Chapter XL: At the Grave (7)

[128] M. Ritter, “Matthiä Flacii Illyrici Leben”², 1725, p. 105 Janssen, _ib._, p. 265.

[129] For proofs see Janssen, _ib._, p. 286 ff.

[130] _Ib._, p. 295.

[131] On the contrast between mediæval and Lutheran charity, see above, vol. iv., p. 477 ff., and Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. xv., pp. 425-526.

[132] Adolf Bruder, art. “Armenpflege,” “Staatslexikon der Görresgesellschaft.”

[133] F. Ehrle, “Beiträge z. Gesch. u. Reform der Armenpflege,” 1881; do. “Die Armenordnungen von Nürnberg (1522) und von Ypern (1525),” “Hist. Jahrb.,” 9, 1888, p. 450 ff. Ratzinger, “Gesch. d. kirchl. Armenpflege”², 1884, p. 442 ff. Janssen, p. 431.

[134] L. Feuchtwanger, “Gesch. der sozialen Politik und des Armenwesens im Zeitalter der Reformation” (“Jahrb. für Gesetzgebung,” etc., ed. G. Schmoller, N.F. 32, 1908, p. 168 ff. (I), and 33, 1909, p. 191 ff. (II), I, p. 169.)

[135] “De origine, situ, moribus et institutis Norimbergæ,” cap. 12.

[136] Reprint of the Regulations of 1522 according to the oldest revision, in Ehrle, “Die Armenordnungen,” p. 459 ff. For the passage “Our salvation,” etc., see p. 467.

[137] Ehrle, _ib._, p. 477 f. Feuchtwanger, _ib._, I., p. 184.

[138] Janssen, _ib._, xv., p. 439 ff.

[139] Feuchtwanger, _ib._, p. 182. For all the towns mentioned above see Janssen, _loc. cit._

[140] Weim. ed., 26, p. 639; Erl. ed., 63, p. 270.

[141] _Ib._, 6, p. 450 f.=21, p. 335 f.

[142] Cp., for instance, the passage in the Church-Postils, Erl. ed., 14², p. 391: “The whole world is full of idle, faithless, wicked knaves, among the day labourers, lazy handicraftsmen, servants, maids, to say nothing of the greedy, work-shy beggars,” etc.

[143] Weim. ed., 6, p. 42; Erl. ed., 16², p. 87. (Longer) Sermon on Usury, 1520.

[144] _Ib._, 19, p. 654 f.=22, p. 281 in “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden.”

[145] Barge, “Andreas Karlstadt,” 2, p. 559 f.

[146] E. Sehling, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1, p. 696 ff.

[147] _Ib._, p. 596 ff.; also “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 11 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 112 ff. On Leisnig cp. above, vol. v., p. 136 ff.

[148] _Ib._, pp. 11 ff., 14=106 ff., 110.

[149] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 551.

[150] It was the first to be established with so much pomp and circumstance.

[151] To Spalatin, Nov. 24, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 72 f.

[152] Cp. Ehrle, “Die Armenordnungen,” etc. (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 9, 1888), p. 475. The Altenburg regulations are no longer extant.

[153] Feuchtwanger, “Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung,” etc., I., p. 173. He quotes the enthusiastic words written on this occasion by the Wittenberg student Ulscenius: “_O factum apostolicum, fervet hodie in Wittenbergensium cordibus Dei et proximi dilectio ardentissima_,” etc., and remarks: We may take in conjunction with this statement the libertinism which actually prevailed in the town at the end of 1521.

[154] Cp. below.

[155] Weim. ed., 19, p. 74 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 231.

[156] _Ib._, 30, 2, p. 584 f.=17², p. 419 f.

[157] See Döllinger, “Die Ref.,” 1, p. 303 ff.

[158] Erl. ed., 14², p. 391. Church Postils.

[159] _Ib._, p. 389.

[160] Weim. ed., 32, p. 409; Erl. ed., 43, p. 164. Expos. of Matt. vi.

[161] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 44, p. 356. Sermons on Matt. xviii.-xxiii.—For similar statements see the passage in the last Note and Erl. ed., 23, p. 317; also above, vol. iv., _passim_. Cp. also Luther’s statements in Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” xv., p. 465 ff.; Döllinger, “Die Ref.,” 2, p. 215, 306, 349.

[162] Erl. ed., 23, 313 f. “An die Pfarherrn wider den Wucher.” 1539.

[163] Feuchtwanger, II. (see above, p. 44, n. 2), p. 192.

[164] _Ib._, pp. 197, 180, 177 f., 176.

[165] The quotations here and in what follows are from Feuchtwanger.

[166] Feuchtwanger, II., p. 197. He quotes from the compilation of A. L. Richter, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” and Sehling (above, p. 49, n. 3) Bugenhagen’s “Ordnungen” subsequent to those set up for Wittenberg in 1527. Cp. in K. A. Vogt, “Bugenhagen,” 1867, p. 101 ff., on the latter’s “Von den Christen-loven,” etc., 1526.

[167] Cp. Janssen, xv., p. 456 f.

[168] Feuchtwanger, _ib._, II., p. 206.

[169] Cp. _ib._, p. 214.

[170] _Ib._, p. 212.

[171] In his instruction against the Anabaptist doctrines (Wittenberg, 1528, D 3b) Melanchthon says: “Never have the people shown themselves more unfriendly and malicious towards the parsons and ministers of the Church than now. Some who wish to be thought very Evangelical seize upon the property given to the parsons, pulpits, schools and churches, and without which we should end by becoming heathen. The common people and the mob refuse to pay the parson his dues,” etc.

[172] See Janssen, _ib._, xv., p. 480, n. 1, where the touching complaint of Eber’s is quoted, viz. that the ministers of the Church were stripped and left to starve. He prophesies that future times will show how “little blessing spoliation brought those who warmed and fed themselves on Church property.” It was everywhere worst in the villages and small towns.

[173] _Ib._, xv., p. 477.

[174] _Ib._, p. 469 ff.

[175] _Ib._, p. 481 ff.

[176] For proofs see Janssen, _ib._

[177] G. Kawerau, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3, ed. W. Möller, 3rd ed., 1907, p. 434, with a reference to the works of Bossert.

[178] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 303 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 541 (in 1522).

[179] Cp. Janssen, _ib._, xv., p. 501.

[180] O. Jolles, “Die Ansichten der deutschen nationalökonomischen Schriftsteller des 16. und 17. Jahrh. über Bevölkerungswesen” (“Jahrb. f. Nationalökonomie u. Statistik,” N.F. 13, 1886, p. 196). Janssen, _ib._

[181] Janssen, _ib._, xv., p. 505. Feuchtwanger must have been familiar with all this though he never quotes Janssen. He says (p. 214): “Only one who was unfavourable to the reformation would judge Protestantism by the fruits of its first two centuries.”

[182] “Reden und Aufsätze,” 2, 1904, p. 52, in the lecture “Die evangelischsoziale Aufgabe im Lichte der Gesch. der Kirche.”

[183] F. Schaub, “Die kath. Caritas und ihre Gegner,” 1909, p. 45.

