of his public difficulties* It is at this point

that Melanchthon*s presence was required. He believed that the King would not be able to resist the advice of impious councilors. The King was still, however, open in his attitudes. He desired the most learned men in order that the abuses of the church might be solved. The King

11CR.II. 828-835 (February I, 1535). 103 vould guarantee Melanchthon's safety. His presence, Sturm believed, would turn the tide In the King's court. With that presence hung the 12 fate of all French Evangelicals.

Melanchthon was not in a position to accept the invitation when he received it. His obligations at Wittenberg meant that he had to have the approval of his prince. But the prince, John Frederick, and his associates, became suspicious of the humanist, whose Consilium had awakened fears that he had given up, or was about to abandon, his evangelical convictions.

Despite the controversy over the Consilium. Bucer came to the aid of his colleague, rejecting the rumors and at the same time encour­ aging Melanchthon to accept the invitation. Still cautious because of the King's reputation and conditions at home, and still concerned with the fate of French Protestants, Melanchthon wrote to the Bishop of

Paris, Jean du Bellay, restating his concern for the church and appeal- 13 lng to him to have a moderating and positive influence on his king.

He wrote to Martin Bucer, saying that he did not have sufficient informa­ tion to make a decision.^ More than a month after Sturm's letter,

Melanchthon answered the former indicating that the matter was essentially in the hands of his prince.1^

12CR.II. 855-859 (March 6, 1535).

13CR.II. 868-870 (April 22, 1535).

W CR.II. 873 f. (April 23, 1535) This and the following letter were dated May 9, 153S, by Bretschneider. Professor Heins Schelble cor­ rected these dates in one of the editions of the library of the Melanch- thon-Forschungsstelle (Heidelberg). I've used the dates as found there.

15CR.II. 874-877 (April 23, 1535). 104

When Vor4 returned to Paris in May, 1535, he brought with him the desire for further assurances from Francis 1. The formal declare* tion of the King's intention was given to Bellay. At all costs the

King wanted to avoid a struggle with the Sorbonne. Therefore, he planned private meetings with the Protestant scholars. To show his sincerity he quieted some of the more vocal Sorbonne professors and released a number of imprisoned Protestants. In June, 1535, the King 16 wrote personally to Melanchthon and invited him to his court.

Vore, who carried that letter back to Germany to Melanchthon, brought with him, among other things, a letter from the Bishop of Paris,

In answer to Melanchthon*s appeal. Bellay honored Melanchthon and assured him that he desired nothing more than to fulfill his request.

He recognized Me lanchthon's efforts and assured him of the approval of

"all good men." He expressed his belief that Melanchton's coming would solve the problems between them.Within the next several weeks a letter from Guillaume du Bellay arrived which stated the intentions of the King. In it he assured Melanchthon that if he came and spoke to the King through Interpreters and if he explained his position IQ the King would be convinced. °

With such assurances, one could hardly expect Melanchthon to be Indifferent to the request made of him. Even his own personal fears or doubts as to the fruitfulness of the venture could scarcely have

16CR.II. 879 f. (June 23, 1535).

17CR.II. 880 f. (June 27, 1535).

18CR.II. 886 ff. (July 16, 1535). 105

Justified his not making a serious effort to win the approval of John

Frederick. He went, therefore, to Torgau and sought the prince's

permission.

The prince rejected his request. There were from his point

of view a host of considerations which had to be taken into account before Melanchthon could make such a trip. Melanchthon was, according

to reports, indignant.^ He pleaded again by letter, suggesting that he make the trip as a private person, rather than as the ambassador of his prince. He believed it was crucial to the evangelical cause and 20 was definitely the work of God.

The prince was still unconvinced of the wisdom of the journey.

Displeased that Melanchthon had even made the request a second time, he comnunicated to Bruck, the Saxon chancellor, the reasons for his decision. He wanted them transmitted to the humanist* The main reasons were political. He was concerned about his relations with the Bnperor, but he had other prejudices against the trip. He spoke of the perfidy of the French, the lack of dependability of Francis, and the rumor that

Vore was not the King's ambassador. He believed that the latter had been murdered by papists on the way. The prince was most convincing in his postscript; almost as an afterthought, yet Interjected as a last attempt at justification for his rejection, is the argument that there were Erasmian and humanist lures in Paris. He feared, In effect,

19Vid. Schmidt, ©£. cit., 275 ff.

20CR.II. 903 ff. (August 18, 1535) 106 that Philip would concede too much or be lost by some handsome lifetime

stipend.

By this time the prince had Jonas write a letter to the King of France, in which he stated that Philip's absence would cause problems for his schools. He left open, however, the possibility of a Journey in the future, should the King continue to want his presence. 22

Melanchthon did what he could In the circumstances. On August 28,

1535, he wrote three letters. One went to Francis, explaining that he could not come, but assuring him of aid and of his desire to serve the 23 King. Another was sent to Guillaume du Bellay, to whom he entrusted 24 the well-being of the French Church. Finally, the most difficult for

Melanchthon was a reply to Sturm who had so movingly appealed to him earlier that Spring. Vor/, he was forced to begin, would be his witness that he tried and did everything possible to get the permission of John

Frederick. But the prince feared for his safety; he did not want to press John Frederick further, although he did wish that it was possible to speak with the French scholars about ecclesiastical affairs.^

It is known from these letters that Melanchthon was deeply hurt; the prince had not merely rejected an important request, but had done so in a very unfriendly manner. He, therefore, reported to Bellay that he had never known a stricter prince. To Sturm he went so far as to

2*CR,II. 907 ff. (August 19, 1535); cf. Letter from John Frederick to Melanchthon, CR.I1. 910-912 (August 24, 1535).

22CR.II. 905 ff. (August 18, 1535).

^CR.II. 913 f. (August 28, 1535). 24CR.II. 915 f. (August 28, 1535)

25c r .II. 917 f. (August 28, 1535). 107 conminlcate the feeling that he felt in danger in his awn religious community because of his moderation.

Melanchthon learned to live with the refusal; he told Jonas he accepted it willingly. Yet, in later letters he Indicated that he had not recovered from John Frederick's treatment. If only the prince had rejected his request without the accusations of weakness and the suggestions of disloyalty. Even after the prince made a positive effort to sooth his professor in September or early October of that year by coming to Wittenberg personally and talking with him intimately, 27 Melanchthon could not forget, as he reported to Myconius. As late as February, 1536, he spoke to Camerarius of the cloud of suspicion 28 that hung over him. Fart of the cause for this feeling lay in this effort to serve a prince.

The invitation from England did not bring with it the same hope which that from France had offered. It went hand in hand with an attempt by Henry VZII to win approval for his divorce from Catherine of Aragon. The negotiations surrounding these objectives as well as his desire to join the Protestant alliance, must have seemed endless since they stretched out more than a year, rehashing the same question.

As a consequence this invitation did not bring the same drama, trauma, and disappointment to Melancthon. When a clear picture of Henry's in­ tentions became evident after 1536, Melanchthon was relieved that nothing had come of it.

26CR.II. 936 (September 2, 1535). Cf. Letter to Caawrarlus CR.II. 936 f. (August 31, 1535).

27CR,II. 949 f. (October 4, 1535). 2®CR.II. 34 ff. (February 5, 1536). 108

It was Simon Grynaeus, a Hellenist who, In 1531, while visit­ ing Oxford's Library, received a commission from the King to seek theological opinions regarding his contention that his marriage to

Catherine was void. Grynaeus returned to Germany to obtain

Melanchthon's Judgment.

Melanchthon's response was the De dlvortlo. a decision In which he tried to help solve the King's problem to his satisfaction without compromising either the Institution of marriage or the rela­ tionship between Henry and the aunt of his Emperor. He spent the better part of his effort demonstrating that Henry's problem of conscience was not justified. In an extensive treatment of the problem he showed that the Mosaic prohibition against marriage of a brother's wife did not apply. Henry's conscience, he concluded, was overly scrupulous. He recognized, however, that Henry faced serious political problems. He, therefore, suggested that the king take a second wife since he was com­ pelled to meet the necessities of the kingdom, Melanchthon advised, as he was later to do in the case of Philip of Hesse, a bigamous marriage.

Henry knew what he wanted. In 1532 he received his divorce from English bishops. The break with Rome was completed In 1534. This demanded special precautions on his part. There were rumors that a council would be called in 1535; and the king feared that he would be outmaneuvered by Rome and condemned at such a synod.

In 1535, one of the king's chaplains, Anthony Barnes, went to

29CR.II. 520-527 (August 23, 1531). 109 Wittenberg to seek recognition of the fait accompli and to open dis­ cussions which would lead to England's entrance into the Schmalkaldic

League. One of the chaplain's first accomplishments was to get Mel­ anchthon to write a personal letter to the King. In it Melanchthon did more than express an opinion; he gave advice. He told Henry that the religious controversies would be reduced if the king exercised his authority to bring moderation and if he deliberated with truly learned men on the question of doctrine. He indicated the nature of the teach­ ings he desired. The difficulty in achieving them was that public discord brought unlearned and bad men to prominence, thus irritating the already existing problems. The king's obligation was to see to it that useful and good things for the church were not suppressed.

He should not exercise force against good men. Finally, he encouraged 30 him to nourish the arts and protect the cause of religion.

In July of that same year the Elector received a letter from

Henry which asked that the prince place his confidence in Barnes and that he dispatch Melanchthon to England. Then Barnes informed Melanch­ thon of the king's invitation; the reformer, however, responded by dedi­ cating the 1535 edition of the Loci to the Monarch. The book was sent through Alexander Alesius and contained, in the Melanchthonian manner, a laudatory dedication which advised the king of his duties toward the troubles of their day and toward education which Melanchthon saw as the 31 key to their resolution. With the king's copy of the Loci went another

30CR.II. 861 ff. (March 31, 1535).

31CR.II. 920-930 (August 1535). 110

for Archbishop Cramner, to whom he made a similar appeal,3^

Henry must have been pleased by the dedication because Melanch­

thon received a personal letter from the King, which not only carried

with it a gift of 200 Gulden but was also signed, "your friend King

Henry VIII."33 It did not change the decision of John Frederick, who

had decided more than a week before that it would be impossible for

Melanchthon to leave. The prince had, this time, a much better set of

reasons: the plague had hit Wittenberg, and Melanchthon was needed to

keep the exiled University together. Even the King's offer of hostages

and the efforts of Melanchthon*s colleagues could not convince the

prince. For Melanchthon, Henry's generosity and friendship were recog­

nition and proof of his personal success as well as an embarrassment.

Melanchthon reported to Camerarius in December of that year the rumor

that Luther was displeased with Melanchthon*s success. Ihis was simply

part of the cloud of suspicion which he believed unlearned and hostile

colleagues were creating. He refused to say more in writing.34

Negotiations on the king's objectives continued despite the

prince's refusal to send Melanchthon. An English embassy headed by

Edward Fox, Bishop of Hereford, Nicholas Heath, and Anthony Barnes, met with the German magistrates and theologians throughout the winter

of 1535 and the spring of 1536. It is striking that the Englishmen

insisted that Melanchthon be among those present at any discussion.

32CR.II. 930 f.

33CR.II. 947 f. (October 1, 1535).

34CR.II. 1027 f. (December 24, 1535). Ill

Despite the learning of the Itagllshmen and the promise of some success

in getting the English to accept the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon

showed continually less interest in making a Journey to England. One might venture to gather from his own remarks that the death of More, which deeply affected him,33 and the fate of Anne Boleyn38 played no

small role in the cooling of his interest.

