The Presocratics and the Supernatural Andrew Gregory

- Downloadable PDF 2025

https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-presocratics-and-the-supernatural-
andrew-gregory/

Visit ebookfinal.com today to download the complete set of

ebooks or textbooks
Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Byron s Ghosts The Spectral the Spiritual and the

Supernatural 1st Edition Gavin Hopps

https://ebookfinal.com/download/byron-s-ghosts-the-spectral-the-
spiritual-and-the-supernatural-1st-edition-gavin-hopps/

History and the Supernatural in Medieval England 1st

Edition C. S. Watkins

https://ebookfinal.com/download/history-and-the-supernatural-in-
medieval-england-1st-edition-c-s-watkins/

The Haunting of Vancouver Island Supernatural Encounters

with the Other Side Shanon Sinn

https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-haunting-of-vancouver-island-
supernatural-encounters-with-the-other-side-shanon-sinn/

C S Lewis on the Final Frontier Science and the

Supernatural in the Space Trilogy First Edition Sanford
Schwartz
https://ebookfinal.com/download/c-s-lewis-on-the-final-frontier-
science-and-the-supernatural-in-the-space-trilogy-first-edition-
sanford-schwartz/
Euripides and The Instruction Of The Athenians 1st Edition
Justina Gregory

https://ebookfinal.com/download/euripides-and-the-instruction-of-the-
athenians-1st-edition-justina-gregory/

Drawing the Head and Hands Andrew Loomis

https://ebookfinal.com/download/drawing-the-head-and-hands-andrew-
loomis/

Consul of God The Life and Times of Gregory the Great

Jeffrey Richards

https://ebookfinal.com/download/consul-of-god-the-life-and-times-of-
gregory-the-great-jeffrey-richards/

The State and the Mass Media in Japan 1918 1945 Gregory J.
Kasza

https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-state-and-the-mass-media-in-
japan-1918-1945-gregory-j-kasza/

A Presocratics Reader Selected Fragments and Testimonia

Hackett Classics Second Edition,2 Edition Patricia Curd
(Editor)
https://ebookfinal.com/download/a-presocratics-reader-selected-
fragments-and-testimonia-hackett-classics-second-edition2-edition-
patricia-curd-editor/
The Presocratics and the Supernatural Andrew Gregory
Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Andrew Gregory
ISBN(s): 9781780932033, 1780932030
Edition: Paperback ed
File Details: PDF, 17.24 MB
Year: 2013
Language: english
The Presocratics and the Supernatural
The Presocratics and
the Supernatural

Magic, Philosophy and

Science in Early Greece

Andrew Gregory
 Bloomsbury Academic
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway

London New York
WC1B 3DP NY 10018
UK USA

www.bloomsbury.com

Bloomsbury is a registered trade mark of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published 2013

© Andrew Gregory, 2013

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or
any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the
publishers.

Andrew Gregory has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act,
1988, to be identified as Author of this work.

No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining

from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or
the author.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN: 978-1-4725-0416-6

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Typeset by Fakenham Prepress Solutions, Fakenham, Norfolk NR21 8NN

For Sheelagh, with love
 Contents

Abbreviations viii
Preface ix

1 Introduction 1
2 Plato and Aristotle 23
3 The Milesian Philosophers 43
4 The Hippocratic On the Sacred Disease 69
5 The Hippocratic On Regimen 85
6 Xenophanes and Others: More Natural Explanation 101
7 Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans 127
8 The Early Pythagoreans and Numerology 149
9 Empedocles 167
10 Leucippus and Democritus 185
11 Conclusion 199

Notes 207
Bibliography 249
Index Locorum 267
Index of Names 272
General Index 275
 Abbreviations

KRS G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven and M. Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, 2nd

edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

LSJ H. G. Liddle, R. Scott and R. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 9th edn, 1996.
 Preface

This book is about the supposed presocratic rejection of the supernatural. I say
supposed as the widespread view that a group of ancient Greek thinkers between the
sixth and fourth centuries bce rejected the supernatural has been subjected to consid-
erable recent criticism. This book is a contribution to that debate. As such it looks at
aspects of presocratic philosophy, religious belief and magical belief. It attempts to
treat the issues broadly, by going beyond the canon of presocratic philosophers to look
at some medical writers, historians and playwrights as well. This book makes no claim
to be comprehensive on these issues (such a work would be many volumes) but I do
hope to address the most important and interesting examples.
I have transliterated Greek terms, using circumflexes to mark long vowels (ê, ô)
to keep the book as accessible as possible for those with little or no Greek. All Greek
and Latin passages are translated and are my own translations except where otherwise
indicated.
I would like to thank everyone I have discussed aspects of this book with and to
audiences at the annual London Ancient Science Conference where I have presented
some of the material here. I would especially like to thank Simon Trepanier, Leonid
Zhmud and Phillip Horky who all sent me interesting material that they are working
on prior to publication.
I would also like to thank Deborah Blake who first commissioned the book for
Duckworth, as well as Charlotte Loveridge and Dhara Patel at Bloomsbury who have
been enormously helpful and efficient in getting this book to press. Finally I would like
to thank Bloomsbury’s anonymous referee who made many useful comments.
This book was written while I was on sabbatical leave from the Department of
Science and Technology Studies at University College London. I am grateful for
a small grant from the Department which paid for two postgraduates, Claudio
Ehrenfeld and Michael Coxhead, to compile the indices.
 1

Introduction

Behind its rather lurid title, what is this book about? It is possible to make a case
that the presocratic philosophers attacked and entirely rejected the idea of the super-
natural, believing what exists to be exclusively natural and that proper explanations of
phenomena should cite natural entities only. This is called presocratic naturalism. One
critique of this view is that the presocratic philosophers still believed in gods and the
divine, that they believed in the efficacy of magical practices and that they indulged
in animism, astrology, numerology, dream divination, magical healing and mysticism
in their explanations of the world. The aim of this book is to investigate how far these
criticisms are justified. It is common to find these criticisms made with the implication
that the alleged belief entails a commitment to the supernatural and so a belief in an
entirely natural world is compromised. It is rare to find this entailment spelled out in
any detail or to find any discussion of how to distinguish between the natural and the
supernatural, which we will look at later in this introduction.1

The critique
Some readers will be more familiar with the complete rejection of the supernatural
view for the presocratics, so let me say a little more to introduce the critique, which
will also introduce some of the main areas of contention for this book. The basic
assertion is that the presocratics did indeed believe in gods and various forms of
magic and that this undermines any attempt on our part to construct a narrative
of a rejection of the supernatural for this period. Historiographically, this has been
supported in several ways. Dodds, in his The Greeks and the Irrational,2 questioned
why we should consider the Greeks different to other ancient societies and assembled
impressive evidence of what he considered to be irrational beliefs among the Greeks.3
That we should not improperly privilege the Greeks has been an important theme
in this critique, with Pingree and von Staden coining the terms ‘Hellenophilia’ and
‘Hellenocentrism’ respectively in this context. Both have argued that evidence of
magical belief among the presocratics has been systematically underplayed,4 and
the idea that some historiographies have either marginalised or ignored religious or
2 The Presocratics and the Supernatural

magical belief among the presocratics is central to this critique.5 Jaeger commented
that religious belief is:
An aspect which has been unduly neglected or minimised by scholars of the
positivist school because in the early Greek philosophy of nature they saw their
own likeness.6
This issue of ‘seeing their own likeness’ has been applied to other historiographies,7
and one question is whether we have constructed a Greek rejection of the super-
natural because we would like to see the Greeks as forerunners of our own rejection
of the supernatural.8 Van der Eijk has argued that the persistence of the view that the
Hippocratics offered natural instead of supernatural explanations for disease is at least in
part due to institutional factors in the study of the ancient world, a point generalisable
to presocratic philosophers and their supposed rejection of the supernatural as well.9
Lloyd has argued that the Greek conception of nature is in itself problematic. We
must be wary of differences between Greek conceptions of phusis (usually translated
‘nature’)10 and our own conception of nature.11 There was never the Greek conception
anyway but many competing ones, all invented and not discovered, and as far as our
evidence shows, generated in a context of polemic.12 The polemical context might
cause us to wonder how much conceptions of nature and supposed rejections of the
supernatural were employed ad hominem rather than given as statements of principle.
An important point made by Lloyd concerns what has been preserved of the preso-
cratics’ views on nature, upon which much of the rejection of the supernatural case is
constructed.13 Were these views preserved because they were central concerns of the
presocratics, or because they were central concerns of the doxographers? Given that
much of the doxographical tradition on which we depend for information about the
presocratics is itself dependent on the Aristotle/Theophrastus project of constructing
a history of phusikôn doxai, ‘Opinions on Nature’, we have to be concerned about
what was and what was not selected to go into this work, and why.14 If what has
been preserved reflects the doxographers rather than the presocratics’ concerns then
reliance and emphasis on these passages may be highly misleading, especially where
the doxographers have stripped away the context for these passages.15
The counterpart of the critique of what phusis meant for the presocratics is a
questioning of whether there was such a thing as the supernatural for them. Certainly
it is the case that there is no Greek word for the supernatural.16 Martin has argued
that the category of the supernatural was not available to the Greeks, explicitly or by
assumption and that translating Greek terms like ‘divine’ as ‘supernatural’ is highly
misleading.17 Martin has also questioned whether it is proper to think of Greek gods
as intervening in nature as we might do if following modern notions of gods and the
supernatural.18
Kingsley has argued that there is important evidence on the presocratics, especially
Pythagoras and Empedocles, in the magical tradition, outside of the usual doxog-
raphical tradition of views on philosophy and nature.19 If we take this evidence
into account then we obtain a much more magical view of the presocratics. Dodds,
Kingsley and others have argued for the existence of shamen, holy men claiming to
communicate with the dead when in ecstatic states among the presocratics.20
 Introduction 3