[184] See the excellent work by Schaub, p. 14 ff., quoted in the previous Note, where it is stated, that, under present conditions, private charity certainly does not suffice and that, therefore, State relief is necessary; yet the latter is always merely subsidiary, because what is assumed by real Christian charity, i.e. self-sacrifice, and individual care, can only be realised in private relief of the poor; the State, on the other hand, has its efficient compulsory taxation (“_caritas coacta_”) and its own bureaucratic means of carrying out its work; in any case the State must not monopolise any branch of poor relief, and public and private charity ought to be in close touch. These remarks may serve to assist in the right appreciation of the historical movement described above.

[185] Feuchtwanger, II., p. 194.

[186] _Ib._, pp. 212, 214.

[187] Cp. _ib._, p. 214.

[188] Vol. iv., p. 127 ff.

[189] Erl. ed., 31, p. 236. “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur,” 1533. Above, vol. v., p. 59.

[190] _Ib._, p. 239 f.

[191] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, pp. 202-204.

[192] Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.,” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1911, pp. 725-755). “Similar testimony,” Paulus says, p. 740, “dating from the close of the Middle Ages is to be found in abundance.” He lays particular stress on the witness of monks and friars.

[193] Sermon on Marriage in his “Sermones dominicales,” Leipzig, 1530, Bl. J. 4a, L1. Q 2b. Paulus, _ib._, p. 741.

[194] Of pilgrimages in particular, Luther is fond of saying, that the monks enjoined them at the expense of the duties of a man’s calling. Cp., for instance, the passage cited above, p. 67, n. 1 (p. 203): “_Mater familias … non faciat, quæ in papatu solent, ut discurrat ad templa_,” etc. For the passages from Hollen see Paulus, _ib._, p. 740, and Fl. Landmann, “Das Predigtwesen in Westfalen in der letzten Zeit des MA.,” 1900, p. 179 f.

[195] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 2, p. 9 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 749.

[196] Janssen, _ib._ Paulus, _ib._, p. 748.

[197] Cp. Paulus, _ib._, p. 750 ff., and H. Pesch, “Lehrb. der Nationalökonomie,” 2, 1909, p. 726.

[198] Weim. ed., 19, p. 635; Erl. ed., 22, p. 259. “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden?” 1526.

[199] _Ib._, 18, p. 394=24², p. 324. “Sendebrieff von dem harten Buchlin widder die Bauren,” 1525.

[200] _Ib._, 19, p. 659=22, p. 287.

[201] _Ib._, 10, 2, p. 157=28, p. 200.

[202] _Ib._, p. 631=255. He speaks before this of nobles, who, after the peasant risings, had gone too far in their revenge.—Luther inveighs in the strongest language against the way in which the nobles oppressed the poor “burghers, unhappy pastors and preachers,” and says: “Here the lion has caught a mouse and fancies he has overcome the dragon. Germany is now full of such nobles and Junkers, who stink out the beer-houses and draw their steel only on the poor, wretched, defenceless people; such are the nobles. Out on such abandoned people! We Germans are indeed swine and savage beasts, and have no noble thoughts or courage in us, as the world too thinks!” This in the Commentary on the Four Psalms of Consolation, 1526. Weim. ed., 19, p. 604 f.; Erl. ed., 38, p. 439 f.

[203] Weim. ed., 11, p. 246 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 62 f. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” 1523, Preface.—Cp. what was said, above, vol. ii., p. 205 f., etc.

[204] Weim. ed., 19, p. 278 f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 43. “Widder den Radschlag der Meintzischen Pfafferey,” 1526 (not published by him on account of his sovereign’s prohibition).

[205] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 175.

[206] Weim. ed., 28, p. 520; Erl. ed., 36, p. 175.

[207] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” xv., p. 137 ff.

[208] K. J. Fuchs, “Die Epochen der deutschen Agrargesch.” (“Allg. Ztng.,” 1898, Suppl. 70).

[209] Weim. ed., 16, p. 244; Erl. ed., 35, p. 233 (1524-26).

[210] _Ib._, 33, p. 659=48, p. 385 (1530-32).

[211] _Ib._, 24, p. 367 f.=33, p. 389 f.

[212] To the Elector Johann Frederick, Erl. ed., 55, p. 239; “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 246.

[213] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 388.

[214] _Ib._

[215] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 245.

[216] Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 529 f.

[217] _Ib._, p. 518 ff., Sermon of June 11, 1531.

[218] _Ib._, p. 109.

[219] _Ib._, p. 334 f.

[220] Weim. ed., 28, p. 329; Erl. ed., 50, p. 350. “We are ministers in a hostel where the devil is the landlord and the world the landlady, and the barmaids all kinds of wicked lusts, and all these, landlord, landlady and barmaids, are enemies and opponents of the Evangel.”

[221] Erl. ed., 32, p. 77.

[222] Above, vol. v., p. 403 ff.

[223] Erl. ed., 62, p. 375 f., “Tischreden.”

[224] _Ib._, p. 366.

[225] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” xv., p. 49 ff. Lucas Osiander the Elder sent Luther’s Schem Hamphoras to Duke Frederick of Würtemberg in 1598 in support of his petition for the expulsion of all Jews. For the same purpose, in 1612, the theological faculty of Giessen had some of Luther’s strongest sayings against the Jews reprinted. _Ib._, p. 51, n.

[226] C. Krause, “Eoban Hessus, sein Leben und seine Werke,” 2, 1879, p. 107. Janssen, _ib._, xiii., p. 101.

[227] 1, p. 279.

[228] To Johann Lang, Dec. 18, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 281: “_facturus, ut multo plures offendat Christi pura doctrina_.”

[229] Weim. ed., 6, p. 38; Erl. ed., 16², p. 82. Sermon on Usury, 1519.

[230] _Ib._, p. 37 f.=81, on the words of Christ, Matt. v. 40 f., that, to him who takes our coat we should leave our cloak also: “Many fancy this is not commanded or to be observed by every Christian, but is merely a voluntary counsel of perfection, and, like virginity and chastity, counselled not commanded.” But “these are the artifices whereby the teaching and example of our dear Lord Jesus Christ as given in the holy Gospel, together with that of all His Martyrs and Saints, is reversed, neglected and altogether suppressed.… God will blind and disgrace those who turn His clear and holy Word into darkness.… No excuse is of any avail, it is simply a command which we are bound to observe.” He continues: As true Christians we have to observe it, but, as members of a commonwealth we enjoy a divine institution whereby “the secular sword” protects us from any injury to our possessions.

[231] _Ib._, p. 50 f.=98.

[232] _Ib._, p. 6=117; cp. p. 50=98.

[233] Weim. ed., 15, p. 294 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 201.

[234] _Ib._, p. 312 ff.= 223 ff.

[235] _Ib._, 6, p. 466=21, p. 357.

[236] Cp. _ib._, 15, p. 304=22, p. 214 f.

[237] “Darstellung und Würdigung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat und seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben,” 1898, p. 83.

[238] Quoted by Luther in 1540, see Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 78.

[239] _Ib._

[240] Weim. ed., 6, p. 466; Erl. ed., 21, p. 357.

[241] _Ib._, 15, p. 304=22, p. 213 f. Von Kauffshandlung, etc.