This is not to say that Melanchthon thought of breaking any bonds between himself and England or France. As a matter of fact, there are in the years that follow many other letters either to Francis I or

Henry VIII. Hone, however, takes up the question of a journey in a serious manner. Yet, Melanchthon took every occasion to offer advice, and to plead the cause of the Evangelicals and his interest in education.

In 1538 he made his clearest appeal to Francis to advance the rebirth 37 of the arts. . In 1539, In another example, he felt compelled to plead with Henry to abandon the Six Articles, which brought down upon English

Protestants a new repression and possible extinction.38

At this point one might ask what these important events and efforts by Melanchthon meant for his service to princes. Certainly

Melanchthon acted with great interest in his work to save the princes of his own homeland. He put everything he had into his literary and persuasive contributions to the great events of the day. This meant

35Ibid.

36CR,III.89 f. (June 6, 1536; cf. CR.IZI. 90 (June 1536).

37CR.III. 489-495 (February 13, 1538). 38Vld. CR.III. 804 ff. (November 1, 1539). 112 more than merely every bit o£ energy. He carried to the service of his prince the very vision of the world--the preoccupation with moderate answers, qualified and good men, and education— which were synonymous with the humanist himself. These seem at first thought, however, to be small services or services of a general and almost meaningless nature; but they are not. They are, in fact, services of the highest and most meaningful form, which bring to effort, a kind of conviction. There were other kingdoms which sought his aid. He was prepared, as in the requests of England and France,to offer to use all his energies. That circumstances and conditions did not permit his carrying the potential in these invitations to its fullest realization in discussions in either France or England is ultimately of little significance. He was willing but was prevented from using those opportunities. He did, how­ ever, exercise his gifts of persuasion through letters. He allowed no chance to pass to further his humanist and Christian goals, even when the intentions of foreign monarchs were held in serious doubt.

What was this service in concrete terms? It was the attempt to win princes, any prince, to the cause of the arts and enlightenment.

Moreover, he tried to create bonds of mutual interest. In a letter to the Archbishop of Cologne, Hermann von Wied, in 1539, he summed up his attitude as a humanist toward a prince and spoke about the nature of the service he could perform, when he said that the humanist cannot do everything himself— he could in fact do little himself. The prince, IQ however, with the help of good men could do much more.

39C R . m . 650 ff. (March 17, 1538). CHAPTER 5

IN CREATING A DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

If Melanchthon actually anticipated the building of bridges between the various elements of the humanists' community, it would have been difficult for him to do it alone. A letter, such as one which he normally wrote, would be a good introduction and would certainly serve to make a significant impression upon the person receiving it; but a single letter would not have constituted a firm bond between two mem­ bers of the academic community. There would have had to be a continual correspondence between any two men to make the relationship important.

In some cases a series of letters did, in fact, bind men together. Such was the manner in which two similarly inclined spirits such as Melanchthon and Bucer kept in contact in those difficult years before the Wittenberg Concord of 1536 effectively and finally bound together the South Germans and Saxons. This was not the only example of a relatively prolonged correspondence; another was that between

Melanchthon and Erasmus. There was also that with Conrad Heresbach.

In their own way the letters to the kings of France and England con­ stituted a continued bond based upon a common humanist interest.

This humanist faith was the conmon denominator of a host of other friendships which Melanchthon maintained with his Lutheran colleagues. The Camerarius letters, together with those to Veit

113 114

Dietrich, Baumgartner, Michael Melenburg, or Reiffenstein, account for

a considerable portion of his personal correspondence.

Yet, in all instances, and especially where the continuous ex­

change of letters did not exist, Melanchthon could have retained the advantages of such friendship only with the greatest difficulty. To do what he could not personally do there were others who acted as bridge builders for the "architect,*1 or perhaps acted as the bridges

themselves.

One is struck particularly by the students who helped give occasion to Melanchthon*s bridge building and his maintaining them.

These were the young men in whom Melanchthon*s hope for the future lived and for whom he himself worked and sacrificed. They were the

"good men*' of another generation who would carry on the work of pacifi­ cation and serve as magistrates in a reordered society, playing the roles which their talents and natural rights had determined for them.

Nothing seemed to have been too much to perform for these men who, as academic tradition has it, were his sons.

Yet, interestingly enough, little attention has been given to these "personal ambassadors." Secondary literature is limited in this area. As a consequence, no evaluation of them either as individuals or as a group has ever been offered. The basic reason is that there is in some cases very little that can be said. Primary records of their movements and the work they did is often lacking. In some fortu­ nate instances we can trace them in monographs or biographical diction­ aries. Other records are lost, except for an occasional letter of 115

testimony or an occasional reference in personal letters. That is not

to say that a substantial and valuable effort could not be made even

in the tedious and possibly fruitless business of tracing these men

and their roles within the Melanchthonian Republic.

It is true that one ought to be struck by the students who give

occasion to Melanchthon*s bridge building. When one looks directly at

the activity in which the Praeceptor was Involved, there should be

little cause for surprise. Melanchthon was fulfilling his function

as a teacher. It becomes fascinating because he had a special position

in the volatile history of his day. That was not often true with the

vast majority of the professors In the Universities. Melanchthon was,

in his own way, a symbol not only for humanism but also for reform.

He was a spokesman. And whether the students liked it or not, and for

that matter, whether he liked It or not, those associated with him be­

came a part of that symbol. This would not have been a hindrance or

an undesirable association for the students with an academic father who possessed an enviable reputation. They probably wore their privi­

leged relationship with great pride. And one could also assume that

they actively attempted to further his reputation and that they por­

trayed themselves as his representatives. In so doing they undoubtedly received the expected response.

But what was it that Melanchthon, as a director and teacher, was doing for these young men? In general, he was taking care of his charges. That meant that some boys actually were enrolled in Melanch­ thon* s private school, and that the Praeceptor not only Instructed them 116

but Also saw to It that they were provided with room and board.^ It

meant, too, that he guided a boy Into the right profession.2

Sometimes he had to stand behind a youth in a personal way. An

example is George Oehmler, who, after a humanist education, wanted to

take on a name in a classical language like many others in that genera­

tion had done— not excluding, of course, Philip Schwareerd— Melanchthon

himself. However, not all fathers appreciated the casting off of the

family name--even when the change might have functioned as a status

symbol. We may assume that George asked Melanchthon to put in a word

for the new Georgius Aemlllus. For there is a letter from the Humanist

to the older Oehmler explaining why his son had so acted. At times,

Melanchthon* s responsibilities made it necessary to explain the circum­

stances of a student's death.4

While such duties were important for the successful professional

life of the Praeceptor, they were less significant for his public efforts.

The responsibility which was probably most difficult and vital for his young men was the necessity to place them. This was an exercise of

Melanchthon*s real authority and power as an educator. Certainly it was one of the most Important functions of a teacher from the opinion of those who were his proteges. Without his effectiveness in bringing his influence and reputation to bear on those who held key positions in the state, there would have been little basis for the faith and for

*This is the concern when Melanchthon seeks some stipends; CR.II. 666 f. (September 19, 1533) et. al.

2CR.III. 484 f. (February 5, 1538).

^CR.III. 208-212 (1536). Letter to Georgius Aemlllus to his father Nicholas Oehmler; Melanchthon is actual author.

4CR.II. 338 ff. (February 2, 1534). 117

the respect which his students had placed in him. That is not to deny

the importance of his professional abilitiest his personality, his viewpoint, and his convictions as elements in the relationship between the student and the instructor. But one could hardly imagine that his success at placement was of negligible significance to the people who worked with him and who themselves had basic and human needs.

When we speak of positions, we refer to two kinds. The first was of an academic nature. Melanchthon would seek stipends for those who showed academic promise. This meant a grant of income from various sources. One could be the direct support of the magistrate, be he the king, the prince, any other public figure, or the administrator in 5 some imperial city. The understanding here was that the student would then serve the government which had financed his education. Another source of aid would come from prebends, the Income which was asso­ ciated with ecclesiastical offices or canonries and which had been set aside for the support of the ecclesiastic who possessed It and per­ formed the proscribed duties. There might have been other grants which would have helped a worthy student bring his study to a successful con­ clusion. From Melanchthon's correspondence in the fourth decade these seem to be the main targets of his affairs.

There was, on the other hand, the finding of positions for those who had completed their studies. Melanchthon gave this a great deal of time and effort. Some of the positions which he sought need not be enumerated or elaborated in detail. High on the list were eccleslas-

^CR.III.633 (January 16, 1539) 118

tical posts in individual local churches. A young man would be look­

ing for a church of his own where he could function as a minister.

Another important source for employment was clerical positions in

government. Whether he looked in the chanceries of monarchs or princes

or in the City Halls of the cities with which he had contact, there

were often openings in which young men could earn a living and perhaps

prosper.

The first area which occupied his attention and monopolized his

endeavors was the schools themselves. Melanchthon searched or was asked

for scholars who would act as private tutors in the household of a

magistrate or a lord,** The student’s obligation would be to direct the

early education of the family’s children. City schools, such as the

one Melanchthon helped found in Nurnberg, were also a source of his in­

quiry.

The first of this kind of employment--ecclesiastical positions--

was within the reach of the reformer. He often knew Just what was

needed within the reformed territories with which he already had contact.

He was furthermore informed, or certainly was made aware, that the local

church in a particular village needed a minister. The former ecclesias­

tic could have died or have been driven out with the coming of the Re­

formation. Sometimes local officials would ask for a candidate; some­

times a colleague associated with a church would ask.?

Hot infrequently, Melanchthon helped provide a need. This was

where the practice of visitation and the visitation coamitteea, which

6CR.III.604 ff. (November 12, 1536); also, CR.11I. 607 f. (November 18, 1536).

7 CR.III. 596 (October 14, 1538). 119

Melanchthon often headed} played a special role. A group of publicly

appointed coinalss loners would travel within a certain district visit­

ing churches and investigating the conditions within the congregation.

Their evaluation of the doctrine or performance of an ecclesiastic

could mean an entirely new posltion--an old one filled by a new man.

In reading the accounts of the visitations as well as in reading the

epistolary efforts of Melanchthon in the same period} one learns that

new needs were created and immediately met.

The second group of occupations**those with the various secular

author!ties*-was not as close to Melanchthon'a reach as were the former.

That meant, of course, that he had to make a greater effort. This was

one reason why his contacts with princes and the desire to serve them was as* important as his correspondence indicated. Usually, the letters written to princes contained requests for placements.

It is difficult to know exactly what Melanchthon was after in

some of his requests. They were often vaguely worded and the response was left open to the magnanimity of the individual to whom he wrote.

This la to say that one cannot always be sure if the humanist was merely asking for monetary aid, which may have come in the forms of a prebend that carried obligations, or for a regular position for his proteges. It could be either of these possibilities, depending upon the response of the individual. At the same time it is difficult to determine the nature of the request since information regarding the response is not always available. 120

Here, as la other places, the question of success should be

avoided. That Melanchthon attempted to place his men is evident and

that alone deserved great attention.

The third potential source possessed characteristics of the

other two. From one point of view it was not difficult for Melanchthon

to find placement in schools; he did not have to look very far. People

undoubtedly came directly to him to request teachers and tutors either

for families, private schools, or those foundations which were more

public in nature. Melanchthon, as a well-respected and widely known

educator, was a natural object for such inquiries. And Melanchthon

filled these requests in the course of the fourth decade. In this

sense it offered easy opportunities for the reformer.

Yet, the supply of men to fill these positions did not always

correspond to the actual demand. With this in mind, then, this was the most difficult of all sources. There were not as many schools as Mel­ anchthon believed there should have been. This underlies much of Mel­ anchthon 's talk about the barbarity Into which education in the empire had fallen. He seemed to have sincerely believed it despite the inter­ esting evidence that educational Institutions, especially the higher ones, had grown at a faster rate in the previous century than In any other to that point In the history of the empire. Whether the same end was discernable for the lower levels of education is unknown. The chances are that this was what Melanchthon specifically had in mind when he spoke as he did. The obligation that fell to him was to demon­ strate the problem rhetorically to any influential and powerful authority 121

and then to urge the latter to accept its responsibility to education.

