[427]The text in question runs as follows: “De Helia Luthero vulgata est apud (nos) creberrima fama morbo laborare hominem. Giengerius tamen ex Lipsiis rediens nundinis refert foeliciter, convaluisse scilicet Heliam, qui nos omnes mira affecit lætitia. Clamabant adversarii pseudoregem interiisse de Sickingero gloriantes, pseudopapam autem ægrotum propediem obiturum. Deus tamen, cuius res agitur, melius consuluit. Apriolus tamen multa mihi ex compassione de Lutheri nostri mala valetudine adscripsit, et inter reliqua de nimia vigilia, qua dominus Helias molestetur. Non est mirum, hominem tot cerebri laboribus immersum, in siccitatem cerebri incidere, unde nimia causatur vigilia. Tu autem, qui medicum agis, non debes esse oblitus, si lac mulieris mixtum cum oleo violato in commissuram coronalem ungatur, quam familiariter humectet cerebrum ad somnumque disponat; et si cum hoc doloresmali Franciesomno impedimento fuerint, mitigandi sunt cum emplastro, quod fit ex medulla cervi, in qua coquuntur vermes terræ cum modico croco et vino sublimato. Hec si dormituro apponuntur, somnum conciliant, qui somnus maxime est necessarius ad restaurandam sanitatem. Nam quod caret alterna requie durabile non est. Cura nobis Lutherum propter Deum, cuius fidei me commenda et charitati. Melanchthonis (?) notum fac Apriolumque saluta.” (From the “Cod. Rych.” in the Wolff collection of the Hamburg Town Library, p. 560.)[428]In a letter to Staupitz, February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431, Luther complains of “molestiæ,” which were not physical sufferings but the weight of his position and undertaking. In the letter to Melanchthon, July 13, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189, he means by the “othermolestia” which tormented him, the constipation which “together with temptations of the flesh had prevented him for a whole week from writing, praying, and studying.” Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 171: “Malum auctum est, quo Vormaciæ laborabam: durissima patior excrementa, ut nunquam in vita, ut remedium desperaverim.” To Spalatin, June 10, 1521. Cp. above, p. 95.[429]Above, p. 79 ff. Cp. also volume iii., xviii.[430]“Contra Henricum,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 184; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 391.[431]Preface to Justus Menius’s book, “Œconomia Christiana,” 1529, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 61; Erl. ed., 63, p. 279 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 73). The preface is in the shape of a letter to Hans Metzsch, the Captain of the Wittenberg garrison, an unmarried man whom Luther urged in vain to marry.[432]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 773 f.[433]To Spalatin, March 4, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 133.[434]Ibid.[435]Ibid., March 23, 1525,ibid., 5, p. 140.[436]Ibid., March 12, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 138.[437]Ibid., April 15, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 290, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 157.[438]Ibid., March 27, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 147.[439]Ibid.[440]Ibid., April 3, 1525,ibid., p. 152. To Amsdorf, April 11, 1525,ibid., p. 156.[441]To the Christians at Antwerp, beginning of April, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 547; Erl. ed., 53, p. 342 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151).[442]To Spalatin, March 27, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 147.[443]Ibid., March 11, 1525,ibid., p. 136.[444]Ibid., March 27, 1525,ibid., p. 147.[445]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 19 ff. Sermon of 1533, the second in the “Postils.”[446]“Contra Henricum regem,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 205 f.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 424.[447]“On the two kinds of the Sacrament,” 1522, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 35; Erl. ed., 28, p. 311.[448]On March 12, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 138.[449]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 277 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 73). See[450]“Nos afflicti satis et tentati sumus.”[451]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 796, n. 2, 729.[452]See above, p. 133.