“Πρὸς τούτῳ καὶ ἐλπίζω, ὅτι ὁ βίος οὑτοσὶ σεμνότερον αὐτὸν ποιήσει, ὥστε καὶ ἀποβαλεῖν τὴν βωμολοχίαν, ἧς πολλάκις ἐμεμψάμεθα. ἄλλος γὰρ βίος ἄλλην δίαιταν κατὰπαροιμίαν καταστήσει.
“Ταῦτα πρός σε μακρολογῶ ὤστε μή σε ὑπὸ παραδόξου πράγματος ἄγαν ταράττεσθαι. οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι μέλει σοι τοῦ ἀξιώματος τοῦ Λουθέρον, ὅπερ νυνὶ ἐλαττοῦθαι ἀχθεσθήσῃ. Παρακαλῶ δέ σε πράως ταῦτα φέρειν, ὄτι τίμιος βίος ὁ γάμος ἐν ἁγίαις γραφαῖς εἶναι λέγεται. εἰκὸς δὲ ἀναγκασθῆναι ἀληθῶς γαμεῖν. Πολλὰ τῶν πάλαι ἀγίων πταίσματα ἔδειξεν ὁ θεὸς ἡμῖν, ὄτι θέλει ἡμᾶς βασανίζοντας τὸν αὐτοῦ λόγον, οὐκ ἀξίωμα ἀνθρώπων ἢ πρόσωπον σύμβουλον πολεῖν, ἀλλὰ μόνον αὐτοῦ λόγον. πάλιν δὲ ἀσεβέστατος ἐστιν, ὃστις διὰ τὸ διδασκάλον πταῖσμα καταγιγνώσκει τῆς διδαχῆς.
“Michaelis pergrata consuetudo in his turbis mihi est, quem miror, qui passus sis isthinc discedere. Patrem officiosissime tractato, et puta te hanc illi pro paterno amore gratiam debere καὶ ἀντιπελαργεῖν. De Francicis rebus a te litteras expecto. Vale foeliciter. Postridie corp. Christi. Tabellarius qui has reddet, recta ad nos rediturus est. Φίλιππος.” (The seal is still preserved.)
[478] Not βδελυρίαν, debauchery, as was thought, but βωμολοχίαν, is the correct reading. The latter might perhaps be translated as “the passion for making coarse jests.” This is the opinion of G. Kawerau in “Deutsch-Evangelische Blätter,” 1906, “Luther und Melanchthon” (in the reprint, p. 37), who remarks that the only thing damning for Luther in this letter was Melanchthon’s statement “concerning the coarse jests to which Luther was given in his bachelor days, and which had so often scandalised his friend.” Kawerau, for this very reason, thinks that this much-discussed letter, “which Camerarius only ventured to print after much revision” (p. 34), is much better calculated to “make us acquainted with Melanchthon than with Luther, and simply bears witness to the former’s sensitiveness” (p. 37). It is true that “some of Luther’s talk appears to us to-day frightfully coarse, and Melanchthon felt as we do on the subject”; but apart from the fact that Melanchthon’s views were not representative of his age, Mathesius declares that “he never heard an immodest word from Luther’s lips.” We shall return later to the question of that age as a linguistic standard of morality and to Mathesius’s statement, which, we may remark, refers to a later period.
[479] εἰκὸς δὲ ἀναγκασθῆναι ἀληθῶς γαμεῖν. The subject of the verb ἀναγκασθῆναι is the infinitive γαμεῖν, as in the previous passage ἡγοῦμαι ὑπὸ φύσεως ἀναγκασθῆναι γαμεῖν. On the passive form ἀναγκασθῆναι, see e.g. Plato, “Phæd.,” 242a, 254a.
[480] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 750.
[481] Loc. cit., p. 36.
[482] To Johann Rühel, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 293 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 164).
[483] To Spalatin, November 30, 1524 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 77): “Animus alienus est a coniugio, cum expectem quotidie mortem et meritum hæretici supplicium.” This he wrote under the influence of the stringent decrees of the Diet of Nuremberg (April 18, 1524), and in order to work upon his Elector. The decrees had led him to write: “You are in a great hurry to put me, a poor man, to death,” but that his death would be the undoing of his enemies. “Two unequal decrees of the Emperor,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 222 f.; Weim. ed., 15, p. 254.
[484] To Johann Rühel, Johann Thür and Caspar Müller, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 314 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 195).