Any thoughts on what those beads in Chemnitz’s left hand might be?
———-
McCain: That is not an uncommon feature in portraits of Chemnitz. Some have opined that they are in fact “beads” and thus it may be a rosary. I’m not so sure. Particularly in this portrait, I don’t see what might be characteristic parts of a rosary. I welcome other thoughts. Perhaps somebody might know for sure? It would be interesting to know how this portrait compares to other 16th century portraiture of the day. Was this a common element in portraits? I have repeatedly noticed that art at this time followed very set and fixed patterns and themes.
———-

Beautiful photos of beautiful places. Thanks for those.
I note with envy no carpet on the aisles and wonder then, is there padding on the pews?
What American churches do for comfort, only to lose in sound, and thus in majesty! If our building committees were ever to look to Europe, instead of to the neighborhood mega-church, we’d never lay another foot of carpet in a sanctuary, nor install another giant video screen. We’d hardly need a sound system. Sound knows how to travel, when it’s given due space and surface.

Where is the picture of Arndt’s portrait??

You know, there’s that other pic of Martin II with the beads; but I sure don’t recall seeing any other Reformation pictures with them. Maybe they ARE a rosary and he did it just to annoy Andreae and the low-liturgy contingent from the south… : ) I mean – look at the smirk. It virtually asks: You got a problem with this, buddy?

I’ve seen at least three pictures of Chemnitz with these ‘beads’ I had always assumed they were a symbol of his position as superintendent of the churches of Braunschweig. Could be wrong on that. However I like Weedon’s explanation better!
———-
McCain: It is fascinating question of what, precisely, they are. I do not see anything in these beeds to identify it as a rosary, so that leads me to think they are something else. That plus the fact that Chemnitz, to my knowledge, does not favorably speak of the rosary in his writings. I don’t even know if the rosary was, in the 16th century, a prominent aspect of Roman piety which Lutherans would have inherited.
———-

McCain: Perhaps somebody might know for sure?
What evidence is required to produce adequate surety?
———-
McCain: I would be more confident identifying it as “rosary” if I would find some reference to the rosary in any of Chemnitz’ writings, or his sermons, etc. I have not yet run across that and so I tend to believe it is not that. It would be hard to imagine Chemnitz would not mention the rosary in any of his materials. That’s why I tend to think it is probably not a rosary, but may well be just a standard/convention type of item to put in a man’s portrait at that time, perhaps even by that artist. Perhaps readers of this blog have some evidence from Chemnitz’ writings to point us toward a more definitive conclusion?
———-

Of the three Pictures I’ve seen with the beads, one is shwon here, the other is on the cover of J.A.O. Preus’ fine book “The Second Martin” (CPH). And one other which is a full length portrait of Chemnitz standing, and he has a loop of large beads hanging from his right wrist.
This reminds me of what happend when I and my sisters were going through some of my Father’s belongings after he died. We found a fancy piece of sliver ‘jewelry’ consiting of four braided chains running parallel to each other that were only about 6″ long, the end of the chain had a clasp on one and a button on the other. We puzzled over this for quite a while, till we decided to do the scholarly thing and ask Mom. She laughed at all the things we thought it was turns out it was a common gift in the 20′s and 30′s for men -a chain that buckled a gentlman’s suit vest to hold a pocket watch.

That’s it!! Thsi bishop and scholar who is well versed in reading the Bible mysticly and has studied the church fathers is holding a watch! He must be all that since the portable watch had been invented in 1504. (The wrist watch makes its appearance after Chemnitz is dead.) Of course, it was invented in Nuremberg, so perhaps…
Btw, Luther knew the Rosary. He speaks about it in a sermon and in his 1522 Personal Prayerbook.
Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger! Whoever is weak in faith can utter no Hail Mary without danger to his salvation. (Sermon, March 11, 1523)
———-
McCain: I welcome more information on the rosaryand its history, but I do not find this to be proof that Luther said the rosary.
———-
Our prayer should include the Mother of God . . . What the Hail Mary says is that all glory should be given to God, using these words: “Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Amen!”
———-
McCain: But…..please note that Luther does not encourage the more offensive portion of the “Hail Mary” — “Pray for us sinners now and in the hour of our death. Amen.”
———-
You see that these words are not concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honor . . . We can use the Hail Mary as a meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we should add a wish that everyone may know and respect her . . . He who has no faith is advised to refrain from saying the Hail Mary. (Personal Prayer Book, 1522)
———-
McCain: I think we would also do well to exercise a bit of discretion in citing earlier Lutheran and advance early Luther to urge Lutherans to pray the Hail Mary. Be careful what you read in Luther. You may not like what older Luther has to say about cermonies, vestments and the like! Also, please keep in mind that the Personal Prayer Book and its various editions was superseded in Luther’s mind by the Small Catechism, in which Catechism, you will nary a word from Luther recommending that we pray the Hail Mary. Good to keep this in mind, lest we get too carried away by the incorrect assumption that praying the “Hail Mary” is perfectly kosher.
———-
Now, I wonder if he had a shrine…