[242] _Ib._, p. 36=181. “An die Radherrn.”

[243] _Ib._, 6, p. 465 f.=21, p. 356.

[244] _Ib._, p. 466=356.

[245] _Ib._, 24, p. 351 f.=33, p. 370 f.

[246] _Ib._, 18, p. 391=24², p. 320 (1525).

[247] Ward, “Darstellung,” etc., p. 73.

[248] Kampschulte, “Johannes Calvin,” 1, 1869, p. 430. Ward, _ib._

[249] Ward, _ib._, p. 74.

[250] Weim. ed., 15, p. 296; Erl. ed., 22, p. 204. Ward, _ib._, p. 75.

[251] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 295=202.

[252] Ward, p. 101.

[253] Ward, _ib._, p. 94

[254] Weim. ed., 24, p. 368; Erl. ed., 33, p. 390.

[255] On June 18, 1524, Erl. ed., 53, p. 244 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 354).

[256] Cp. Enders in n. 3 to the above letter.

[257] See above, vol. iv., p. 13 ff.

[258] Weim. ed., 24, p. 8; Erl. ed., 33, p. 11 (1527).

[259] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 279. Cp. J. Schneid, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 108, 1891, pp. 241 ff., 473 ff., and B. Duhr, “Zeitschr. f. Kath. Theol.,” 24, 1900, p. 210.

[260] Cp. the Sermons on Usury of 1519, also certain passages in his “An den christl. Adel,” the booklet “Von Kauffshandlung und Wucher,” 1524, and the Sermon against Usury of April 13, 1539, which he followed up by a written appeal to the Wittenberg magistrates. M. Neumann, “Gesch. des Wuchers in Deutschland,” Halle, 1868, pp. 481, 618 ff.

[261] Erl. ed., 23, p. 283 f.

[262] _Ib._, p. 285.

[263] The Anabaptist Jorg Schnabel said in 1538, that on 20 gulden two or three were now taken as interest. For the text, see Janssen, _ib._, xv., p. 38.

[264] Erl. ed., 23, p. 285.

[265] _Ib._, p. 304 f.

[266] _Ib._, p. 285.

[267] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 259; according to Heydenreich’s Notes. Erl. ed., 57, p. 360.

[268] Erl. ed., 23, p. 306 f.

[269] _Ib._, p. 319.

[270] _Ib._, cp. above, p. 80, n. 4.

[271] _Ib._, p. 311 f.

[272] P. Schanz, “Commentar über das Lukasevang.,” 1883, p. 226.

[273] Printed in H. Grisar, “Iacobi Lainez Disputationes Tridentinæ tom. 2: Disaput. variæ; accedunt Commentarii morales,” Oeniponte, 1886, pp. 227-321, with Introduction, pp. 60*-64*.

[274] P. 240; cp. p. 63*.

[275] P. 244 _sqq._

[276] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 432.

[277] P. 287.

[278] P. 294.

[279] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 259.

[280] Erl. ed., 23, p. 306 f.

[281] _Ib._, p. 338.

[282] Sep. 19, 1525, Erl. ed., 65, p. 239 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 243).

[283] To Dorothy Jörger, March 7, 1532, Erl. ed., 54, p. 277 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 160).

[284] Ward, “Darstellung,” etc., p. 94.

[285] _Ib._, p. 95.

[286] Weim. ed., 6, p. 53; Erl. ed., 16², p. 102 (1519).

[287] _Ib._, p. 51=99.

[288] _Ib._, p. 466=21, p. 356 f.

[289] _Ib._

[290] _Ib._, 6, p. 58=16², p. 108 (1519).

[291] June 18, 1524, Erl. ed., 53, p. 245 f. (“Briefe,” 4, p. 354).

[292] To Sebastian Weller at Mansfeld, July 26, 1543, Erl. ed., 56, p. lviii.

[293] To Count Wolfgang von Gleichen, March 9, 1543, _ib._, p. 57.

[294] _Ib._, 45, p. 7.

[295] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 259. “The properties have risen. Where formerly an estate was worth one hundred florins it is now worth quite three; _qui ante potuit dare 5, potest nunc dare 6 vel septem_.”

[296] Erl. ed., 23, pp. 286, 338. In the above letter to Sebastian Weller he declares (p. lviii) that, in his epistle to the parsons, he had only spoken “of _mutuum_ and _datum_.”

[297] _Ib._, p. 289.

[298] _Ib._, p. 298.

[299] _Ib._, p. 289.

[300] _Ib._, p. 296. Very mild indeed are the directions he gives in his letter to the town-council of Dantzig on the charging of interest (May 5 (?), 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 296, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 165): “The Gospel is a spiritual rule by which no government can act.… The spiritual rule of the Gospel must be carefully distinguished from the outward, secular rule and on no account be confused with it. The Gospel rule the preacher must urge only by word of mouth and each one be left free in this matter; whoever wishes to take it, let him do so, whoever does not, let him leave it alone. I will give an example: the charging of interest is altogether at variance with the Gospel since Christ teaches ‘lend hoping for nothing.’ But we must not rush in here and suddenly put an end to all dissensions in accordance with the Gospel. No one has the right or the power to do this, for it has arisen out of human laws which St. Peter does not wish abrogated; but it is to be preached and the interest paid to those to whom it is due, whether they are willing to accept this Gospel and to surrender the interest or not. We cannot take them any further than this, for the Gospel demands willing hearts, moved by the Spirit of God.” The letter seems also to be aimed at the fanatics, whose violent action in opposing the charging of interest as un-Evangelical, Luther frowned on.

[301] “Luthers Theol. in ihrer geschichtl. Entwicklung,” 2², 1901, p. 328.

[302] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 331, quotes G. Schmoller (“Zur Gesch. der nationalökonomischen Ansichten in Deutschland während der Reformperiode,” in the “Zeitschr. f. die gesamte Staatswissenschaft,” 16).

[303] From the Munich Kreisarchiv, in B. Duhr, “Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 1905, 29, p. 180.

[304] Duhr, _ib._, 1908, 32, p. 609. Cp. 1900, 24, pp. 208 f., 210, on Eck.

[305] G. Scherer, “Drey unterschiedliche Predigten vom Geitz,” etc., Ingolstadt, 1605, p. 57 f.

[306] “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 158. “Vitæ reformatorum,” ed. Neander, p. 5. See above, vol. i., p. 17.

[307] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 405. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 158: “_Totus stupebam et cohorrescebam.… Tanta maiestas (Dei)_,” etc.; Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 89: “I thought of fleeing from the altar … so terrified was I,” etc. (1532); Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 186: “_fere mortuus essem_”; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 119; 3, p. 169; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 400. See above, vol. i., p. 15 f.

[308] Erl. ed., 58, p. 140; cp. 60, p. 129. Of his “_territus_” we hear also from Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 95, and “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 292.

[309] See above, vol. i., p. 16 f.

[310] Mainz, 1549, Bl. B. 8a. The book was written in Latin in 1533.

[311] “Acta Lutheri,” p. 1.

[312] What Denifle urges to the contrary (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1, p. 726, n. 2) is not convincing.

