Notes on “Bondage of the Will” Editions
Talk Reformation Era: History and Literature
Join LibraryThing to post.
1geoffreymeadows
So, I’ve finished both The Bondage of the Will 1525 “Luther Annotated Edition” and Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation from the “Library of Christian Classics” series which has both Erasmus’ “Freedom of the Will” and Luther’s “Bondage of the Will” collected together.
I read the “Luther Annotated Edition” first. Then, I read the “Christian Classics” edition with both treatises. The “Luther Annotated Edition” had better notes, I thought. The disadvantages of the Annotated Edition are that it is abridged, and, of course, it doesn’t have Erasmus’ part of the debate. The “Christian Classics” edition was complete, but though it had copious notes on Luther’s contribution, it only had a few notes in the appendix of the book for Erasmus’.
I don’t see any way out of this conundrum except to say that I felt perfectly well guided to have read them both - the “Annotated” and the “Christian Classics” editions. I wrote before, that reading parts of the “Bondage of the Will” was pretty painful and that I almost gave up on it; but in the long run I feel I got something from reading the unabridged form. If nothing else, it gives you a better sense of Luther’s ‘undauntedness’, even when he seems way out on a limb.
Another thing I could do is to compare the arguments of the two men more carefully. The notes in the “Christian Classics” edition just barely allow you to do this. A detailed comparison of the two treatises would probably turn up more insights. Also, it would be good to research in greater depth the Medieval theology that influenced the two writers’ arguments.
Obviously, there’s much more to these treatises than I was able to take in in my first readings of them. I felt this way in my early readings of “The Praise of Folly”, as well. I guess 16th century literature, especially theology, can be a complex and unfamiliar world, especially on first readings.
I read the “Luther Annotated Edition” first. Then, I read the “Christian Classics” edition with both treatises. The “Luther Annotated Edition” had better notes, I thought. The disadvantages of the Annotated Edition are that it is abridged, and, of course, it doesn’t have Erasmus’ part of the debate. The “Christian Classics” edition was complete, but though it had copious notes on Luther’s contribution, it only had a few notes in the appendix of the book for Erasmus’.
I don’t see any way out of this conundrum except to say that I felt perfectly well guided to have read them both - the “Annotated” and the “Christian Classics” editions. I wrote before, that reading parts of the “Bondage of the Will” was pretty painful and that I almost gave up on it; but in the long run I feel I got something from reading the unabridged form. If nothing else, it gives you a better sense of Luther’s ‘undauntedness’, even when he seems way out on a limb.
Another thing I could do is to compare the arguments of the two men more carefully. The notes in the “Christian Classics” edition just barely allow you to do this. A detailed comparison of the two treatises would probably turn up more insights. Also, it would be good to research in greater depth the Medieval theology that influenced the two writers’ arguments.
Obviously, there’s much more to these treatises than I was able to take in in my first readings of them. I felt this way in my early readings of “The Praise of Folly”, as well. I guess 16th century literature, especially theology, can be a complex and unfamiliar world, especially on first readings.