At a more specific level, with Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes the standard
critique is that they all believed in gods or the divine and that this compromises any
claim that they believed everything to be natural.21 There has also been considerable
debate on just how different the views of the Milesians were from those of Homer and
Hesiod.22 Important for the Milesians are a few passages giving what we interpret as
natural explanations of meteorological phenomena. Lloyd’s point about what has been
preserved is particularly important here and two things remain to be shown. First,
that there is an intentional rejection of the supernatural here, rather than a simple
statement of or polemic about meteorology. Second, it needs to be shown that the
rejection of the supernatural is universal to all phenomena rather than just specific to
meteorology or some other subset of phenomena.23
The Hippocratic texts have been a matter of ongoing debate, especially On the
Sacred Disease and On Regimen. Edelstein makes the classic case that the Hippocratics
retained a belief in the gods and the supernatural, more recently supported by Fowler
and van der Eijk,24 while Martin has argued that the Hippocratics believed in the
activities of the gods and the efficacy of dreams but that supernatural is an inappro-
priate term.25 That On the Sacred Disease is part of this debate may be surprising, as a
common view is that it rejects a divine aetiology for disease. However, its view that all
diseases are both divine and natural, the nature of its critique of magical healers and
its attitude to purification rituals and piety have all been hotly contended. On Regimen
IV, which appears to advocate prayer and divination as part of a healing strategy, has
long been thought of as a difficult text for a purely natural reading and there are other
difficult passages in the Hippocratic corpus as well.
The old view of Pythagoras as an innovative expert in mathematics and geometry,
who emphasised the importance of a mathematical approach to cosmology and music
has given way to a view of someone whose expertise was in the fate of the soul after
death and in the nature of religious ritual with the work of Burkert, Huffman, Zhmud
and others. It has been argued that metempsychosis, the transmigration of the soul on
the death of the body could hardly be a natural process.26 Dodds and Kingsley have
argued that Pythagoras should be considered to be a shaman, someone who believes
they can access the world of the dead by entering into ecstatic states.27 Kingsley has
argued that we should take some of the strange attributions to Pythagoras seriously
(such as having a golden thigh) as these are indicative of an interesting relationship
to Greek magic, ritual and ways to access the realm of the dead.28 To what extent the
Pythagoreans shared Pythagoras’ own views has always been a contentious topic. It
has also been argued that the Pythagoreans approach to number is that of ‘number
magic’, ‘number superstition’ or ‘number mysticism’ rather than that of mathematics
or geometry.29
With Empedocles, there is evidence of views on the transmigration of the soul, on
the efficacy of magic, on the purification of the soul, on magical healing, on bringing
back from Hades the strength of a man who has died and of Empedocles regarding
himself as some form of god among men and some form of divine prophet. All this
is well known, but has been marginalised by the assumption that Empedocles wrote
two poems, one on religion/magic (supposedly called On Purifications), the other
an account of the natural world (supposedly called On Nature). There have been
4 The Presocratics and the Supernatural

strategies for privileging On Nature and marginalising Purifications.30 However, recent

developments in scholarship and historiography, and the discovery of the Strasbourg
papyrus have all thrown doubt on whether Empedocles’ thought was compartmen-
talised in this way and indeed even on whether he wrote two separate poems at all.31
This means that we need to deal with Empedocles’ views on religion and magic as an
important part of his overall thought and this will impinge on whether we consider
Empedocles to have rejected all elements of the supernatural. Kingsley has argued for
a strong relationship between Empedocles and the Greek magical tradition, and again
that we should take some of the strange attributions to Empedocles seriously as these
are indicative of an interesting relationship to Greek magic and ritual.32
Even Leucippus and Democritus, sometimes taken as paragons of an entirely
atomistic, mechanical and natural view have been argued to have a belief in gods and
the divine and to have used biological analogues for the formation of the cosmos,
allegedly compromising their supposed naturalism. The critique of the rejection of the
supernatural view then is substantial both at a historiographical and at a specific level.
It cannot be disarmed simply by citing passages of the Milesians on meteorology and
the Hippocratics on disease as this evidence is hotly contested and there is much more
evidence which needs to be taken into account.

Natural magic, natural theology?

In this introductory chapter I want to explore the ideas of natural and supernatural
and the nature of the distinction between them. In relation to this it is important to
look at how the presocratics characterised the natural and what they contrasted with
it. I will also raise two important questions for this book. Can there be such a thing
as natural magic? If the answer to this is yes (as I believe it is) then we need to look
carefully at instances of magical belief to see if anything non-natural is involved.
Second, can there be such a thing as a natural theology, in the sense that god or the
divine is considered to be an entirely natural entity?33 Again, if the answer to this is
yes (as I believe it is) then we need to look carefully at instances of belief in god or the
divine to see if anything non-natural is involved.
There are also some historiographical issues to look at. When we talk about the
presocratics and a supposed rejection of the supernatural, it is important to be clear
which of the presocratics we are talking about. Some historiographies have tended to
marginalise magic and I want to clarify this book’s attitude to evidence of the magical.
I will also introduce an important theme for this book, which is that some presocratic
thinkers deliberately targeted important, interesting or difficult-to-explain phenomena
that had previously been given supernatural explanations, and in particular that they
targeted famous passages in Homer and Hesiod. Finally, I want briefly to look at some
historiographies of magic and some presocratic magical beliefs. I want to clarify my
approach to magic in relation to these historiographies. It is also important to be able
to generate a contrast between common magical beliefs and whatever magical beliefs
may have been held by presocratic philosophers.
 Introduction 5

My own position
As this book has the word ‘supernatural’ in its title and deals to some extent with
early Greek magical ideas, I want to make my own position clear on modern magic,
the supernatural and associated ideas. I am an outright rationalist on these issues. As
far as I am concerned, there is no basis for any of these beliefs. I am a sceptic in the
strong modern sense that I not only doubt the claims of modern magic, but believe
them to be false or impossible. Astrology in its modern form is a nonsense both
theoretically and empirically.34 Alchemy is only of historical interest as it has long
been superseded by chemistry.35 Transmutation of the elements is possible but only as
specified by nuclear physics.36 There are some interesting social psychology effects in
magic but ultimately modern magicians are no more than conjurors who are skilled at
working a crowd, or frauds.37 Numerology, like astrology, is a theoretical and empirical
nonsense.38 The idea that water has memory, a basis for many modern magical beliefs,
is simply false.39 If asked for a dictionary definition of homeopathy, I would say ‘the art
of selling tap water at highly inflated prices’.
I find it highly significant that James Randi has a standing offer of a $1,000,000
prize for anyone who can demonstrate a supernatural effect under agreed laboratory
conditions. Very few have taken up the challenge and those who have, have failed
dismally.40 A standard and telling question in my view for anyone who actually
believes they have a supernatural power is this: why are you bending spoons/holding
séances/doing card tricks for a living when you could be doing something seriously
beneficial for humankind or for yourself?
Philosophically, my view is quite straightforward. All that exists is natural. All that
exists obeys natural laws. There are many things in this world which are fascinating,
intriguing, beguiling, surprising, stunning, beautiful, etc. There are none which break
the laws of nature. That, in many ways, is their fascination. Why then, one might ask,
am I writing this book? Ancient magic, and the disciplines we associate with magic,
such as astrology and alchemy, were significantly different from their modern counter-
parts and of course had a very different context. I am interested in how and why the
presocratics formulated certain ideas and whether that committed them to a belief in
the supernatural. I am also interested in how our terms natural and supernatural relate
to the ancient context. I do not think we have been clear enough on these issues and I
do think it matters for our understanding and evaluation of the presocratics.
Just before we begin to think about the nature of these issues and the evidence we
have, I would like to emphasise a few things this book is not. This book is not a general
survey of presocratic philosophy. Kirk, Raven and Schofield,41 Barnes,42 McKirahan43
and Graham44 are all excellent works in this respect. This book will barely mention
the major philosophical theories of some people critically important to the history of
presocratic philosophy (Parmenides, Zeno and Anaxagoras to name but three) and
will be looking at the principal ideas of others as they relate to magic and theology
rather than as key developments in ancient philosophy.
This book is not and does not claim to be a comprehensive treatment of the
presocratics on magic, religion and other issues that might be thought to be related
6 The Presocratics and the Supernatural

to the supernatural. Such a project would be the work of many volumes. What I want
to do in this book is to look at some important and interesting cases in relation to
the presocratics. That involves looking at some people within the orthodox canon of
presocratic philosophy (the Milesians, Xenophanes, Democritus, etc.). It also means
looking at some people and material outside this canon. So I will be interested in the
Hippocratics, in the Derveni Papyrus, in the plays of Aristophanes and Euripides, in
the historian Thucydides, in the views of Homer and Hesiod and in some material
from the magical tradition. I do want to look at some Greek magical beliefs as it is
important, when arguing about the details of whether one person’s views entail a belief
in magic or the supernatural, to keep in mind as well the broader contrast of Greek
magical beliefs and the tenor of presocratic philosophy.
This book is not an attempt, in some sense, to ‘cleanse’ the presocratics, the preso-
cratic philosophers or those working in specific disciplines such as medicine of any
belief in magic or the supernatural. Nor, may I add, is it an attempt to implicate all or
as many as possible of the presocratics in some form of belief in magic or the super-
natural. I am interested in reaching a better understanding of what the presocratics
believed and the implications that had for them. Some of the analysis will be defla-
tionary, in the sense that I will argue that we cannot infer from a belief in magic or a
belief in some form of god or divinity directly to a belief in the supernatural. Indeed,
in some cases I will argue that such beliefs actually affirm a commitment to an entirely
natural world. On the other hand, I will be looking in some of the ‘darker places’ of the
presocratics, at evidence and issues not often brought to light in modern discussions
of presocratic philosophy and science.
This book is not committed to a simple muthos to logos, myth to reason account
of the development of Greek thought in general or Greek philosophy in particular.45
Nor is the book committed to, or an attempt to revive the notion of a Greek ‘enlight-
enment’, a large scale rejection of certain ideas leading to a rapid development of
science, parallel to the Enlightenment of eighteenth-century Europe.46 Nor is this book
committed to the idea that there was a unitary origin for science and that was with the
presocratics.47 Finally, this book is not committed to the associated notion of a Greek
‘miracle’ – it would after all be rather odd if it was, given what I have just said about
the supernatural!48

Who were the presocratics?

An important question for this book will be which presocratics are we talking about?
As a general definition I take them to be those people who were prior to Socrates and
were speaking, writing and thinking in ancient Greek. ‘Prior to Socrates’ is rather
loose. It could mean prior to Socrates’ birth, his acme, his philosophical work, its
impact on contemporaneous Greeks, its impact via the dialogues of Plato or his death.
Actually nothing hangs on this for the purposes of this book and the latest figure I will
consider will be Archytas who is roughly contemporaneous with Plato. Much more
important is the issue of which of the presocratics we are talking about in this period.
 Introduction 7

Dodds’ seminal book,49 The Greeks and the Irrational, published in 1951, asked this
key question:
Why should we attribute to the Greeks an immunity from ‘primitive’ modes of
thought which we do not find in any society open to our direct observation?50
While I have reservations about some of Dodds’ terminology,51 I agree with his
general conclusion. There is no reason to exempt the ancient Greeks from ‘irrational’
and ‘primitive’ beliefs and Dodds has brought together a large amount of evidence in
support of his view. In relation to the key issue for this book, I do not want to deny
that a large amount of the Greek populace, prior to Socrates and indeed after him as
well, had a belief in the supernatural. There can be no doubt that they believed in the
efficacy of magical practices founded on supernatural belief and they believed in gods
with capricious wills and the ability to intervene in and override the natural order of
the world about us.
Apart from the populace though, there were the presocratic philosophers and
those investigating nature. The distinction between the groups was not sharp, as
most presocratic philosophers had a good deal to say about nature and many of those
investigating nature, some of the Hippocratic medical authors, were interested in
philosophy as well. One can assert that the presocratic philosophers rejected magic
and capricious, interventionist gods in favour of a view where all phenomena were
seen as natural and were to be given entirely natural explanations. One issue for
this book is how large a group of presocratics rejected the supernatural? This is why
it is important to include people from outside the orthodox canon of presocratic
philosophers.52 When we consider the views of the presocratics on magic and on the
gods, does this group shrink to negligible size, or perhaps cease to exist at all? Or if
we take on board presocratic attitudes to magic and the gods does this group expand
in size?
To return for a moment to Dodds’ terminology, I prefer not to use the terms
rational or irrational in this sort of context. Irrational is ambiguous between ‘lacking
reason’ and ‘not conforming to the canons of rationality’. The latter does not entail
the former. There have been many studies of magic in tribal societies where it has
been shown that while their understanding of magical beliefs does not conform to
the canons of rationality it does not lack reasoning or intelligence.53 ‘Irrational’ is also
too often taken as pejorative and is also often taken as ‘completely irrational’. I would
say much the same about the terms philosophical and pre-philosophical and the word
‘primitive’ and whatever we might contrast that with.