[453]“Handschriftl. Gesch.,” ed. Neudecker, p. 58.[454]G. Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (“Deutsch-evangelische Blätter,” 29, 1904, p. 303 ff.), p. 305.[455]“Handschriftl. Gesch.,” p. 59.[456]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 276. Letters edited by De Wette, 4 (not 3, as stated by the editor of Ratzeberger), p. 181.[457]From Psalm iv. 9 ff.[458]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 60 (“Tischreden”).[459]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 61.[460]Ibid., 61, p. 307.[461]Ibid., p. 309.[462]Ibid.[463]On November 30, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 77 (see p. 181, n. 2). Here Luther remarks that there is much gossip (“garriri”) about him and his marriage.[464]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 293 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 164). In October, 1524, he speaks of Pastor Caspar Glatz as her future husband, without mentioning his own intentions (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 35).[465]To Amsdorf, June 21, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 204. Cp. Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 195.[466]To the Marshal Johann von Dolzigk, June 21, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 322 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 201). Cp. p. 175, n. 5, “coniux.”[467]Jonas to Spalatin, June 14, 1525, in “Jonas’ Briefwechsel,” ed. Kawerau, 1, 1884, p. 94.[468]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 238, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 184.[469]To Spalatin, April 10, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 153.[470]See above, p. 142.[471]To Johann Rühel, May 4, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., p. 53, 294 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 164).[472]To Wenceslaus Link, June 20, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 201: “Dominus me subito aliaque cogitantem coniecit mire in coniugium.”[473]Vogt, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” 1888, p. 32: “Maligna fama effecit, ut doctor Martinus insperato fieret coniux; post aliquot tamen dies publica solemnitate duximus istas sacras nuptias etiam coram mundo venerandas.”[474]On June 16, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 197: “Os obstruxi infamantibus me cum Catharina Bora.” At a much later date he excuses the haste by his wish to anticipate the proposal of his friends that he should select some other woman.[475]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 197, 198.[476]See Amsdorf in Scultetus († 1625), “Annales Evangelii,” 1, p. 274.[477]V. Druffel, “Die Melanchthon-Handschriften der Chigi-Bibliothek,” in “SB. der Bayr. Akad. phil.-hist. Kl.,” 1876, p. 491 ff. W. Meyer, “Uber die Originale von Melanchthons Briefen an Camerarius,”ibid., p. 596 ff. “Katholik,” 1900, 1, p. 392, an article by P. A. Kirsch with photo of letter. We are forced to depart from his translation on certain points. Cp. also Nik. Müller’s reprint in “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” 21, 1901, p. 595. The letter runs:“Εὖ πράττειν. Ὅτι μὲν ἔμελλε πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἡ φήμη οὐχ ὅμοια περὶ τοῦ γάμου τοῦ Λουθέρου ἀγγεῖλαι, ἔδοξέ μοι περὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς γνώμην ἔχω σοι ἐπιστέλλειν. μηνὸς ἰουνίου ἡμέρᾳι γ̓ ἀπροσδοκήτως ἔγημε τὴν Βορείαν ὁ Λούθερος μηδενὶ τῶν φίλων τὸ πρᾶγμα πρὸ τοῦ ἀναθέμενος, ἀλλ̓ ἑσπέρας πρὸς δεῖπνον καλέσας τὸν Πομερανιέα καὶ Λούκαν τὸν γραφέα καὶ τὸν Ἄπελλον μόνους ἐποίησε τὰ εἰθισμένα προτέλεια.“Θαυμάσειας δὲ ἂν, τούτῳ τῳ δυστυχεῖ χρόνῳ, καλῶν κἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν πάντοτε ταλαιπωρουμένων τοῦτον οὐ συμπάσχειν, ἀλλ̓ ὡς δοκεῖ μᾶλλον τρυφᾶν καὶ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἀξίωμα ἐλαττοῦν, ὅτε μάλιστα χρείαν ἔχει ἡ Γερμανία φρονήματός τε καὶ ἐξουσίας αὐτοῦ. Ἐγὰ δὲ ταῦτα οὕτω πως γενέσθαι οἷμαι. Ἐστὶν ὁ ἀνὴρ ὡς μάλιστα εὐχερὴς και αἱ μοναχαὶ πασῃ μηχανᾖ ἐπι βουλευομέναι προσέπασαν αὐτόν. Ἲσως ἡ πολλὴ συνήθεια, ἡ σὺν ταῖς μοναχαῖς κἂν γενναῖον ὄντα καὶ μεγαλόψυχον κατεμάλθαξε ἤ καὶ προσεξέκαυσε. τοῦτον τρόπον εἰσπεσεῖν δοκεῖ εἰς ταύτην τὴν ἄαιρον βίου μεταβολήν. Θρυλλούμενον δὲ, ὃτι καὶ πρὸ τοῦ διακόρευσεν αὐτὴν, ἐψεῦσθαι δῆλόν ἐστι.