Exsurge Domine

duced a hasty list of several perceived errors found in his

writings, but Curial ocials believed that a more thorough consideration was warranted. The committee was
reorganized and subsequently produced a report determining that only a few of Luthers teachings could potentially be deemed heretical or erroneous from the standpoint of Catholic theology. His other teachings perceived
as problematic were deemed to warrant lesser degrees
of theological censure, including the designations scandalous or oensive to pious ears.[1][2]
Johann Eck subsequently became involved in these proceedings. He had personally confronted Luther a year
earlier in the Leipzig disputation and had obtained copies
of condemnations issued against Luther by the universities of Cologne and Leuven.[3] In a letter to a friend, Eck
claimed he became involved because no one else was
suciently familiar with Luthers errors.[4] Soon after
having joined the committee when it was already halfway
through its deliberations,[5] he began to exert his considerable inuence on the direction it subsequently took.
The committee on which Eck sat consisted of some
forty members, including cardinals (among whom was
Cardinal Cajetan), theologians and canon lawyers.
The heads of the three major monastic orders, the
Dominicans, Franciscans and Augustinians, were
represented.[6][7] Central to the committees proceedings was the matter of whether (and in what manner)
Luther and his teachings should be formally condemned.
Some members argued that Luthers popular support
in Germany made it too politically risky to issue a bull
at that time. The theologians supported an immediate
condemnation of Luther. But the canon lawyers advocated a mediating position: Luther should be given a
hearing and a chance to defend himself before being
excommunicated as a heretic. Ultimately the committee
negotiated a compromise. Luther would be given no
hearing, but he would be oered a sixty day window in
which to repent before further action would be taken.[8]

Title page of rst printed edition of Exsurge Domine

Exsurge Domine (Latin: Arise O Lord) is a papal bull issued on 15 June 1520 by Pope Leo X. It was written in response to the teachings of Martin Luther which opposed
the views of the papacy. It censured forty one propositions extracted from Luthers 95 theses and subsequent
writings, and threatened him with excommunication unless he recanted within a sixty day period commencing
upon the publication of the bull in Saxony and its neighboring regions. Luther refused to recant and responded
instead by composing polemical tracts lashing out at the
papacy and by publicly burning a copy of the bull on 10 Prior to Ecks involvement, Cajetan had expressed his deDecember 1520.
sire that the committee members examine the whole context of Luthers writings and specify careful distinctions
among the various degrees of censure to be applied to
1 History
Luthers teachings. Ecks approach was markedly dierent. He bulldozed a nal decision through the committee
[9]
The historical impetus for this bull arose from an eort to ensure a speedy publication. As a result, the text it
to provide a decisive papal response to the growing pop- ultimately drafted simply contained a list of various stateularity of Luthers teachings. Beginning in January 1520, ments by Luther perceived as problematic. No attempt
a papal consistory was summoned to examine Luthers was made to provide specic responses to Luthers propodelity to Catholic teachings. After a short time, it pro- sitions based upon Scripture or Catholic tradition or any
1

2 TEXT

clarication of what degree of theological censure should

be associated with each proposition listed. All quoted
statements were to be condemned as a whole (in globo)
as either heretical, scandalous, false, oensive to pious
ears, or seductive of simple minds. Eck may have employed this tactic in order to associate more strongly the
taint of error with all of Luthers censured teachings.[10]
However, this in globo formula for censure had already
been employed by the earlier Council of Constance to
condemn various propositions extracted from the writings
of Jan Hus.[11]
When the committee members had obtained agreement
among themselves regarding the selection of forty-one
propositions which they deemed to be problematic, they
subsequently submitted their draft text to Pope Leo X.
He appended a preface and conclusion and issued the
document as an ocial papal bull on 15 June 1520.[12]
Copies were printed, notarized, sealed and distributed to
specially appointed papal nuncios who were tasked with
disseminating the bull, especially in those regions where
Luthers followers were most active, and ensuring that its
instructions were carried out.[13]