We saw how he urged princes to aid the arts and to give atten­

tion to the reform of the monastic system whose origins were justified

by its role as educator. He believed that the growth of the monas­

teries through the gifts of wealthy faithful to the communities was

encouraged and only understandable when the religious communities

performed a useful function.

Looking at the convents of his own day, he saw little of this

original ideal. From his experience he had concluded that there lay

the source of the present barbarity.

The solution was clear; the monasteries had to be transformed

back into schools, as they were originally Intended. Where the reli­

gious themselves objected to this measure, he saw justification for

the society's dissolution. Where this was not so and where the proper

functions were being performed, the monasteries were not touched. He

foresaw eventually an upward trend in the quality of education and a

direct decline in the problems facing the church.

Simultaneously there would be positions available for those who

•had been trained in the reformed universities. This is what is of

particular interest here.

What methods did Melanchthon use to achieve the desired results?

The most important method used was the Melanchthonian letter. It pos­

sessed many of the same traits mentioned earlier in his communications

with other humanists as well as with princes. Many of the letters were

identical since they contained requests of one form or another. In

this regard, the call to the arts and the appeal for moderation were 122

Integral parts of the outlook and events which were observed In the

individual letters. Yet as close as the relationship between the parts

of these exchanges were, they are nonetheless distinguishable m

independent elements.

One could look for a moment at least at one of the letters

written by Melanchthon to Erasmus. We saw his total action as signi­

ficant in the building of bridges between scholars on different sides

of a very sensitive set of religious questions. Yet within this cor­

respondence there appeared a clear humanist bond which ignored the

emotional differences. As a consequence, it is not unusual to find

Helanchthon making a request for aid for a protege.

The conclusion of a letter to Erasmus in October, 1532, spoke

about the problems of the Republic and the necessity for moderation.

Helanchthon also introduced a young man, Theodore Relffensteln, who,

he mentioned, was born to a family that had always revered Erasmus.

He stated further that the boy had a youthful uncle whom Erasmus.should

remember as a colleague when both were at Lorain. Then Melanchthon

asked Erasmus to embrace the student both because of thefonor of the

-boy's fasiily held for the Prince of the Humanists and also because

of Melanchthon's own reconmendation. It does not seem likely that the

Wittenberger would have mentioned the good character of the young man

and the hope that the latter would be strengthened by humanist educa­

tion and be worthy of Erasmus1 trust, unless some type of placement g within Erasmus* own circle was intended.

8CR.II. 617 f. (October 21, 1532). 123

We have no reason to believe that the response to Helanchthon's

request was other than what he would have wanted. If it were otherwise,

there would certainly have been word about it in other letters. There

is at least one example in which Melanchthon reacted sharply to a dis­

courtesy done to him. And such would doubtlessly have happened here if

Erasmus had not accepted and embraced Theodore Reiffenstein.

If Erasmus had not fulfilled Melanchthon*s request, it is unlikely

that he would have made the same kind of request to Helanchthon. This

is exactly what he did several years later in the course of their exchanges.

In this case Erasmus introduced the person who carried his letter. He

described him as a youth to whom he was attached and who not only re­

spected Melanchthon, as did all scholars, but whom Helanchthon would

also respect if he granted the young man the pleasure of his conversation.

His name was Francis Dolsus. Having aided him in a domestic capacity, Q he held Erasmus' confidence.

The srfme was true of Helanchthon's relationship with Conrad

Heresbach, the Rhenish humanist mentioned previously. In a letter in

1534,Helanchthon made a blunt request on behalf of the son of a priest

from the Rhine region who had asked Melanchthon to recomnend him to

Heresbach. Melanchthon apologized formally for writing such trivia

rather than about the greater things which would be of more interest to

both of them. He asked whether he--Helanchthon— had ever placed in his

hands an unworthy cause. Doing favors at times, he assured Heresbach, was a duty of the man who possessed a human spirit and it needed no excuse.

9CR.II. 844 (February 5, 1535). 124

Therefore, he asked Heresbach to give the boy as much as his humanity

demanded*

The use of these examples does not suggest that these were the

only Important letters of the period. It does, however, demonstrate

exactly how Melanchthon made his most Impressive appeal for pan-

humanist understanding and cooperation. A student was often the

occasion for that appeal.

One of the appeals for aid on behalf of a student was in a let­

ter to Margaret of Navarre, written just prior to Melanchthon1s call to

France. The student seems to have been the occasion for Melanchthon's making his appeal that princes accept their responsibilities for advanc­

ing the arts by advancing education and educational institutions. The name of the youth was Claudius Badeullls. He had shown Melanchthon not only the whole course of his studies but also had given evidence of his financial need. Unless the queen gave him aid, his poverty would force him from the arts into work which he by nature abhorred. He wanted to study Scripture and literature. After appealing to the repu­ tation and charity of the queen, Melanchthon pointed out that the young man's conversational Latin was not only polished, but elegant. His habits, he added, were very modest.^

In each of these cases, and in the majority of others, there are similar elements. Certainly there is some attention given to the addressee. It takes the form of praise, at times one would almost say

10CR. II. 739 f. (July 1534). 11CR.II. 732 f. (June 13, 1534). 125 flattery. There followed some remarks about the condition of society or the state of the world. For Melanchthon this might In any given situation or moment mean some discussion of the necessity of peace or moderation or an exposition of the role and problems of education.

In the cases of princes and influential magistrates he placed the reso- lution of the problem in their hands. He admonished them and reminded them of their duty; he believed that the prince could possess no greater glory than that he had nourished and advanced the arts. This was for

Melanchthon the wish of God Himself. Then turning, as it were, to a practical first step, the Humanist would recommend someone whose ser­ vice would bring the magistrate closer to fulfilling his obligation.

These elements are always present in some form, but not exactly in the same order. He seemed to choose either moderation or education as starting points after the introduction. Sometimes even both were present. Yet despite the order of the elements, the results were the same. The Melanchthonlan letter appeared, after some consideration,to be an art with characteristics all its own. The circumstances, the ndmes, and the words constantly change; the form does not.

There is still another question which could be asked in connec­ tion with Melanchthon's service to his students. To whom did he turn for help in finding positions?

It certainly need not be mentioned that Melanchthon often turned to princes for aid. That has been observed already. That he should do so is natural and logical. He cultivated the prince, for example, by strong appeals, and spoke not only about his obligations and responsi­ bilities, but also about his rights. At times, he would dedicate one of his literary works to a prince and manage to introduce the topic of education and the arts. There was, however, still another occasion which was more cannon--insofar as this Melanchthonian service was concerned. When Claude Badallius returned to France carrying Melanch­ thon 's appeal to Margaret, he also pleaded for aid from another indivi­ dual without whose help another young man could not continue his studies.

This return of a student to his homeland from study abroad--in this case study in Wittenberg--is a very common event found in the Mel­ anchthonian experience. And it was also an excellent occasion for humanist diplomacy. Among the host of similar examples is a letter from the Wittenberger to Gustavus, the King of Sweden, in which he did precisely that same thing.*3

Soon thereafter, however, Melanchthon had the opportunity to address a prince for the same reason. In October, 1537, another young man, Matthew Devay, returned to his homeland, Hungary. Melanchthon evidently was told something about the local prince, Thomas Nadasti, who was interested in education— or so the student reported to his teacher-- and had a desire to found schools throughout his region as well as to encourage the arts. Little more probably had to be said to the Humanist, who wrote and reported to the prince all that he had been told by Matthew

If this were actually the case, Melanchthon reasoned, then why not make use of the young Devay.*4

12CR.II. 920 f. (August 1535).

13CR.II. 844 ff. (February 13, 1535). 14CR.III. 417 f. (October 7, 1537). 127

Some of Che princes Co whom he often turned were the rulers of

Anhalt. In all his correspondence in which he developed the theme of responsibility toward education, there is no one family which received more consistent praise and encouragement for their efforts than they.

They were frequent correspondents throughout the fourth decade. With

them he did precisely what he did with others. In one letter he ad­ dressed Prince Joachim and praised him for his services as a humanist.

This, as one would suspect, was the occasion for his request that

Joachim find a position for Nicholas Hausmann, in which the latter would be able to serve the Anhalt dynasty. It was in most respects l s the standard letter.

For basically the same reason, Helanchthon often turned to men who were close to their masters and who could be better suited to making actual appointments. One such individual was Johann Welnlaub, a chancellor for the ruler of Brandenburg. On behalf of a boy whose name was John Muller, Melanchthon wrote that his clever mind would be of great use to the state and that the young man would give his full attention to whatsoever the prince wanted. The Humanist stated his sincere belief that the rulers of Brandenburg had neglected the schools and churches in the Mark. He warned that there would be great disaster if the prince did not see to it that those facets of the republic were not looked after. He testified quite freely that he had written to the prince about this and would do so at any time if Welnlaub thought it wise. He states that he had been frank with the chancellor because

15CR.II. 609 f. (September 14, 1532); cf. CR.II. 618 f. (December 1532). 128 he had confidence In both his humanity and his prudence. At this point, he bluntly continued, he had committed to him the cause of that youth and then turned to sketch a picture of the boy's abilities. ^

Heinrich Reibisch was another personality to whom Melanchthon wrote in order to aid a protege. Reibisch, whose son, Siegfried, became chancellor for the Emperor Matthias II, was in his own way an important figure in his day and very well informed. He had been an imperial ad­ visor and a general tax collector in Silesia.

In may, 1536, Melanchthon wrote to Reibisch and confided to him his feelings about a number of things. He told him how delighted he was by his considerations regarding the republic of his day as well as those regarding the ancient republics. For a certain number of them were blessed with true greatness. For although abundance, wealth, and public art were important glories of any state, there were more important elements such as falthfullness in government, Justice, learn­ ing, and citizenship as well as humanity, self discipline, and regard for religion. These were the true glories of the state and Melanchthon had heard them attributed to the territory which Reibisch administered.

Melanchthon, as a consequence, loved that area as a fatherland and venerated it, as he did the most praiseworthy of the ancient republics.

He expressed his gratitude that the Bnpire possessed one such territory which gave an example to its neighbors and which was a home of learning.

Not only would he desire to be a resident of that land, but he also would approve the suggestion that others visit it.^

16CR.UI. 716 ff. (June 2, 1539). l7CR.III. 523 f. (May 15, 1538). 129 Helanchthon was not motivated by some abstract ideas. He wrote

to Reibisch for a specific reason. He knew one person who wanted to

see Reibisch*s territory. The young man was George hmler, the protege

whose latinized name, Georgius Aemlllus, had raised parental objections.

But although rulers and their representatives played important

roles in Melanchthon1s search, they were still only the object of some

of his efforts. Just as significant were his own associates, those

peers and colleagues who could be called "good friends" and humanists.

He called upon them as occasion arose and often with less hesitancy.

One of the more important individuals for whom he asked special

favors was Hieronymus Baumgartner, a humanist lawyer from Nurnberg.

Toward the end of March, 1531, Melanchthon wrote to Baumgartner for his

assistance in helping secure a stipend for George Grunerus. He was

forced, he said, to write again to him about the young man who was not

II only a citizen of Nurnberg but also someone whom Melanchthon had recom­

mended before in the hope of acquiring a stipend.

