[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.