Preface

of the writings in such a way that he and the students would be introduced to the true theme. There could be no talk of the systematic treatment he had had in mind. He would need three further semesters for that.!9 On June 28 he complained that He would not finish by a long way and that the course was something of a monstrosity.2°

Some compensation for the formal deficiency is to be found in the way in which Barth includes within the life an analysis of various early works of Calvin, especially the first edition of the Institutes. In looking at the texts and themes Barth deals with, and the actual structure of the fragment, those who know the material will note that even within these limitations Barth gives a materially good account of Calvin's theology. He does not see or present it fragmentarily but seizes on the essence and offers an integral account according to the nonpolemical content.

Barth was well aware of the oddness but also the advantages of his method, as also that he was skating all the time on rather thin ice. He described his monstrosity with a good deal of self-mockery as biography, theology, general history, exposition from the standpoint of eternity, and contemporary relevance, all wrapped up in a ball that rolls on very slowly. The real problem was the shortness of time for preparation. Each lecture he had to draw a deep breath and move on to something new. Often this was undoubtedly not very rewarding, and he made it tolerable for the class only by lecturing in a weighty and threatening voice.?!

At a first glance chaotic, the structure proves on closer analysis to be good. The more detailed headings, partly supplied by Barth, partly added by the editor where it seemed appropriate, show that there is at least a fivefold hierarchy of division that is fairly easy to discern.

Reformation Sources

Barth had at his disposal the works and letters of Calvin and some minutes of the Genevan council in the relevant volumes of the Corpus Reformatorum (CR 29-68). His own references are constantly to this edition, though he does not specify this. When the notes give the detailed references they use CO for Calvini opera 1-59. As we know, there are many errors

19. Bw.Th. II, 80f.
20. Ibid., 86.
21. Ibid.

XV1i

Preface’

in this 19th-century edition. Four years after Barth’s lectures his brother Peter, later aided by Wilhelm Niesel and Dora Scheuner, started a fivevolume critical edition under the title Opera selecta (1926ff.). It is true that the first volume (OS I) did not quite measure up to the claims made for it, but we have followed here the method generally accepted in research today and used this edition (OS I-V) wherever possible. Since OS refers back to CO it is easy to compare the two. The same method is followed in listing the works and passages mentioned by Barth.

Similar principles apply when it comes to Barth’s quotations from Luther and Zwingli. When he did not use secondary sources, his edition for Luther was the Erlangen edition and for Zwingli the Schuler and Schultess edition of 1828ff. The Luther references are not always exact, and we have added to them the corresponding references in the Weimar edition (WA), while in the case of Zwingli we have used the Corpus Reformatorum (CR LXXXVIIIff.).

A difficult editorial decision had to be made [in the case of the Swiss edition] as a result of Barth’s different ways of handling firsthand material. Sometimes Barth stuck so closely to the original that he seemed to be giving a translation with interjected comments, and even when he adopted a freer approach it is always plain which sentences come from Calvin. This is the situation in the treatment of the 1536 Institutes.22 The Swiss edition has in such cases given the original text in the notes so that readers can easily follow or check Barth’s rendering. In other cases, for example, the two 1537 epistles or the answer to Sadolet,?3 Barth simply offers a summary of the contents and the notes offer no more than the up-to-date references. Since we cannot always fix the boundaries between the two methods with precision, the editors had to make judgment calls in many instances.

Barth had only limited access to German translations of Calvin. R. Schwarz had translated selected letters, and the biographies of Kampschulte and Stahelin contained some translated quotations. Barth used these when available, though with some freedom, but for the most part he used the Latin and French originals or made his own translations. If - these are not always accurate — he once complained about his poor Latin with reference to this course — we do not indicate this in the notes unless the mistake affects interpretation of the text.?4

22. See below, 157ff.
23. See below, 234ff., 402ff.
24. Bw.Th. II, 81. See below, 149 n. 16.