The first request was apparently not successful and the youth

wanted at that time to remind the patrician lawyer of his situation,

since the moment of decision was fast approaching. Melanchthon added

his own good word by indicating that one of the teachers, Chllianus

had highly recommended George's studies to him. Melanchthon assured

Baumgartner further that the instructor would not have gone to the

effort to do so unless he had really approved of the ability and behavior 18 of the boy. As strong as the candidate seemed, Melanchthon was himself

18CR.1I. 491 f. (March 1531). 130

capable of making an appeal which would have been difficult to Ignore.

Another of the same type of letter was written several years

later. Here, however, he pleaded In a far more personal manner to Baum­ gartner. The youth, Johann Sumerer, who then stood before him, was from It Nurnberg; he was sufficiently educated, but poor. The young man wanted one of the minor grants which he had heard would be available. It would be a worthy object of Baumgartner's humanity, Melanchthon con-

II I Q tlnued, to aid the youthful, poor, and studious citizen of Nurnberg.

Typical of a similar service which Melanchthon performed was his recommendation of a lecturer for Tubingen in 1537. Melanchthon who had been influential in the reformation of the university in 1535, had even provided it with its rector, Joachim Camerarius. Then when he learned that Tubingen needed a Hellenist, he had just the right man.

In October of 1537 he turned to Camerarius and suggested the name of

Mathew Garbltius whom he described as one who moved men to moderation-- as the Harp of Orpheus--and as one who sharpened the intellect.2® To strengthen his reconmendation for Garbitius, he not only wrote to the faculty as a body2* but also mentioned him frequently to his associates.22

One of the most startling indications not only of Melanchthon*s attempt to find placement for young men but also of his interest in building bridges, as well as the relationship between the bridges and

l9CR.II. 647 f. (April 18, 1533).

20CR.III. 419 ff. (October 11, 1537).

21CR.III. 421 f.

22CR.III. 456 f. (November 28, 1537). Ch« creation of a Melanchthonian Republic, was a letter from the Witten- berger humanist to a professor and apparent humanist who is otherwise unknown in Melanchthonian literature. In December, 1538, he wrote to a Doctor Bemfinger, saying that a dedication to the cause of learning befitted those who professed true virtue; yet by seeking and cultivat­ ing friendship, these men insured that their virtue would be fruitful at the same time. He denied that he was a stoic; he professed that he was motivated not by personal gain but by a desire to serve the public good. He was delighted, however, by Bemfinger*s benevolence and those men who were like him. Melanchthon wanted for this reason to associate himself with such men and desired to further the arts with their help. In order to do so he believed that these men should be raised to those positions in the Republic from which they could aid the study of letters by exercising their authority. Nothing but con­ certed action among the learned could be of significance in aiding the arts. He desired, therefore, to be remembered with favor by Bemfinger, whom he described as one gifted with the highest degree of wisdom and virtue.23 This introduction, like all the other examples, served as the means to call attention to a student, whose name was Andraeus.

Important as it is in itself, this example is one of the finest deaionstrations of the motivation underlying Melanchthon's activity.

He saw friendship among humanists as a natural event and as a moral obligation. This obligation carried with it the duty to work together;

23CR.III. 617 (December 1538) 132

the consensus eruditiorum about which he spoke was more than a passive

principle. Good men must transform their humanist sympathies into a

program of action, which alone would be of significance in aiding the

arts. This was overwhelmingly a humanist effort. Melanchthon pro­

vided an example, moreover, stating that he would associate himself

with other humanists and would aim to help them in rising to positions

In which they could aid education. His explicit conclusion was that,

like himself, Bemfinger was a humanist. The implied conclusion was

that Bemfinger ought to act like Melanchthon and assist others. This

was where Andraeus fitted into the picture.

Again Melanchthonian rhetoric sought not only to persuade and

move men by example but also to reason with men and bring them to a

course of action. Here it would serve immediately to place a student

and help to create a bond between German, or European, humanists;

remotely it sought to establish the conditions In church and state--

In society as a whole— which Melanchthon saw as ideal and which would

call the Melanchthonian Republic into existence.

The Importance of Melanchthon's tactics for students rests

ultimately in these few objectives. When Melanchthon sent students

into positions, whether as students, or as administrators, or as

teachers, he sent out and placed more than employees. Each was an

ambassador, who took not only a number of obligations toward the

teacher, but also a respect for him and a faith in the things which he believed and taught. An important part of that coomitment was cer­

tainly religious, since religion played an extremely Important role

in the inheritance which they received. As a consequence, the popular 133

understanding of Melanchthon was as a theologian--the author of the

Augsburg Confession and the Loci. But it was not everything which he

offered and gave. He was known to his generation and later generations

as a humanist. And that carried with it an entirely new dimension to

the man's character, his Ideals, and his vision of the world.

As the latin would have it, he was a "good man," he spent his

life educating and training "good men." His colleagues— the men with

whom he was closely associated— were "good men." He cultivated friend­

ships with "good men" and sought to place "good men" where they could more effectively do what he was doing. And he wanted a world governed

by "good men"— so that there could be a "good" world.

This was the other Melanchthon; these were his aims and his

hopes. And those with whom he worked and for whom he worked were doubt­

lessly affected by it. It is difficult to imagine that his students were untouched by the attitudes which he professed to the Reiffenstein children or the notions which he communicated in his letters. His students were his emissaries and he knew it.

There were other aspects to Melanchthon1s activity, which are important in understanding his objectives. Those features relate to the difficulties which he faced in attempting to make placements. There were many problems which he had to tackle in his work. And he attempted to solve them all.

The impression one receives from a letter to Mycenlus In June,

1531, is that one of the difficulties was finding suitable men to fill the positions which were available. He told Mycenlus, for example, that he had written to the senate of the letter's city, asking that 134

they relate the terms of a scholarship which they had evidently offered.

He could not, however, promise very much then and could only send a

capable student when he knew exactly what was being offered. If the

council would offer a defined amount of money, he would then recomnend

a certain Christopher who had been mentioned to them in a previous

letter. After speaking somewhat about Christopher, he felt It neces-

sary to tell Mycenlus how difficult it was to find able men who were 24 capable of being employed in public positions.

In saying this Helanchthon was addressing himself not merely

to the last mentioned problem--the difficulty in finding acceptable candidates for public stipends--but also to the lack of confidence or a hesitancy which existed with some authorities. Addressing himself

to this problem, he went on to say that he would never send to tfycenius anyone whom he thought would not be within the letter's capacity to control. With this in mind, the remark about not being able to find suitable men was, or at least appeared to be, a warning that Mycenlus should not be fussy or slow in accepting his recommendation.

Examples of this persuasiveness were common in Melanchthon’s letters and, interestingly enough, were often found in letters to his fellow Lutheran colleagues— as opposed to non-Lutheran humanists.

Therefore, it would indicate that Melanchthon could not always offer students in response to a request or an actual need. Hence he had to make a strong plea. That seeswd to be the suggestion made in a letter

24CR.II. 506 f. (June 14, 1531); cf. CR.III. 599 f. (October 30, 1538).

25Ibid. to Erhard Schnepf, an Important South German reformer, in April, 1535.

At the opening of the letter he was forced to face the problem stating

that If It were possible, he would prefer to recoomend no one to Schnepf

In order not to bother him. But occasionally, he continued, necessity

forced him to do this. Melanchthon would avoid, at all costs, sending 26 bad and unruly people.

One might aslc himself what these conditions would be? Certainly

the best circumstances were those in which there was a need for a candi­

date and a corresponding person who wanted placement. That Is to say

that Melanchthon would not have to ask a favor or force a placement where one did not exist. It was preferable when someone asked for a

candidate and Melanchthon merely had to fill a request.

However, that is what Melanchthon had in mind when he said

necessity sometimes demanded his trying to find an opening. One instance

could be that a student finished his studies and was ready to move on;

another could be that Melanchthon was too busy to handle those who came to him. There are a number of events which suggest these possibilities.

An occasional visit of the plague to Wittenberg, for example, was not unknown in the fourth decade. That meant that the university had to be relocated or practically disbanded. This would provoke a certain necessity. There were, at the same time, Melanchthon1s public duties which kept him from giving some students the care they had hoped to receive. A letter to Camerarius made the suggestion that he had to send people away from his domestic school because of public business.

26CR.II. 870 f. (April 25, 1535). 136

EvenCuallyt this caused him to disband the Schola Private^?

There were also times when false hopes gave way to disappoint­ ments for these young men. Melanchthon reported to Camerarius In 1533 that one Mlcyllus had gone to Heidelberg according to his teacher's wishes. There he was well received by the humanist's friends and was led to believe he had a future there. But, when, after a brief stay, he requested a scholarship, someone prevented Its being given. That left him stranded and still looking for a place to settle. He then went to Frankfurt where he apparently received new hope regarding

It Heidelberg. By that time, Melanchthon preferred seeing him In Nurnberg with Camerarius and expressed his conviction that Micyllus preferred that city and its scholarly community to all the other schools. To

Interest Camerarius further, he pointed out that the young man had even been invited to Marburg.28

Melanchthon often had to give advice to his proteges. One difficulty which touched upon his efforts in placing them had to do with Job movers. In 1534, for instance, he wrote a letter to Justus

Goblerus, who must have asked for assistance in getting another posi­ tion. Melanchthon advised him to stay where he was.

The reasons behind his advice suggested a complimentary problem.

Whereas, in a 1531 example, Melanchthon complained that it was difficult to find good men for good positions, in 1534 he complained to Goblerus that it was hard to find employment. To what extent his words actually reflected conditions or to what extent they were written for this

27CR.II. 639 f. (March 15, 1533). 28CR.II. 629 f. (February 9, 1533). 137

particular student or to what extent they were intended to support his 29 advice, is difficult to determine.

Finally, there were people who, Melanchthon feared, would abuse

his reputation with his friends and take advantage of his colleague's

respect for him. In June, 1533, Melanchthon appeared to have suffered

a rude awakening from one of his students. The man left Wittenberg

and Melanchthon felt compelled to write to Camerarius informing him

that a certain Italian would probably go to Nurnberg. This man once

had been a monk and had received full hospitality from the Praeceptor

for a period of two years and had then gone begging under the cloak of

his education. If he went to Nurnberg, Melanchthon continued, he did

not want Camerarius to receive him into his house or assist him, for

he was an ingrate, crabby, an impostor, and unruly. This example,

rare as it was in the ten years under discussion, takes us full circle

in our brief observation of this second tactic— the placement of stu- dents--in the diplomacy of humanism.

The students were Melanchthon's men; they were his representa­ tives. He gave time and effort to building this diplomatic service which took him in a more tangible form to courts, chanceries, and lecture halls. That was precisely what he wanted to do, as expressed in the letter to Bemfinger, and in his actions with kings, queens, regents, magistrates, of various orders, and his fellow humanists.

It is iamaterlal, however, whether or not Melanchthon was

29CR.II. 803 f. (1534)

^CR.II. 652 f. (June 1533) 138 successful. It has been pointed out that for our purposes Helanchthon'c

success was of secondary importance. Yet some measure of his success

may be observed in several considerations. The first was that he

continued to try. With no evidence of rebuff, which would certainly

have earned notice, we may conclude that he achieved a degree of

success In placements.

The very notion that Melanchthon was as active as described—

as well as the fact that he was effective— may be noticed in the atti­

tude of one of his chief opponents, Cochlaeus. The latter was obsessed with Helanchthon1s students whom he believed were actively working to further the influence and ideas of their Instructor. Kawerau, in his study of the Roman Church's attempt to rewln the Wittenberg theologian quotes a letter from Cochlaeus* own insight but also supported the

Important evaluation of such placements. Despite its partisan tone and Intent, the letter contained an essence of truth.