“Νυνὶ δὲ τὸ πραχθὲν μὴ βαρέως φέρειν δεῖ ἢ ὀνειδίζειν. ἀλλὰ ἡγοῦμαι ὑπὸ φύσεως ἀναγκασθῆναι γαμεῖν. Οὗτος δὲ βίος ταπεινὸς μέν, ἀλλὰ ὅσιός ἐστι καὶ θεῷ μᾶλλον τοῦ ἀγέμου ἀρέσκει. Καὶ ὅτι αὐτὸν τὸν Λούθερον ἐπίλυπόν πως ὄντα ὁρῶ καὶ ταραχθέντα διὰ τὴν βιου μεταγολήν, πάσῃ σπουδῇ καὶ ἐννοίᾳ ἐπιχειρῶ παραμυθεῖσθαι, ἐπειδὴ οὔπω ἔπραξέ τι, ὅπερ ἐγκαλεῖσθαι ἀξιῶ ἢ ἀναπολόγητον δοκεῖ. ἔτι δὲ τεκμήριά τινα ἔχω τῆς εὐσεβείας αὐτοῦ ὥστε κατακρίνειν οὐκ ἐξεῖναι. ἔπειτα ἂν μᾶλλον ἠυχόμην αὐτὸν ταπεινοῦσθαι ἢ ὐψοῦσθαι καὶ ἐπαίρεσθαι, ὅπερ ἐστίν ἐπισφαλές, οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἐν ἱερωσύνῃ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις. τὸ γὰρ εὖ πράττειν, ἀφορμὴ τοῦ κακῶς φρονεῖν γίνεται, οὐ μόνον, ὡς ὁ ῥήτωρ ἔφη, τοῖς ἀνοήτοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς σοφοῖς.“Πρὸς τούτῳ καὶ ἐλπίζω, ὅτι ὁ βίος οὑτοσὶ σεμνότερον αὐτὸν ποιήσει, ὥστε καὶ ἀποβαλεῖν τὴν βωμολοχίαν, ἧς πολλάκις ἐμεμψάμεθα. ἄλλος γὰρ βίος ἄλλην δίαιταν κατὰπαροιμίαν καταστήσει.“Ταῦτα πρός σε μακρολογῶ ὤστε μή σε ὑπὸ παραδόξου πράγματος ἄγαν ταράττεσθαι. οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι μέλει σοι τοῦ ἀξιώματος τοῦ Λουθέρον, ὅπερ νυνὶ ἐλαττοῦθαι ἀχθεσθήσῃ. Παρακαλῶ δέ σε πράως ταῦτα φέρειν, ὄτι τίμιος βίος ὁ γάμος ἐν ἁγίαις γραφαῖς εἶναι λέγεται. εἰκὸς δὲ ἀναγκασθῆναι ἀληθῶς γαμεῖν. Πολλὰ τῶν πάλαι ἀγίων πταίσματα ἔδειξεν ὁ θεὸς ἡμῖν, ὄτι θέλει ἡμᾶς βασανίζοντας τὸν αὐτοῦ λόγον, οὐκ ἀξίωμα ἀνθρώπων ἢ πρόσωπον σύμβουλον πολεῖν, ἀλλὰ μόνον αὐτοῦ λόγον. πάλιν δὲ ἀσεβέστατος ἐστιν, ὃστις διὰ τὸ διδασκάλον πταῖσμα καταγιγνώσκει τῆς διδαχῆς.“Michaelis pergrata consuetudo in his turbis mihi est, quem miror, qui passus sis isthinc discedere. Patrem officiosissime tractato, et puta te hanc illi pro paterno amore gratiam debereκαὶ ἀντιπελαργεῖν. De Francicis rebus a te litteras expecto. Vale foeliciter. Postridie corp. Christi. Tabellarius qui has reddet, recta ad nos rediturus est.Φίλιππος.” (The seal is still preserved.)[478]Notβδελυρίαν, debauchery, as was thought, butβωμολοχίαν, is the correct reading. The latter might perhaps be translated as “the passion for making coarse jests.” This is the opinion of G. Kawerau in “Deutsch-Evangelische Blätter,” 1906, “Luther und Melanchthon” (in the reprint, p. 37), who remarks that the only thing damning for Luther in this letter was Melanchthon’s statement “concerning the coarse jests to which Luther was given in his bachelor days, and which had so often scandalised his friend.” Kawerau, for this very reason, thinks that this much-discussed letter, “which Camerarius only ventured to print after much revision” (p. 34), is much better calculated to “make us acquainted with Melanchthon than with Luther, and simply bears witness to the former’s sensitiveness” (p. 37). It is true that “some of Luther’s talk appears to us to-day frightfully coarse, and Melanchthon felt as we do on the subject”; but apart from the fact that Melanchthon’s views were not representative of his age, Mathesius declares that “he never heard an immodest word from Luther’s lips.” We shall return later to the question of that age as a linguistic standard of morality and to Mathesius’s statement, which, we may remark, refers to a later period.[479]εἰκὸς δὲ ἀναγκασθῆναι ἀληθῶς γαμεῖν.The subject of the verbἀναγκασθῆναιis the infinitiveγαμεῖν, as in the previous passageἡγοῦμαι ὑπὸ φύσεως ἀναγκασθῆναι γαμεῖν. On the passive formἀναγκασθῆναι, see e.g. Plato, “Phæd.,” 242a, 254a.[480]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 750.[481]Loc. cit., p. 36.[482]To Johann Rühel, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 293 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 164).[483]To Spalatin, November 30, 1524 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 77): “Animus alienus est a coniugio, cum expectem quotidie mortem et meritum hæretici supplicium.” This he wrote under the influence of the stringent decrees of the Diet of Nuremberg (April 18, 1524), and in order to work upon his Elector. The decrees had led him to write: “You are in a great hurry to put me, a poor man, to death,” but that his death would be the undoing of his enemies. “Two unequal decrees of the Emperor,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 222 f.; Weim. ed., 15, p. 254.