[313] Cp. Kawerau, “Deutsch-evang. Bl.,” 1906, p. 447: “What anguish of soul he went through in the monastery is related by himself as early as 1518 in the touching account contained in the ‘Resolutiones’ to his 95 Theses.”

[314] “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” p. 30.

[315] See above, vol. i., p. 381 f.

[316] Weim. ed., 1, p. 557 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 180 _sq._

[317] See above, vol. ii., p. 170.

[318] “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (“Deutsch-evang. Bl.,” 29, 1904, p. 303 ff.), p. 305.

[319] To Spalatin, Jan. 13, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 12: “_me subito sanguinis coagulo circum præcordia angustiatum pœneque exanimatum fuisse_.”

[320] Cp. vol. v., p. 333, above, and Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 168.

[321] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. Kawerau, 1, p. 104 ff.; also “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 160 _sqq._ Cp. Bugenhagen’s account in his “Briefe,” ed. Vogt, p. 64 ff.

[322] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 109: “_in illis undis tentationum_.” Cp. above, vol. v., pp. 334, 339.

[323] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 200, where we read (under Dec. 19, 1536): “_Eo die Lutherus magno paroxysmo angustia circa pectus decubuit_.” The dates given in the Table-Talk are not as a rule altogether reliable, but here they may be trusted because they happen to coincide with a portent in the sky looked upon as a bad omen.

[324] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 622 f.

[325] We may here call attention to what will be said in the next chapter concerning similar phenomena in Luther’s early days. This chapter, no less than the present one, is important for forming a just opinion on Luther’s pathological dispositions.

[326] To Johann Hess at Breslau, Jan. 31, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 50.

[327] To Johann Agricola, Feb. 1, 1529, _ib._, p. 51.

[328] Enders, _ib._, p. 54, n. 3.

[329] To Nicholas Hausmann at Zwickau, Feb. 13, 1529, _ib._, p. 53.

[330] To the same, March 3, 1529, _ib._, p. 61: “_fere assidue cogor sanus ægrotare_.”

[331] To Melanchthon, Aug. 1, 1530, _ib._, 8, p. 162: “_ut neque tuto legere litteras possim neque lucem ferre_”—common symptoms of neurasthenia.

[332] _Ib._

[333] Aug. 3, 1530, _ib._, 8, p. 166. Cp. above, vol. v., p. 346.

[334] To Hans Honold at Augsburg, Oct. 2, 1530, Erl. ed., 54, p. 196 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 275).

[335] Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther,” p. 313.

[336] Dietrich’s Latin account, ed. Seidemann, “Sachs. Kirchen- und Schulblatt,” 1876, p. 355. Cp. Küchenmeister, “Luthers Krankengesch.,” p. 71; Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 264; Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther,” p. 314.

[337] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 125.

[338] To Melanchthon, April 12, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 300.

[339] _Ib._

[340] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, pp. 189, 223, 226.

[341] Cp. above vol. v., pp. 107-16, and vol. iv., p. 284 ff.

[342] See vol. ii., p. 163, n. 3.

[343] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 268.

[344] On uric acid and gout as the explanation of all his bodily troubles, see below, xxxvi. 5.

[345] Cp. above, vol. v., 333 ff.

[346] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 268.

[347] For the different passages quoted cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 315: Other temptations were nothing compared with this interior “_angelus Sathanæ colaphizans_, σκόλοψ,” where a man is nailed to the gibbet. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 53: “_Ego vertigine seu capite hactenus laboravi, præter ea quæ angelus Sathanæ operatur. Tu ora pro me Deum, ut confortet me in fide et verbo suo_” (to N. Hausmann, Feb. 13, 1529). The “sting of the flesh” was not in his case, as has been asserted, the result of nervousness, but an intellectual temptation to waver in the “faith” he preached, and to doubt of the “Word.”

[348] Cp. the numerous statements of contemporaries who were unable to explain Luther’s uncanny behaviour, his “infernal outbreaks of fury” and morbid hatred of the Pope (above, vol. v., p. 232 f.), otherwise than by supposing him to be possessed or mad (vol. iv., p. 351 ff.).

[349] To Hier. Weller (July?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159 f.

[350] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9, of Staupitz: “_dicebat, se nunquam sensisse_.”

[351] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 129.

[352] See vol. i., pp. 120 ff., 223 ff., 269 ff.

[353] Weim. ed., 18, p. 633; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 154.

[354] Nov. 11, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 126.

[355] July 16, 1517, _ib._, p. 102.

[356] Oct. 26, 1516, _ib._, p. 67: “_præter proprias tentationes cum carne, mundo et diabolo_.” Cp. above, vol. i., p. 275.

[357] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 223.

[358] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 196.

[359] Cp. above, vol. i., p. 166 ff., and, in particular, pp. 230-40.

[360] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 50: “_illos horrores contra Deum_,” etc., March 29, 1538.

[361] June 4, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 207.

[362] (In Sep.?) 1516, _ib._, p. 55.

[363] May 18, 1517, _ib._, p. 100.

[364] March 1, 1517, _ib._, p. 88.

[365] Nov. 11, 1517, _ib._, p. 124.

[366] Luther wrote this about the time of the “Tower incident” (above, vol. i., p. 377 ff.), when engaged in wrestling after “certainty.”

[367] Weim. ed., 5, p. 165. Cp. W. Köhler, “Luther und die KG.,” I, 1 (1900), p. 260.

[368] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 203; Köhler, _ib._, p. 259.

[369] Erl. ed., 10², p. 67.

[370] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 70.

[371] Weim. ed., 9, p. 215; Erl. ed., 16², p. 52, in the first non-expurgated form of the sermon (cp. above, vol. ii., p. 148).

[372] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100.

[373] Feb. 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431. For “_titillatio_” see vol. ii., p. 94.

[374] To Melanchthon, July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189. An attempt has been made to deprive the word _libido_ of the sense it always has with Luther (cp. 1st Comm. on Galatians, 1519, and the later Commentary of 1531). It was alleged to mean “nothing more than an unusual desire for food and drink”; in the same way the word “flesh” was taken merely as the antithesis of “spirit,” i.e. the Holy Ghost!

[375] _Ib._, p. 193: “_peccatis immergor in hac solitudine_.”

[376] Aug. 3, 1521, _ib._, p. 213.

[377] To Nicholas Gerbel of Strasburg, Nov. 1, 1521, _ib._, p. 240.

[378] To Spalatin, Nov. 11, 1521, _ib._, p. 247 f.

[379] _Ib._

[380] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9.

[381] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 55. Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 81.

[382] “Myconii Historia reformationis,” ed. E. S. Cyprianus, p. 42.

[383] “Ratzebergers Handschriftl. Gesch.,” etc., p. 54.

[384] “Hist.,” Bl., 196.

[385] _Ib._

[386] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 440.

[387] Erl. ed., 59, p. 340 f.

[388] “Tagebuch,” p. 293.

[389] Erl. ed., 59, p. 341.

[390] _Ib._

[391] Erl. ed., 60, p. 70.

[392] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 85, where Lœsche remarks that the Gotha Codex 263, 122 proved this by an instance taken from Luther’s life. Cp. also Erl. ed., 59, p. 337.

