LUTHER

by John Osborne

Luther

Genres: Plays, Drama, Theatre, Religion, Fiction, Christianity

104 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1961

About the author

People best know British playwright John James Osborne, member of the Angry Young Men, for his play Look Back in Anger (1956); vigorous social protest characterizes works of this group of English writers of the 1950s.

This screenwriter acted and criticized the Establishment. The stunning success of Look Back in Anger transformed English theatre. In a productive life of more than four decades, Osborne explored many themes and genres, writing for stage, film and television. His extravagant and iconoclastic personal life flourished. He notoriously used language of the ornate violence on behalf of the political causes that he supported and against his own family, including his wives and children, who nevertheless often gave as good as they got.

He came onto the theatrical scene at a time when British acting enjoyed a golden age, but most great plays came from the United States and France. The complexities of the postwar period blinded British plays. In the post-imperial age, Osborne of the writers first addressed purpose of Britain. He first questioned the point of the monarchy on a prominent public stage. During his peak from 1956 to 1966, he helped to make contempt an acceptable and then even cliched onstage emotion, argued for the cleansing wisdom of bad behavior and bad taste, and combined unsparing truthfulness with devastating wit.

Reviews

[Meem Arafat Manab · Rating 4 out of 5]

মার্টিন লুথার ইউরোপের ইতিহাসের অদ্ভূত এক চরিত্র, এই কথা বলে না দিলে এই নাটক ভালো লাগা সম্ভব বলে মনে হইলো না একবারও।
লুথারের জীবনের বিভিন্ন জায়গা থেকে টুকরো টুকরো দৃশ্য ছেঁটে ছেঁটে একরত্তি এই নাটকের জন্ম দেয়া হয়েছে, পুরা নাটক মনে হয় দেড় ঘন্টায় দেখিয়ে ফেলা সম্ভব। স্বভাবতই লুথারের পুরা জীবন ত পুরা জীবন, অনেক অংশই উঠে আসে নাই, কেউ যদি ভাবেন এটা পড়ে/দেখে লুথারের জীবনী সম্পর্কে ওয়াকিবহাল হয়ে ফিরে যাবেন, তাকে যে শুধু হতাশই হতে হবে তাই না, একটা অস্পষ্ট ধারণা নিয়ে ফিরে যেতে হবে তাকে।

তবে, নাটকটা সেরা। একশ বিশ পাতার এই নাটক ত আর জন্মানোর সময় দিব্যি দিয়ে আসে নাই যে সে লুথার সম্পর্কে সবিস্তার বর্ণন করবে, সুতরাং সে বরং তার কাজ করে গেছে। প্রথম দৃশ্যে লুথারের আব্বার ক্রোধ, দ্বিতীয় দৃশ্যে লুথারের সাথে ব্রাদারের আর তৃতীয় দৃশ্যে তার সাথে স্বয়ং আব্বার কথোপকথন ক্লান্ত ত করেই না, উল্টা লুথারকে একটা বিশ্বাসযোগ্য দ্বিধাগ্রস্ত চরিত্র হিসেবে দাঁড় করিয়ে যায়।
এরপর দ্রুত গল্প গড়ায়, আমরা ইন্ডালজেন্স বলে একটা বস্তু বাজারে বিক্রয় হইতে দেখি, লুথারেরে মুখোমুখি হইতে দেখি বিভিন্ন মানুষের। নোংরা কথাবার্তা মার্টিন লুথার বলে কিছু কিছু, যেমনটা হবার কথা ছিলোই।
অনেক কিছু মঞ্চস্থ হয় না এর ভেতর। কৃষক যুদ্ধের প্রসঙ্গ আর সেই যুদ্ধে লুথারের ভূমিকা উঠে আসলেও যুদ্ধের কোনো চেহারা দেখা যায় না। প্রচুর চরিত্রও এই নাটকে, তাদের বেশিরভাগই এক কি দুই দৃশ্যের জন্য এসে চলে যায়। এইটুকু গণ্ডিতে এতগুলো চরিত্র ক্লান্তিকর, তবে এতখানি গণ্ডিতে এর চেয়ে ভালো করে লুথারের নিয়ে নাটক সম্ভব হত কী না জানি না। ইতিহাস আশ্রিত হওয়া এক সমস্যা, প্রসঙ্গ চলে আসে বারবার। একদিক থেকে মনে হয় ইতিহাস বাদ দিয়েই, এই নাটক নাটক হিসেবে দারুণ, আবার মনে হয় পেছনের পর্দ্দায় ইতিহাস না থাকলে এই নাটক রীতিমত অবোধ্য।

