NOTES TO PAGES 128–31Rhetorik des Herzens, 15–17. For an informed analysis of the exploitation of the new print medium
in the Reformation and the parallels between Luther’s innovations in sacramental theology and
printing, see Manfred Schneider, ‘‘Luther with McLuhan,’’ trans. Samuel Weber, inReligion and
Media, ed. Hent de Vries and Samuel Weber (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001), 198–215.
- ‘‘The Babylonian Captivity of the Church’’ inLuther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, Helmut
T. Lehmann, et al.,55 vols. (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1955–1986), 36:34; hereafter cited asLW. - Compare this to Searle’s analysis of the essential conditions of promising. In any ‘‘profane’’
act of promising, it is, of course, the speaker who is bound by obligation, but the promise is only
successful if the interlocutor knows that the speaker is under obligation and recognizes, under-
stands, the intention under the following conditions: ‘‘(6)Sintends to doA;Sintends (i-1) that
the utterance ofTwill place him under an obligation to doA; (7)Sintends to produce inHthe
knowledge (K) that the utterance ofTis to count as placingSunder obligation to doA; (8)S
intends to produceKby means of the recognition of i-1, and he intends i-1 to be recognized in
virtue of (by means of)H’s knowledge of the meaning ofT; (9) The semantical rules of the dialect
spoken bySandHare such thatTis correctly and sincerely uttered if and only if conditions 1–8
obtain’’ (John R. Searle,Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language[Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1969], 57–61). - St. Thomas Aquinas,Summa theologicaPt. IIa-iiae q. 43.
- Ludwig Buisson,Potestas und Caritas: Die pa ̈pstliche Gewalt im Spa ̈tmittelalter(Cologne:
Bo ̈hlau, 1958). - SeePatrologia Latina, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne (Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1844–55),
40, 448ff, cap. 22.
30.Franzo ̈sisches etymologisches Wo ̈rterbuch: Eine Darstellung der galloromanischen Sprach-
satzes, ed. Walther von Wartburg (Bonn: F. Klopp, 1928). - Paul exhorts the Corinthians, a community troubled by divisions, not to offend those who
still adhere to Judaic laws by eating forbidden food in their sight. He gives the opposite advice to
the Galatians, however, telling them that he reproached Peter for not sitting down to eat with
gentiles. - See Beat Hodler,Das ‘‘A ̈rgernis’’der Reformation: Begriffsgeschichtlicher Zugang zu einer
biblisch legitimierten politischen Ethik(Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1995).
33.LW, 31:373.
34.WA, 29:474. - See Sebastian Franck,Paradoxa, ed. Heinrich Ziegler (Jena: Diederichs, 1909), 178.
- See, e.g.,WA, 29:475.
- Searle distinguishes between promising and warning in condition (4) of the promise: ‘‘H
would preferS’s doingAto his not doingA, andSbelievesHwould prefer his doingAto his not
doingA.’’ If the accomplishment of the promise is not preferred by the hearer to its nonaccomplish-
ment, we have no promise, but rather a threat or a warning. See Searle,Speech Acts, 58. - Understanding, Bakhtin argues, ‘‘assimilates the word to be understood into its own con-
ceptual system filled with specific objects and emotional expressions, and is indissolubly merged
with the response, with a motivated agreement or disagreement.... The speaker strives to get a
reading on his own word, and on his own conceptual system that determines this word, within the
alien conceptual system of the understanding receiver; he enters into dialogical relationships with
certain aspects of this system. The speaker breaks through the alien conceptual horizon of the
listener, constructs his own utterance on alien territory, against his, the listener’s, apperceptive
background’’ (M. M. Bakhtin, ‘‘Discourse on the Novel,’’The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed.
PAGE 714714.................16224$ NOTE 10-13-06 12:34:03 PS