 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 11 dates. [show] |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jzimmer13.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consult: F.G. Hofmann (Leipzig, 1845); A. Stein, a pseudonym for H. Nietschmann, (Halle, 1879); A. Thoma (Berlin, 1900).
See: Kroken, Katharina von Bora (Leipzig, 1906).
70.17.166.121 16:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this article be called Katharina Luther as that was her name when she died? Emperor001 17:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, nobody knows a "Katharina Luther", but every pupil in Saxony and also in most parts of Germany knows "Katharina von Bora". There ist no school called "Katharina-Luther-Schule", but a lot of "Katharina-von-Bora-Schule" or other houses called according "Katharina von Bora". Please correct to Katharina von Bora! www.von-bora.de —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.19.90.191 (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two English encyclopedias I have found with separate articles on her both refer to her as Katharina von Bora (1905 NIE and 1920 Americana). The English page seems to be unique in using the name Katharina Luther. There seems to be no basis for doing this that I can see. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The second image shows a long ribbon tied around her mouth, and hanging down at her side. Is that a sort of scarf? It looks quite odd. If anyone knows what that is and why it's there, perhaps it could be explained briefly in the caption. --Reuben (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This text seems very doubtful and I suggest it is from some (old or new) piece of anti-Lutheran propaganda. In the "Table Talk", the record of many of his conversations during his last years, Luther is displayed as often denouncing "monkery" as the worst of abominations and his own time in the convent as the most reprehensible time of his life. -- 85.177.62.204 (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't some criticism of her from the point of view of the Catholic Church be mentioned? Steve Dufour (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only recently, a new scientific essay『About the history of the von Bora family and some manors in the Saxon districts Borna and Pegau』(original title: "Zur Geschichte der Familie v. Bora und einiger Güter in den sächsischen Ämtern Borna und Pegau") was published in the "Genealogie" journal (2010, *4*, pp. 289-307). This paper follows up other essays, dealing with the same range of topics, which were published in 2005 and 2006.
In the latest essay, the author initially introduces the geographic and political environment during Reformation times of Katharina von Bora's presumed birthplace. Then he presents a legal record from the year 1531 which gives evidence of a law suit between the brothers von Bora about an inherited property in Kieritzsch, district of Borna. Before, there had not been taken any notice of this record. Yet, it presents some new clues about Katharina's paternal relatives.
In the second part, the author suggests an alternative view to the traditional ideas regarding the Reformer's wife's maternal kinship. These considerations take the numerous contradictions from previous papers in account that were pointed out by the latest scientific literature. Especially the legend about a stepmother is rejected. In conclusion, it is shown that the family background from Katharina von Bora's mother has to be regarded as rather unresearched.
The latest newspaper magazine with a recently updated list of family lines can be obtained under:
http://www.genealogie-zeitschriften.de/53065796cc0d4f519/53065799910dc3207/5306579e540abf80d.html
Older essays may be viewed under:
http://www.von-bora.de/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.150.210.205 (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The seemingly ineradicable legend of impoverishment is nothing but a relict from the anti-Lutheran propaganda. It was already questioned by serious authors in 1752 (Walch, C.W.F., Halle 1752, "The true history of the blessed Lady Catharina von Bora", p. 20:『The first question is, whether Catharina von Bora's parents were poor or wealthy? The question as such is irrelevant. Therefore, we neither want to confirm nor negate it. However, we cannot approve the faulty evidence of Engelhard [an earlier author].』- original title: "Wahrhaftige Geschichte der seligen Frau Catharina von Bora"; original citation: "Die erste Frage ist, ob die Eltern der Catharina von Bora arm oder vermögend gewesen? Sie ist an sich gleichgültig. Wir wollen sie daher weder bejahen noch verneinen, aber den fehlerhaften Beweis des Engelhard [eines früheren Autoren] können wir nicht anerkennen."). In 1843 it was announced that the alleged poverty of her family "cannot be proven by any credible information" (Beste, W., Halle 1843, "The history of Catharina von Bora" - original title: "Die Geschichte Catharina's von Bora"; p. 13; there, also the French original source of the poverty-statement can be found.)
In the newly rediscovered record from 1531, it can be read that the father of the von Bora siblings made "a hundred gulden" available to his brother, before the year 1521 ("Genealogie", 2010, p. 304). Unfortunately, the father is not mentioned by name. Nonetheless, this donation sustains the doubts about a poverty-legend. The legend - as touching as it might appear - just like many other ones about historic events during the Reformation period, should not be spread any further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.150.210.205 (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did a thorough search of the citation for this quote and could not find anything of substance.
Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/tabletalk.pdf
Lusanders (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone *please* rewrite this to put it in proper English? There are sections so badly written that I don't even know what the article is trying to say. 24.244.29.169 (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See this diff.
The use of "himself", prior to my change, was ungrammatical, so I fixed it, giving it the meaning I assume it was intended to have. But I suppose it's also at least possible that the "or" was an interloper, and the sentence should have read that she would be willing to marry only Luther himself.
So if anyone can check this, and find out whether she was willing to marry von Amsdorf, that would be great. (I see there's no inline cite, by the way, so I don't know exactly where you'd start looking, but presumably there are people here who do know.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are several paragraphs that do not have any citations at all. Specifically, in the following section:
Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 00:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source used does not use the term "landed gentry". The lower ranks in the German nobility are called Niederer Adel i.e. petty nobility.Doctoral historian (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paul von Hindenburg's biography does not say this in pages 1-19 as is given in the reference, nor could I find a reliable source for the claim that the Counts zu Eulenburg, or the Princes zu Eulenburg and Hertefeld descend from Luther and Von Bora. The other reference, Church Schism & Corruption by Achim Maseko is very unprofessionally composed and lacks a bibliography, and its author's credentials can't be verified. Especially strange is that the book's only printer is a paid on-demand publisher.
I have found this claim on various .com and .net websites but these websites have been shown to often get their information FROM Wikipedia. If this information can't be traced to a more reliable source, then it should be removed.
Isz Chepewéssin (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