[Nicki · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this play. I would love to see a well-funded production of it if for no other reason than to see the moody atmosphere come to life.
Martin Luther was indeed an enigma. A deeply religious man who stands against the Pope is a legacy that will always inspire something in me. He's a bit of a mystery, and I think Osborne did a wonderful job at capturing his humanity as well as his spirituality. His "sermons" were often infused with a humour that stood in stark contrast to the very ascetic world of medieval times.
It is obviously a play about the first reformer and therefore focuses on Luther's religion, but Osbourne sprinkles in enough personal relationships as to balance the subject matter, even for those like me who aren't religious. The repercussions of his dissent were slightly rushed but would perhaps be more clear when staged. The bowel pain that followed him until the end of the play felt a bit unfinished or cheap to me. I would have liked it to be fleshed out a bit more as I was left unsure about why it was important enough to make the final print or what it was supposed to mean. Perhaps this is just something historical that was known about Dr. Luther?
Overall I think the play was very well handled and I would like to see it some day.

[Illiterate · Rating 2 out of 5]

Luther scorns authorities: father, monastic order, Catholic Church. It tails off.

[Gideon Arulmani · Rating 4 out of 5]

Luther is so often seen as a person who was strong enough to take on the Pope himself. But the author picks on Luther's difficulties with his bowel movements (!) around which to wrap this brilliant story. Perhaps he paints the great refomer in poor light - but it is a writing that does not flinch from the harsh light of honesty.

[Ali · Rating 2 out of 5]

این نمایش نامه توسط محمد تهامی نژاد به فارسی برگردانده شده و انتشارات امیرکبیر آن را در 1353 چاپ و منتشر کرده است.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Luther seemed to be a strange departure for John Osborne, the man who put working-class living-rooms on the stage in Look Back in Anger and The Entertainer. A play about Martin Luther is a far cry from Osborne’s works of social realism, but there is a connection between Osborne’s Luther, and Jimmy Porter and Archie Rice (the protagonists of the other works).

We might view this Martin Luther as an Angry Young Monk. Like Porter, he is defiantly standing up against authority figures. However whereas Porter’s rebellion is little more than making sarcastic jokes about the establishment, Luther is an active agent for radical change.

Does this make Luther a better man than Porter? That depends on one’s outlook. The Catholic Church in Luther’s day had become corrupted by the sale of indulgences. The play quotes two examples – a man refuses to pay for his wife’s funeral because he has already bought her salvation, and a noble robs the clergyman who sold him an indulgence because he is already cleared from all blame by the law and god, thanks to the indulgence.

Protestantism allowed a new and purer religion to emerge that escaped from the excesses of Catholicism, and in the process this helped to clean up Catholicism too. The practice of indulgences has now gone.

On the other hand, Luther lived up to the words that Jesus applied to himself – he did not come to bring peace, but to bring a sword, and set families against each other. In the late stages of the play, wars break out and ordinary people are slaughtered in the name of preserving Luther’s doctrines. The Protestant/Catholic divide created years of bigotry and persecution that is only just beginning to end now.

Is Luther truly interested in rebelling against the leadership of the Church, or is he aspiring to be a leader himself? This idea is raised in the play. Personally I think that he is not a true rebel, but is forced into becoming one.

The action of the play suggests that the schism could possibly have been avoided if the senior clergymen had been less intransigent. The Catholic Church is not portrayed as vile or evil here. There are a number of intelligent, cultured and humane clergymen in the play. However they refuse to answer the questions that might assuage Luther’s doubts.