[484]To Johann Rühel, Johann Thür and Caspar Müller, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 314 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 195).[485]Sermon on Psalm xxvi. preached in Wittenberg shortly after his marriage, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 115.[486]From the concluding words of the tract of 1525: “Against the murderous, thievish bands of peasants,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18, p. 361; Erl. ed., 24², p. 309.[487]See above, p. 175.[488]See above, p. 178.[489]To Leonard Koppe, June 17, 1525 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 199).[490]To Michael Stiefel, June 17, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 199.[491]To Amsdorf, June 21, 1525,ibid., p. 204.[492]To Wenceslaus Link, June 20, 1525,ibid., p. 201.[493]In letter quoted above, p. 181, n. 3.[494]To Michael Stiefel, September 29, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 248.[495]To Johann Brismann (after August 15?), 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 226.[496]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 641.[497]On May 11, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 340.[498]In the letter quoted above, p. 174, n. 3.[499]To Leonard Koppe, June 21, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 202.[500]To Wenceslaus Link, July 20, 1525,ibid., p. 222.[501]In the letter quoted above, p. 182, n. 4: “Vehementer irritantur sapientes etiam inter nostros.” These are the followers whom he had complained of already on April 10, 1525: “Nostri sapienticuli quotidie idem (coniugium) ridere.” To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 153.[502]To Amsdorf, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 314, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 204.[503]“Archiv für Frankfurter Gesch.,” 7, 1855, p. 102 in Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 5, p. 195, n. 4.[504]To Amsdorf, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 204.[505]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 167.[506]Ibid., p. 265.[507]“Opp.,” Lugd. Batav., 1703, t. 3, col. 900. Erasmus to Nicholas Everardus, Präses in Holland, from Basle, December 24, 1525.[508]Ibid., col. 919, to Franciscus Sylvius, from Basle, March 13, 1526.[509]“Articuli sive libelli triginta,” art. 17, p. 87seq.[510]“Opp.,” Lugd. Batav., 1703, 3, col. 900, ep. 781.[511]Ibid., col. 919, ep. 801.[512]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 322; see above, p. 183.[513]See Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 334.[514]See Strobel, “Neue Beiträge zur Literatur,” 3, 1, p. 137 ff. Cp. Höfler, “SB. der k. böhm. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften,” 1892, p. 110 f. Denifle states, “Luther,” 1², p. 284, n. 3, that there is a specimen of the above work in the town library at Mayence.[515]See above, pp. 145, 177.[516]“Eberlins Sämtliche Schriften,” ed. L. Enders, 3, p. 165.[517]Eobanus Hessus says of the escaped nuns: “Nulla Phyllis nonnis est nostris mammosior.” Cp. above, p. 125, n. 1.[518]Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 284.[519]“Luther und der Bauernkrieg,” Oldenburg, 1895, p. 8.[520]“Gesch. der deutschen Reformation,” Berlin, 1890, p. 447.[521]“Die Kultur der Gegenwart,” T. 2, Abt. 5, 1, Berlin, 1908, p. 68.[522]The passages were quoted above, cp. pp. 6 f., 9 f., 49 f., 55 f., 63, 69, 100 f., 107.[523]“Dissertationes quatuor contra M. Lutherum et Lutheranismi fautores,” Moguntiæ, 1532, fol. 19. See Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 4, 1900, p. 56 ff.[524]Ed. A. Goetze in “Hist. Vierteljahrsschrift,” 4, 1901, p. 1 ff.[525]In Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 697, after a reference to the oppression of the peasantry, their insolence and desire for innovation, we read: “In addition to all this there now supervened the preaching of the new Evangel.... A higher warrant was bestowed upon the complaints and the demands concerning secular and material matters.... The Christian liberty of which the New Testament speaks and which Luther proclaimed was applied directly to temporal questions. Paul’s words that in Christ there is neither bond nor free became a weapon.... Even the Old Testament was also appealed to. From the circumstance that God had granted to our first parents dominion over the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, and