LAUSR

has shown that alleged discordance between humanistic methods and Luther’s way of thinking did not exist. Melanchthon incorporated and enriched Luther’s theology at the same time that the older Wittenberg professor was continuing to use the tools of Reuchlin, Erasmus, and Lefèvre d’Étaples that he had begun to employ in the early 1510s. Therefore, it does not help at all to try to introduce remnants of this old analysis into such a skillful exploration of documentary evidence about this critical period. Andersen sets the stage for further investigations—for example, the further role in the Wittenberg circle of Matthias Alber, pastor in Reutlingen, who from afar urged a hard line in Augsburg, and of Margrave Georg of BrandenburgAnsbach. Like Luther, Melanchthon practiced the discipline of theology as a continuing laboratory of experimentation. His suspicions of and opposition to the Sacramentarians, not only from Zurich but also from Strasbourg, must be integrated into the story of his later efforts to find common ground with Martin Bucer and his Strasbourg colleagues (79–87). The further development of the thinking of Melanchthon and Luther over the following fifteen years can be assessed with the help of Andersen’s work, as can the relationship of Justus Jonas and others to the two of them. Andersen has presented a helpful and, at points, provocative contribution to the continuing reassessment of Melanchthon’s thought and his diplomatic and theological modus operandi. The study’s careful reading of a vast amount of documentation will elicit fruitful discussion as it serves as a basis for further exploration of the dynamics ofMelanchthon and his place in theWittenberg circle.