On several occasions, Luther asks the church leaders to explain why indulgences are acceptable by quoting the Bible. They will not (or cannot) do that. They tell him it is right because the Pope says so, but Luther refuses to take the word of a man over the Bible. Whether the Bible is truly god’s word, and whether Luther is only taking the words of the men who wrote the Bible instead is an issue that is skirted over here.

Luther is not complacent in his views. His rebellion is borne out of self-doubt, and even at the moment of his final confrontation, he asks for a day to think about his answer. He does not doubt god’s existence, but what he thinks god requires of him and others. In that sense, his rebellion is not against god, but against himself and the church.

There is an innate sense in which Luther cannot stop himself from going against the expectations of his seniors. This includes his disappointed father who feels that the academically gifted Luther is wasting his talents in the clergy. However Luther wishes to make peace with his father, and with the church. He is no man of the people, and approves of the action of noblemen to suppress the common people.

In this sense I suspect he resembles Osborne. For all his vaunted left-wing opinions, Osborne was essentially a reactionary, something we see in Jimmy Porter and Archie Rice who have a curious nostalgia for an age that never was. It is hardly surprising that Osborne ended his life as a right-wing libertarian. He always had a hatred for the state, even the welfare state.

It is unclear from the play where Osborne stands on the issue of Luther’s rebellion. Luther is the hero and this puts him as the sympathetic central focus. Nonetheless his fanaticism and bouts of angst and guilt make him a repellent figure.

Also curious is the crudity with which Osborne portrays religion. This could be a play addressed the most high-minded of issues, and yet the tone is constantly lowered by references to cleaning privies and Luther’s lifelong constipation, an unsubtle symbol of his inner ordeal.

Luther’s speeches are frequently scatological and abusive too. I find myself wondering if the real Luther spoke like this. This focus on excrement is odd. Is Osborne staying that Luther is full of shit, both before and after his rebellion?

Re-reading three of Osborne’s plays has proved a little disappointing. I enjoyed the plays, but formed a lower opinion about their author. The fascination of Osborne’s earthy dialogue and situations cannot disguise the small-minded of Osborne’s concerns. To read or watch Osborne plays is to feel like listening to a tetchy man shaking his fist at the world because he wishes to stand still, and the world does not.

[Jenny · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love Martin Luther. He is one of my favorite historical figures, and I would read almost anything about him or including him. I saw the movie version of Osborne's play in a Renaissance and Reformation class in college, and I liked it. I like the play as well. The screenplay writers and director, etc. did a great job of translating the play into a movie, so they're very similar. I enjoyed the way that Osborne incorporated famous sayings of Luther's into dialogue ("Here I stand," "I pass wind, and all of Europe smells it," "Give the devil your backside and let him have it," etc.).
I followed the theme and motifs throughout the play, and I enjoyed the connections between Luther's relationship with his father, his vision and promise during the lightning storm, his first Mass, the Diet of Worms, the Peasants' War, and Luther's marriage and son Hans. Reading Erik Erikson's Young Man Luther helped me to understand even further. I believe that Osborne also read this book because many of the events that Erikson identifies and focuses on are described and interpreted in Luther as well. Osborne's imagery and dialogue are superb.
The only reason that I give this three stars rather than four or five is that I felt a disconnect with the real Martin Luther as I've come to understand him. I know that Osborne's works are generally political and include social commentary, and I definitely see Luther as an allegory or analog for modern times (modern to the time of the play and even now to our time). Osborne wasn't writing so much about Luther as he was writing about hypocrisy and religious systems, societal reformation and the leaders who break promises to those who follow them.
I just wish that he had characterized Martin differently. Instead of characterizing him as a symbol through his constipation (which I totally get: Martin was spiritually blocked, and this prevented him from making the changes that he meant to make), I wish he had characterized him as a man, making it clear that he didn't want to separate from the Catholic Church (he wanted to change it, to bring it back to its original tenets), that he struggled with his own faith (not just with his bowels), and that he tried to make peace with the church.
Overall, this is a wonderful play, very well written and enjoyable. My only reason for giving it three stars is that slight feeling of disconnect with the character that Osborne created. Although, the more I write, the more I realize that Osborne's characterization was purposefully flat just like the scenery that he describes: like a Medieval painting, gold foil background, one-dimensional figures, and more allegorical meaning than any literal ones. I must change my rating...