the beasts of the field, they concluded that at least the right to fish and hunt was common to all. Great opposition was raised, above all, to the taxes due to the monasteries and clergy, and even the very existence of the monastic state and temporal authority of the clergy was called into question. Such ideas were readily fostered among the excited masses when the new preaching found its way amongst them by word of mouth or in writings”; p. 701: “Luther, however, was the man of the Evangel on whom the eyes of the great mass of the peasants in southern Germany were directed when their rising commenced.” The editors of the Weimar edition of Luther’s writings (18, 1908) remark in the first introduction to the same (p. 279): “The rebellion found its encouragement and support in Luther’s victorious gospel of ecclesiastical reformation; ultimately, however, it secularised the new gospel. Whence it came to pass that in the end, not Luther, but rather the religious fanatics, above all, Thomas Münzer, drew the excited masses under their spell and impressed their stamp on the whole movement.” Concerning Luther’s attitude towards the revolt at the time it was preparing, we read on p. 280: “Up to that time [the spring of 1525], Luther had taken no direct part in the social movement. He was, however, without doubt indirectly engaged; his writings had fallen like firebrands on the inflammable masses, who misunderstood them, interpreted them according to their own ideas and forged from them weapons for their own use.”[526]Fritz Herrmann, “Evangelische Regungen zu Mainz in den ersten Zeiten der Reformation,” in “Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910 (p. 275-304), p. 297.[527]F. Herrmann,ibid., p. 298.[528]F. Herrmann, p. 296. W. Vogt, “Die Vorgesch. des Bauernkrieges” (in “Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” 20, 1887), points to the general expectation prevailing, more particularly in the south-west of Germany, that a fundamental change in the existing state of things was imminent. “Every reform, however, even the most trifling, in the social sphere encroached upon the political and even the ecclesiastical domain, for the nobility and clergy, whose authority and possessions were the subject of discussion, were at the same time political and ecclesiastical factors.... All felt that in the last instance the appeal would be to force” (p. 142).[529]For examples, see above, p. 152 ff., and below, p. 297 ff. Cp. also P. Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum Luthers Ideal?” Tübingen, 1908, p. 31.[530]Concerning Usingen’s utterance of 1523: “Nescitis populum esse bestiam ... quæ sanguinem sitit?” etc., cp. N. Paulus, “Barthol. Usingen,” p. 102. And (ibid.) another striking saying of Usingen concerning the preacher Culsamer. He declared that he feared Germany would see a storm similar to that which Constantinople had suffered at the hands of the iconoclasts (p. 101). The preacher Eberlin von Günzburg announced in 1521: “There will be no end to the impositions of the clergy until the peasants rise and hang and drown good and bad alike; then the cheating will meet with its reward.” See Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 490 ff.[531]F. Herrmann,loc. cit., p. 297.[532]The circular letter, reprinted in the “Annalen des Vereins für Nassauisshe Gesch.,” 17, 1882, p. 16 ff.[533]W. Stolze, “Der deutsche Bauernkrieg,” Halle, 1907, p. v.[534]Cp. particularly p. 22 ff. In “Archiv. f. Reformationsgesch.,” 1909, Hft. 1, p. 160, the author’s blame of the “previous prejudiced insistence on the social side of the Peasant War” meets with recognition; we read there, “the emphasis laid on the religious side by Stolze appears to be thoroughly justified.”[535]“Die scharf Metz wider die, die sich evangelisch nennen und doch dem Evangelium entgegen sind,” 1525, ed. W. Lucke, in “Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” vol. i., No. 3, Halle, 1906.