Text

Luthers Resolutiones[16] (a detailed exposition of the 95

Theses).[17] More than half of the forty-one censured
propositions come from the 95 Theses or the Resolutiones; the larger part of the remainder are derived from
the Leipzig debate.[18] The selection of censures themselves in large part combines and amplies those statements already selected as problematic by the universities
of Cologne and Leuven.[19]
Some of the condemnations conrmed prior judgments
by the papacy. Luthers support for conciliarism is explicitly censured (proposition #28) and is singled out for further condemnation in the bulls conclusion: "...[Luther]
broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This
to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II[20]
and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this
way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics.[21]
Other condemnations represent new papal interventions
on matters that had been freely disputed among Catholic
scholars and theologians before that time. For example,
Luthers opposition to the burning of heretics (proposition #33) and his anti-war stance with respect to the
Ottoman Turks (proposition #34) reect opinions also
shared by Desiderus Erasmus.[22] Moreover, Luther explicitly referred to the church father Jerome for support
when he opposed the practice of burning heretics.[23]

Pope Leo X then proceeded to issue an authoritative conPrinted copies of this bull bore the Latin title Bulla con- demnation of these forty-one propositions in the followtra errores Martini Lutheri et sequacium (Bull against the ing words:
errors of Martin Luther and his followers), but it is more
With the advice and consent of these our
commonly known by the incipit, or opening words, of the
venerable brothers, with mature deliberation
bulls original Latin text: Exsurge Domine (Arise O Lord).
on each and every one of the above theses, and
These words also serve to open a prefatory prayer within
by the authority of almighty God, the blessed
the text of the bull calling on the Lord to arise against
Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authorthe foxes [that] have arisen seeking to destroy the vineity, we condemn, reprobate, and reject comyard and the destructive wild boar from the forest.[14]
pletely each of these theses or errors as either
In these poetic metaphors may be found an echo of Pope
heretical, scandalous, false, oensive to pious
Leo Xs engagement in the hunting of wild boars while
ears or seductive of simple minds, and against
residing at a hunting lodge in the Italian hills during the
Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and
spring of 1520.[15]
declare that all the faithful of both sexes must
Following additional prayers of intercession directed toregard them as condemned, reprobated, and rewards the Apostles Peter and Paul and the whole church
jected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of
of the saints to defend Catholicism against Luther, the
holy obedience and under the penalty of an aubull proceeds to list the forty-one propositions previously
tomatic major excommunication....[24][25]
selected by the committee. The condemned propositions
do not cover all disputed points of doctrine advocated by
Luther. Many of Luthers important works setting forth Additionally, the bull contains a directive forbidding any
his disagreements with Catholic theology, including On use of Luthers works and decreeing that they should be
the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, had not yet been burned:
published when this bull was issued. Moreover, on ac...we likewise condemn, reprobate, and recount of Ecks eorts to speed the committee along, it
ject completely the books and all the writings
did not have sucient opportunity to thoroughly examand sermons of the said Martin, whether in
ine the material Luther had already published. ThereLatin or any other language, containing the said
fore, the list of condemned propositions draws in large
errors or any one of them; and we wish them to
part upon the material with which Eck was personally
be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated,
familiar, including the 95 Theses, the lists of censures
and rejected. We forbid each and every one
against Luther issued by the universities at Cologne and
of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy
Leuven which Eck had brought with him to Rome, and

3.1

Reactions by Luther and his sympathizers

obedience and under the above penalties to be

incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach,
praise, print, publish, or defend them. ... Indeed immediately after the publication of this
letter these works, wherever they may be, shall
be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and
others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under
each and every one of the above penalties shall
be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people.:[26]