[393] Erl. ed., 59, p. 337.

[394] _Ib._, 57, p. 65.

[395] _Ib._, 60, p. 108.

[396] _Ib._, 58, p. 128 f. Cp. above, vol. v., p. 286 f.

[397] In Aurifaber’s edition, 1568, Bl. 91, 92. Stangwald, who as a rule eliminates, as he assures us, all that was not Luther’s very own, has retained it in his edition of the Table-Talk (1571); likewise Selnecker (1577). For this reason we also find it in Förstemann’s 1st ed., 1844, p. 400. It is not given in the Latin Table-Talk, but, as a comparison with Bindseil’s “Tabellen,” 3, p. 471, shows, we miss in the Latin a whole number of unquestionably authentic Luther conversations occurring in the German editions. It is to be found in “Werke,” Erl.

[398] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 517.

[399] Erl. ed., 58, p. 128.

[400] Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 72.

[401] _Ib._, p. 71.

[402] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 39, Jan. to March, 1532. The passage commences: “_Tanta spectra vidi_,” seemingly referring to the ghosts at the Wartburg.

[403] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 97.

[404] Erl. ed., 58, p. 4.

[405] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 20. Preface dating from 1545.

[406] See below, p. 142 ff.

[407] “_Fui (dignus), cui sub æternæ iræ maledictione interminaretur, ne ullo modo de iis dubitarem._” Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 81, n. From Khummer’s “Tagebuch.” Reference to some external apparition is not excluded.

[408] See above, p. 125.

[409] Cp. above, p. 117, etc.

[410] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 42. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 95.

[411] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 127.

[412] Cordatus, _ib._, p. 95. Cp. Erl. ed., 57, p. 305.

[413] From the MS. quoted by Kawerau, “Zeitschr. f. kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben,” 1, 1880, p. 50. Cp. F. Küchenmeister, “Luthers Krankengesch.,” p. 67 f.

[414] “Werke,” Weim. ed., on the German Bible, 3, p. xlii. Risch, “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 80.

[415] Above, p. 123.

[416] “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,” 29, 1904, p. 310.

[417] Alber Erasm., Dialogus vom Interim, 1548, Bl. B. III. Cp. Seidemann, “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1876, p. 564 f.

[418] Above, p. 123 f.

[419] C. F. Kahnis, “Die deutsche Reformation,” 1, 1872, p. 142.

[420] “Luthers Werke,” Walch’s ed. 21, Suppl., p. 325.*

[421] “Handschriftl. Gesch.,” etc., p. 133.

[422] Ratzeberger, _ib._

[423] To Cath. Bora, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 786. Cp. the letter of Feb. 7 to the same, _ib._, 5, p. 787: “I think that hell and the whole world must be empty of devils who have all forgathered here at Eisleben on my account; so great are the difficulties.”

[424] “Fünf Briefen aus den letzten Tagen Luthers,” ed. Kawerau (”Stud. und Krit.,“ 54, 1881, p. 160 ff.), p. 162: “_Ut video, Sathan nates videndas porrigit mihi et ultro derisum adest (addit?)_”; after this, adds Friedrich, the way was paved for some sort of reconciliation.

[425] To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 773: “_Satanica sunt hæc, sed Deus, quem rident, ridebit eos suo tempore_.” Cp. also vol. v., _passim_.

[426] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 113. Erl. ed., 60, pp. 55, 73.

[427] p. 193 ff.

[428] _Ib._, p. 200.

[429] Erl. ed., 31, p. 311.

[430] To Nich. Hausmann, Dec. 17, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 363.

[431] Cp. G. Koffmane, “Handschriftl. Überlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1907. See above, vol. iv., p. 520 f.

[432] This was the view taken, e.g. by Fr. Balduinus, who published a work at Eisleben in 1605 against the unfortunate attempt of the learned Jesuit, Nicholas Serarius, to uphold the reality of the dialogue with the devil. According to Balduinus it was really a “_gravissima tentatio beati Lutheri_,” by which the devil sought to reduce him to despair.

[433] Cp. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9, of Dec. 14, 1531.

[434] _Ib._, p. 89, in May, 1532, thus only a few months after the above statement.

[435] Seb. Fröschel, “Von den heiligen Engeln, vom Teuffel und des Menschen Seele. Drey Sermon,” Wittenberg, 1563, Bl. L2 to Bl. 4a.—Friedr. Staphylus, “Nachdruck zu Verfechtung des Buches vom rechten waren Verstandt des göttlichen Worts,” Ingolstadt, 1562, p. 154´.

[436] “Whereupon Luther became even more anxious and alarmed.… It was wonderful to see how he ran about the sacristy meanwhile, wringing his hands for very fear.”

[437] Cp. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. xxiv., where the exorcism is transposed to Jan. 18(19).—_Ib._, p. 772, Luther relates how he had cured the madness (“_mania_”) of a “melancholy” person who had been subjected by the devil to this “temptation,” and also explains how blessings were to be given.

[438] See above, vol. v., p. 240 f.

[439] To Bora, July 2, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 107.

[440] Erl. ed., 60, pp. 138-40.

[441] Luther to Ebert, Aug. 5, 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 21.

[442] Kirchhoff is alluding to the case of the “changelings” mentioned above, vol. v., p. 292. It is true Luther did not regard them as human beings.

[443] “Allg. Zeitschr. für Psychiatrie,” 44, 1888, p. 329 ff.—For Luther’s view of the insane as possessed, see above, vol. v., p. 281.

[444] See above, p. 128, n. 7.

[445] Vol. i., p. 391.

[446] Above, vol. v., p. 322.

[447] Above, vol. v., p. 226 ff.

[448] Erl. ed., 9², p. 358 f.

[449] See above, vol. i., p. 391 ff.

[450] Above, vol. i., p. 398.

[451] Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296, end of Feb., 1522). Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 111.

[452] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 106 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 143 f.

[453] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 81; above, p. 128, n. 7.

[454] Above, vol. iv., p. 258.

[455] 1 Cor. xiv. 30. The passage, however, refers to the “charismata” of the early Church and sets up no sort of standard for judging of doctrine in later times.

[456] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 175 f. Greving, p. 18 f. Cp. Steph. Ehses, “Röm. Quartalschrift,” 12, 1898, p. 456, on M. Spahn, “Cochlæus,” p. 81, who criticises Cochlæus unfavourably because he demanded signs and wonders from Luther.

[457] Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8; Erl. ed., 28, p. 211, from notes taken at the time.

[458] Jonas, i., 2: “_Surrexit Ionas, ut fugeret a facie Domini_.”

[459] “Werke,” _ib._, pp. 11=214.

[460] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 40; Erl. ed., 28, p. 316 in the revision of the above Wittenberg sermon entitled: “Von beider Gestallt des Sacramentes zu nehmen.”

[461] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 184; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 391: “_Certus sum, dogmata mea habere me de cœlo_” (against Henry VIII).

[462] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 496; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 23: “_revelatione divina ad hoc vocatus_.”

[463] Weim. ed., 20, p. 674. The passage is from the Wolfenbüttel MS., which reproduces Rörer’s Notes (revised, possibly, by Flacius). In another set of Notes Luther speaks here of his doctrine as “_evangelium veritatis_.”—Cp. vol. iv., p. 408: “_not without a revelation_ of the Holy Ghost.”

