Disputatio 1519: Preface

Eck, Karlstadt and Luther

Anthony Alcock

In the summer of 1519, almost two years after Luther's publication of the 95 theses, a tripartite
debate was held at Wittenberg1 between Johannes Maier more often known as Eck (the town of his
birth), Andreas Bodenstein more often known as Karlstadt (the town of his birth) and Martin Luther
(who never had any other name). What follows here is the Latin text and English version of the
Preface. The whole Disputatio is divided into three sections, according to participants and date:

I Eck and Karlstadt: June 27 to July 3

II Eck and Luther July 4 to July 14
III Eck and Karlstadt July 14 and 15.

Eck, the vice-Chancellor of Ingolstadt University, strongly opposed Luther's theses and a lively
exchange, using the relatively new technology of print, followed between them in the form of
pamphlets (Streitschriften).2 Karlstadt took Luther's side in the matter of reforming the Church.
Three years later he and Luther had a disagreement, but both were reconciled when the town of
Karlstadt was threatened during the Peasant War of 1524-5 and Luther protected him by hiding him
in his house.

In the negotiations preceding the Disputatio there was a major disagreement about how the debates
should proceed. Eck wanted them to be conducted in the dynamic give-and-take style of discussion,
which would make it difficult for anyone to record faithfully what was actually said. Karlstadt and
Luther, on the other hand, wanted the more static style of formal debate so the notaries would be
able to faithully record everything said. Eck conceded. But it had the effect of slowing down the
proceedings, dampening Eck's theatricals and allowing a faithful account to be recorded. Seitz
points to a possible difficulty here: of the 'more than thirty copies' of the debate that were made,
how reliable is the one we have ? Seitz then goes to examine the various discoveries that have
enabled him to publish what he believes to be an 'authentic' copy of the debate. I am not familiar

1 O. Seitz Der authentische Text der Leipziger Disputation 1519 (1903)

2 H. Nitta 'Ungeduld and Heuchelei: Soziale Stellung und Sprachstil in den Streitschriften zwischen Eck und Luther'
in Akten des XI Germanistenkongresses Paris 2005 pp. 139ff., in which the writer uses terms such
'litist/athoritarian/controlled' to characterize Eck, the established defender of Rome, and
'populist/challenging/emotional' of Luther the establishment opponent. Essentially, Luther's language seems to be
more direct than Eck's.
with the evidence presented, so I am unable to evaluate Seitz's claims.

Ad lectorem.
Habes hic, lector, quisquis es, disputationem illam celebrem, quam Lipsiae vidimus et audivimus
inter insignes viros, dominum Johannem Eccium, Andream Carolostadium et Martinum Lutherum
habitam. Erunt fortasse, qui nollent editam; alii vero et damnent excusam, quod communi consilio
partes utrimque convenisse dicuntur, ne qua via disputatio eiusmodi disseminaretur. Verum in his
sermonibus nihil movearis, lector. Si enim serio voluissent occultatum iri hoc pelagus et cahos
verborum, non utique permisissent publico conspectu, a quovis libitum esset, excipi et in literas
referri. Nam cum plus triginta exemplaria sint illic excepta et in diversas orbis partes emissa, satis
palam est voluisse omnia invulgari, nisi forte notariorum (qui ad hoc ipsum seorsim designati erant)
exemplaria his legibus suis subiacerecurarint. Nos, si quid utilitatis in ea pio lectori afferre
possemus, solliciti fuimus. Sunt in ea sane pleraque talia, quae hucusque aut non novimus aut non
ausi sumus nosse. Quae si bene cedunt, quid veritatis sint allatura, viderint ii, quorum interest;
libertatis certe non nihil paritura sperantur, qua de rebus ecclesiae et christianismo audentius
et loqui et audire contingere putatur. Quamquam multa quoque sint in hac silva, quae extra
propositum dicta sint, noluimus tarnen quicquam imminuere, sed simplici fide, ut dicta et gesta
sunt, plene omnia reddere, porro nostrae opis non ignari nec immemores neutri partium quicquam
arrogare aut derogare possumus nee iudicium tentare, quo solet vel allici vel retrahi lectoris
affectus. Relinquimus autem omnia in omnium et singulorum iudicio; quod ut varium futurum non
dubitamus, ita ut optimum quodque praevaleat, optamus ad laudem dei et communi rei
christianae inerementum. Vale, lector pie, et pie legas, quae pie ministrantur a nobis. Quod facies, si
nostrum studium boni consulas.

To the reader
You have here, reader, whoever you are, the famous disputation held at Leipzig between those
illustrious men, Johannes Eck, Andreas Karlstadt and Martin Luther, which we saw and heard.
There will perhaps be some who would prefer it not to be published: others may condemn the
excuse that all parties are said to have agreed to the publication and maintain that in no way should
a disputation of this sort be circulated. But, reader, do not allow yourself to be moved by these
opinions. For if they had seriously wanted this sea and chaos3 of words to be concealed, they would
not have allowed access to the public, who were able to listen to and write down was said. Now,
more than thirty copies of the text were made and sent out to various parts of the world, and it is
clear enough that the wish was for everything to be divulged, except perhaps that they took care that

3 Text reads cahos.

the copies of the notaries, who had been independently appointed for this purpose, should be
submitted to these laws of theirs. We have been careful to add to it whatever may be useful to the
pious reader. There are of course many things in it that we did not know or dare to know. If these
things go well, those who have an interest will see what truth they add. It is certainly hoped that
they will generate some freedom that will allow matters of the Church and faith to be spoken and
heard more openly. Although there are many things in this material that may have been said by the
way, we have not wished to minimize anything but to relate fully all that was said and done in
simple faith. We are not unaware of our strength nor, unmindful of either party, can we add or
detract anything or attempt a judgement that may sway the mind of the reader. We leave everything
to the judgement of everyone collectively and individually. We are in no doubt that the best will
prevail and we hope that the praise of God and the faith will be increased. Farewell, reader, and read
in good faith what we have in good faith provided. And you will do this if you are satisfied with our
efforts.