[David Campton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reread Osborne's play for the first time in 25 years in preparation for seeing another dramatic take on Luther's life and legacy, never having seen a production of this. Having reread it I can see why it is rarely revived. It isn't without merit, but it is very much product of its time, seeing Luther through the lens of the emerging protests against authority that were to dominate the 1960s (Osborne himself was arrested for civil disobedience in 1961, the year he wrote the play), and with the shadow of what the Germany that, arguably, Luther gave birth to ultimately grew into under the Nazis still colouring post-war thinking. Whilst the scatological language and obsession with his bowels is true to Luther's own writings and life it comes across as a slightly clumsy and pseudo-psychological understanding of what and why Luther said and did what he did. It is patchy both stylistically, and dramatically, caught between being a "classical" history play, akin to Bolt's contemporary "Man for all Seasons" and something that might have been produced by Theatre Workshop. Like Bolt's play it is theologically and historically limited, though Osborne doesn't seem to be trying to create an unhistoric hero of Luther in the same way that Bolt did with More. He only touches on Luther's antisemitism in passing (too soon after the holocaust perhaps?) and whilst his opposition to the Peasants' revolt is a theme of the closing part of the play he doesn't really deal with it in a particularly satisfactory way. Luther's life and legacy, and this key period in Western religious and political history deserves a better dramatic rendering.

[Nick Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

John Osborne’s reputation probably still largely rests on his four early plays, Look Back In Anger, The Entertainer, Luther and Inadmissible Evidence. Luther is my favourite, but I’m not quite sure what it is trying to do. If Osborne was first identified with a Kitchen Sink realism, Luther doesn’t fit. It’s closer to Bertolt Brecht than naturalistic realism. But it lacks Brecht’s political insistency. In the first act, when Luther enters the monastery and later conducts his first mass, the play seems to be trying to explain him in psychological terms – his relationship with his father is central. But later, when he begins to cause trouble in the Church, there is more of a political purpose, although Luther’s motivations remain largely psychological. Notably the play seems to have limited interest in theological questions. I read it about four weeks ago and although it impressed me, it already seems to have largely seeped out of my memory.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are many things going on in this play: the motivations of inciting revolution and remaining true to established order, Brechtian theater-play in crossing contemporary dialog and images within a historical setting, general iconoclasm, etc.

As the play proceeds it gradually switches from the expected to the surprising, with the final act going far beyond the normal parameters that typically embody this story: showing the regret a revolutionary might feel when the movement he created went beyond his comfort and he marginalizes himself in attempt to run from his fears.

It's an exciting play, possibly even for its flaws. Martin is not an idealized character; in fact, he is presented as an adolescent man-boy who's fears and youthful hubris lead him to change the world as it knots up his insides with constipation.

[Mel · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Seems to me there are three ways out of despair. One is faith in Christ, the second is to become enraged by the world and make its nose bleed for it, and the third is the love of a woman. Mind you, they don't all necessarily work--at least, only part of the time. Sometimes, I'm lying awake in the devil's own sweat, and I turn to Katie and touch her. And I say: get me out, Katie, please, Katie, please try and get me out. And sometimes, sometimes she actually drags me out. Poor old Katie, fishing about there in bed with her great, hefty arms, trying to haul me out."

- Luther in Luther by John Osborne

[Ideasnatchers · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was a strange genre about a man that I have revered my whole life so I thought I would give it a go. It was a good read in that it was fairly simplistic and didn't go horribly much into theology to the point that the mid reader could read. I learned about Luther's relationship with his dad more than I knew before. It also reinforced that Martin gave them every chance for them to refute his stand and they could and would not do that. I liked it being in a play format. I would recommend it for more information on Luther and the Reformation.

[Erik Graff · Rating 3 out of 5]

Neither saw the play nor the movie based on it. Read this while taking a church history course on the reformation, hoping it would flesh out the character of Martin Luther as the history books dare not. Instead, it went too fast in silent reading and made much less of an impression than did Erik Erikson's psychobiography, Young Man Luther, on which, in part, it is based.