For these reasons, its dissemination took several months

to complete. Luther himself received an ocial copy
bearing the papal seal in early October of that year. However, rumors of its existence reached Luther well in advance of the ocial copy. At rst he doubted their veracity and thought that the document to which they referred
may be a forgery, possibly by Eck himself. Nonetheless
he commented that it was the work of Antichrist, whatever its true origin may be, and started to compose a response even before he had received an ocial copy.[33]
His response was entitled Adversus Execrabile Antichristi
Luther, along with his supporters, adherents and accom- Bullam (Against the Execrable Bull of Antichrist).[34]
plices, were given sixty days from the publication of this
Luther deantly proclaimed in his response that "...whobull in which to desist from preaching, both expoundever wrote this bull, he is Antichrist. I protest before God,
ing their views and denouncing others, from publishing
our Lord Jesus, his sacred angels and the whole world that
books and pamphlets concerning some or all of their erwith my whole heart I dissent from the damnation of this
rors. Luther himself was instructed to inform us of such
bull, that I curse and execrate it as sacrilege and blasrecantation through an open document, sealed by two
phemy of Christ, Gods Son and our Lord. This be my
prelates, which we should receive within another sixty
recantation, O bull, thou daughter of bulls.[35] He subsedays. Or he should personally, with safe conduct, inform
quently took issue with the in globo censure of his stateus of his recantation by coming to Rome.[27]
ments: My articles are called 'respectively some heretical, some erroneous, some scandalous, which is as much
to say, 'We don't know which are which.' O meticulous
3 Reaction
ignorance! I want to be instructed, not respectively, but
absolutely and certainly. ... Let them show where I am a
3.1 Reactions by Luther and his sympa- heretic, or dry up their spittle.[36] Much of the remainder of the tract is devoted to a discussion of the censured
thizers
propositions.
The Pope assigned to Eck and Cardinal Girolamo Alean- With the publication of the bull, sporadic public burndro the task of publishing this bull in Saxony, its neigh- ings of Luthers works began to take place in Germany
boring regions, and the Low Countries.[28]
in accordance with Pope Leo Xs instructions. However,
They found this task more dicult than had initially been in some places this directive proved impossible or dianticipated on account of the widespread public support cult to carry out because of Luthers popular support. On
for Luther, particularly in Germany. At Erfurt, students certain occasions, his followers managed to substitute his
who sympathized with Luther tossed copies of the bull condemned books with wastepaper or anti-Luther tracts,
his works from the ames before they
into the local river and at Torgau, a posted copy was or rescue some of
[37]
were
consumed.
torn down and defaced. Even some Catholic bishops
hesitated as much as six months before publishing the
bulls contents.[29] At times, the opposition faced by Eck
and Aleandro was so erce that their very lives were
endangered.[30] At Leipzig, Eck had to retreat for an hour
to a cloister in fear for his life.[31]
Eck found his task to be particularly onerous. He had received secret instructions permitting him to include more
names under the bulls threat of excommunication at his
discretion. This power he chose to exercise by supplementing the bull with the names of several prominent
German Humanists and thereby aroused their opposition
besides that of Luthers supporters. In the Netherlands,
Aleandro also experienced his share of confrontations
with Luthers sympathizers. Among those he encountered was Desiderus Erasmus, who declared that The inclemency of the bull ill comports with the moderation of
Leo and also that Papal bulls are weighty, but scholars
attach much more weight to books with good arguments
drawn from the testimony of divine Scripture, which does
not coerce but instructs.[32]

On 29 November 1520, Luther published a second response to the bull entitled Assertion of All the Articles
Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull. Luthers commentary on proposition #18 provides a representative example of its general tone: I was wrong, I admit it, when
I said that indulgences were 'the pious defrauding of the
faithful.' I recant and say, 'Indulgences are the most pious frauds and imposters of the most rascally pontis, by
which they deceive the souls and destroy the goods of the
faithful.'"[38] Luther also published his On the Freedom
of a Christian that same month. Although this work was
not penned as a direct response to the bull, it nevertheless
rearmed Luthers commitment to certain themes censured therein, including the primacy of ecumenical councils over papal decrees.[39]
On 10 December 1520, sixty days after Luther had received a copy of this bull, he and Melanchthon invited
the local university faculty and students to assemble that
morning at the Elster Gate in Wittenberg. A bonre was