Natural and supernatural

What do we mean by supernatural and what is the distinction between the natural and
the supernatural?54 There are commonly two ways of characterising the supernatural:55
1 That which is above or beyond nature.
2 That which is not subject to the laws of nature.
8 The Presocratics and the Supernatural

In my view neither is adequate and both could benefit from some further thought. The
problem with (1) is that it does not tell us in what way a supposed supernatural entity
is above or beyond nature. If we suppose for a hypothetical supernatural entity to be
something which behaves in a law-like manner (it has its own laws) and can affect the
natural but not break the laws of the natural, then that looks like just another piece of
nature rather than anything supernatural.
One might take the view that the notion of ‘above’ gives us a hierarchical ordering.
That may be so, but hierarchy on its own does not necessarily give us something super-
natural, it may simply give us an ordered account of the natural. This is important
in an ancient context as Aristotle might be seen to give us the latter alternative. The
heavens are more actual and less potential than the terrestrial realm of earth, water,
air and fire because aether is always executing its natural motion. There is though no
sense in Aristotle that the heavens are supernatural.56 They obey their own laws and
while they interact with the terrestrial realm they cannot override the order of the
terrestrial realm.
If one equates the natural with the physical then one might say that whatever is
not physical is supernatural, as it is above or beyond the physical. There is no pressing
reason to equate the natural with the physical though. I could be a realist on many
philosophical issues without being committed to a belief in the supernatural. Perhaps
the simplest example here is being a mathematical realist about numbers. I might
believe that numbers exist but it does not strike me that there is anything supernatural
about numbers. The ancient Greeks certainly could be realists about many issues
without considering the entities they supposed to exist beyond the physical to be
supernatural.57 The notion of ‘above or beyond nature’ is then not very helpful, on its
own, in characterising the supernatural.
The second sort of characterisation, that the supernatural is that which is not
subject to the laws of nature. We can think about that in the following ways:
a) The supernatural does not obey the laws which natural entities obey.
b) The supernatural does not obey any laws.
c) The supernatural can override natural laws.
The first of these looks like a sine qua non, for as with the discussion above, if
something does indeed obey natural laws it is then just another part of the natural,
and not supernatural at all. This then raises a question about the nature of the super-
natural. Does it have its own laws? I think one can go either way on this, depending
on one’s attitude to (c). Certainly one can deny that the supernatural obeys laws at all.
That is important for some modern conceptions of chaotic magic. It is also important
for the ancient Greeks where the gods of Homeric myth do not seem to be bound by
laws either in terms of what they can do or how they behave. There is an important
contrast here with the Christian conception of God where God will always do what is
good. One might accept that the supernatural has its own laws but also claim that the
supernatural is capable of overriding or suspending natural laws.
It is also possible to approach the notion of the supernatural in terms of explanation,
which helps to clarify related terms, paranormal and preternatural. Paranormal is
usually taken to mean ‘outside the range of normal experience or scientific explanation’.
 Introduction 9

Let us assume there is a phenomenon which defies current scientific explanation or

which runs counter to current scientific explanation. The key question then is whether
this is a reflection on our current scientific knowledge and with further advances in
scientific knowledge we will be able to explain such phenomena, or whether there is
something intrinsic here which defies, and always will defy scientific explanation. One
way of forming the distinction between the preternatural and the supernatural is along
these lines. The preternatural cannot yet be explained by science, the supernatural can
never be explained by science.

The presocratics and nature

That, hopefully, clarifies our conception of what we mean by supernatural a little.
What of the presocratic Greeks though? Did they even have a conception of the
supernatural? The usual answer to this is that there is no word used by the presocratics
which matches our use of supernatural.58 They had the word phusis, meaning nature.
They had and used the term kata phusin, according to nature. Aristotle uses para
phusin, contrary to nature, but uses this to mean contrary to an object’s nature rather
than supernatural.59 There is a Greek term huper phusin, above nature, which we can
find much later in St. Cyril in the fourth century ce,60 but not used in this way by the
presocratics.
So is supernatural a proper term to use for the presocratics? I would prefer to talk
in terms of the natural for the presocratics and whether they excluded the non-natural,
anything that did not seem natural to them. So why do we need this discussion of the
supernatural? The term supernatural has been widely used in the literature, both by
those arguing for and those arguing against a belief in the supernatural for the preso-
cratics. It is important to be clear about the nature and consequences of this debate
and for that, we need to be clear about the term supernatural.
It is also important to be clear about the nature of the questions we are asking. The
debates in some of the literature would lead towards formulating this question: Do
we believe some of the presocratics to have rejected what we consider to be super-
natural explanations? I would rather formulate the main question as: Did some of
the presocratics consider themselves to have given only natural explanations? It is
important that we recognise that those questions may have different answers. So does
this book turn out not to be about the presocratics and the supernatural after all? In
a sense no, as we will readily recognise as supernatural many of the explanations and
entities which some of the presocratics reject as non-natural. I will also argue that
what drives some of the presocratics is a commitment to the idea that nature is regular
and exhausts what is, so that whatever might be thought to be irregular needs to be
excluded as non-natural and so non-existent. Although not framed in terms of laws,
this has significant similarities to the discussion above.
It is sometimes said that in order to have a conception of the supernatural one must
have a conception of the natural.61 In order to give only natural explanations and to
exclude non-natural explanations, and to do so consciously rather than accidentally,
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
The text on this page is estimated to be only 11.04%
accurate

80 "'• Viitljfrv^ '?liitoil nii brv iiiiififali|cl)cn 3^ravluitmiii bcv

iMrbcr. 3n teUMibcvfv "Jdiuu'nbuiifl nuf Vutbrv fomiut cv baiiii bei
iiufunft uoijiibtii^cm (5)ang ffiucv Unti'vfm-t)img ,^u bcm (viivbiiiö,
X.'utl)cv fei ficliev bcv .ftüiiU't>iii[t bev Viobfv „aiUr Qlaubrn nll an
einen Wott", „^V'faia beni "lU-üpbeteu bno ni'K"l)'il)" unb „t*in fefte
'i^uifl ift unfev Wott". 'iU^n biei anbevn l'iebevn Devnuitet ev, bafj
Xlntln-v in il)ncn felbftänbifl ftlteve 'JJlelobien bearbeitet l)abe. (vö
finb: „t^biift lag in lobedbanben", „Chbalt uno, .v>evv, bei beineni
älknt" nnb „'iJevlcit) unö r^iiebeii gnäbiglid)". di^n fel)v
uml)rfel)einlid) gilt il)ni Viitljevö eigene .ft'onipofitiiin bei „(*in neue*
l'ieb umv beben an", „l'lit övift» »'"^ Avenb irl) fabv bat)in" unb
„'•JJienfel), UMltu leben leligliel)". ''3lid)t gan,^ ^uvürfuicife)! unll ev
bie ''JJii)glicl)feit, bafj aud) „(>ö Ün-id)t bev Uiiuieifen "-llhmb" Hon
V'utl)ev Uertoiit UHn-beu fei. (\üv alte übvigen iiiebcv lebnt ev bie
'^Uvnuitnng, ba& Vfntbev fie foniponievt l)abe, ab. Hub im gan.^en
fnf?t ev fein llvteil iibev l'ntbev alo Sängcv gei[lliel)ev 2Bei)en bev
eüaiu]eli|cl)eii i?irdie bobin ,^nfaininen: ,A^itl)ev t)at allevbiiig«^
einige, ahcx gemif} nid)t alle JiBeifcn ^u feinen Virbevn gefnngen.
3\)ai^ ev fang, evfanb ev junäd)ft Devftiinbig, mit feinem ^Binn unb
tüd)tigev .Uenntni« beö alten rlMnifdjen .Uivdiengefangeö, an beffcn
Stelle fv füv ben ionntäglid)en -V^auptgotte^bienft einen beutfd)cn
fetjen uiolltc, nnmittelbav füv biefen veiu litnvgifd)en S^vtd.
"'JJiandjeä anbevc Jjieb füv ben (^Jefang bcv Wc= meine entftanb
il)m andi uiot)l mit fcinev Singtneifc ,uiftlcid): anbeve bid)tetc cv auf
fdiöne geiftlid)e aöeifen bcv i^ol•,^eit, bamit bev ed)a^, ben bie
alte .flivd)c an iljncu befeffen, nid)t üevlovcn gcl)e, fonbevn
bcbeutungeüollev, reiner, auf§ 'Jtcue in ba§ i?cbi'n trete. Einmal nur,
fo öicl n^ir roiffeu, au§ tiefer f)eiliger 33egci[tcvnng, fein eigenfteö
3Befcn in ba§ SBort, in ben Son ergie^enb, e& in feiner gan.^en
straft auvftvat)lenb, gelang il)m ü^icb unb Söcifc bou bev
fvifd)eften, nid)t luicbcv crreidjteu ßvaft, unb 33eibe5 mirb unter
un§ nur mit feinem Flamen aufl)bren fönneu fott= ßuleben. 9lber e§
war aud) ein einjelner i3icf)tpunft nur einc§ geiftigeu Sd)affeu§ in
einer ein3elncn, beftimmt abgegrenzten 5}{id)tung. S)enn biefee
fein Sdjaffeu U^ar nid)t, gleid) bem eine§ lonmeifter» in äd}tcm
Sinne, beffcn innevftcg !^iefaen fid) eben nur in Ibnen erfd)lie|t,
eine fürtgcf)cnbc lonfdjöptung".^ i>on öerfd)iebenen iyovid)evn finb
bie SBinterfetbfdicn ^ufftcHuugcn, wenn Qud^ mel)r ober toenig
eingefc^ränft, übernommen tuorben, fo aud) bon Ä'od) in feiner
©efc^ii^te be§ ßtrd^enlicbcg unb bon 31. 'Jicifemanu in ber
3lllgcmeinen @e= fcftid^te ber ^Ulufif."^ S^agcgcn f)at man bon
anberer Seite bevfudit, £ut§ev jcbe eigene felbftänbige Sätigfcit al«
ionfe^ev ab^ufprec^en. S3or allem Ijat 33äumfer l)ier bie größte
Öe= beutung evlangt, ber aud) bie bon 2Biuterfelb füv t'uttjcv
gevettcten Stüdc auf Söorlagen äurüdjufü^ren fud)t, in erfter £inie
aud) „@in fefte Snrg".'' 3lber gerabe bie 3)lelobie biefes Siebes
fud)en roieber anbere füv ßut^er in 3lnfpru(^ au ncl)men.* ')
aöintcrfelb, Äirc^engefong 162. ■') Sioä) 1, 470f. nennt aU
njatjvfcfjciulid) tion Sut^et nod) bie OJJclobien 311 „2tu§ tiefet
^liot" unb „5Üom ^tinmel \)od)" ; nennt bagegen unter ben-
toQf)tid)einlid^ ton i^m I)ertül)renben nirf)t „Grt)alt uns, ^nx, bei
beinern 2ßovt", „Sctlei^ uns gi^"^^*!'!" "nb „(Ft)tift tag in
lobe^banben". ^Reißmann II, 59 fc^tiefjt fid} enger an
SQöinterfetb an, iprid)t £ut[)et aber aud) bie aJiclobie öon „Sßom
|)imtncl t)od)" 3U. ^) Saumfer, Äitdjenlieb I, 16 ff., bef. 22. 2iiff.
Terj., ^ux ®efdjid)te ber Xonfunft in 3;eutfd)[anb Don ben etften
Stnfängen btö jur ^Reformation (greiburg i. 33r. 1881) 13>
The text on this page is estimated to be only 14.81%
accurate