[Bridget · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was interesting, especially as I was raised as a Lutheran. I had heard about Martin Luther's constipation and problems with his bowels, but I had never read literature that focused that much on them or on his health. It was definitely a new look at a familiar story.

[Yooperprof · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not very dramatic, more a series of scenes than a coherent artistic "unity" . . . Shaw did this kind of thing much better in "Saint Joan". . . some flashes of sharp characterization. . . tries to cover too much in a creaky theatrical format

[محمد عبادة · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think I need to re-read it and see it played on theater .. I also need to see its film adaptations.

[TK421 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Powerful. Stunning. Profound. A truly rich and heroic piece of writing that details one of the most fascinating personalities in human history.

[Jim Justice · Rating 5 out of 5]

This made me sweat like a pig

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

MARTIN:
I'm like a ripe stool in the world's straining anus, and at any moment we're about to let each other go.

[Amy Roebuck · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was wonderful to play Katharine in this fast-moving, never boring, psychologically compelling (thanks to Erik Erikson's book) depiction of one of the great figures of Protestantism.

[Celie · Rating 1 out of 5]

1.5/5

[Jason Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

The angry young man of Look Back in Anger turns his attention to Luther, seeing in the reformations godfather an outlet of his own anti authoritarianism. The causes are well documented ; Osborne locates the drama in Martin’s physical, as well as physical struggles ; his constipation gave him much time on the latrine to think and might have helped turn him from constant mortification.

The political fallout is sketched here ; Luther never wanted the peasant revolts done in his name but his anti peasant polemics weren’t the way out. Osborne doesn’t touch his occasional misogyny or anti semitism, his other major failings. . .


Osborne is critical of the failings while maintaining an earthy though Insightful view of the great breakthroughs - his part in creating a German polity and linguistic identity is touched on too.

The BBC radio production I heard is a good one but the Diet ( pronounced de- et) of worms (pronounced Vorm) , the council that he made his famous stands at, is always mispronounced. Luther didn’t eat worms .

[Elizabeth Higginbotham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Luther by John Osborne is a play from 1961. I read it in 10th grade and re-read it as I was writing about my experiences in high school.
A very rough play, we see Martin Luther coping with being a monk, the frustrations of his own father, who would have like Martin to follow another path. His father does not take pride in his son's academic accomplishments. Yet Martin struggles to adjust to life as a monk. He is also struggling with the actions and practices of the Pope and other leaders in the church. He is trying to follow the scriptures and find God. Of course, he faces the hypocrisy of the church and is public in his protest.
When he will not recant is thrown out. There is a time of rebellion and crisis, but Luther and some in his circle of monks make it through. Luther marries and has a child. As the play ends, he is still troubled with doubts, but moves forwards with his family.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

From 1961...& an angry young man...about an angry young man called Dr Martin Luther...a hero of all heretics like me! Osborne pulls no punches in the honest vulgarity in the portrayal of the conflicts with the Roman Catholic sinners who provoked chaos & violence.
A play that would never be staged in this day & age of little or no free expression of religious 'diversity'. So many people...so few differing views!

[Michael P. · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really like what Osborne tries to do with this play, which is take god out of Luther's story and make the conflicts purely human. The are too many polemical passages that I found too dull for the play to succeed for me. While I agree that those things needed to be explored, the dialog would have benefited from better focused writing of these scenes.

[Jack Burton · Rating 3 out of 5]

The good scenes are incredible, such as Tetzel's monologue. No scene feels unnecessary, but some are not as tight as others. Worth reading overall.

[Louis Chadburn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Religion religion

[Jeff Youngstrom]

My review from September 29, 1996

[David]

Few characters could be more disparate than Archie Rice, Martin Luther, Bill Maitland, and Jimmy Porter. Yet they all share this: the world into which they were born no longer works for them. Osborne details, in a variety of time settings and situations, the plight of the man who doesn’t fit. These are not easy plays, but they are important.