3 REACTION

lit and volumes of canon law, papal constitutions, and

works of scholastic theology were burned. Luther himself tossed a copy of the bull into the ames. Having done
so, Luther is reported to have said, Because you have
confounded the truth [or, the saints] of God, today the
Lord confounds you. Into the re with you!", a declaration which alludes to Psalm 21:9.[40][41] Luthers act of
deance reected deeper motives than a mere retaliatory
desire to treat these representations of Catholic authority with the same regard that the papal bull had shown
for his own books. By burning these works, Luther signaled his decisive break from Catholicisms traditions and
institutions.[42] Luther himself later explained his actions
that day:
Since they have burned my books, I burn
theirs. The canon law was included because it
makes the pope a god on earth. So far I have
merely fooled with this business of the pope.
All my articles condemned by Antichrist are
Christian. Seldom has the pope overcome anyone with Scripture and with reason.[43]
The breach between Luther and the papacy was nalized
on 3 January 1521, when on account of Luthers failure to
comply, the Pope issued the bull Decet Romanum Ponticem to declare that he had been formally excommunicated.

3.2

Modern reactions

Exsurge Domine marks a watershed event in Christian history. Protestant author Philip Scha notes that The bull
of excommunication is the papal counter-manifesto to
Luthers Theses, and condemns in him the whole cause
of the Protestant Reformation. Therein lies its historical signicance. It was the last bull addressed to Latin
Christendom as an undivided whole, and the rst which
was disobeyed by a large part of it.[44]
However, contemporary scholars of the Reformation
widely agree that this bull itself is a strange document and an evasive assessment of Luthers theological
concerns.[45] Scha notes that the condemned propositions are torn from the connection [context], and presented in the most objectionable form as mere negations
of Catholic doctrines. The positive views of the Reformer
are not stated, or distorted.[46] Catholic author John M.
Todd calls the bull contradictory, lacking in charity, and
incidentally far less eective than it might have been.[47]
Not only does the text fail to identify precisely how each
proposition is censured, but also it avoids direct engagement with numerous issues that are central to Luthers
theology including Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. In part,
this evasion was simply an unavoidable consequence of
the fact that Luther did not fully articulate his mature
theological position until some time after this bull had

been issued. Even so, Eck did not aord the committee sucient time to better grasp the core issues at stake
in Luthers teachings. As a result, some of the censured
propositions are ambiguous, peripheral to Luthers main
concerns, or were misunderstood or misrepresented by
the committee. At least twelve of the forty-one propositions fail to accurately quote Luther or misrepresent his
beliefs.[48] The bull itself contains an internal contradiction: at one point it orders all of Luthers works to be
burned, but elsewhere restricts this censorship only to
those works which contain one of the forty-one censored
propositions.[49]
The censure of certain theological propositions in this bull
continues to be a source of controversy. For example,
proposition #33 censured by this bull states It is contrary to the will of the Spirit that heretics be burned.[50]
Pope Leo Xs condemnation of this proposition conicts
with more recent Catholic teaching, particularly in regards to the declaration of Vatican II that the human
person has a right to religious freedom and that This
freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and
of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be
forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs,
whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.[51] This tension between these two authoritative sources of Catholic teaching has sparked a contemporary debate on papal infallibility, however, Vatican IIs declaration on religious freedom is not absolute but only within due limits which is
subject to a just public order.
Eastern Orthodox author Laurent Cleenewerck asserts[52]
that Pope Leo Xs condemnations technically satisfy the
requirements of an infallible (ex cathedra) denition in
accordance with the criteria laid down by Vatican I. The
declaration of Pope Leo X that members of the Catholic
faithful must condemn, reprobate, and reject completely
each of these theses or errors on pain of an automatic
(latae sententiae) excommunication is claimed to constitute an authoritative papal denition on doctrinal matters
concerning faith and morals which must be held by the
whole Catholic Church. He then notes that the practice
of burning heretics poses a serious ethical problem[53]
and thus he nds in Exsurge Domine support for his conclusion that the idea that Papal Infallibility can be presented as independent of any conciliar consent and as 'the
constant belief of the universal Church' is rejected.[54]
Others disagree with these assessments and advance the
alternative view that a censure which may be heretical,
but may also be merely scandalous, oensive to pious
ears or seductive of simple minds, cannot be accepted
as an infallible utterance of the Magisterium. A paper
published in Living Tradition[55] argues that a censure
of an unspecied nature is potentially subject to future
clarication or reform, unlike an ex cathedra denition
which is by nature irreformable. A second argument advanced here asserts that censures which are merely scan-