5. ßiitf)etö '>littcil an ber iiiiiiifnli|ct;iMi iyenrbcitiiiU3 ber

Mithex. ^[ ®ana offenbar fpicit l^ievtci Uielfad; ba§ ®efül)l eine
))toUr. l'ieb unb ^JJlctobte finb au§ einem ®u^, nur ein unb
berfclbe ^ianu fann bat)cr beibe üerfa^t traben. ^ 3icl) beri(f)te
5unäd)[t über bie ^JJtet()obe unb bie .Kriterien, bie in bcn n)iffen=
fd^aftlic^ crnft ju ne'^menben telbftänbigen §lrbeiten .^utage
treten unb nQd},ju= prüfen finb. ^n öbniger Übereinftimmung
fteHen bie meiften gorfd^er, öoran äöinterfelb unb 53äunifer, juerft
feft, ba^ i^utficr ni(i)t nur ein großer '»JJlufiflieb^aber, fonbern
aurf) ein tüdjtiger iihififfenner geiucfen fei. S)afür ,^eugen
unioiberleglid) eine überaus ftattlid^e ^In^nt)! üon ©teilen aug
feinen S3riefen unb Xifd)reben2, baju fommen bie befannten
iijorrcben ju ben ©efangbüdjern unb ^tüei, eine poetifd^e unb eine
profaifd)e, bie er 1538 üerfafete, jene für bie 2BQltl}erfd)e ©d^rift
„8ob unb ^jSreiä ber Iöblid)cn Äunft 9Jlufica", biefe für 9i{)alr§
Symphoniae iucundae quatuor vocum.^ ©elbftöerftnnblid) getjbrcn
aud) bie befannten 5lu§füt)rungen, bie in ben ©d)riften über bie
^"inridjtung cine§ beutfd)en (SotteSbienftee baö l['ird)enlieb
berül^ren, ^ierl)er. 2)a3u fomnieu ober aud) ^^uflniffe für eine
eigene mufitalifd)e ^Betätigung, bie fid) bod) über einen bloßen
2)ilettantiömu§ er^ob. 35ereit§ als ©tubent in Erfurt ^atte ßutf)er
baö ßautenfpiel gelernt, unb ha^ er bie Äunft aud) fpäter nod) eifrig
betrieb, ben^eifen unter anberm mannigfod^e Singriffe feiner
©cgner, bie er beeiüegen erful^r. ^äufig fanben Übungen im met;r=
ftimmigen ©efang in feinem ^aufe ftatt, er fetbft fang babei bie
Slltftimme mit, trug Quc^ U)ot)l allein öolfStümlid^e äBeifen üor.
2)aB er aud) ttjeoretifd) in mufi= falifd)en trogen mitfprec^en
fonnte, bezeugen mandjc treffenben Urteile über 3eit= genöffifd^e
ionfe^er.* SSeitoge 3. ^Jiünd^enet 5lHg. 3ettg. 1887 91t. 6. ^a^n,
5)ie ^JJetobien ber ebangeltfd)en i?iTd)eu= lieber V, 400. «infe, »t.
f. ^l)mnologie II, 82ff. 101 ff. 9tautenftraudi, ßutt)er unb bie Pflege
ber firdjl. yjiufif in ©adifen. 2}iff. (Seipaig 1906) Bff. 5kuinann,
3Jtufifgefd). I, 418ff. S)ibetiu§, »eitr. 3. fäd)i. .ffg. I (1883) 215. 1)
©0 fd)on SBinterfetb, Äird)engefang 158: ©ie (bie ÜJJetobie) ift ein
SBerf ber ebetften 33cgeifterung, ber fü^nften, gtäubigften
3"öerfid;t n)ie ha^ Sieb fctber, unb mit it)m fo Dix-iDQC^fen, ba^
fie nur mit i^m 3ugleic^ entftanben fein fonu unb bie IRöglidjfeit,
baajetbe einer onbern SBeife anjueignen, unbebingt QU6fd)licfet. '^)
2)te umfaffeubftc 3iiiiin"'snft''ß"nS bei Siautenfttauc^ 3 f. ') Sögt.
Saiadernogel, 33ibltogr. 9ir. 869. 3)ic poetifc^e „Sorrt)ebe ouff aUe
gute ©efongbudjer: D. ÜJJ. 2." getüöl)nlic^ unter ber Überfd)rift
„^rou Üiufica". ©0 SBodernagel, Sieber 3f. 2)ie urfprünglid)
tateinifd)e Sorrebe 3U bem 9t{)an)'fd)en Süerfe finbet fic^ beutfc^
erft 1564 3U ber aä3altt)etfd)en ©d)rift „ßob uub ^reiö ber
^immlijd)en ßunft Musica", bie nic^t etloa eine .^meite 3lu§gabe
ber ganj äl)ulid) betitelten öon 1538 ift. 2:iefe 5ProiQöorrebe ift
julc^t mieber obgebrurft ton ^olftein, ©tcuiboten 1888 III, 77ff.
©oebefe, 8utf)erö 3:id)tungcn 2U5ff. llufre klü^. SBb. 50, 45ff. ajgt.
baju: Apolftein, ©d^norre 3lrd)iO 1883, 185 f. 3:l)ürling^,
3:entinälcr beiitfd)er lontmift. 2. golge 3. :3t)rg. 93b. II. Sennborf,
aJtonotfdjr. f. (^otte^b. u. fird)l. «iinft II (18;»,s) 304 ff. Äöfllin =
JlQmeraii II, 503 f. ♦) a]gl. aJiattt)efiuä, ^iftorien üon Dr. matt
ßiitt)crg 3tnfang = 2(of). ÜJiottl)cfiaö, ^Jlni^jem. SÜerfc, Ijr^g. üon
ßoeid)e 111,800. 360f. 2JJ. 3ialjenberger, ®efc^id)te ßiitt)erö unb
feiner ^cit, t)x^q. Don ^teubeder (2(cno 1H50) 58ff.
itöfÜin^Äalöerau, «Ulartin Sutt)i-r 1,44.407.727. II, 501 ff. ilöftliu,
2utt)er aU älater beä eüangclifd)cn .Rirdjengcfongeö. ©ommlg.
mufifalifdjer SÜortröge 9tr. 34 (ßeipiig 18H1). Söefouberö genau bie
^ufammenftellg. bei ;)tauten|"trandj 4 f. ,»^11 ben i^ut^eiö
äüerfe. XXXV. ^
The text on this page is estimated to be only 13.16%
accurate

82 «'»• l'iitbfto \lliitoil nii bfr iniifi[oIifd)iMi il*i'rtilHMtiiiiii bev

l'icbi'r. 'Olbfv \v(\\\\ fo iiH'it bic \Uiifirf)tiMi niib Tnvfti'Uuiuv'it bov
J\inid)cv ülunein» nimiiicn, fo tifimcu fic fui) bei biv ^"\ii(cvvvctiitiün
ciiiiflov ^Jtellcn, bic nun aud) bit' vvaftiid)e ii^diituvmfl Viitl)ev'i> alö
.Oonipouift cvuuMfcn füllen. ;3nt elften icil feinem Syiitagma
iimsiciiiu lion 1()15 i^bl lllidiael '^UoitLuiu^S einen im Ihteit
lunUnencn '^evid)t ^olHi"» äBnUlici^J uuebev, in bcni biefev fid)
über Vutbeic' uuififalifdic \Hvbeit an bev Xeutfd)en -JJIeffc Hon
I.^l'C) anölnfjt: „£a er Dov 40 o*il)ven bie bcntfd)e l'leffo ,^n
Üüittonbevi] anvid)ten U'ollte, Imt ev bnvd) feine £d)vift nn ben
.Unvfüvften \n 8nd)feu nnb ^}(x\o(( O^oljannfeu boc^löblidiev
lMebäd)tnil)inalnolcn octavi u.iii ber t^piftcl ,^nfleei(Vipt unb scxlnni
loiniiii bem (^üangclinm georbnet nnb fprad) alfo: „C?t)riftud ift ein
frennblidjcr .vierr unb feine :Heben finb lieblid), barum luollen mir
soxlum lommi ,^nui C^uangclium nehmen, unb tueil ^. 'Ininlnc' it)m
ein crnfter 'Jlpoftel ift, mollcn mir (»ilaviini loiuiin iur Ci-piftel
üerorbncn". A>at aud) bic 'Jiotcu über bic ^piftetu, ^ünngclieu unb
über bie äBortc ber ^infe^umj bcö iiuiljrcu ,1'cibcS unb ilMutes
CU)rifti jclbft gcmodit, mir üorgcfnngcn unb mein 33cbenfcn barüber
bijren mollcn. (5t t)at mic^ bie 3eit brei aBod)cu lang ]u 2Bittonbcrg
aufgeljolten, bie (^^oradioten über etlid^e ^oangelicn unb (Jpiftcin
orbcntlid) ju fd^rciben, bi^ bie erfte beutfd)e ^JJieffe in ber
5l.Nfürrfivdic gcfungen marb. %a mufete id) ^ntjören unb fotdjcr
erften bcutfd)en '•Dieffe 3lbfd)rift mit mir gen iorgau nef)mcn . . .
3)cnn er oud) bic !i!cfpcr, fo bie 3cit an öielen Crten gefaflen, mit
furzen, reinen (üjorolgcfängen für bie @d)üler unb 3ugf"b mieberum
anprid)tcn befohlen: bc§g(eid)cn, ba^ bie armen (äd^ülei, fo nad)
Srot laufen, für ben Slüren lateinifcf)e ©efänge, Anliphonas unb
Responsoria, nad) ®elegcnt)eit ber 3eit fingen foütcn, unb t)atte
feinen ©efaücn baran, baß bic Schüler für ben Il)üren nid)t5 benn
bcutfc^e Sieber fungcn. 2;al)er finb biejenigen aud) nid)t ju loben,
tl^un aud) nid)t red)t, bie alle lateinifd^e d)riftlid)e ©cfänge au§
ber ^irdjcn flogen, taffen fid) bünfen, eö fei nid)t etoangetifdi ober
lutljcrifd), menn fie einen lateinifd}en d^oralgefang in ber .ßird^en
fingen ober t)ören foHen. SBii'berum ifts aud) unrecf)t, mo man
nict)te benn lateinifdje ©efänge für bic ©emeine finget, barau§ bae
gemeine ^^oit nictitö gcbeffert mirb. 5Deroroegen finb bie bentfc^e
geiftUd)c, reine alte, unb lutl)erifd)e l'icber unb 'i^^falmen für ben
gemeinen .Raufen am nü^Iid)ften, bie lateinifd)cn aber .^ur Übung
ber Sugenb unb für bie ©elebrten. Unb fiet)et, Ijöret unb greifet
man augenfd)einli(^, mie ber l^cilige ©eift foinol)! in benen
Auetoribus, tueldjc bie lateinifd)en, aU aud) in ^errn ßut^ero,
meldjcr je^o bie beutfc^en (iljoralgciänge meiftcntcilö gebid)tet unb
^ur ^elobie bradit, fclbft mitgeroirfet; mie benn unter anbern aus
bcm beutfd)cn (5anctu§ (Scfaia bcm 5>rDpl)eten bae gefcfja"^
ufm.) ju erfet)en, mie er alte Ttoten auf ben iejt nad) bem rechten
5lcccnt unb ßoncent fo mcifterlid) unb xootjl gerid)tet ^at, unb ic^
aucf) bie ^eit feiner ß^rmürben ^u fragen öerurfac^t marb, morauö
ober XDoijtx fie boc^ bie| Stücfe ober Unterrid)t l)ätten: barauf ber
teuere ''JJtann meiner (Sinfolt lachte unb fprac^: „S)cr ^oet
SBirgiliuö ^at mir folcf)eö gclet)rt, ber alfo Urteilen übet bie
seitgenöffifc^en Jonfe^er tigl. nod): 3)e 2Bette VI, 128f.; ©nberg
VIII, 335; ftrofcv, lifdjteben 9h. 724 ».
The text on this page is estimated to be only 16.73%
accurate