Take care, he warned his correspondent, because Helanchthon would like to sneak into the bishop's circle of friends. He would do this through one of his students and under the mantle of piety. He would try to smuggle his Lutheranism Into his territory. That was,

Cochlaeus explained, just what he had done the year before when he had won over the Scotsman Alesius, in whose name Melanchthon wrote a very flattering letter to the King of Scotland, attacking the bishops of that country. Beware also, he warned, that this fox does not sneak up from behind; for Melanchthon gains men's ears by his sweet flattery, as the Sirens normally did. Do not believe him, when he says or when he writes that he does not like everything Luther teaches for he would use any possible method and any possible trick to spread his

Lutheranism into foreign countries.

"^Vid. Kawerau, pp. 22-23. CHAPTER 6

THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE SCHOOLS

The importance which the schools— or education as a whole--

held in Melanchthon*s thinking has been discussed. His Interests in

the schools gave birth to a new attitude toward education. The problems of his generation could be traced to the condition of its

educational institutions. He believed that a reform of Church or

state had its origins in the attention which reformers like himself gave to the fundamental process of education. He often spoke of handling the problems of the church in terms such as "planting the reformation" by which he meant teaching it in the schools. Accord­ ing to Melanchthon, this was the only true, and effective, and lasting kind of change which he and his generation could engage in.

It is particularly striking that this is not an occasional

Interest or preoccupation of the Praeceptor. We have considered it only as it appeared within the confines of the fourth decade of the sixteenth century, an often neglected period of Melanchthon*s life.

The ideas which he expressed then found expression as early as his

Inauguration at Wittenberg. They continued throughout the twenties in several notable treatises. They became evident again in the next decade and continued to find the same expression in the next genera­ tion, the last third of his life. One could describe his attitudes

14o 141 toward the schools and their importance as a humanist fixation, as a constant and ever present factor in his vision and interpretation of the world and its problems.

This becomes so evident in reading Melanchthon's works that one could with some justification consider the elements found in them a kind of policy. It serves here as a humanist diplomacy.

Melanchthon was not isolated. He did not retire entirely to the world of ideas as much as he would have liked to retreat to the world of his bookB and studies. Although he would have enjoyed a leisured and peaceful existence away from the turmoil and debates which seemed to con­ sume much of his time and energy, he was very active in the real world around him. It was not often that he jumped into debates willingly; usually he was drawn into them because of his importance and position

In his adopted homeland, Saxony, or in the cause which he espoused.

This is noteworthy not only in evaluating the significance of what was described as policies and diplomacy, but also for the ideas themselves. This is so because they were constant elements in his thought and because he brought them naturally with him into the public arena. These attitudes or policies, therefore, had a good chance of finding some realisation in his own day. When considering that Melanch­

thon took advantage of the position he possessed, then these policies are Important in explaining certain developments in the sixteenth century which might otherwise be attributed to blind chance or to the process of historical change, Melanchthon was a man who possessed a vision and acted upon it. 142

The question which must be asked is whether the reform of educa­

tional institutions in the Bnpire of the sixteenth century would have

occurred as it did, or have taken the form it did, or have occurred as

soon as it did, or have possessed the consistent quality which it did,

if Melanchthon, in his role as reformer, had not acted as he did? One might assume it could be as one expected that Philip should spend a

considerable amount of his time making the ideals which he firmly be­

lieved to be a reality. A considerable number of accomplishments in

Just this one field— education--are evident.

His activities in behalf of education begin with his coming to

Wittenberg. His first achievements in the field of educational reform were motivated to some measure by family's need, and not just those of

the liberal arts. There are records, written by Melanchthon in 1524, which testify that he had difficult times in those years with his fin­ ances. To Spalatin he once complained that his income from lectures was not sufficient to keep him from going into debt in the future. This was the case despite severe domestic "belt tightening" economy, which had not allowed his wife to buy a dress in the four years they had been married.^ As a consequence of this situation, he felt compelled to

take young boys into his home and direct their education privately. This is the sometimes mentioned private schola of Melanchthon, It is signi­ ficant for a number of reasons.

Probably the most Important, as far as Melanchthon was concerned,

*Vid. Karl Hartfelder, Melanchthon als Praecentor Germanise. (Berlin: A. Hoffmann and Co., 1889), p. 492, to whom the background for this chapter is indebted. Cf, letter to Spalatin, CR.l. 696 (1524). 143 was that it was an attempt to lighten the financial burden, under which

he had lived. It la assumed that it met to some degree his objective

of providing a small source of Income, which he hoped eventually to

leave behind as an Inheritance for his children.

The second significance of the schola private was that it be­

came a living laboratory for the development of many of Melanchthon*s

educational methods at the primary level. For the small group of

students, whom he accepted, he wrote two small textbooks: the ♦ Enchiridion elementorum puerillum (Wittenberg, 1524), and the Instl-

tutlo puerilis llterarum (Wittenberg, 1524). These were respectively

introductions for beginners in the study of Latin and Greek. In

accepting the responsibility for their education, Melanchthon was forced

to consider such questions as methods and programs of studies. Within

the competence of his school were the secular and religious education of

the students, but also the responsibility for directing their discipline and entertainment. As far as his work in the next several years was con­ cerned, this private academy served as the testing ground from which

the visitation articles had their practical origins.

Finally, the private school was notable as a source for many of those relationships which were later Important in the creation of a diplomatic service. These young men received Melanchthon*s fullest support and in return were responsible for carrying his influence over the breadth of the Efctpire and Europe. According to Koch, these students

Included such names as Frans Burckhard, Professor at Wittenberg and later chancellor of electoral Saxony, who led the Lutheran delegation 144 to England In the thirties; Joachim Camerarius, Erasmus Ebner, both of whom went to Nurnberg; George Sabinus, the Praeceptor's future son-in- law; Joannes end Andreas Reiffenstein, whose father Wilhelm Relffen- stein was a Leipzig lawyer. These are a few of the more prominent names listed among the small but influential group of men who received 2 their primary education under Melanchthon1s tutorship.

The private school lasted a comparatively short period of time for the obligations which fell to Melanchthon in the third decade of the century— especie1ly after the Diet of Augsburg--placed serious strains on his time. In the first few years of that decade, certainly no later than 1534, Melanchthon was forced to drop this private instruc­ tion. Yet the experience, which he had gained in those ten years had a lasting effect throughout his public life.

He carried its lessons into the work of the visitation to which he had been commissioned by the Electors Frederick and John in the years after 1524. Instructed to determine the state of education in the

Thuringlan cities of Eisenach, Gotha, and Weimar, and to propose measures to correct the deficiencies, Melanchthon had by 1528 set standards and established policies in other investigations of the same nature. Out of these visitations came not only a program of reform but also the necessary positions for his personally preferred students.

As early as 1524 Melanchthon's interest in education, as well as his reputation as a reformer, began to show positive results.

^Ludvig Koch, Philip Melanchthons Schola Private (Gotha: Perthes, 1859), passim. 145

When in this year Luther was called by the city fathers of Eisleben

to aid them in the work of improving the schools of that city, Melanch­

thon and Johann Agricola were at his side. The latter and another

colleague were eventually to remain in what was to be a new school,

founded to replace the inadequate institution.

The school was entirely Melanchthonlan In its conception and

structure. It provided for three classes or grades of study, such as

was common in the traditional trivial school. The material for study

in the first class were the elements of vulgar or spoken Latin, the

prerequisites for further study in the Europe of that day. Erasmus1

Colloquies served their intended purpose at this level. This led to

/ a more comprehensive study of Latin grammar in the second of the

provided classes. Readings at this level included the epic works of

Virgil, as well as the dramas of Terence. At the last stage of their

studies, the students of the trivial school were Introduced to the

arts of dialectics and rhetoric. In exceptional cases, advanced studies

of the dements of Greek and Hebrew were provided.

The Inaugural ceremonies for the school at Eisleben provided

Melanchthon with the occasion to utter for the first time many of his

ideas about education and its value. Here were the origins of the use­

fulness of studies for the individual's service to both church and state.

Here, too, at the very start of the period in which the Peasants War was to rage, were found his considerations about the sources of Anabaptist excesses. They lay, he told his audience, in the Ignorance of the masses and In the failure of education in the contemporary world,3

3CR.XI. What Melanchthon had been responsible for at Eisleben was observed

by others In the Bnpire. Magdeburg's city council, for example, after

the Introduction of the Reformation in 1524, gave its attention to the

reorganization of the city's school and, naturally, they turned to Wit­

tenberg for assistance. That aid came from Melanchthon and Gasper

Crudger. The latter had in the several preceding years been a student

at Wittenberg. Melanchthon took him to Magdeburg as he had taken Agri-

cola to Eisleben— with the intention of having him aid him in the work of reform and then having him settle in the new community as director of a reformed institution or institutions. Cruciger stayed from 1525 through

1528, three important first years. Then he returned to Wittenberg as both castle preacher and instructor at the University. He lived through dif­ ficult years side by side with Melanchthon in the last half of the follow­ ing decade as a consequence of the so-called Cordatus-Cruciger Debate, which raised questions about the orthodoxy of these Wittenberg humanists.

Although the records of their Magdeburg program have been loot, most stu­ dents of Melanchthon have little doubt that the solutions which were worked out for that city and its school system reflected the structure that had been set up at Eisleben.

These primary schools did not account for the most influential and important part of Melanchthon's effort. They were only a start on the work of the thirties and would normally be lost in a lifetime spent working with the problems of higher education. They were, moreover, not his most lasting accomplishments. But they were vital at that moment. 147

They deomonstrate how Che Praeceptor was asked for advice regarding

educational reform. They point also to the real influence of Melanch­

thon. For with every request for aid or invitation to solve the

problems of a particular city or territory there followed the unques­

tionable hand and influence of the Wittenberger. This help came in

the form of teachers» whose strongest qualification was a letter of

recomnendatlon from Melanchthon. Then followed the textbooks which

Melanchthon had used in his private school.

Magdeburg and Eisleben were but two cities which expressed the

desire to meet the challenges of an area so Important to the lives of

their citizens. Nor were the trivial schools of these cities the only

forma of institutions below the University level which felt the strong

hand of the Melanchthonian vision.

The Numberger Upper School stands as one great monument to

Melanchthon's work in the twenties. Like the City Council of Magdeburg,

the Fathers of Ntlrnberg under lazarus Spangler's leadership had decided

to face the problems of the schools after the Reformation had been suc­

cessfully legislated in 1524. The Council called for Melanchthon to

come to Nurnberg to personally look Into the state of their schools and

construct and direct a reformed institution.

Melanchthon could not, however, accept the invitation. His sense

of loyalty to his elector prevented him from leaving Saxony and Witten­

berg to deal with problems in Nttrnberg. That did not mean that he

refused to help in restoring the arts to the city on the Fegnits. The

City Council had offered a considerable amount of money for the establish- 148

ment of a humanist school. When he declined the offer of the City

Fathers, he took that occasion to highly recotmend the services of

Eobanus Hessus, whom he maintained was better qualified and more

talented than himself. The Council accepted the recommendation and

ultimately acceded to his suggestions for filling the other three en­

visioned positions. Besides Eobanus Hessus, who had been in a desper­

ate financial situation at his previous post in Erfurt, there was

Joachim Camerarius, a colleague who perhaps stood closer to the Prae-

ceptor than any other individual. The latter received the position

which had been intended for Melanchthon. Both he and Hessus were the

highest paid teachers, both receiving equal salaries. They were aided

by two other competent instructors: Michael Rotlng, a native of Suls-

feld, and Johann Schoner from Karlstadt.