5
dalous, oensive to pious ears or seductive of simple
minds strongly depend upon a particular context of certain historical or cultural circumstances. A proposition
that causes scandal or oense when it is advanced within
a particular context may not necessarily be so noxious
under dierent circumstances.[56] Even if a proposition
is essentially true, but poorly worded or advanced in a
particular context with the intent of provoking scandal or
oense, it may be censured as scandalous or oensive
to pious ears.[57][58]

[16] Luther, Martin. Resolutiones disputationum de Indulgentiarum virtute F. Martini Luther Augustiniani Vittenbergensis Rhau-Grunenberg, 1518.
[17] Hillerbrand 2007, p. 40
[18] Hillerbrand 2007, pg. 51.
[19] Bainton 1950, p. 145.
[20] Here Leo X alludes to the bull Execrabilis issued by Pius
II in 1460.
[21] Leo X, Bull Exsurge Domine.

Manuscript copies

[22] Bainton 1950, pp. 145147.

[23] Hillerbrand 1969, p. 108.

The Vaticans copy of Exsurge Domine is still extant in the

Vatican Library.[59]

[24] Automatic major excommunication translates the Latin

expression majoris excommunicationis latae sententiae.
[25] Leo X, Bull Exsurge Domine.

Notes

[26] Leo X, Bull Exsurge Domine.

[1] Hillerbrand 2007, p. 50.

[27] Leo X, Bull Exsurge Domine.

[2] Catholicism has traditionally recognized several degrees

of theological censure. According to the 1913 Catholic
Encyclopedia, A proposition is branded heretical when
it goes directly and immediately against a revealed or dened dogma, or dogma de de. An erroneous proposition
contradicts only a certain theological conclusion or truth
clearly deduced from two premises, one an article of faith,
the other naturally certain. The Magisterium may also apply censures of lesser gravity to other propositions that are
inherently neither heretical nor erroneous. For example, a
proposition may be deemed as scandalous or oensive
to pious ears if it is worded in a manner that could lead
to a scandalous interpretation or its verbal expression is
such as rightly to shock the Catholic sense and delicacy of
faith.

[28] Bainton 1950, p. 156.

[3] Bainton 1950, p. 143

[37] Todd 1964, p. 169.

[4] Hillerbrand 2007, p. 50.

[38] Bainton 1950, p. 165.

[5] Todd 1964, p. 166.

[39] Bainton 1950, p. 164.

[6] Hillerbrand 2007, p. 50.

[40] Martin Brecht, Martin Luther, trans.

(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 1:424.

[7] Bainton 1950, p. 144.

[29] Bainton 1950, p. 158.

[30] Todd 1964, p. 167.
[31] Bainton 1950, p. 158.
[32] Bainton 1950, p. 157.
[33] Todd 1964, p. 168.
[34] Luther, Martin (1520). Adversus Execrabile Antichristi
Bullam (in Latin). Wittenberg.
[35] Bainton 1950, pp. 161162.
[36] Bainton 1950, p. 162.

[41] Psalms 21:9

[8] Bainton 1950, p. 144-145.
[9] Todd 1964, p. 166.
[10] Dolan 1965, p. 240.
[11] Bainton 1950, p. 147.

[42] Todd 1964, p. 170.

[43] Bainton 1950, p. 166.
[44] Scha 1916, p. 228.
[45] Hillerbrand 1969, p. 108.

[12] Bainton 1950, p. 147.

[46] Scha 1916, p. 229.

[13] Bainton 1950, p. 156.

[47] Todd 1964, p. 167.

[14] Leo X, Bull Exsurge Domine.

[48] Hillerbrand 1969, p. 111.

[15] Todd 1964, p. 166.

[49] Hillerbrand 2007, p. 51.

James Schaaf

[50] Latin: Haereticos comburi, est contra voluntatem Spiritus.