5. Sittf)ct-3 'Üliiteil 011 bcv mii[ifaliici)cii ^ycntbcitiing bcv

Ificbct. f^:\ feine Carmina imb JlÖovt auf bic föffd)irf)tc, bic er
bcfitreibt, fo fünftlicf) applicieven tiinn; alfo foH oiid) bic ^33hi|ica
alte i^ve IRoteii unb föefängc oiif ben 2ejt vicl)ten".^ ^Jiocf)
äBintevfelbg XHufidit c\d}t nu§ bcr Stelle juiuidjft flar ^cröor, ha%
^>.'ut^et bei ber ''MJeffe, bem ^auptgotte^bienft, ben beutfd)en
(^Ijoral, b. f). ben (iturgifc^en, öon bem ^^^l•ieftev ober beni
(Sängcrd^or üorgetragenen ©efang eingefül)^ t)abe, aber ebenfo
flar, ba^ )i'utl}er, tnic er fclbft beutfd;e 6f)orQtgefänge gebid)tet, fo
fie aud) jur ^Jlelobie gebracht I)abe. Unb ^wax !önne fid) äBaltljct'j
Siufeerung nac^ bem gonjen 3ii?an""tMil)Qng f)ier nur auf jttiei
©efänge be,^ie^en, auf biejenigen, hjelc^e in bcr 5Jicffc ha^ alte
latcinifcf)e Credo unb boö Sanclus tiertraten, bk Sieber „SGßir
glauben all an einen Sott" unb „Sefaia bem ^^ropt)cten ba§
gefd)a^". f^üt biefe beibcn nimmt beider SBinterfcIb Sutljcr fid)er
a(§ ^omponiften an.^ ^in lücitere^, für i^n ebenfo unanfed)tbare§
^euQni^ bafür, bafe Suf^er feine 2ejte teiltoeife felbft in ^Jlufif
gefetjt l^abe, ftnbet SBinterfetb bei (£teiban, ber fic^ im 16.
5Buc^e feiner Commentarii de statu religionis et reipublicae Carolo
V. Gaesare über bie föntftel^ung üon „@in fefte S5urg"
folgenbermafeen ausläßt: Psalnium hunc ad tempus illud, moeroris
et angustiae pleniim accommodans, ut dixi, quum sermone populari
vertisset, 'inflexa nonnihil sententia, numeros etiam addidit et
modulos, argumento valde convenientes et ad excitandum animum
idoneos. S)onad) muffe ber 9ieformator un^weifet'^aft auc^ a(§
Äomponift öon „O^in fefte 5öurg" angefe^en tnerben.^ ©elüiB
nid)t ungefdjicft t)at 23äunifer bie SSetüciSfraft biefer Duellen
aufju'^eben l}erfud)t. Sn bem erftcn ^eugni§ nimmt er bie
Minderungen 2öalt^er§ öiel all= gemeiner al§ Söinterfclb unb
be^ietit fie tt)o[)( t)iel rid)tiger auf bie gefamte Sieber= bic^tung
;^utber§. S)eu neugebid]teten fiebern t)abe t'uttjer ältere
^^ülclobien „an= gepaßt". -^ 2;ie ^Jiotioe be§ beutfdjen (£anctu§
feien au§ bem Sanctus einer "DJlcffe De angelis bp§ Graduale
Romanum entnommen.-^ f^ür „(^in fefte Surg" fuc^t er bagegen
burd) ^araüetmotiöe au§ Jonfc^öpfungen im ©ebiet be§
gregorianifc^en 6t)oral» nad)5Uttieifen, ba^ bie ^;)Jlelobie biefe§
ßutt)erfd)en -ipauptliebce auö Stüden ber altfirc^tic^en Siturgie
3ufanunengefcf)iDeiBt fei.'* SBa^ ben 33eri(^t be§ Sleiban
anbelangt, fo fd)eint er ju meinen, baß iiä) biefe Eingabe fe^r too^t
mit feiner eigenen Sluffaffung bereinigen laffe. S)er 5iad)brucf liegt
it)m auf bem Jpin,3ufügen ber Gelobte ^u bem 2erte (addidit
numeros et modulos), unb nad) bem ganzen 3ufammenf)ang
öerftel)t er barunter, ba^ 8ut!)er für jebe 3cite be§ SejteS fi(^ ein
paffenbee 2Jlotiö au§ bem gr eg orianif djen 6t)orat gefuc^t "^abe.
^nbe,jug auf ben erften $unft fönnte für 33äumfer fpret^en, ba|
fic^ bie 1524 auftretenbe ^JJletobie be3 l'ut{)crfc^eu
©laubensliebeS in i()ren ©runbjügen bereite in einer -ipanbfdjrift
bei 15. Sa^vf)unbert§ nac^ttieifeu lie^.'' ?tllerbing§ bebeutet biefer
^unb Upcniger eine Unterftü^ung S3äumferö all eine äBibcrtcgung
SBintcrfelbl, ber bie eingaben äöalttjcrl auc^ auf boö XJieb „2öir
glauben att an einen @ott" be^iel^en au tnüffen meinte. *) ÜJi.
^Praetotiuo , Syntagmatis Musici Tomus Primus (ÜBittentictg Uilö)
4'>1 ff. Söfll. Unfte ^ü^iq. «b. 19, 49f. *) SBinterfelb Q. o. D. 151f.
') ÜBiiitcrfelb a.a.O. 162. *) SBäumfet, Äatt)ol. ftird)ciilicb I, 16ff.
51}gt. bnju aud) St. aBolftum, %'ai !ücrl)ältni3 bc% eb.
Äirc^enliebe^ jum ^üolfsltebc. 6iona 1903. 141 ff. 161 ff. »)
«DJoitatÄlieftc f. Ü)hifif= öefc^ic^te XII 0»«") Tix. 1. ") (äbenbn
ir)5ff. lai fatljütifcije ilirdjcnlicb I, 29f. ■) ■'ö'\di. ber Srcölauet Un.=
*ibl. Cod. I 446. 4». ^Ibgcbtucft bei Söäumfev l 'Hr. 866'.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 10.34%
accurate

§4 J>- ^utlifr* Uliifeil Oll bcr iminfnli|d)fii i^carbcitiiiiij bor

\.*ifbfv. 3lbcv r\ciifn 5?iiinnfcvö Tailci\iMi(^fii iUu'v „(viii fifle '^^iivg"
ImIumi jul) ld)v iV'ti'idjtii^c anbt.- »Iciiiev l)at It)üvlinöö bavanf
liinfleu'ieien, baf} bic tingclnieffc be8 X!üttid)fr IMvabualo Hon 1854,
aui bev ilMinnifev bic ''|^al•aIleIen nimmt, fiüljcftcns ou« bem 17.
:3al)vl)nnbcvt ftamnic.=^ ,S»v Stiilje feinev Vlnfidjt l)at bann
'i^ännifcv nllcrbing« nod) U'eitere Cnellcn l)evangc,}Lnicn , üon
bcnen ev meinte, baji fic anf Dinvctovmolovi)d)en .^-^anbldji-iftcn
bevut)tcn, nnb un-nififtcne für bic ^Hcilc „(5in gute aBel)r nnb
2Baffen" l)at er in bcn Floivs nuisicc onmis canliis IJre^'oriani bc^ -
ipnQü Don iKcntlingen (Strafjbnrg 148cS) einen pavaltelcn
notcngetrcncn (ijang autöcbecft.'' aBiv unffen awi ,^al)Ucid)cn
\}lnvjfprüd)en Vnttievs, mit liield)er iiH-rel)rnn9 er ben alten
.ftirdjengejüng anjat).'' (£illi)tücv)"tänbUd) ninfj er bei feinem tiefen
nuifitnli= fdjen 'i'erftänbnia and) bic (5)efctje bee gregorianifcljcn
GlioralC' in fid) anföenümmen ^abcn, fic unuen fein cicifticjeö
(Jigentnm gemorben. il^on biefem Stanbpnnft quo nnife eö
gcivürbigt iverbcn, uuMin fid) gvegorianifd)e ^lonfolgen in bcr SBeife
be6 Jjicbee finben.'^ llnb mit 9ied)t bemcrft S'^^)^' ^in
"iühifituerftänbiger fnnn un= möglid) annet)mcn, ta^ ijnttjer bicfc
()errlid}e ^JJletobic mofoitartig aus Irümmcrn einer il)m
novliegenben Äompofition ^ufammongcftiicfelt l)at." \)lüerbingö ift
mit ber ^uriufiueifung ber ^ilnfid;tcn U3änmfcry immer nod) nic^t
betoicfcn, bafe iL'ntfjcr aud) mirttidi ber ^omponift be« l'iebeg
gelücfeu fei, Uienn aud) biefe ^3]l5giid)feit loieber jugcgeben
inerben jnu^. 5ür feine ii^ertonung bcö beutf(^en 6an!tu§ bietet
äöoÜ^erö 33erid)t ein uubebingt fid)erc» 3eugni§, ba§, felbft lücnn
einzelne '^JJlotiue unmittelbar au§ bem Graduale Romanum
entnommen tt)ären, bod) nic^t evfdjüttert tuerben tonnte. Unb ein
ttieitereö bofür, ba% fid) bcr Otefornmtor als lonfe^er an feinen
fiebern berfud)t ^obe, liefert ber lüiebcr burd)ge[trid)ene 5J3erfurf)
einer 'iltotation ju „^^ater unfer im ^immclreid)", ber firf) in ber
öon 3Binterfe(b tu feiner 5prad)tau§gabe ber Vutf)erlieber
faffimitierten, je^t teiber Derfd)oflenen .OnnMcl)rift biefe§ Siebes
finbet. 2ie Überfdjtift eines nid)t er'^altenen ßin^elbrucfs biefes
i'iebe§ „S)as äJatter önfer fur^ ausgelegt bnnb t)nn (^efang tucijfe
gebrad)t burd) S. ''Max. l'uttj. W. 2). XXXIX."« fönnte bofür fpred)en,
ba^ auc^ bie überlieferte 'OJlclobie in i'uttjcr it)reu ^^er= foffer
{)abe. 3(ber bomit ift aucf) bie S^1)l ber 33eraeife erfd)Dpft. Slurf)
bei ben £Uebern, bie fic^ md)t auf öorreformatorifd)e "-Jüelobien
,iUTÜdf= *) Äöftlin, 2utt)et nt^ Sätet bc§ ebangetifc^en
^ird)engefoii9e§ 25. ßinfe, 331. f. ^l)miiol. n, 84ff. 3Qt)nV, 400. 2)
gjaumonn, a'iuntciefc^ic^tc I, 418ff. ') f&tilaQ^ i. Mimd)cnex Mg.
3eitg 1887, 74ff. 939I. feinet Äöfttin^.RalüerQu II, 646f., too tucitetc
Literatur. — (S^ mäte übrigens imdjjuprüfen , ob lüc^t umgefef)rt
ha'?> ßutt)etlteb mit feiner lüud)tigen 2)Jetobie Quf bie füt^olifc^e
Äitd)enmufif eingcluirft t)abcn faiin. *) Ü)Jonat5t)eftc f.
2)iufifgcfd)ic^te 1887, 73 ff. ■') Sgl. bie Sufammenfteaung bei
giautenflraud) 9 f. ") ßinfe, SBL f- -&i)ni= nologie V n.s.s7 ]44ff. ')
8at)n V, 400. '^) 2ßarfernagc(, SBibliogr. 'Rx. 383.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 15.71%
accurate