The school, which opened in the Spring of 1526, was not, as in

the case of Eisleben or Magdeburg, an entirely new institution. There

had been a humanist secondary school in the city at the turn of the

century known as the poets' school, created by the humanist, Conrad

Celtls. Despite an apparent interest and need for such a facility,

the school did not thrive as everyone expected. Melanchthon*s efforts

were directed toward reviving the school through reform and through the

introduction of new blood as well as new and contemporary ideas. What was successfully recreated was an Institution which could continue the work of the city's Latin schools. Zt became a kind of preparatory school, aiding students in adjusting to the universities.

Melanchthon*s inability to serve the city permanently did not 149 prevent bln from travelling to the city to be present at the opening celebration. He arrived on May 6, 1526, and stayed for the solemn In­ auguration on May 23. At that time he delivered an opening address in the halls of the former Monastery of St, Aegldius. His talk was, as expected, an expression of his educational convictions* similar to the dedicatory epistles which he wrote in the thirties. He began by praising those subjects which, when properly learned, were the sources of "humanity" in the character of the educated man. This stood in opposition to the barbarism which surrounded contemporaries. This service to civilisation

In Numberg deserved the greatest admiration, he continued* He had naturally sufficient evidence for what he was saying in the Anabaptist experience of the past year. Numberg had seen enough unrest In Its environs to make this a well taken point. The Anabaptist preachers, he reminded them, had attacked the schools and had encouraged poor attend­ ance. Numberg had accepted the responsibility for educating its young, although primary responsibility for the arts rested with princes and kings. It deserved recognition as a home of the arts, Just as did the

Florence of the Medici's. Paraphrasing the words of Cicero that law was silent under the influence of weapons, he admonished his audience that these arts, which they had planted at a sacrifice, would not flourish where there was not also peace. Carrying his adoption of

Cicero one step further, he declared that only where the arts were main­ tained would both religion and law find their proper expression.4

As important as his activities in the abovementioned cities were,

4CR.XI. 106 ff 1 5 0

Melanchthon was not remembered in his generation for his work with primary and secondary schools. These were only a beginning. When one considers the title Praeceptor Germanise, these efforts are. of course,

Included; the student of Melanchthon, however, thought first about his reform of higher education at the university level. One would expect vith Justification that Wittenberg would be the most likely target for

Melanchthon*s reform efforts. Yet one does not often think of the home and the source of the Reformation as an Institution in need of reform.

Contrary to what one might think, Wittenberg was in great need of help.

When the University was founded in 1502 by the Elector Frederick, it had features and qualities of a contemporary small college. It was very traditional. In the sixteenth century that signified submissiveness to the ecclesiastical authority at Rome, where the right to grant degrees originated. Like small institutions today, there reigned a peace and quiet which even larger schools in the sixteenth century did not possess*

One need only read about the common conflicts that broke out between the traditional scholastics and the then modern humanists in most big schools.

Even with the appearance of Luther and the Ecclesiastical Reforma­ tion, only the theological faculty showed a noticeable change. We are told, for example, that unless an Instructor in the school lectured on the Bible and Fathers, he would not have any auditors. In the arts faculty, on the other hand, business seemed to have gone as usual In the first few years. It was not that everyone was content with the program offered or the Instructors who were available. Melanchthon was one indivi­ dual who complained that his faculty did not meet standards which he would 151 prefer. Much of the staff did not offer courses as they were expected to*

It was here as much as at any other point in his career that he realised that the fate of theology was eventually determined by the arts.

As early as 1520 Melanchthon had given thought to a program of reform for the Arts Faculty at Wittenberg* The depth of thought which he gave to the question is demonstrated by the extent of his program which not only called for an expansion of the course offerings, but also suggested which men could best carry out the duties needed for them.

The expansion was called for a faculty of twelve instructors who would offer lectures in Hebrew, Greek, Aristotle's Dialectics, his Philosophy, and philosophical psychology, the rhetoric of Cicero, the works of Virgil, a combined lecture over Cicero's and Quintilian's works, the Roman historians, Latin granmtar, Pliny, and finally mathematics. Besides these areas he envisioned two teachers who could handle a tutorial program.

For any number of reasons, Melanchthon's suggestions were not at first accepted. Introducing it would naturally bring a host of problems, especially when there already were men on the faculty who had their comfortable positions in the system. That did not prevent the

Elector at least from taking notice of the inadequacies which existed.

One record for 1502 showed that Frederick warned the members that he expected them to fulfill their obligation to him and the university.

That meant holding lectures as they were expected.

The transformation and dissolution of the monastic communities at Wittenberg probably did not help stabilise and improve conditions at the school. In the years after 1520, for example, enrollment at the university fell sharply. This, more than any other factor, explained why Melanchthon's suggestions for reform were not accepted by the Elector an Investment of considerable amounts of money for an expanded program did not seem at all necessary. At the same time the Peasants Her (1524)

distracted the prince from Wittenberg but also threatened the very

existence of the institution.

Wittenberg's problem was one of means. There was simply not enough money. It had very few revenues of its own. The salaries of the

Professors as well as the grants to support needy students came from the prince himself. There were, however, other sources of Income. One of

these was those salaries attached to the Churches. Casper Cruciser. for example, returned to Wittenberg In 1528 as preacher for the Castle Church

Supported by his office, he had obligations at the university that were associated with the position. Other professors before the transformation of the universities were members of religious orders and were supported by the various monies and the revenues from them. The double function expected of men in different positions can also be seen in Justus Jonas who. in 1521. was named Probst in Wittenberg. With the duties went the obligation to teach canon law; but when Jonas refused to teach canon law. he was forced to hire a lecturer and pay for him from his income to fill the gap in the Faculty of Law School. Still the chief source of support cane directly from the Elector.

The first change in the structure of the Arts faculty came in

1525. after the Peasants War and the death of Frederick the Wise. The new Elector, with wham Melanchthon got along with very well, was con­ vinced that the school needed immediate and substantial aid. Be. 153

therefore, raised the salaries of the entire staff. Melanchthon who

stood at the heel of his colleagues received double his previous in­

come. But although the new scale gave increased amount of money In all areas, they were miserly compared to the pay received in Hurnberg by

the new teachers at the secondary school in the following year. In only

the case of Melanchthon did the money received by the Wittenberg teachers

surpass that received by Camerarius, Hess, Schoner, or Roting.

The origin of a reformation of the entire university as Melanch­

thon envisioned it is found in the years that followed. The new elector called Melanchthon to suggest the necessary steps in reforming his academy. The process was slow and it took a full decade before an entire transition could take place. In 1536 the plan which Melanchthon had worked out sixteen years before was finally adopted. By 1539 the Prae- ceptor could write to the Elector John Frederick that things were good in the Arts Faculty.

Wittenberg was for Melanchthon, however, something special. In the things he did and in the way he acted he remained his own agent. He was associated with the university; he lived at it; and he considered his obligation to Wittenberg to be his most binding obligation. In the academies in whose transition he played a very important role, this was not true. He naturally had an obligation to give those who requested his aid exactly what they desired. But it was a very different rela­ tionship. They were not the same type of loyalties--at least those which were strong enough to overcome the bond to Wittenberg.

This is merely to say that Melanchthoncould not be present in the same way as he was at his own university. But since the Bumsnlats's 154

obligations remained the same, he was forced to act through others, who

played the part of Melanchthon's ambassadors. Nowhere was this humanist

aspirancy demonstrated better than In the way in which Melanchthon

sought the aid of and used those closest to him in the creation of a

new republic.

One of the most celebrated instances of this Is found in the events

surrounding the Reformation in Tubingen. In 1534, when after a decade of

struggle over the Duchy of Wurttemberg, its **jke Ulrich, who had been

driven from the seat of his authority returned to power, the Reformation was finally and effectively introduced into that important section of

South Germany.^ Part of the process of religious transformation involved the reorganization of the university at Tubingen, where Melanchthon had studies and taught between the years 1512 and 1518. The Duke appointed, at first, Ambrosius Blaurer and Simon Grynius, both of whom were frequent correspondents of the Praeceptor. Whether they were entirely responsible for the suggestion, or whether they simply supported it, the Duke decided to ask Melanchthon if he would come to Tubingen and personally direct the business of transition.

The invitation apparently went out in the first half of September,

1534. The Wittenberger, in a letter to Camerarius, reported its arrival.

It was written in the name of the prince and was written personally by the Chancellor and Erhard Schnepf. He related further that he responded politely and expressed his belief that they would write again. He called

^Treaty of Kadan, 1534 155

It, moreover, a great cause and assured Camerarius that he would do nothing without first telling him personally and without his council.^

Melanchthon was right, of course. There were other letters which mentioned the Duke's request that Melanchthon return to 9wabla.

The fact that this was his homeland was one point that the Duke often stressed. And it was doubtedly one which hie friend often mentioned.

It was not lost on Melanchthon who, throughout his life, retained a love and emotional attachment for the territory in which he was born.

We can sense this in the above-mentioned letter to Camerarius when he spoke not of the Duke calling him to WuVttemberg, but of his recalling him to his fatherland. There are other examples of this nostalgia for his homeland. Here, however, they served only to demonstrate what an attractive offer the invitation was.

The most interesting of this series of letters which mentioned the Duke's wish was one from a Heinz von Luther. It was written to

Melanchthon on October 27, 1534. The author attempted to convince and persuade Melanchthon to accept the offer. Of the five reasons given in support of the Duke's request, the last is of special note. The author thought not merely in terms of what the Praeceptor's call meant for Tubingen. He had in mind the university's special role and posi­ tion. What was at stake in Melanchthon's coming was something greater than the school itself. All of upper Germany would follow Tubingen after its successful reformation. That was particularly the case of the schools. And when the schools of South Germany had the necessary

6CR.II. 785 f. (September 13, 1534). 1 5 6

direction they would be capable of meeting the challenge of such

tl problems as those of the sectarians. Tubingen could become for South

Germany what Wittenberg was for Saxony and the northern part of the

Empire. In serving ifibingen he would be transforming upper Germany,

and ultimately the Empire, by being able to provide that territory's

needs in preachers and teachers.7

It is hard to believe that this appeal could have had little

meaning for Melanchthon. It was precisely the kind of thinking that

closely touched the interests of the humanist Republic. It meant

service to the Republic, the transformation of the south; it meant

the reform of universities; and it meant positions for good men.

Melanchthon's problem in accepting the offer was the same as

it had always been. He had obligations at Wittenberg and a sense of

duty and obligation to the prince. He dutifully placed the decision regarding his acceptance in the hands of the prince as customary. His report to Camerarius that he never intended to accept the invitation8

is basically unconvincing for this reason. For the prince had already rejected the plans for a trip to Tubingen and Melanchthon*s personal

O aid in reforming that institution. If he had had no intention to go, he would never have submitted the request. His remarks to Camerarius were then an adjustment of his own will to that of his prince.

7CR.II. 794 ff. (October 27, 1534).

8CR.II. 790 (September 29, 1534).

9CR.II. 799 f. (December 5, 1534). 157 Despite this, Melanchthon did not forget the needs of Tubingen.