[51] Pope Paul VI (7 December 1965). Dignitatis Humanae.
Proceedings of Vatican II. Retrieved 03.10.2012. Check
date values in: |accessdate= (help)
[52] Cleenewerck 2005, pp. 311313.
[53] Cleenewerck 2005, p. 313.
[54] Cleenewerck 2005, p. 315.
[55] Harrison 2005
[56] Harrison 2005
[57] Akin, Jimmy (September 2001). Identifying Infallible
Statements. This Rock. Catholic Answers. Retrieved
03.10.2012. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
[58] It is itself a matter of controversy whether the 16th century
Magisterium would have permitted the Catholic faithful to
embrace some censured propositions as being generally
true and worthy of censure only when they are advanced
in certain contexts with the intention of generating scandal or causing oense. In a debate with Eck, Luther himself attempted to defend some of Jan Hus' propositions
which the Council of Constance had condemned in globo
as either heretical, erroneous, blasphemous, presumptuous, seditious or oensive to pious ears. Eck replied to
Luther with the retort, Whichever they were, none of
them was called most Christian and evangelical, and if you
defend them, then you are heretical, erroneous, blasphemous presumptuous, seditious, and oensive to pious ears
respectively. (Bainton 2005, p. 116.)
[59] The Bull Exsurge Domine by Leo X. Archived from the
original on 22 May 2011. Retrieved 28 February 2012.

References
Bainton, Roland H. (1950). Here I Stand: A Life of
Martin Luther. Abingdon-Cokesbury Press.
Cleenewerck, Laurent (2008). His Broken Body:
Understanding and Healing the Schism between the
Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Euclid University Press. ISBN 9780615183619.
Dolan, John P. (1965). History of the Reformation
(Mentor-Omega ed.). Toronto: The New American
Library of Canada Limited.
Harrison, Brian W. (September 2005). Torture and
Corporal Punishment as a Problem in Catholic Theology. Living Tradition. Roman Theological Forum. Retrieved 03.10.2012. Check date values in:
|accessdate= (help)
Hillerbrand, Hans Joachim (1969). Martin Luther
and the Bull Exsurge Domine". Theological Studies
(Marquette University) 30 (1): 108112.

EXTERNAL LINKS

Hillerbrand, Hans Joachim (2007). The Division of Christendom: Christianity in the Sixteenth
Century. Presbyterian Publishing Corp. ISBN
9780664224028.
Pope Leo X (June 15, 1520). Exsurge Domine.
Retrieved 03.10.2012. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
Scha, Philip; David Schley Scha (1916). History
of the Christian church 6. Charles Scribners Sons.
Todd, John M. (1964). Martin Luther: A Biographical Study. Paulist Press.

7 External links
Latin Text of Exsurge Domine
English Translation of Exsurge Domine

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

8.1

Text

Exsurge Domine Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsurge%20Domine?oldid=630922299 Contributors: JamesReyes, Emperorbma,

CTSWyneken, EdwinHJ, Phthoggos, R. end, Jesster79, Kmweber, MakeRocketGoNow, ArnoldReinhold, Bender235, Ppa, Remuel, AllyUnion, Arcadian, Pharos, Jehannette, Woohookitty, Mincata, President Rhapsody, YurikBot, Hairy Dude, NTMessenger, Chick Bowen,
Nutin, Drboisclair, SmackBot, YellowMonkey, Bigbluesh, KocjoBot, PiMaster3, Joseph Solis in Australia, Vaquero100, Cydebot,
Thijs!bot, I do not exist, Escarbot, .anacondabot, Yozzer66, Tremello, Adavidb, VolkovBot, John Carter, Trainman jaime, Rtmag, Phe-bot,
Vanished user ewsn2348tui2f8n2o2utjfeoi210r39jf, Ecjmartin, Alexbot, Noca2plus, Sun Creator, Addbot, Yobot, Pasteurizer, Full-date
unlinking bot, EmausBot, ZroBot, F, Mike Agricola, Sonanto, PerlMonk Athanasius, Monkbot, Joecym08 and Anonymous: 15

8.2

Images

File:BullExurgeDomine.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/BullExurgeDomine.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?

File:Martin_Luther_by_Lucas_Cranach_der_ltere.jpeg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Martin_
Luther_by_Lucas_Cranach_der_%C3%84ltere.jpeg License: Public domain Contributors: Scan by Carol Gerten-Jackson Original artist:
Lucas Cranach the Elder

8.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0