5. Öittljer? Siuteil an bot iniififa(ifd)cn lycorbeituiig ber

lieber. gf, fütiren laffcn, luivb man niemals mit öollcv 33eftimintf)eit
bef)anpten fönnen, baft !L^utf)er il)ve Singmcifc tjcfdjaffcn Ijabe.
'i^evfe!)It ift, luie nod) l^erborge^obcn uunben mu^, bie
5}]ctI)obe, nac^ ber Söintevfelb bei feiner Unterfud)nn(] bei
er[terfd)ienenen ^'ieber beö Sabrce 1524 öer= fäl^rt. (^r geiuinnt
feine C^rgcbniffe, tnbom er aflerbingg bie einzelnen Übcrltefernngen
biefeö ^aljxti öerglcid)t, aber babci ber früf)eren, jebod) falfi^en
Vlnfid)! folgt, bafe bie (Jrfnrtcr (Jndiiribien öor bem äöittenbergfdjcn
Sangbüd)tein f;erauegetonimen feien unb bo^ .^Qut^er an il^rer
9iebaftiDn beteiligt getuefen fei. 6ö nuife tiielmef)r als feftftefjenb
gelten, baß i^nf^er üon ben ©efangbüd)ern bes ^a'^reö 1524 nur
an bem fogenannten 2Balt^erfdicn foldieu IHnteil geljabt l^nt, unb
biefen n)ol)t beftimmt aud^ in mufifalifdjer -£")infid)t.^ 3m
allgemeinen uurb Storcf bas iKidjtige treffen, lucnn er in ber
3luen3a^l unb ^Bearbeitung öon alten ÜJictobien be§
gregorianifcl)en .!pl}mnenf(f)a^e§ unb bes geiftlid)en unb
n^eltlidjen ^öolfsgefangs für baö eöangelifdje ^ird)eniieb i'utl^erg
l)auptfäc^lid)|tes SBerf unb i>erbienft fie^t.^ 5£)aB ber
üteformator babei natürlich Qud) aiot)t aus feiner 33er)errfd)ung ber
genannten (Gebiete l|erau§ imftonbe gemefen ttiäre, eigene
^i3klobienfül)rungen anzugeben, ift fieser, ioielüeit er e§ aber getan,
ent= äiet)t fid) unferer Äenntni§. 3n biefem gnfaniiiien'^ang fei
noc^ eine anbere grage BerülEixt. Somol)l bei ber ^Datierung
mand)er ßieber toie befonbers hä ber Erörterung ber mufifatifd)en
Jätigfeit ^utljerö 'fiat ^äufig eine 9totenl^anbf(^rift eine Stolle ge=
fpiett, bie fid} al§ im 3al)re 1530 abgefd)loffen ausgab, ©ie umfaßte
137 ^JJlelobien 3U übertt)iegenb lateinifdjen unb 23 beutfd^en
geiftlidjen ^ejten in ber 2enorftimme. 'üaä) il)rem C">erüu^geber
D. Äabe ift fie aU ber ßabefd)e Öutl)erfobej in ber fiiteratur
befannt.^ 9luf bem Titelblatt trug fie bie SSemerfung: |)at mt)r
berel^ret met)n guter Q^reunb .^err 3ot)ann Söaltl^er (Jomponift
^Jtufice 5U Morgan? 1530 S)em ©Ott gnabe. 9Jtartinu§ ßut^er.
•"Dlit biefem .g)er!nnft§= unb ßigentumgöermer! tuar natürlid) ein
befonberer ^aßftab für ben Söert be§ Äobej gegeben, inbeffen finb
bod) öon feinem erften 23efanntn)erben an bie 9lnfid)ten über feine
@d;t^eit geteilt geioefen.* 2)od) gerabe in ber neueren iUteratur ift
it)m U)ieber eine öornel^mere Stellung eingeräumt luorben. ©0 ift
befonbers Otunje für feine ©c^t^eit eingetreten ■''•, aud) 5Ilbrect)t
ertennt, tuenn Qud^ mit t)orfi(f)tigerer einfc^rän!ung feine
SSebeutung an**, SDibeliuö unb Spitta \i aigl. boä ^iä^ere ©. 6 ff.
-) St. ©torcf, Sa? geiftürfie iJolfölicb uiib ba^ Äivdjeiu lieb bet
SKcfotinotion. Ser 2ürmct, 7. 3f)tg. 1904;ö. 414 — 426. 3]gl. ferner
jtaltfdjer, ^Dl. Öutfjers Söebeutung f- b. lonfuuft. ."paUeluin 18ö5.
.^eft 4 unb 5. ') (Jin feftc butgf ift önfer got. Ser neuaiifgefunbeiic
:^ut()et = ßobej; öoin ^al]xc 1530. ^^■>rijg. öon Otto ftobe.
Sterben, ©c^togfc^e 3]erlag«onftQlt. ^. ^lemm. 1871. *) 9}gl.
üabei iöcmerfuiigcn B. lOf. bct ?lu«gabe. "j ?,citfdjt. f. »üiff.
2:l)eologte XLI (1898) 413 f. ") ?Dlonntfd)v. f. Öottesb. lt. fitdjl. «iiufl
111 (1898j81.
 This page contains the following errors:
error on line 10 at column 2594: Double hyphen within comment: <!--.
error on line 16 at column 206: Comment not terminated

Below is a rendering of the page up to the first error.

The text on this page is estimated to be only 10.27% accurate

Q{) .'i. Viitl)i-v<.- ihi="" bcv="" iiiiififiiliji1="" bov="" vicbfv.=""

arbeiten="" mit="" bev="" c="" uiib="" niul="" .w="" bicje="" iiiil=""
in="">uuMfcl.''* £rte ift firt)ev: Jll^eim bev Ihipvuiii^, bie Xatievuiu^
uiib bie (viiilieitlidjfeit be«J ATübey iineituiefel)viiiift feftfleftellt uu-vben
fbiiute, fo l)(itten Uiiv aiui) für bie (^vitniduiig bev Vutlunliebev,
iviii.Mi^UVlfl)i'» ^Ji^" ^i'"i fouftii^cii miififnliid)eu iiBcvte, in il)in ein
iiu&evft jd)ä\jbnveö ITofunient. '^üv bvel Viibev X.'ntl)ev>> tiuive er
eiönitlid) bie CucQe: 1. l^iHttcn uiiv l)iev ,^uevft bie Wclobie ,^h „^in
feftc 5^uvfi", bereu rtebnidttciS P^rfctjeiitci; ITtis ji'beiifoll>>
^UH'ifeUjntt ift-*, bie nii'ti'jlidierUH'ife, ober lieffer nod) ivnln'idK'inliri)
ir)'2i> im Älui^idien (Mcloiii^lnid) iv'ftaubon l)nt, aber in beni umm
evlmltenen "Ollatevinl evft 15;{1 auftritt. 2. bef\e{\uete und l)icr «luerft
bao Vieb ,/-l^atev unfer im .V"»immelreid)", lueldje« fonft evft löo9
i^ebrucft crfd)eint. 3. träfen U'ir iu beut .
The text on this page is estimated to be only 17.45%
accurate

5. l'utV'r^ ^liiteit nii bei- inufifnlifrf)eu i^cnvbcitiiiuj bcr

ßicbcr. 87 'iHU-foiniiuMi üon „i^ater unfev int .g)imiiic(reid)"
lüadjQcnifcu tuovbcn ift, gnii,^ ge^ lüQÜig gcfteigert. Sollten aßc
bic|e lonfälje, bereu UvTjeber in ben meiften (^-ällen ^lo^anneg
SBoItl^er felbft i[t, fd)on bor 15o0 cntftanben fein iinb bod) Don
if)m evft 1544 45 ober gar mit Übergel)ung feines großen
6antionaI§ öon 1545 erft 1551 üeröffcnt^ lid^t iDorben fein'? 3u
biefen S^eift'tn, bie fidf) an§ bem i^n'^alt ergeben muffen, fonimt
ein toeiterei Seben!en, ba§ fid) gegen bie bevmeintlid)e 51uffd)rift
£utl)er§ rid)tet, beren ^-affimile ^abe feiner ^^InSgabe beigefügt
tjat. Äabe f)at aU ^ni^en für if)re Cfd)t= l^eit befonberg
SBarfernogel ine gelb gefü£)rt, bod) ift eö fef|r fraglicf), ob ber
^ert)or= ragenbfte Kenner ber iöibliogrop^ie bei Äird)enliebe§ Qud)
ein fo guter Kenner üon fiutl^erl)Qnbfd)riftcn geU)efeu ift, ttjie Ifabe
annimmt. S)ie 2:itelauffd)rift mad)t feiueSWegS ben (^inbrud ber
@d)tf)eit. 2lud) J^alnerau 1)ait fie nac^ perföntic^cr 5Jlitteiluug
unbebingt für gefälfd)t. Sd) füge bem nod} tjiuju, tt)a§ mir ber
©o^n be§ .^erauögeber§, Dr. 9i. Äabe in 3)re§ben, mitteilt. @r I)at
bie 4^anbfd)rift jule^ gefef)en unb unterfud}t unb ift babei ^u
gau,^ anbern ß^vgebniffeu gefommeu a(ö fein 9)ater, ber felbft nie
geleugnet ):jale, ba^ fein SBerf in biblipgrapt)ifd)cr .g)infid}t ber
Slnberung unb dladj^ befferung bebürfe, unb nur bnrd) ben
S3efi^er ^. X^temm auf falfd}e 5ät)rten gelenft fei. '^lud^ 9i.
Alabe ^ält mein Urteil über ben S)ebifation§üermerf für rid)tig, bie
Saf)re«jat)t 1530 fei ftd}er falfd), benn bie ^fitgren^e ber
nmfi!alifd)en Eintragungen gef)e fogar über 1551 l^inauS. ;3d) gebe
ju, ba^ bie ^oten'^anbfdirift einen bebeutenben
mufi!gefd)id)t(id)en SCßert '^aben fann, aud) Wenn il)r 2;itetblatt
eine gölfdiung ift, aber für bie ^Bearbeitung ber Sutt)erlieber mu§
ber^obej; nad) biefen geftftetlungen au5fd)eiben.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 8.00%
accurate