In the beginning of 1535, he wrote to Simon Grynaceus with these needs in mind. He mused about their present troubles of the day and the meaning which the platonic ideal had for them. There seemed to be one remedy for the difficulties in public affairs, he said, namely, a return to that ancient and pure philosophy which inflamed the spirits of men with a love and desire for truth, which excited and aroused an understanding and admiration of the arts, and which produced good and moderate men, unlike those who fought against truth and true wis­ dom, who practiced cruelty against studious men, and who misused and inflamed public discord. Although these men were not influenced by

Plato's oracle, he continued, it was fitting that they devoted their attention to it in order to recall youth to those studies and in order to preserve those arts and to pass them on to their posterity. Their objective in so doing was to provide the republic with truly educated citisens who would be able and and who would want to heal the Republic's ills.10

Therefore, Melanchthon could not refuse to aid Tubingen, even though he could not go there personally. He had to turn to one of his closest friends and colleagues, Joachim Camerarius, who became in the years that followed a personal representative, a substitute Praeceptor

German!ae. who could act as Melanchthon would. He recoesttended strongly that Joachim switch from Numberg to the Swabian town. For Melanchthon,

10CR.II. 814-821 (January 1535). 158 Camerarius would be living in a public academy where his virtues and

wisdom would have a theater and where he would be able to govern the

finest efforts of the Republic.**

The humanist colleague accepted the new obligation which Mel­

anchthon had recommended to him. He are told he was prepared for a

change of scene from his duties in Nurnberg, where he had worked for

almost a decade, again as a Melanchthonian substitute. In August the

change of residence was made and the Praeceptor wrote his congratula­

tions and wished him the best of fortune in his homeland. There was

in this letter a trace of his own wish to be in Tubingen, not only to

be with his colleague but also to be away from Wittenberg where he felt 1 ? threatened in that period. “

In the spring of 1536, Ulrich of Wurttemberg again wrote to

Melanchthon. This time Melanchthon asked for a vacation and went, if

only because he wanted and needed Camerarius1 company and conversation.

In September he met the Duke at Nurtingen for an audience and reported

that the university was in good hands. Before he returned home with a

substantial gift from the Duke in appreciation of his efforts, he had

the opportunity to send out new calls for Tubingen. The careers of

Jacob Micyllus and Johann Brenz, the preacher of Schwabisch Hall, at

Tubingen, stem from Melanchthon's activity.

11CR.II. 881 f. (July 7, 1535).

^CR.II. 918 f* (August 31, 1535). Nunc audi de meia rebus. Hie annus fatalis est nostro ordini, ut video; acciplo enim et Mo rum (£homas More) Interfectum esse, et alios, ego quoque magno in periculo versor. His own danger arises from the opposition and suspicion of his proposed journey to France. 159

Long after he returned to Wittenberg, Melanchthon continued to

exercise strong Influence on the Swabian university. He helped to bridge

the differences of Lutherans and other evangelicals in the south of

Germany and provided peace with this conmunity. He was called again in

1537, as well as in 1545. And in 1538 Camerarius journeyed to Witten­ berg to consult with him. Aside from these obvious examples he con­

tinued to offer advice to Ulrich and reconmtend appointments to the academy.

The way in which Melanchthon exercised Influence at Tubingen had parallels in the reform of the University at Leipzig. This school had been fortunate throughout the first quarter of the sixteenth century

in having as its overlord Duke George of Saxony, a staunch defender of

the arts and a Maecenas for numerous humanists. His interests were re­ flected in his support and his carrying through of humanist reform programs for the institution in 1519. That did not mean, however, that

George or his university were in favor of events at neighboring Witten­ berg. Until his death in 1539, both prince and school were the chief opponents of the Lutheran Reformation.

After 1539, however, with the accession of George's brother

Heinrich, this characteristic changed completely. The prince decided to carry through a religious reformation in the manner and style of

Wittenberg. He turned, naturally, to Melanchthon who was made chair- sun of a Reform Commission. And this gave the Praeceptor the occasion 13 to suggest a further reformation of the university.

13CR.I1I. 712 (May 28, 1539). We have in the Corpus Raformatorum the substance of his suggestion. 160

In Leipzig this meant driving the Catholic party out of the

Theological Faculty— or, as Melanchthon would have stated, the elimina­

tion of "monks and sophists.'* This was done by Issuing an order which

forbade all religious disputation, preaching, or lecturing against the

reformed doctrine. The next step was simple. When the opposition

objected, they were told to leave.

This enabled Melanchthon to make changes and recomendatlons

for new appointments to the university. His first candidates for new

or old positions included Amsdorf, Hess, Alexander Alesius, and

Ziegler, an instructor in Hebrew. The Incomes of existing professors

were raised, and a number of scholarships for poor but Interested

students of theology were established. He made no attempts to reorder

the other faculties— Law, Medicine, and the Arts.

The degree of success which Melanchthon achieved with this

first program In 1539 Is difficult to determine. We know, however,

that the Hebrew chair recamended by Melanchthon was filled by his

candidate and in the course of the following year he expressed his

pleasure that the ancient language was finally well taught in the

theological faculty. He made another series of proposals in 1540, many of which were the same as those made the year before, which would

lead us to conclude that the original program was not fully carried

through.

This second document called a second time for improving the condition of the teachers in the schools of Law and Medicine, along with a warning not to pay those who did not meet their commltmnts. 1 61

To deal effectively with the perennial financial difficulties which

the universities shared, the Wittenberg humanist proposed that all of

the university's revenues be funnelled Into one account, rather than

be separately handled in each school; from this source all salaries

could be paid* This was more than an attempt to handle income effi­

ciently; he Intended thereby also to control the functions of the

instructors. He also reiterated his desire to see a series of scholar­

ships for needy theological students. He planned to provide for these

by assuming the revenues of the cloisters, a suggestion which carries

us back a number of years to the Concilium Gallls scripturn. He recom­

mended, moreover, the adding of another professor to the theological

faculty and the exercise conducting of disputations.

Indispensable in our consideration of this document of 1540

are the appointments which Melanchthon suggested for Lelpsig. Although

he took pains to express the pleasure which he had in looking at the

Arts faculty, he felt it necessary nonetheless to propose the appoint­

ment of an outsider whose experience would aid the work of the univer­

sity. This individual was Joachim Camerarius, who apparently had an

interesting way of appearing wherever Melanchthon set his hand to reform.

In addition, he suggested the calling of Micyllus, Sturm, and finally

Borner, a mathematician.

The Camerarius appointment proved to be of some importance and

a master stroke of Melanchthon1 s diplomacy. Through Camerarius and the

intimate personal friendship which the two humanists showed, Melanchthon managed to tie Wittenberg and Leipzig together by a special bond and 1 6 2

guaranteed the success of the Reformation, for Camerarius exercised the

influence of a rector and a first among peers for the remainder of his

life. Melanchthon continued playing his role as chief adviser to the

University. Be was at the head of the board which selected the students

to receive scholarships and was a regular visitor at the awarding of

doctoral degrees.

In his work with other universities, Melanchthon was aided in

two notable cases by his son-In*law, George Sabinus. The first instance

was when this former student represented Melanchthon and the Interests

of a Melanchthonian Republic in the transformation of the University of

Frankfurt on the Oder which, like Wittenberg, was a relatively young

institution. Founded in 1506 by the humanistically inclined Joachim

von Brandenburg, it stood with Leiprig against the events of Wittenberg

and was one of the chief opponents of Lutheranism. When the leadership

of the territory passed from Joachim I to Joachim II in 1535, the reIf*

gious situation also changed.

One of the first steps in the Reformation was the reform of the

University. IWo years after the start of his reign, Joachim II called

Melanchthon for advice in making the university more effective. Melanch­

thon obliged by giving strict attention to assigning competent teachers and adopting a new curriculum in an attempt to give new blood and new life to a stagnating institution.

It should be no surprise, therefore, when we find him sending

George Sabinus to Frankfurt in 1538. A former resident of Brandenburg, he made an excellent candidate for the role which Melanchthon had grown 163

accustomed to using--a personal representative. George, who was an

Important member of his family, was a logical and convenient selection.

When, for example, Sabinus solemnly started his lectures and began his

services at the University, the speech which he delivered was a purely

Melanchthonian address for Melanchthon had written it.^

Melanchthon's influence, once introduced in 1537 and represented

by Sabinus in 1538, remained until his death, even after Sabinus was moved to another position. His son-in-law was replaced by an often mentioned Melanchthonian, Alexander Aleslus*

A fourth University, which owed its revitalisation in the thirties

to the application of Melanchthonian measures, was Rostock. Somewhat older than Wittenberg, it had, like Frankfurt on the Oder, experienced a period of decline in the first quarter of the century. Its problems seemed similar to those of many other universities and stenmed from a lack of vitality, as well as from the shortage of funds. The situation at Rostock was complicated by serious conflict of the university with the town. Attacks on its privileges by the city council contributed greatly to its state of decline.

^CR.XI. 364. De utilitate studiorum eloquentiae (1538).

l^As early as January, 1532, Melanchthon took up the condition of the institution with its duke. In a letter in which he thanks the prince for a gift of money, Melanchthon promises him that he will consult George Sabinus to the solving of the school's problems. He adds his earnest hope that Christ will govern the councils of the prince and look favorably upon the restoration of the school at Rostock; there he would himself hope to find a place, away from the obligations which troubled him. CR.II. 566 f. (January 1532). 164

It was during this period of decline that the Melanchthonian

Arnold Burenlus arrived in Rostock. He was so amazed by the conditions of the university that he felt it necessary to hold private lectures on his own. In conjunction with these efforts, he established a strict

system of discipline for the students of the Collegium Aqullae, a resident comnunity of students. Since his actions were criticized, he was forced to publish a treatise,^ a defense of the discipline which he had introduced and imposed on the students of the Collegium. Some historians believe that Melanchthon himself wrote the apology, the De discipline Rostochiensis. Be that as it may, we find here another ex­ pression of the Praeceptor's doctrine which he called "the difficulty of

studies." This was, as he expressed it to the Reiffenstein boys, the notion that the Arts had a direct bearing on the formation of character as well as on the service which the student eventually rendered to church and the state. One finds in the Collegium Aquilae an expression of this

train of thought and a significant measure of the Praeceptor's efficiency

and of his influence as a reformer.

There were other contributions which Melanchthon made at Rostock.

He encouraged and saw carried into effect a reorganization of the student

body by creating various levels of study. We find, moreover, the expected number of Melanchthon's students in the various faculties. Among those who may be referred to as Melanchthonlans in the following years after

the Reformation are Aurifaber, Hesshusius, Caselius, and David Chrytaeus.

^CR.XII. 161. De Disclplina Rostochlense contra svphocantes et columnlatores malevolos. 165

There Is finally one other institution with which Melanchthon was closely associated in the 1530's, Marburg, the first university

founded by Protestants. He was a direct influence on the introduction of the Reformation in Hesse, a consequence of an unexpected meeting between the prince, Philip of Hesse, and Melanchthon in 1524. TWo years later as part of the transformation of the ecclesiastical life of that territory, Marburg was established. The recemendations of the Hamburg Church Order (1526) which Melanchthon inspired to deal with the new university were enthusiastically accepted. As a conse­ quence one can count eleven professors meeting in 1524 for the formal

Inauguration of the new school. The curricula closely resembled the

Wittenberg Reform Program of 1524 which was actually enacted much later in 1536, in Saxony; although it was developed by Melanchthon for

Wittenberg, it was first applied at Marburg. Here as in other cases, the Influence of the Praeceptor can be demonstrated by a number of close friends and students who found teaching positions within its halls.

J. Ferrarius, Adam Crato, and Eobanus Hessus are some of the most notable.

The work which Melanchthon did at these schools does not exhaust the extent of his influence over the course of his lifetime. By restrict­ ing our discussion to the fourth decade, we have excluded his contribution to Heidelberg, Konlgsberg, and Jena, all of which were greatly effected by his attitudes toward education and his work In the decade following the Augsburg Confession.

Tet the examples given do demonstrate a humanist diplomacy which had a tremendous effect on the schools to which it was applied. What we have seen has been the diplomacy of humanism at work to create a new and better world— a Melanchthonian Republic— where reformation would hardly be necessary to the extent to which it was necessary in the Reformer's generation. A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. BIbliographles

Fraenkel, Peter. "Melanchthon Jubilarla: II. “In: Bibllotheque d 1Humanlsme et Renaissance. XXVI.I (1964), 191-241.