[464] Weim. ed., 32, p. 477; Erl. ed., 43, p. 263.

[465] Note in Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 81.

[466] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 169: “_Deus revelavit in hoc schola verbum suum. Quicumque nos fugiunt et sugillant nos clanculum, ii defecerunt a fide_,” etc. In 1540.

[467] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 22 _sq._; cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 211.

[468] “Luthers Werke,” Walch’s ed., 21, p. 363* f. Seckendorf, “Commentaria de Lutheranismo,” gives the passage as follows: “_Ionas sæpe eum dixisse memorat, se nemini mortalium aperturum esse_, etc., _fore autem ut in die novissimo innotescant, sicut et revelationes egregiæ, quæ sub initium doctrinæ habuerit et nemini detexerit_” (Lips., 1694, lib. 3, sect. 36, p. 647). Bugenhagen says in his funeral oration (Walch, 21, p. 329*), that God the Father had revealed His Son through Luther, whilst Melanchthon goes so far as to boast that the latter had received his doctrine, not from “human sagacity,” but that God had revealed it to him (see “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 58 _sq._, and Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 625). The expression that Luther’s gospel had been “revealed” became quite usual, as we see from the heading of a chapter in the Latin “Colloquia,” entitled: “_Occasio et cursus evangelii revelati_” (ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 178).—Just as Luther asserted he was reforming the Church, “_divina auctoritate_” (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 16), so Calvin, too, claimed to derive his ministry of the Word (which differed from that of Luther in so many points) from Christ. Zwingli did the same, and his followers cared but little for Luther’s claim to the contrary.

[469] Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 212.

[470] _Ib._, 10, 2, p. 23=28, p. 298.

[471] P. 40=316.

[472] _Ib._

[473] P. 23=298; op. Gal. i. 28.

[474] Paul forbade his disciples to say: “_Ego sum Pauli_,” and asked: “_Numquid Paulus crucifixus est pro vobis?_” (1 Cor. i. 12 _sq._).

[475] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 363 ff.

[476] In Casel’s account, Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 74.

[477] Weim. ed.; 25, p. 120; cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 22, p. 93 _sq._

[478] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 49; cp. above, vol. v., p. 352. Above, vol. v., pp. 339 f., 319, 328. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 176.

[479] Above, vol. v., p. 327 f.

[480] Weim. ed., 5, p. 385. “Operationes in Psalmos,” 1519-21.

[481] Erl. ed., 38, p. 225.

[482] _Ib._, p. 221.

[483] See vol. iv., p. 222.

[484] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 53; cp. Erl. ed., 49, p. 91, on John xiv.-xv.

[485] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 20, p. 181 _sq._ Enarr. ps. cxxx.; cp. Weim. ed., 1, p. 206 ff.; Erl. ed., 37, p. 420 ff.

[486] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 27 f.

[487] On Marcus, cp. Weim. ed., 61, pp. 1, 73.

[488] Cp. vol. ii., pp. 377 f., 371 f., and, with regard to Campanus, p. 378.

[489] Cordatus, _ib._, p. 28.

[490] Weim. ed., 18, p. 783=“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 362. “De servo arbitrio.” See vol. ii., p. 276.

[491] To the Elector Augustus of Saxony, “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 766: “_Stoica et manichæa deliria_.” Cp. vol. v., p. 258.

[492] _Ib._, 24, p. 375; cp. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrb.,” p. 81.

[493] Cp. vol. iii., pp. 45, 75 f., 125 f.

[494] On his discovery of Antichrist see above, vol. iii., p. 141 ff. He reached it amidst strange fears: “_Ego sic angor_,” etc. To Spalatin, Feb. 24, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 332. On the thoughts of Satan see the letter to Egranus of March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173: “_Nisi cogitationes Satanæ scirem, mirarer quo furore ille [Eccius] amicitias solveret_,” etc.

[495] Vol. iii., p. 149 ff.

[496] Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 301.

[497] Erl. ed., 60, pp. 176-311.

[498] Cp. his statement in Schlaginhaufen’s Table-Talk, p. 56: “_Adversariorum verbi natura non est humana, sed plane diabolica_” (1532).

[499] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 404 f. (Jan., 1537), with reference to Dan. xi. 36; xii. 1. The “_Sic volo_,” etc., from Juvenal, “Sat.,” 6, 223, he applies to himself, above, vol. v., p. 517.

[500] Mathesius, _ib._, p. 293. In 1542-3. The picture given at the beginning of this portion of the Table-Talk of how Luther the “monk” and Catherine the “nun” seated at table after dinner raise the cross hand-in-hand against Antichrist and say: “_Post scripturam non habemus firmius argumentum quam crucem!_” speaks volumes for their infatuation.

[501] Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 410, in a sermon of Nov. 1, 1531.

[502] Erl. ed., 63, p. 276. On his abnormal hatred see vol. iv., p. 300 f.

[503] _Ib._

[504] To Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 461.

[505] Cp. vol. iv., p. 95 f. My belief that in the passage in question in Luther’s letter to Melanchthon of Aug. 28, 1530 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 235), the word “_mendacia_” should be read after “_dolos_” as in the oldest Protestant editions, has since received confirmation from P. Sinthern in the “Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 1912, p. 180 ff., where the quotations from Johann Lorenz Doller, “Luthers katholisches Monument,” Frankfurt-am-Main, 1817, p. 309 ff., are set forth in their true light.

[506] Erl. ed., 25², p. 425.

[507] Weim. ed., 26, p. 509; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372 f.

[508] Vol. iv., p. 304.

[509] See vol. iv., p. 327 ff., and the remark of Harnack, _ib._, p. 340 f.: “Either he suffered from the mania of greatness or his self-reliance really corresponded with his task and achievements.”

[510] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 210.

[511] _Ib._, p. 308 (1540). Cp. above, vol. v., p. 241 ff.

[512] To Lang: “_Sitne libellus meus [De captivitate babylonica] tam atrox et ferox tu videris et alii omnes. Libertate et impetu fateor plenus est, multis tamen placet, nec aulæ nostræ penitus displicet. Ego de me in his rebus nihil statuere possum. Forte ego præcursor sum Philippi [Melanchthonis], cui exemplo Heliæ viam parem in spiritu et virtute, conturbaturus Israel et Achabitas ~[cp. 1 Kings xviii. 17]~ oratione itaque opus erit, si quid peccatum est._” A little later he says of Antichrist: “_Odi ego ex corde hominem illum peccati et filium perditionis ~[2 Thes. ii. 3]~ cum universo suo imperio._”

[513] In Casel’s report (Nov. 29, 1525), Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 74.

[514] To Lang, Nov. 11, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 126.

[515] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 6.

[516] Erl. ed., 57, p. 73. “Tischreden,” ed. Aurifaber, Eisleben, 1566, pp. 18 and 18´.

[517] Above, vol. iii., p. 121.

[518] Erl. ed., 65, p. 62, preface to his translation of Jeremias.

[519] See below, xxxviii, 1.

[520] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 169.

[521] Weim. ed., 32, p. 474; Erl. ed., 43, p. 263.