IL Cm^cluntcrfucljunani. *
The text on this page is estimated to be only 13.59%
accurate

w) to/ ^^2$d^^!^^€^^M^M^^^h^^ 1. S)ie 1524

crfdjicucucu Siebet. ©in neue« ßicb Uitr ^cbcn an. ®a§ £ieb üon
ben ^ipei 5)lärtt)rern CUjtifti, 311 y3i'üffel öon ben Sopl^iften 311
Sötoen ticrbrannt, fte^t in engem 3iifaiTinien|ang mit bem ^ricf
£utf)er§ an bic 6{)i-iften in ^iiebevlonb. ^n ber 53earbeitung bicfer
Si^vitt füf bie äöeimarer tVnsgabe bat ^anjevan genauere
9)httei(ungeu über ba^ 6reigni§, bQ§ ben Ulnla^ ,^u bicfem
3:ro[tfd)reiben bot unb bcm auc^ unfer (Sebidjt feine ßntftel^ung
berbanft, gcmQd)t unb bie Cueüen im einzelnen aufgefütirt. ^ Sluf
®runb neuerer Literatur t)at C. Giemen einige mit ben ä.^orgängen
jufammenl^ängenbe fragen nai^geprüft unb baniit wertöoHe
(Ergänzungen ju Äotüerau^ Sarftellung gegeben.- ßnrmrliler^ ptiotö
:3ül)aiiii 'i^nfc^a, ber qI§ i^nqnifitot bei bet ^-)inrid)tiing zugegen
tvax, geid)iiel'en. gftebcricq ^x. Üb. ") Sügl. 3.». ed)abc, Satiren unb
^poögniac li, 133. f). ßlemen, ^(ug^ fc^riften a. b. etflen 3Qt)ten
bct 3Jcformation II, 227 f. " ) ^tebericq 9Jr. 148. ') W0. Rttmen ü. a.
D. 49 f. ") grcberiiq mx. 141. Unfre ^iluSg. i^b. 12, 74. aBeflet
2(>49.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 11.36%
accurate

02 1. Tii- l.VJl orf(f)iciii'iii'ii lieber. bc^iflit, üi'vtvitt ciui-

anbino l^hiivpi noii Cucllfii boii *3tanbpiiiift, baf^ bvci iöefmnev bcv
fiiflnr\clijd)CM X.'fl}ve iiiiii\i'fominfn feien '; brv brittc jei beii bcibon
cvftcii ^U'ci laflo ipiltfv in bcn lob flffoU^t. 'i^iionbcvi' 'in-vlncitung
fanb biefe Vlnfidjl buvd) bic {vUiflfct)vift „Tcv '^UUii inib linnblinu^ |
bei bn^vabotion imb ln-v | pvcnnunfl bfv CM)vi|tlidjcn | bvrDcn
'Kittcv imb "ilJJcv | tevev, \}lU(Vi)"liMci or i bcnö gcfd)i'l)i'n ,ju |
'^viiiiol. ?Inno 'ÜJI. 5^. j-jriii. '|Uinia 3»lii- "'^ ♦l»rf) !i'Ht()cv luav
nnfanßö Hon bfv il1al)vl)iMt bicfco (MciTbf\< übcv.^cuflt •''; auf
einem '-IHicfc Don il)in iilievnal)nt 3polatin biefe Vlnivibe in feine
^Innalen*, bereu Tarftellunfl für baiutl)cr am 19. :i\anuar 1524
einen 3:roftbtief fdjvicb'"', uod) im ©efängni«. (frft am 15. Sep=
tember 152S unirbe aud) er I)ingcrid)tet.' iH'od) nnditiger ift eine
anbere [yrage, bic burd) Glemene Unterfud)ung ,yim ^Hbidilufj
gefommen ift: -V^aben ctioa bic bcibcn Tclinqiientcn unmittelbar bor
i()rcr .V^inrid}tung nod) Siiiben'uf geleiftet? S3on fatl)oIifd;er Seite
Uiurbc bie§ (^krebe auogefprengt, unb aud) l*ntl)er crmät)nt e« in
feinem ©cbid^t al§ eine iJüge ber Gegner i^Str. IIV 2)ie 1liad)rid)t
gef)t legten ®runbe§ auf brei 33cttelmönd)c jurürf, bic bic beiben
^c^er in ber (5igenfd)aft üon SSeidjtbiitern jum (5d)affot begleitet
l^atten/ Sic !cnn3cid)net fid^ al§ breifte 3]erlcumbung ad majorem
gloriam cccicsiae. S^ic Hugenjcugen , bie bem (ycuer i^unädjft
ftanben, lüanbten fid) fofort mit aller ©d^ärfe gegen ba§ @erüd)t,
unb übcreinftimmenb Ijcben boncinanber gan^ unabhängige Cuelleu
ben freubigen, ficgf)aften ^Jlut Ijcrbor, mit bem bic ^iüngliuge in
bcn lob gingen." (Jtf fann nid)t njunberne^men, ba§ l-uf^er tief
erf(f)üttert burd; bie ^unbe öon bem 3?Iut3eugni5 ber beiben
2luguftiner tnar.^^ 5tber au§ bem Sdjmer^ über ibren iob erl)ob er
fic^ balb ju ber frof)en 3uberftd)t, ba^ aud) i£)r Zeugnis nid)t
öergeben« gelrefen fei, ba^ e§ beitragen toerbe, bem ©öangelium
einen neuen 3i^üt)= ling l)erauf5ufül)ren. 9Iu§ biefcr Stimmung
heraus fd^rieb er ben 2:roftbrief an bie 6§riftcn in Dlieberlanb, au§
il^r ^craue bidjtete er „Gin neue§ Sieb »rir t)eben au". Siefe gleiche
Stimmung, bie beibe Sct)öpfungen burcf)tt»cf)t, legt ben ©ebanfen
nale, ba§ fie auc^ ju gteid)er S^it entftanben finb. 5Die 5Inuat)me
toirb berftärft burd) eine Üiei^e öon ^^paraüelen in beiben Herten.
^ilUerbinge ift bei ber ©leid)= l^eit bei bel^anbelten i^emas nidf)t
all^u biet auf fie ju geben, mit einer -äu^na^me, bie eine bur(^au§
nic^t atttäglidie äßenbung in feltfamer Übereinftimmuug bringt. •j
gtebeticq 9tt. 142, 143, 145. ^) Sßeller, 2319—2325 unb ©uppl. I,
5^t. 242. g:rebc= ricq «Rr. 142. '') enbeti, SBrieftucc^fel IV, 9ir. 682,
683, 684. 2Jiit gutem ®runb fc^lägt D. eicinen a. a. 0. 44 eine
UrnfteCung ber Sriefc bor: 684 um ben 23. 3uli, 683, 682 (26. 3,uti).
*) gd^el^oin, Amoenitates literariae IV, 412. 2)]enrfe, Scriptores rer.
Germ. II, 628. '") gfrebericq 9tr. 145. 2ie 3}ermutung, ba§ biefer
Tritte fein onberer nie Sambert Don J^oren getoefen fein fann, ^ot
fc^on ©nber«, Sutf)er^ SBricfWe^fel IV, 185 au^gcfproc^en. ")
@nber§ IV, 280ff. ,9lr. 755). • ) i?rafft, 3;i)eDl. arbeiten beö
r^einifdjen loiffenfc^. 5ßrebigeröerein§ IX, 95. «) gfrcbericq ««r.
144. 6Iemen q. a. D. 46f. «j gfrebericq 9ir. 142. ?ir. 148. »«)
^o^onneö Äeßlere gabbota ^rig. öon ggli unb S(^oc^ (St. ©allen
1902j 130 f.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 20.39%
accurate

©in iiciie^ \iith luir tjebeit an. 93 S)er 'Einfang beS aSriefeS
lautet: „ßob unb band fei) bem Dotter aller 6armt)er^icfel)t, ber iinS
311 bifeer 3el)t tüibberurnb fet)cn lefft |"el)n umnbevbars liec^t,
tüitd)§ biö [)er iimb iinjer junb tuiUcii üerborgen geiueft . . . 5lber nu
ift bie ,}ei)t mibber Eonicii, baö toir ber borbcl tauben ftl)ni tjoren
unb bie blumen auffgefien t)nn unferni lanb." ' SDoju üergleld)e man
bie le^te 8tropl)e be§ Siebes: . . . 2öi)r foKen banden ®ott barl)n,
fei)n njort i[t mjhn fonimen, ber 8onimer i[t f)arbt für bev f^ür ber
2Bl)nter ift öergangen, bie jarten blumen get)n ^evfur, ber bog t)at
angefangen, ber toirbt e§ moll üotenben. ?lu§ ben legten 3:agen
bee Siuli 1523 ftammen bie Briefe, in benen fidj S?ut^er über ba«
(Ereignis feinen ^yreunben gegenüber ausläßt; tooljt nur nn'nig
fpäter, in ben Stnfang be§ iHuguftö beefclben Sat)ree, ift bie
(Sntfte^ung be§ 3;roft= briefeä mit nnfere§ ßiebe§ ju fe^eu. Sel^r
bead)tenen:)ert ift bie jmeifacfte Überlieferung be§ (Sebid}t5 im
3Bitten= berger ©efangbud) nnb in ben ßnc^iribien t)on 1524.
äßät)renb biefe, mie fieser aud) ber it)nen ^ugrunbe tiegenbe
©injelbrurf nur ^tt)\\ (5tropt}eu aufroeifen, fd)iebt bae Öut^erfd)e
(5angbüd)Iein bor ben beiben legten ^loei neue ein. ©d)on
Söadernagel f)at barauf aufmertfam gentad)t, ba^ burc^ bie
3ufa^ftropt)en ber 3ufamment)ang ,5tt)ifd)en Str. 8 unb 11
unterbvod)en tuirb^, unb i)üi be§t)alb ©tr. 9 unb 10 für fpäter
erftanben erflärt. 6eine 33emcrfung ift juni minbeften ein fet)r
mitber ?lu§brud für ben ©ac^t)erf)alt. 3)enn bie beiben neuen
Stroptjen ftören nid)t nur ben 3ufanimenf)ang, fonbern ber 3fnt)alt
ber erften öon i^nen fc^üe^t gerabe^u ben ber urfprünglid)
neunten au§. Urfprünglid) War ber ®e= banfengang: S)er mutige
lob ber beiben ^JJliirttjrer erfüttt bie ©egner mit ^-urdjt (8).
Xro^bem ftellen fie bie lügenhafte iöel^anptung auf, ha^ bie
^^üiguftiner nod) im legten ^tugenbtid äöiberruf geleiftet tjätten
(9). 2lber man laffe fie nur lügen, @otte§ Söort tüirb fc^on fiegreic^
bleiben (10). 3u ber neuen iynffu"9 a^igt fic^ folgen be
©ebanfeurei^e: 3)ie ©egner finb burd) ben 2obe§mut ber beiben
Cpfer in Sd)reden gefegt (8). ©ie merfen, baf5 it)r 5iJorgel)en
Derfe^rt mar, bafe e§ Sc^anbe über fie gebracht ^at. ©0 l)egeu fie
ben 9öunfd), ba§ bie Sacl^e möglidjft bertufd)t UJerbe (9). 9lber,
menn fie audj fdiroeigeu, baä öergoffene 33lut unb bie W)djt ber
^.Verbrannten tnerben reben (10). Someit ift alii^ logifc^. Slber nun
bringt bie el^enmlige neunte, jc|t elfte ©tropl^e einen flaffenben
2Biber)prud) : 3:rü^bem laffen fie il)r langen nid)t, ben 3Jiorb ,^u
befd)iJnigen unb fe^en baö ^I){ärd)cn öon bem 2Biberruf in bie
aBelt (11). 3lber mijgen fie nur lügen, ©otteö äBort luirb fc^on
fiegreic^ bleiben (12). ©pitta t)at ben SBiberfprud) erflären wollen,
inbem er meint, bie beiben neuen @tropl)en feien öon Sjutl)er
,^unäd)ft al§ eine l'lrt ^Jlad)trag unter baö Vieb gefdjtieben
worben.^ Sann l)ätte biefeS aber bod) einen ebenfo ftörenben
boppelten ') Unftc 2iii^9. 9Jb. 12, 77. S^gl. fctnet Sut^er^
93eglcitfd)teibcn 3U ^ot). %peU Detensio pro suo coniii
The text on this page is estimated to be only 11.88%
accurate

94 1- '2'ie l.V-M orfrt)ieiii-iioii Vicbcv. 3ci)hi6 bcfomiiu'n.