Ben, I can laugh at myself and can take some teasing, but I hope I didn’t give the impression that I actually thought Chemnitz was holding a watch! What I was (assuming this is not a rosary) implying was this may be something culturally common for the day that would never occur to us.
———-
McCain: If somebody can find some clear evidence in Chemnitz’ writings that he advocated praying the rosary, that would settle the issue for me, but the enthusiastic hopes and dreams of some based on what is at present not identified in several portraits is not founded on sufficient evidence.
———-

That is beautiful!

Chemnitz deals with the rosary and the Marian Psalter in the third part of the Examination of the Council of Trent (pp. 391-405 of Fred Kramer’s Translation). There he deals with the development of the roasary and cites the Marian Psalter as an example of idol mania. While he maintains that it is in accordance with Scripture to venerate and honor the saints, this is to be within thanking and praising God and in no way take away from or compete with Christ. We might all do well to read the whole section of the examination again. (pp. 355-507)

While you’re in the neighborhood, you might want to visit St. Mary’s church in the village of Lelm (interesting architecture and and stop at the beautiful cloister church in Koenigslutter. Stopping in Wolfenbuettel is also worthwhile (famous library and an interesting Pieta in one of the churches—the body of Christ is in the lap of the Father—it drives Calvinists nuts!

The Sankt Martini Church has a description of the picture on its website. The objects in the portrait are meant to indicate characteristics of the subject of the painting (quill and ink = scholarly). The beads are taken to be a rosary to indicate piety. I am not so sure. They might also indicate his office as Superintendant, especially if at the end of that chain of pearls or beads there is a medallion or icon of Christ.

Michael wrote:
Stopping in Wolfenbuettel is also worthwhile (famous library and an interesting Pieta in one of the churches—the body of Christ is in the lap of the Father—it drives Calvinists nuts!
Posted by: Michael Zamzow |
My Question:
Why would this statue “drive Calvinists nuts”?

Hey, I’m a Calvinist and I love it!!!

Reformed people I have known consider it to be blatantly idolatrous. Of course, Karl Barth also considered a crucifix an idol. To portray the love of the Father for the Son in such a graphic manner is more than some can handle. If you “love it,” you might perhaps be a crypto-Lutheran. I had discussions with Reformed pastors in Germany who insisted that the 2nd commandment (Reformed numbering) called even some traditional Christology into question. It is not by chance that John of Damascus fought the good fight against the iconoclasts and provided so many Christological insights which are highly regarded by Martin Chemnitz and confessional Lutherans. While the statue is aesthetically unexceptional, the theological statement is profound. While I prefer icons to statues, this particular statue is not an idol from my perspective, but a theological treatise in stone. Reformed pastors with whom I am acquainted have trouble with both the statue as idolotry and the theological insights expressed in it.

Chemnitz is holding a string rosary called a “tenner.” It is sometimes referred to as a pocket rosary and quite common among men.
During the sixteenth century, the Jesuits were strong advocates of the rosary. My copy of Chemnitz’s _Theologiae Jesuitarum_ is at work but he might have something to say about rosaries in that treatise.
———-
McCain: The jury is still out on precisely what Chemnitz is holding, and why he is holding it. It would be interesting to hear what Chemnitz has to say in “Theologiae Jesuitarum.” Have you had a chance to read some of the other comments on what the thing is that he is holding?
———

A friend from Germany informs me that it is indeed a rosary. He says that according to Ernst Koch’s book on Chemnitz, “Der zweite Martin der lutherischen Kirche,” Lutheran theologians often had themselves portrayed with the rosary as a symbol of piety. The question remains open whether Chemnitz actually prayed the rosary, without “ora pro nobis,” of course.
McCain: And, I found out from another art source that in the 16th century it was common to portray all theologians: of any “branch” be they Lutherans or Catholics with a rosary, since this was the standard “convention” of depicting “piety” hence…one can not really draw any conclusions about the use of the rosary by Chemnitz. It is highly probably this was merely the artist using very strict conventions in paintings, as was typical in those days.

The “beads” may be of Eastern Orthodox origin and used to meditate saying the “Jesus Prayer.”
McCain: No, this is incorrect. The best explanation is provided in one of the comments that indicates that the use of a rosary in paintings of theologians was a standard convention in portraiture used to indicate piety. So, there is really nothing to be read into this beyond that.

You are probably correct. However, what do you think of the Jesus Prayer? Basically is is; “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
It is used extensively by a lot of my Eastern Orthodox friends and seems to be very rewarding and relaxing to them. Your thoughts!!