[677] Vol. i., Preface, p. vii. In the Latin edition of the Table-Talk Bindseil, in spite of the scruples alluded to above (n. 1), speaks in praise of the Table-Talk, and makes his own the words of J. Müllensiefen (1857). The Table-Talk showed Luther as “the noblest offshoot of his nation”; it is true the coarseness and plainness of speech are inexcusable, but it all contributes towards the “perfect characterisation of the great man,” for “the wrinkles and furrows are part of his portrait” (“Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. xiii.). Luther’s opponents were, however, of a different opinion even in the early days. G. Steinhausen, in his “Deutsche Kulturgesch.,” Leipzig, 1904, p. 513, quotes Johann Fickler of Salzburg, who describes the Table-Talk as “full of obscene and stinking jests,” and compares it to the erotic products of the Epicureans. Steinhausen himself is loath to go so far.
[678] “Theol. Jahresbericht,” 23, p. 488.
[679] Wetzer and Welte, “KL.,”³ art. “Aurifaber.” H. Böhmer likewise admits that: “Although their [the principal witnesses’: Dietrich, Lauterbach, and Mathesius] statements must always be critically examined, yet it is established, that they have preserved for us an exceptional number of data concerning Luther’s life, acts, and opinions. They supply us with what on the whole is an accurate account, arranged in chronological order, which brings the real Luther almost as closely before us as his own letters and writings.” In his objections against the “principal witnesses” he does not pay sufficient attention to the existence of the original notes (“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² 1910, p. 105). Protestant theologians and historians of Luther are now in the habit of laying stress on the Table-Talk, no less than on Luther’s other works, and that even in the case of weighty and controverted questions. Examples might be quoted from Loofs, Drews, G. Kawerau, J. Köstlin, G. Ward, etc.
[680] “RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ art. “Aurifaber.” In the “Abh. der Kgl. Ges. d. Wissensch. Götting., Phil.-hist. Kl., N.F.,” 1, Wilhelm Meyer deals with the Collections of Lauterbach and Aurifaber. In the same way Kawerau points out in his “Studien und Kritiken,” 81, 1908, p. 338, “the importance of these notes for Luther’s biography and for a knowledge of his home life.” Cp. Kawerau, ibid., p. 354, on the old re-arrangement according to the subject-matter. The “authenticity” of the sayings which occur in these revised editions can be proved in many instances from the original writings and from the light thrown on them by parallel passages now in print, but the “dates” are another matter. Where, in the present work, any date is taken from the revised editions, it rests solely on the authority of the latter. Cp. Kroker’s remarks on the Table-Talk of 1540 in the “Archiv f. Reformationsgesch.,” 1908, above, p. 218, n. 2. On Aurifaber’s re-arrangement of the Table-Talk, see Cristiani, “Revue de questions historiques,” 91, 1912, p. 113.
[681] Lauterbach, Luther’s pupil, who was also the author of the Diary, revised his Collection and sought to improve upon the arrangement; a similar, later revision of this formed the basis of the “Colloquia” of Rebenstock. Kawerau, ibid.
[682] Cp. below, p. 231, n. 2.
[683] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 23.
[684] Ibid., p. 11.
[685] Ibid., p. 48.
[686] Ibid., p. 108.