FOOTNOTES:
[1] On Clement the Seventh’s earlier hesitation to come to a decision, see Ehses in “Vereinsschr. der Görresgesell.,” 1909, 3, p. 7 ff., and the works there referred to; also Paulus, “Luther und die Polygamie” (on Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 92, n.) in the “Lit. Beilage der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 48, and “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 135, 1905, p. 89 ff.; Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Engl. trans.), 10, pp. 238-287. See below, p. 6 f.
[2] To Robert Barnes, Sep. 3, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 9, pp. 87-8. At the commencement we read: “Prohibitio uxoris demortui fratris est positivi iuris, non divini.” A later revision of the opinion also under Sep. 3, ibid., pp. 92-8.
[3] “Briefwechsel,” ibid., p. 88. In the revision the passage still reads much the same: “Rather than sanction such a divorce I would permit the King to marry a second Queen ... and, after the example of the olden Fathers and Kings, to have at the same time two consorts or Queens” (p. 93).
[4] See vol. iii., p. 259.
[5] “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 87 seq.
[6] Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 91, n. 15. Cp. W. W. Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” Marburg, 1904, p. 214, n. 1, and below, p. 17, n. 2.
[7] Memorandum of Aug. 23, 1531, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 520 seq.; see particularly p. 526: Bigamy was allowable in the King’s case, “propter magnam utilitatem regni, fortassis etiam propter conscientiam regis.... Papa hanc dispensationem propter caritatem debet concedere.” Cp. G. Ellinger, “Phil. Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 325 f., and Rockwell, ibid., p. 208 ff.
[8] Cp. Th. Kolde, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 13, 1892, p. 577, where he refers to the after-effect of Melanchthon’s memorandum, instanced in Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 1, p. 352, and to the material on which Bucer relied to win over the Wittenbergers to the Landgrave’s side (“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 851 seq.).