[522] _Ib._, p. 473=265.

[523] Cp. Spangenberg, “Theander Lutherus,” pp. 45 and 51.

[524] See above, vol. iii., p. 159 ff. On the nun Florentina.

[525] Schlaginhaufen, “Tischreden,” p. 92: “_Articulus remissionis peccatorum est in omnibus creaturis_” (a. 1532). Cp. p. 139: “_Deus in omnibus officiis, statibus intromisit remissionem peccatorum_,” etc.

[526] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 201 (Khummer): “_Melanthon retulit, Lutherum sæpe dixisse, articulum de remissione peccatorum esse fundamentum, unde exstruatur articulus de creatione_.”

[527] Erl. ed., 58, p. 390.

[528] See vol. iii., p. 195 ff.

[529] See above, vol. v., p. 517.

[530] Cp. above, vol. v., p. 585; vol. iv., pp. 331, 343; vol. ii., p. 294.

[531] Weim. ed., 26, p. 531; Erl. ed., 63, p. 273 (1528).

[532] _Ib._, p. 530=272.

[533] See vol. iii., p. 175 ff.

[534] Erl. ed., 60, p. 129 f.: “Break out at once into abuse, particularly if the devil attacks you with justification! He frequently assails me with an argument that is not worth a snap, but in the turmoil and temptation I do not notice this; but when I have recovered I see it plainly.”

[535] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 515.

[536] To Chancellor Brück, Jan. 27, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 282.

[537] Erl. ed., 60, p. 129.

[538] To Melanchthon, Aug. 3, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 166: “My head is indeed obstinate as you fellows say.”

[539] Paul Pietsch, in the preface (p. xxi. f.) to vol. 32 of the Weim. ed.: “His annoyance and his tendency to see only the darker side of things show plainly enough … that Luther was suffering from that deep depression to which great men are sometimes liable. In later life, for instance in 1544, this depression again overtook Luther, and he even resolved to quit Wittenberg, and it was only with difficulty that he was dissuaded from doing so. In 1545 again something similar occurred. Yet in 1544 and 1545 his discouragement had again no real cause.”

[540] Cp. Paulus, “Köln. Volksztng.” (Lit. Beil.), 1906, p. 355, on vol. 32 of the Weimar edition.

[541] To Link, Dec. 1, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 326.

[542] “_Si quid hic iocis aut conviciis excedit._”

[543] “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” ed. Vogt, p. 67 ff.

[544] We remember having recently read in a review, that many, at the present day, consider “mental aberration an indispensable condition of mental greatness.”

[545] “_Si hæc a febricitante dicerentur, quid dici possit insanius!_” “_Opp._,” 10, col. 1282, in 1526.

[546] The passages are given in Latin above, vol. iv., p. 353, n. 3.

[547] Cp. above, vol. ii., pp. 267 and 274; cp. also below, what Hausrath and Möbius say. The expression “abnormal state of temper” is used by W. Köhler in the “Theol. Literaturbericht,” vol. 23 (1903), p. 499. Elsewhere he calls Luther “the most paradoxical figure imaginable, who speaks differently to every hearer” (_ib._, vol. 24, 1904, p. 517).—See also Döllinger (“Kirchenlexikon,”[2] art. “Luther,” col. 344), and Möhler, “Symbolik,” § 48, 1873 ed., p. 423. U. Berlière, O.S.B., recently remarked: “Une étude psychologique de Luther ne peut être séparée de son histoire ni de l’évolution de sa vie intérieure, encore moins de son état pathologique.… Cette étude n’est pas encore achevée” (“Revue bénédictine,” 1906, p. 630 f.).

[548] See Köhler, “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” p. 27.

[549] Cp. above, vol. i., p. 383. Cp. also the remarks on the next page, n. 2.

[550] In the art. “Luthers Bekehrung” (“N. Heidelb. Jahrb.,” 6, 1896), p. 193.

[551] “Luthers Leben,” 1, 1905, p. 109 f. The author speaks of the “secret sufferings of soul” which did not, however, interfere with the thoroughness of his work (p. 110); incidentally, in exoneration of the violence of Luther’s writings against Zwingli, he urges that Luther wrote it “at a time of great depression, which he even wished his opponents might endure for but a quarter of an hour to see if it would not convert them” (2, p. 213). At the Wartburg “his mental suffering returned, as it always did when he remained for any length of time without outward stimulus or active intercourse with the outside world” (1, p. 475). In the supplement to his unaltered 2nd edition Hausrath deals with the objections raised against his “pathological” view though he considerably modifies his wordings (1, p. 573 ff.).

[552] On Ebstein see below, p. 176 f. Ebstein’s is an improvement on Küchenmeister, “Dr. Martin Luthers Krankengesch.,” Leipzig, 1881. Küchenmeister did not do justice to the historical material and always quotes at second hand. Th. Kolde rightly speaks of his work as a “book that had better not have been written” (“Anal. Lutherana,” p. 50). He also thinks Berkhan’s treatment of the subject (_ib._, p. 51) “of small value.”

[553] “Deutsch-evangelische Bl.,” 29, Halle, 1904, p. 303 ff.

[554] See above, p. 109 ff.

[555] P. 316.

[556] “Archiv f. Psychiatrie,” 11, Berlin, 1880-1, p. 798 ff.

[557] P. 799. Cp. above, p. 100 ff.

[558] Möbius proceeds on the principle that “in each of us what is healthy is mixed with what is morbid and the more anyone rises above the average, the further he departs from the normal.” “The pathological element is part of every eminent man.” This, according to Möbius, is particularly the case with the genius. Hence, in his studies, it is his aim to show how psychiatry “may be used for appreciating great men.” Möbius intended to deal in detail with the pathology of Luther but was prevented by death from carrying out his plan. In his study on Schopenhauer (“Ausgewählte Werke,” Bd. 4)—who according to him was certainly not insane in the ordinary sense—he says: “I consider Schopenhauer one of the best instances to prove that it is only pathology which teaches us rightly to understand great writers and their works.… Schopenhauer became the philosopher of pessimism because, from the beginning, he was a sickly man. It was not the recognition of the evils in the world that made him take this line, but he deliberately sought out and described the evils because he needed to vindicate his own pessimism. He had displayed the latter even as a boy, having inherited it from his father, and his morbid disposition influenced his whole mode of thought.”

[559] In “Schmidts Jahrb. der in- und ausländischen gesamten Medizin,” ed. P. J. Möbius and H. Doppe, 288, Leipzig, 1905, Hft. 12, Dec., p. 264 in the notice of my articles “Ein Grundproblem aus Luthers Seelenleben,” in the “Köln. Volksztng.,” Lit. Beilage, 1905, Nos. 40 and 41.

[560] [Above, p. 173.]

[561] [Emil Kraepelin, “Psychiatrie, Ein Lehrbuch für Studierende und Ärzte,”⁶ Leipzig, 1899, Cap. ix.: “Das manisch-depressive Irresein,” pp. 359-425.]

[562] “Dr. Martin Luthers Krankheiten und deren Einfluss auf seinen körperlichen und geistigen Zustand,” Stuttgart, 1908.