[536]W. Maurenbrecher, “Gesch. der kath. Reformation,” 1, Nördlingen, 1880, p. 257. Janssen, in his “Hist. of the German People,” has brought this point out clearly. See more particularly (Engl. trans.) volume iii.: “The populace inflamed by preaching and the press,” and volume iv.: “The social revolution,” where it is pointed out that even apart from Luther’s action and that of his followers, risings were imminent, but that the “social revolution first received the stamp of universal and inhuman ferocity from the conditions created or developed among the people by the religious disturbances.” Concerning the effect of the sermons and pamphlets on the people we read, in the original, vol. 218, p. 490, n. 5, in a letter of Archduke Ferdinand to the Pope, that the deluded people believed, “se Dei negotium agere in templis, cœnobiis, monasteriis diruendis,” etc. Johann Adam Möhler, in the Church History (ed. Gams), which appeared after his death, compares (3, p. 118) the effects of the preaching of the liberty of the children of God in the primitive Church, and describes the pure, virtuous life of self-renunciation which resulted, how the lower classes learnt to be content with their lot and the slaves became more faithful to their masters. “The contrast between the effects of the old gospel and the new evangel gave the most convincing proof of the difference between them.” “From the spirit of the flesh which combined with the religious in Luther’s writings to form one living whole, a tendency to revolt gradually spread over all Germany; ecclesiastical and secular, divine and human, spiritual and corporal, all ran riot together in the people’s minds; everywhere prevailed a fanatical, perverted longing for the liberty of the children of God” (p. 116). When Luther urged the Princes to severity in repressing the movement, his ruling idea was “to repress the opinion that elements dangerous to public order were embodied in his principles” (p. 118).[537]W. Maurenbrecher, “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reformationszeit,” 1874, p. 22.[538]Cp. the writing, “Handlung, Ordnung und Instruktion,” in which the delegates to be chosen to negotiate with the Swabian League on the question of “divine law,” are referred, among others, to “Hertzog Friederich von Sachsen sampt D. Martin Luther, oder Philipp Melanchthon oder Pomeran [Bugenhagen].” In the introduction of the Weim. ed. (see above, p. 191, n. 2), p. 280. Luther refers to this passage in his “Ermanunge zum Fride auff die 12 Artikel” with the words: “particularly as they appeal to me by name in the other writing.”[539]The pamphlet in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, 1908, p. 279 ff. Erl. ed., 24², p. 271 ff. For the date seeibid., Weim. ed., 18, p. 281, and Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 793.[540]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 344 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 303 ff.[541]Ibid., p. 375 ff. = 310 ff.[542]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 293 f.=273 f.[543]Ibid., p. 300=277.[544]Ibid., p. 329 f.=296 f. In the Weim. ed., 18, p. 790, it is rightly remarked that Luther sees in the peasants of South Germany, to whom the “Ermanunge zum Fride” was principally addressed, persecuted men, and that from a distance he welcomes their rising with a certain sympathy.[545]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 717; cp. p. 792 ff.[546]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 291; Erl. ed., 24², p. 272.[547]Ibid., p. 316 = p. 288.[548]Ibid., p. 334 = p. 299.[549]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 293=p. 273.[550]A. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 55.[551]K. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910, p. 140.[552]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 358; Erl. ed., 24², p. 304.[553]Ibid., p. 358 f.=p. 305. “The violent words of the circular letter ‘Wider die ... Bawren’ were really directed against his bitter opponent Thomas Münzer, the ‘arch-devil of Mühlhausen,’ and the seditious Thuringian peasants.” So runs the introduction of the Weimar edition, with which we may, to some extent, agree, though the pamphlet speaks throughout of the rebellious peasants generally; on the very first page we read, however: “More particularly the arch-devil who reigns at Mühlhausen and who incites to nothing but pillage, murder, and bloodshed.”[554]Ibid., p. 360; Erl. ed., 24², p. 308.[555]Ibid., p. 359=p. 306.[556]Ibid., p. 361=p. 308.[557]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, and p. 359 = p. 306.[558]Ibid., p. 360 ff. = 307 ff.