[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.