[563] Pp. 7, 64.

[564] Pp. 45 ff., 56 ff.

[565] Pp. 62, 10, 63 f., 60, 55, 54, 64.

[566] This Ebstein admits (p. 44), though he argues that the “seizures in the joints” of which Luther complains must have had a gouty origin.

[567] _Ib._, p. 40. But cp. above, p. 110 f.

[568] Cp. in “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 191, for the proofs in support of this letter quoted by Enders from Kawerau.

[569] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 168.

[570] Ebstein, _ib._, p. 44.

[571] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 691 f.

[572] Pp. 49, 53.

[573] P. 55 f.

[574] P. 56.

[575] P. 12.

[576] P. 62.

[577] P. 10.

[578] P. 44 f.

[579] “Luther auf dem Standpunkt der Psychiatrie beurteilt,” Wien, 1874. Bruno Schön declares that Luther was “in part excused by the fact that he was deranged” (p. 3); this derangement Luther contrived to explain away by laying it all down to the devil, whom he had seen in actual hallucinations (p. 9); he had regarded all his opponents as fools, just as the inmates of an asylum look upon all others as fools and on themselves as perfectly sane (p. 28), etc.

[580] “Grundriss einer Gesch. der deutschen Irrenpflege,” 1890, p. 76.

[581] “Antwort auf das Sendschreiben,”³ Sulzbach, 1817, p. 70 ff.

[582] See the 2nd ed. of this writing, bearing the same title as the 1st, “Seitenstück zur Weisheit Luthers.” The 1st ed. is weaker in its animadversions than the 2nd.

[583] P. 188.

[584] See above, vol. i., p. 16.

[585] “Zeitschr. des Harzvereins,” 39, 1906, p. 191 ff. It cannot be proved from the records that the second Hans Luther had been guilty of actual manslaughter. Hence in vol. i., it was not necessary to point out that the manslaughter of which Wicel accuses Martin Luther’s father, repeating his accusation most emphatically in public writings without its being called into question by Luther, cannot be placed to the account of the second Hans with any semblance of likelihood (though it has been done, cp. “Luther-Kalender,” 1910, p. 76 f). Wicel came to Eisleben in 1533, thus only a few years after the father’s death, and was able to assure himself of the facts, concerning which there was not likely to be any mistake owing to Martin Luther’s celebrity at that time.

[586] Aug. Cramer, “Die Nervosität,” Jena, 1906.

[587] “Grundriss der Psychiatrie,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 104.

[588] _Ib._, p. 141 f.

[589] “Monatsschr. für Psychiatrie,” Berlin, 1907, p. 230.

[590] _Ib._, p. 236.

[591] A. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 432.

[592] _Ib._, p. 432 f.

[593] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 169.

[594] _Ib._, (from Rebenstock).

[595] _Ib._, p. 175.

[596] _Ib._, p. 170.

[597] _Ib._

[598] Erl. ed., 31, p. 257.

[599] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 195.

[600] _Ib._, p. 188: “… _et D. Staupitius me incitabat contra papam_.”

[601] _Ib._, p. 176.

[602] See above, vol. i., pp. 104 ff., 184 ff., 303 ff., where his theological attitude previous to the indulgence theses is discussed. It is taken for granted that the account of his development given in vol. i. is already known to the reader. The fictions have already been discounted in vol. i., p. 20 f. and p. 110 f.

[603] “Dokumente zu Luthers Entwicklung” (“Sammlung ausgewählter kirchen- und dogmengesch. Quellenschriften,” 2, Reihe 9. Hft.), 1911, p. 11 ff.

[604] Luther’s untrustworthiness here, where it is a question of his polemics, does not render untrue certain other data of a non-polemical character and otherwise supported. This is the case, e.g. with the date given above when the meaning of Rom. i. 17 first dawned upon him; this happens to agree with the facts. Cp. above, vol. i., p. 388 ff.

[605] Erl. ed., 63, p. 405, in the preface of 1539 to his German writings.

[606] See vol. iii., p. 153 ff. Cp. “Werke,” _ib._, p. 370, in a preface of 1531, where, referring to the “many and great miracles,” he makes no distinction between Evangel and Gospel.

[607] _Ib._, p. 373 (1542).

[608] _Ib._, p. 400 in the preface of 1539 to his German writings.

[609] _Ib._, p. 328.

[610] _Ib._, p. 295 (1530).

[611] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 432.

[612] “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. des Reformationszeitalters,” p. 219.

[613] “Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” Hft. 100, 1910, p. 14.—Cp. K. A. Meissinger, quoted above, vol. ii., p. 362, n. 2.

[614] “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1908, p. 580.

[615] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 182.

[616] Weim. ed., 33, p. 431 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 201.

[617] _Ib._, 49, p. 118.

[618] _Ib._, 20², 2, p. 420.

[619] “Comment. in Galat.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 138; Irmischer, 1, p. 109 _sq._

[620] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100.

[621] _Ib._, 7, p. 74.

[622] Weim. ed., 33, p. 560; Erl. ed., 48, p. 306.

[623] Erl. ed., 49, p. 27. Cp. 20, 2, p. 420.

[624] Weim. ed., 33, p. 575; Erl. ed., 48, p. 317.

[625] Erl. ed., 46, p. 73.

[626] At the time the present writer’s series of articles on Luther’s intellectual development was appearing in the “Köln. Volkszeitung” (1903, 1904), Denifle’s work which also insists on the unreliable nature of the legend (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹ 1904, pp. 389 ff., 725 f., 739 f.) was already in print.

[627] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 183.

[628] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 11, p. 123 (1545).

[629] Erl. ed., 49, p. 300. Comm. on John xiv.-xvi., of 1537.

[630] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 72. “Enarr. in Genesim,” c.a. 1541.

[631] _Ib._, 5, p. 267, a. 1539.

[632] Erl. ed., 49, p. 27 (1537).

[633] Weim. ed., 33, p. 561; Erl. ed., 48, p. 306. Comm. on John vi.-viii., 1531.

[634] Erl. ed., 31, p. 273. “Kleine Anwort auff H. Georgen nehestes Buch,” 1533.

[635] Comment. in Galat., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 135; Irmischer, 1, p. 107. Cp. p. 138=p. 109. The passage was only introduced by Luther in the 1538 ed., a fact remarkable for the history of the legend.

[636] Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 420.

[637] Comment. in Galat. ed. Irmischer, 3, p. 20, 1535.

[638] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 18, p. 226. Enar. in ps. 45, a. 1532.

[639] See above, p. 126.

[640] See above, p. 150.

[641] Erl. ed. 58, p. 377.

[642] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 401. Enarr. in Is. (1543).

[643] Comm. in Gal., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 137; Irmischer, 1, p. 109, of 1535.

[644] Erl. ed. 45, p. 156. Sermon of Dec. 7, 1539.

[645] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 36. From Khummer, no date, but a late utterance.

[646] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 23, preface to the Latin works (1545).

[647] N. Ericeus, “Sylvula sententiarum,” 1566, p. 174 ff.

[648] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100 (1532).

[649] To Bugenhagen (1532), preface to the latter’s edition of Athanasius, “De trinitate,” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 523 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 252).