. and Greschat, Martin. Zwanzig Jahre Melanchthon Studlum. 6 Literatur Berichte H1945-19653. Vol. 93 of Travaux d 1 human! sme et Renaissance. Geneve: Droz, 1967.

Hasnier, Wilhelm. Die Melanehthonforschung im Wandel der Jahrhunderte. Ein beschreibendes Verzeichnis. 2 Vols. [Guetersloftl : G. Mohn. 1967-1968. (-Quellen und Forschung zur Reforma tlonsgeschichte. Vols. 35, 36)

Schottenloher, Karl. Bibliographic zur deutschen Geschlchte 1m Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung. 1517-1585. Stuttgart: Hiersetnann, 1933(1956)-1966.

II. Melanchthon1 s Work

Hausleiter, Johannes, ed. Melanchthon Kompendlum. Eine unbekannte Saim lung ethischer. politischer und philosophlacher Lehr~ saetze Melanchthons in Luthers Werke. Greifswald: Julius Abel, 1902.

Bretschneider, C.G. and Bindseil, H.E., eds. Philippi Melanchthonls opera quae supersunt omnia. Vols. 1-28 of the Corpus Reforma- torurn. Halle and Braunsweig: C. A. Schwetschke, 1834-1860.

Engelland, Hans, et al., eds. Werke in Auswahl. Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1951-1965.

Hill, Charles Leander, ed. and trans. Selected Writings. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1962.

Melanchthon Kommission. Supplementa Melanchthoniana. Werke Melanchthonls die 1m Corpus Reformatorum vermlsst worden. Leipzig: Verein fUr Reformatlonsgeschichte, 1910-1925.

Stupperich, Robert, ed. Der Unbekannte Melanchthon. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1961.

167 1 6 8 III. Other Sources

Erasmus, Desiderius. Opus Episolarum Des. Erasntl Roterodaml. 12 Vols. P. S. Allen, ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1947.

Luther, Martin. Dr. Mart. Luthers Brlefe. Sendschreiben und Bedenken. W. M. L. Wette, ed. 5 Vols. Berlin, 1825-1828.

IV. Melanchthon Biographies

Ellinger, Georg. Philipp Melanchthon. Ein Lebensbild. Berlin: R. Gartners, 1902.

Kodiman, Willem Jan. Phillppus Melanchthon. Amsterdam: Uitgeverlj W ten Have, 1963.

Ledderhose, Karl Friedrich. Philip Melanchthon nach aussern und innern Leben. Heidelberg: Karl Winter, 1847.

Manschreck, Clyde Leonard. Melanchthon. The Quiet Reformer. New York: Abingdon, 1958.

Richard, James William. Philip Melanchthon: The Protestant Praeceptor of Germany (1497-1560). Heroes of the Reformation. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1898 Q190Q *

Schmidt, Karl. Philip Melanchthon. Leben und ausgewahlte Schrlften. Vol. 3 of Leben und ausgewHhlte Schrlften der Vtfter und begrunder der lutherlschen Klrche. Elberfeld: R. L. Friderichs, 1861.

Stupperlch, Robert. Melanchthon. Berlin: Gruyter, 1960.

V. Specialised Studies and Aids

Augustin, C. De Godsdlenstgespreckken tussen Rooms-Kathoilken en Protestanten van 1538 tot 1541. Haarlem: Bohn, 1967.

Blatter, August. Die tMtlgkeit Melanchthons bei den Unions- versuch. 1539-1541. Bern: Genossenschafts-Buchdruckerei, 1899. (T)iss. Bern, 1898)

Caserta, Nello. Filippo Melantone (Dali1 Omanismo alhRlforma). Roma: Edislone Ita, 1960.

Chrlstmann, Curt. Melanchthons Haltung lm schmalkaldlschen Krleg. Vol. 31 of Historlsche Studien. Berlin: E. Eberlng, 1902. 169 Cohrs, Ferdinand. Philipp Melanchthon. Deutschlands Lehrer. Ein Beitrag zur Feler des 16. Februar 1897. Halle: Vereln fUr Reformationsgeschichte, 1897.

Fraenkel, Peter. Testimonium Patrum; the Function of Patristic Argument in the Theology of Philip Melanchthon. Vol. 46 of Travaux d 1Human!sme et Renaissance. Geneva: E. Droz, 1961. (“Theol. Dias. Lund)

Greachat, Martin. Melanchthon neben Luther. Studien zur Gestalt der Rechfertigungslehre zwischen 1528 und 1537. Vol. 1 of Untersuchungen zur Kirchengeschlchte. Witten: Luther Verlag, 1965. (“Theol. Diss. Munster)

Hartfelder, Karl. Melanchthon als Fraeceptor Germaniae. Vol. of Monumenta Germanicae Paedigoglae. Berlin: A. Hoffmann, 1889.

Hildebrandt, Franz. Melanchthon: Allen or Ally? Caaritrldge: University Press, 1946.

Jungk, Wilhelm Theodor. Philipp Melanchthon. sein Leben und Wirken. Zur Feier seines 400. Jaehrlgen Geburtstages den evangellschen Christen dargeboten. St. Louis, Mo.: Eden Publishing House, 1897.

Kawerau, Gustav. Die Versuche. Melanchthon zur katholischen Kirche zuruckzufuhren. Vol. 73 of Schrlften des Vereins fur t Reformatlonsgeschlchte. Halle: Verein f^rReformations- geschichte, 1902.

Koch, Ludwig. Philipp Melanchthons Schola Private. Ein historische Beitrag. Gotha: F.A. Perthes, 1859.

Koeltzsch, Franz. Melanchthons Philosophischen Ethik. Freiburg: Gerlach, 1897. (*0183. Leipzig)

Kunze, Johannes. Die Rechtfertigungslehre in der Apologle. Vol. 12, no. 5 of Beitrage zur Forderung chrlstlicher Theologie. Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann.

Lackmann, Max. The Augsburg Confession and Catholic Unity. New York: Herder, 1963.

Lentz, Harold Herbert. Reformation Crossroads: A Comparison of the Theology of Luther and Melanchthon. Minneapolis: Augusburg, Q.95Q.

Mentz, Georg. Johann Friedrich der GrosBmutjge. 1503-1554. 4 Vols. Beitrage zur neureren Geschichte Thuringens. Jena: Gustav Fischer. 1903. 1 7 0

Plitt, Gustav Leopold. Die Apologie der Augustana geschichtlich erklart .... Erlangen: Andreas Delchert, 1S73.

Sperl, Adolf. Melanchthon Zwlschen Humanlsmus und Reformation. Muenchen: G. Kaiser, 1959.

Steiger, Hugo. Das Melanchthongymnasium In HUrnberg (1526-1926; ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Humanisinus. Munchen: R. Oldenbourg, 1926 .

Stem, Leo. Luther und Philip Melanchthon. Ideologische Her- kunft und geschichtliche Leistung; eine Studle der materiel- len und geistigen TriebkrHft und Asswirkuneen der deutschen Reformation. Berlin: Roetten und Loening, Q95JJ.

. Philipp Melanchthon: Humanist. Reformer. Praeceptor Germaniae. Festgabe des Melanchthon-komltees der D.D.R. Halle, 1960.

Vols, Hans. Luthers schmalkaldische Artikel und Melanchthons Tractatus de Potestate Papae; ihre Geschichte von der Entstehung bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts. Gotha: Leopold Klotz, (1932 .

VI. Articles

Danz, Johann Traugott Leberecht. "tiber Melanchthons Consilium Gallia Scriptum" In: Zei^schrif^_fyr__die_Jii^toriache Theologie. 11 (1841) III. 80-94.

Elert, Werner. "Societas bel Melanchton." Sonderdruck aus der Festschrift fuer D. Ludvig Ihmels. N. PI: N. Pub, 1928.

______. "Zur Terminologle der Staatslehre Melanchthons und seiner Schuler ." In: Zeitschrlft fuer systematlsche Theologie 9(1932). 522-534.

Faulkner, J. A. "An Eminent Reformer through Erasmian." In: Review and Expositor. 27(1930) III. 335-348.

Fester, Richard. "Sleidan, Sablnus, Melanchthon." In; Hlstorische Zeitschrlft. n.f. 53(1902). 1-16.

Hagen, Karl. "Melanchthon als Politiker." In: Literarlsche hlstorische Taschenbush. 3(1845) 157-182.

Hartfelder, Karl. "Der Aberglaube Philip Melanchthons." In: Hlstorisches Taschenbuch. 6(1889) VIII. 231-269. 171

Hoffmann, Georg. "Luther und Melanchthon: Melanchtons Stellung In der Theologie des Luthertums." In: Zeitschrlft fur aystematlsche Theologie. 15(1938). 81-135.

Maier, Heinrich. "Melanchthon als Philosoph." In: Archly fur die Geschichte der Phllosophte. 10(1897). 437-477; 11(1898). 73-132, 212-245.

Mayer, Hellmuth. "Die Straftheorle bel Luther und Melanchthon." In: Rechtsidee und Staatsgedanke. Berlin, 1930. 77-105.

Mix, Gustave. "Luther und Melanchthon In lhrer gegenseitigen Beurteilung." In: Theologlsche Studten und Krltlken. 1901. 458-521.

Mueller, Gerhard. "Die kasseler Vereinbarung uber das Abendmahl von 1534:elne Autograph Melanchthons." In: Jahrbuch der hesslschen Kirchengeschlchllchen Verelnung. 18(1967). 125-136.

Pershing, B. H. "The Proposed Mission of Melanchthon to France." In: Church History. 3.(1934) I. 41-59.

Schwarz, J. C. "Melanchthon und seine Schuler als Ethiker." In: Theologlsche Studlen und Krltlken. 26(1853).7-45.

Sohm, Walter. "Die Sosiallehre Melanchthons." In: Hlstorische Zeitschrlft. Series 3, XIX (1915). 64-76.

Strobel, Georg Theodor. "Von Melanchthons Ruf nach Frankrelch." In: Neue Beltr&ge zur llterarlschen Beschreibung des 16. Jahrhunderts. 5(1794) 1.3-208.

Voss, Ernst. "Erasmus Roterodamus In his Relation to Luther and Melanchthon." In: Journal of English and Germanic Philology. 26(1927). 564-568.

Weber, Gottfried. "Grundlagen und Norman politlscher Ethlk bel Melanchthon." In: Theologlsche Ex stenz Heute. New Series 96(1962).

W.N. "Pourquoi Melanchton ne vint pas a Paris en 1535, d'apres un texte contemporaln inedit." In: Soclete de l*histolre du Protestantlsme francaise. Bulletin historlque et litteraire. 46(1897) 311-313. 172

VII. Collections of Essays and Addresses

Bornkaran, Heinrich, et al_. Philipp Melanchthon. 1560-1960. 1s-Gravenzande: Europa Buch rei, 1961.

. Philipp Melanchthon: zur 450. Wlederkehr seines Geburtstages. Luneburg: He Hand Verlag, Q 9 4 Q .

Elert, Werner. "Die Augustana und der Gedanke der chrlstlichen SolidaritatIn: Universltats-Reden. Erlangen, 1931.

Elllnger, Walter, ed. Philipp Melanchthon; Forschungsbeltraege zur vierhundertsten Wlederkehr seines Todestageg dargeboten in Wittenberg. 1960. Gtittingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Q 9 6 Q .

Seeberg, Reinhold. "Die Stellung Melanchthons in der Geschichte der Kirche und der Wissenschaft." Akademische Festrede zur Feler des vlerhundertjaringen Geburtstages Melanchthons. am 16. Februar 1897 an der konigllchen Universltat Erlangen.