only three works having any bearing on this, the collection of Foerstemann-Bindseil, Bindseil's Latin work, and a very valuable publication of Seidemann.17 Foerstemann-Bindseil does not make one directly acquainted with the original table-talk, for it only offers a painstaking reprint of Aurifaber's collection of 1566, continually compared with other collections. It is, therefore, only a secondary or tertiary source of the table-talks.18 The collection of Lauterbach, edited by Bindseil in Latin in 1863 ff. contains more original material. Yet even this was not of first hand, and was built up on different foundations. Entirely different was the manner in which one became acquainted with the original form of table-talks through Seidemann's publication. This is a real day-book. It begins with the ist of January and concludes with the 25th of December of the same year. Almost day for day, Lauterbach had jotted down his notes, partly in German, partly in Latin, just which language happened to be used at the table at the time of the conversation. In further searches, Seidemann, who was a veritable genius in this, found a great deal of new unprinted material. Not only did he discover some new notes of Lauterbach, but also a diary of Veit Dietrich, Luther's intimate companion for many years, and a collection that very likely belonged to the papers left by Johann Matthesius, pastor of Joachimsthal. Added to that, he found different collections of secondary value, however. Yet even these contained many new things and stood closer to the original than the collections of Aurifaber and Rebenstock.18 Before Seidemann could publish all his finds, he died. So it fell to the lot of our period to accomplish important things in this direction, for not only was the result of Seidemann's researches to