*iMelinr!)T ift f Don iri24 l)abe id) fleu'ii^t, biif? beni 3e|jcv i^nobe
bei unfrvni X.'iebe nidit ein lUnniiffvipt, fonbevn ein (i'in^elbvuif
luniV'legen l)aben niufj.^ ^^w biefen l)at l'utl)ev uml)vjd)einlid) bie
elvovljcn ein^etvaijen nnb bie beibeu letden niiv leidit obev
Devfel)cntlid) ivivnidjt buvd)= ftvid)on. 3o übevnal)ni bev STvuifcv
and) biofc mit. ^prttev finb fie bann ftel)en geblieben, inelleid)t
uhmI bei bev einmal evfolrtten lueitcn 'in-vbveitung bcv
12ftvopljigen (Van'ung X.'ntl)ev feine neue bnvd)(]veifenbc
'Jliibcvnng Dovncljmen tuolltc. äBcnn abev an3unel)nien ift, bajj bie
(3tvopl)cn in einen beut Seljev bc, ©pitta, (Sin fefte »urg 276 f.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 15.07%
accurate

(?iu iieuco Üieb \v\x I)cbcii an. 95 c3cbunbcne t^ovm

iniijugieBen broud^te. S)Qim aber öerrät ba§ ^ieb aud) eine tief=
einbriiigcube iTcnntiüs be§ l)i[tovifd)cn 33olf§Iiebeö; befonbcr^ in
ber (^iiiteitimg iinb im Sd)tuB arbeitet eg flan.^ mit befjen lec^iiif.
'äni iotd)cm ^-l>evftäiibiiiö für biefe bliU)enbc Xid)tini9öart I)eraiiö
fonnte aber |e{)r leidjt aud) ber ©ebanfe cruiad)ien, fid) felbft
einmal in it)r ,^ii öerfud}en. 3)em isolfölieb ift eiflentümlid), mie e§
ben ^örer t)ineinüerje^t in bie Situation, unb ^wax in fingierter
'^(nfuüpfunfl an einen öortjergegangenen ^^ortrag: ,/Jiun tuiU id)
aber Theben au üon bem 2)an'E)aufer ju fingen . . ." ^ ober „Sir
Ijerren, fct)iDeigenb oin tuenig ftill, e§ er'^ebt fid) ie^ ain netueg
fpil . . ."- ober „5lber mü id) fingen unb fingen ain ncw^ gebiegt . .
." ^ ©an^ eutfpred)enb fingt l^ul^er: „6iu neues ^icb tüir t)eben
an . . ." Unb ganj öolfsUebmä^ig ift aud) ber, t)ier parentf)etifd)
gebraud)te, \!Inruf ®°^*^^- „baö Watt ©Ott unfer Jpene!" So
beginnt ein alte§ IMeb t)on ©t. @eotg: „^it ©Ott fo tüütten lüir
t)eben an . . . *, ©in ^ieb auö ber (5impred)t Äroüfc^en
|)anbfc^rift auf bie Söunber^eic^eu ber Ijeiligen %m\a fängt an: „
The text on this page is estimated to be only 13.08%
accurate

On 1. rif If)'-'! crirtjiciiiMifii l'icbrv. JlBfitiv 1tii)t bann umc

bei Vutlicr in uiolcii jvallcii uüv bev (vv\äl)liiiirt bcv (^iu3clljaten bcr
.t^iiuuciö auf bcn :^'^nl)alt bro l'ii'biiJ, i^mii flenn a[u'ii bic
Übcifrl^rift. Ta fäui^t ein Vicb Don bcv unbcflcrftcn onipfanciniö bei
l'lavia an: {Vii'tllcl) jo U'ifl id) finden mit luft ain tcifle n'ci)&, älUc id^
^n cjl)6v niiifl bviiiflcn "DKnie lob unb hxt\)\i, SBif ji) bo iiHiit
cinvfanöcn bir cbel juncffiMtu vcin.' Cbev c<> beifet in einem
bcfannten 'i'oUölicb: 2Bol lüiv aber fingen l)ün ainem cbclman? ber
uiült bic üon ^Jh'irnbcvg ^unngen, lüic im bev fünft ,^cnan; ber
ed)iittenfamen wai er genant.'^ (vbcn)o ift and) in bem fdjon
criiuibnten lanntjänferlieb in ber elften Stroptie ein ungemeiner
.V^iniuciö gegeben: „5hl n)in id) aber I)ebcn an üon bem
S^anl^anfcr fingen önb loaö er n?unber8 tjat getan mit SßcnuS, bcr
cbten ^inne. (i^rft bann folgt bie eigentttd)e Gr,}äl^tung ber (Sage:
„S^anl^aufer maS ain ritter gut ufto."'' 3Im ed)tu^ ftnbet fic^ ja
befanntlid) f)äuftg bie Eingabe be§ 2)id)ter§, fei ee bem '-Jtamcn
nac^, fei ei, tüic es nod) öfter gcfdjiel^t, nur bem ©tanbe nad).
i'ielfad) tritt aber aiid) ein li)ri|d)ei ^Jioment I)eroor, ein l'ob ftotteö,
ein frommer 3i«unfd) für ben Jpörer, ein ^tuebrud religiös
geftimmter 3nncrtid)fett. (^()arafteriftifd} ift 3. ^. bie Je^te
©tropt)e eines l'iebes auf ben (Jlfäffer Sauernaufftanb 1525: „S)er
biB gebid)t üon erft gefang, bem lüünfd) id) kngei leben, gott geb im
glüd unb \)dl fo lang, bafe im got njürt geien bie emig freub unb
fälifl)eit, unb bem ein fold)5 nit toerbe leit, ber fpred^ mit l^er^en
amen!"-* @in ßieb auf ben ^iomaug 5Jtaximitianä I. 1507 fc^lie^t
mit einem ©egen§= trunfd^ für ben .^aifer''; bai öom 9ftumenfattel
enbet: „9tumenfattel ber ift geftorben, ba§ arm unfd)ulbig btüt, fo
iDoll önä gott beljüten öor ber l^eüifdien glüt!^ n SBadEetnagel II,
5Rr. 1264. -j Ut)lanb 91r. 136. ßiüencron 3lx. 127. ') Ut)Ianb 9it. 297.
Sgl. 299, 123, 138, 144, 2ul. ;3. aJieiet, SBergtei^cn 9it. 50 u. ö. *)
lU)lanb mx. 184. *) Ciiiencxon 9h. 254. «) U^lanb 9lr. 127.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 17.03%
accurate

S^ic ^«folinculiebcv. "ilu-i tiefet 9iüt. 97 'Rod) iitQncfieg

anbete lie^e \id) anfütiren; ober iebenfaüä [tel^t aud) ^ier )^iit^er
nic^t ciüein mit ber tiefempfunbenen prQd)töoIIen äBenbung ,ju
beut Ii)riict)tMi ^^S"^- . . . 3öl)r foüen bancfen ®ott baiyn, fct)n
»ort ift M)ber fommeu. ber ©ommer ift ^arbt für ber t^ür, ber
3Bt)nter ift üergangen, bie jorten blumen get)n l^erfur, ber baö t)at
angefangen, ber wirbt eä iroU üotenben. 2Benn irir rücEblidfenb un§
bie§ üor 3tugen t)aüen, bafe ßut^er einen in flarer lHu§füf)rung
uorüegenben gefc^i(i)tlicf)en ©toff in eine poetifc^e ßrjä^tung
unigegoffen t)üt nnb ba^ er babei bcrouBt, allerbings aud) mit
gtän^enbem ©efc^icf, bie ied)nif bee ^iftürifd)en ^olföliebeö
öerwertct, fo fann biefe geftftellung i'ut^ere S)id^terru]^m luo^t
faum fc^mälern. 3lber fid}er liegt eö näf)er, ein fo geartetes 3Berf
roie unfer ©ebidjt, bei bem bie eigene innere ©mpfinbung t)inter
bem Stoffe felbft oiet ireniger tjeroortritt, ba» üiet objeftiöer ift al§
bie meiften anbern, an bie Spi^e ber Sutt)erf(^en 5Did)tung ju
fteüen, als ein§, in bem bie ^4^erfönlid)feit i()r Snnerftee
offenbarte, n^ie etwa „5)Utten toir im ^tb^n finb" ober „%u^ tiefer
^Jtot fd^rei ii^ ju bir". S)ic ^^fdmenUcbcr. 1. 3lus tiefer ^Jiot fd)rei
id) 511 bir. ('^falm 130.) S)a5 Sieb „3lu§ tiefer 5lot fdirei id) ju bir"
erfdjeint 3uerft im ^a^xe 1524. 2)a bringen e§ bas t'(d)tticberbuc^,
bie Erfurter (ändjiribien nnb bas SBittenbergifc^e (Sangbüd)lein.
l>lud) im ßin.^etbrnd mu^ es üerbreitet geiueien fein.^ (Sd)on t)or
bem 6. 'DJiai rourbe e§ in ^Jtagbeburg gefungen. 5)amit ift nn§ ein
terrainus post qnem non feiner (intftet)ung angezeigt, mie i^n
ät)nlid) genau tjöc^ften» noc^ bae i'ieb „($§ tcoEt un§ @ott
genäbig fein" bietet.'- 2)od) nod) met)r: Sut^er felbft üermerft in
einem iöriefe an ©palatin aus ber SBenbe 1523/24 anSbrücfüd). ,De
proiundis a me veisus est^3 2)a5 fd)eint genau auf bie eben
gefc^e^ene )^otIen= bung be§ !^iebe§ l^in^ubeuten, unb im
Slc^tlieberbud) , baö mal)rid)ein[ic^ fc^on im Januar 1524 bie
@utfned)tfc^e '^^reffe öerlie^ *, märe bann ber 3luögang§punft
feines weiteren ^ßefanntmerbene ^u fud)en. ©0 fdjeint alfo auf
@runb gan^ beftimmter 9tad§rid)ten bie (Sntfiel)ung§= gefd)ic^te
biefer 2;id)tung ^i3d)ft einfach, unb bod) bilbet fie ein 'Problem,
über bae in ber ^timnologie eine Einigung nod) nid)t erhielt Ittorben
ift. 6ine (£d)mierigfeit liegt junäd)ft in ber ,vr»cifac^en
Überlieferung, bie mir öon bem Siebe befi^en : ^m ^c^tlieberbud)
unb in ben (Erfurter (Jnd)iribien ^at es ') Sgl. oben ©9. -; 'Sc^i.
oben S.o. '■') C*iibe« JV,l>74. *) Sjfll. üben ©. M. 2utt)ttö äüert«.
XXXV. 7
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookfinal.com