THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
traduction in his territories in Franconia and Nuremberg, it entered also his dominions in Upper Silesia.
Margrave George's influence manifested itself also in the development of the German Reformation
as a whole. When a union of the
His Infill- Evangelicals in Upper and Lower
ence and Germany was contemplated for the
Activity more successful defense against the
Beyond his dangers accruing to the new Gospel
Territories, from the Roman Church, George had
a meeting with the elector of Saxony at Schleitz in 1529, where they agreed on certain articles of faith and confession to be drawn up by Luther; the commission was executed in the seventeen articles of Schwabach on the basis of the fifteen theses of the Marburg Colloquy. But neither at the Convention of Schwabach nor at that of Schmalkalden did George approve armed resistance against the emperor and his party even in selfdefense. The more energetically, however, did he oppose the emperor at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, when the emperor demanded the prohibition of Evangelical preaching. King Ferdinand made George the most alluring offers of Silesian possessions if he would take the part of the emperor, but he decidedly rejected them. Next to the elector of Saxony, he stands foremost among the faithful and brave princes who defended the Evangelical faith. After the death of his cousin, Joachim I. of Brandenburg, who was a strict Romanist, he assisted his sons in the introduction of the Reformation in the territories of Brandenburg. He took part in the Religious Colloquy of Regensburg (1541) where Elector Joachim II. made a last attempt to bridge over the differences between the Romanists and Evangelicals and with his nephew requested Luther's cooperation. The Diet of Regensburg was the last religious meeting which he attended.
(David ERDMANNf.)
Bibliography: W Lohe, Erinnerungen aus der Reformations-Geschichte von Franken, Nuremberg, 1847; L. Neustadt, Markgraf Georg als Erzieher am ungarischen Hofe, Breslau, 1883; T. Kolde, Analecta Lutherana, Gotha, 1883; idem, in ZKG, xiii (1892), parts 2-3; J. Meyer, Die Einfuhrung der Reformation in Franken, Ansbach, 1893; H. Westermayer, Die brandenburgiseh-nurnbergische Kirchenvisitation 1628-33, Erlangen, 1894; F. Vogthern, Die Verfassung der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche in den Furstentumern Ansbach und Bayreuth, ii. 209, 269, Erlangen, 1896.
GEORGE, DUKE OF SAXONY (George the Bearded): Violent opponent of Luther; b. at Dresden Aug., 1471; d. there Apr. 17, 1539. He was the oldest surviving son of Albert the Courageous, ancestor of the Albertine line of sovereigns in Saxony. Although heir to the throne, he was destined for the priesthood, probably under the influence of his mother. One of his teachers in theology was Andreas Proles, the predecessor of Staupitz in the German Augustinian congregation, and widely known as a courageous fighter against the abuses in the order, and as a pious preacher. This education influenced the whole life of George; he became not only a sincerely pious and well-educated man, but also enough of a theologian to have an independent judgment in ecclesiastical matters. As early as his seventeenth year he was entrusted with the govern-
ment of his country while his father fought in distant lands, and in 1500 he succeeded his father as actual ruler.
George welcomed with sincere joy the Reformation at Wittenberg and the theses of Luther. In the spring of 1517 he declared himself very decidedly against Tetzel, the dealer in indulgences, and branded his practise as fraud. But his very first meeting with Luther, in July, 1518, when Luther, especially recommended by Staupitz, preached in the castle church of Dresden, aroused opposition. By this sermon the duke became aware of the fact that Luther aimed not only at certain reforms of the Church, but, in opposition to ruling Catholicism, announced a new Gospel which was bound to result in a complete rupture with the traditions of the past. Such a revolutionist George decidedly opposed. He was confirmed in his opinion of Luther by the ideas which the latter expressed at the Leipsic Disputation (1519). He had no objection to Luther's bold attacks on the abuses in the Church and found many a truth in his address " To the nobility of the German nation "; but the continual desertion of monks and nuns, the violation of the vow of celibacy, and the disturbances among the peasants fully convinced him that Luther's Gospel was an un-Christian affair, since the Bible teaches that the tree shall be known by its fruits. The fruits of Luther's activity were, in George's opinion, renunciation of all discipline and order, disobedience, violence, and the violation of the most sacred vows; the world can not exist without authority, and only the Church has power to bring about reforms. Landgrave Philip of Hesse, his son-in-law, tried in vain to win him over, especially by the Bible. In spite of his independent character, George seems to have been influenced not a little in his unfavorable attitude toward the new Gospel by his reactionary secretaries, Hieronymus Emser and Johannes Cochlseus. By the manner of his polemics Emser excited Luther in such a way that his cutting replies against him and the duke can not always be justified. Emser's last work, an emended translation of the New Testament, was intended to compete with Luther's great work, but differed so little from it that it only helped the cause of the Reformation. After having awaited in vain the promised council, Duke George ordered visitations and the reform of monasteries on his own responsibility and tried to abolish abuses, but his efforts were not successful. He made his life-work a vain struggle to stem the tide of the Reformation, and his failure was the more tragical as it isolated him from his people and even from his own family. The end of his life was saddened by the prospect that after his death the new Gospel would enter his country freely and openly, since his brother Henry, the heir to the throne, had adopted the Lutheran cause. George's last attempt to save his country for Romanism by ceding it to Ferdinand, the Roman king, was frustrated by the opposition of the estates of Meissen and by his sudden death.
(F. W. Dibelius.)
Bibliography: H. Welck, Georg der Bartige, Brunswick, 1900; P. Gess, Klostervisitationen des Herzog Georgs Leipsic, 1888; idem, in ZKG, 1888; idem, Akten und