[559]Melanchthon’s and Luther’s words given more in detail in Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 59.[560]Luther to Amsdorf, May 30, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 182: “adulator principum.” Luther pronounces the “Curse of the Lord” on those Magdeburg preachers who had sided with the rebels.[561]On May 21, 1525, Kawerau’s edition of the letter in “Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910, p. 339 (“ Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 177).[562]Kawerau’s edition,ibid., p. 342 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 180).[563]Cp. K. Müller above (p. 201, n. 3), p. 148, where another explanation is given which, however, cannot stand. Müller, p. 140 ff., deals with Barge’s “Karlstadt” (vol. ii.), and Barge’s reply to his criticism. Barge was of opinion that “it is plain the princes and their mercenaries [in their ruthless treatment of the conquered peasants] understood Luther aright” (“Frühprotestantisches Gemeindechristentum,” 1909, p. 333). “Luther, in his pamphlet against the peasants, gave high sanction to the impure lust for blood which had been kindled in the souls of hundreds and thousands who played the part of hangmen.... By seeking to exalt the cynical thirst for revenge into a religious sentiment he has stained the cause of the Reformation more than he could have done even by allying himself with the rebels” (“Karlstadt,” 2, 1905, p. 357).[564]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186). “I would that in these perilous days you would write a letter of consolation and exhortation to my most gracious lord of Magdeburg concerning his making a change in his mode of life; you understand what I mean. But please send me a copy. I purpose going to Magdeburg to-day to take steps in the matter. Pray God in heaven to give His grace in this serious work and undertaking. Be hopeful; you understand me; it cannot be committed to writing. For God’s sake implore, seek and pray that grace and strength may be bestowed on me for the work.” Words so pious concerning such a business prove how far men may be carried away by their own prepossession.[565]Cp. Kolde, “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 64.[566]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 715, with the references p. 794 and Weim. ed., 18, p. 376, Introduction. E. Rolffs (“Preuss. Jahrbücher,” 15, 1904, p. 481): “When, incited thereto by his evangel of the freedom of a Christian man, the oppressed and down-trodden peasantry sought by flame and bloodshed to secure for themselves an existence fit for human beings, then he no longer understood his German people. And when, thereupon, he wrote his frightful book, ‘Against the murderous and thieving hordes of Peasants,’ the German people also ceased to understand him.”[567]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 58 f.[568]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 306 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 181). “This rabble [the peasants under Thomas Münzer] was an enemy of the evangel, and its leaders bitter opponents of the Lutheran teaching.” Introduction to the circular-letter. Weim. ed., 18, p. 376.[569]Luther’s own way of putting the objection, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 399; Erl. ed., 24², p. 331. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau,ibid.[570]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 367 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 12 ff. The date is determined by K. Müller in the work quoted above, p. 201, n. 3, p. 144.[571]In the sermon at Wittenberg on June 4, 1525, Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 715.[572]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 401; Erl. ed., 24², p. 334.[573]Ibid., p. 384 ff.=pp. 311-14.[574]Ibid., p. 387 f.=pp. 315-16.[575]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 715, 717.[576]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 390 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 319, 320.[577]Ibid., pp. 392-4 = 322, 324.[578]Ibid., pp. 394, 396; Erl. ed., 24², pp. 324, 327.[579]Ibid., p. 397 = 328.[580]“Against the murderous Peasants,”ibid., p. 358 = 304.[581]Ibid., p. 398 f. = 330.[582]Ibid., p. 399 = 331.[583]Ibid., p. 399 f. = 330-3.[584]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 29.[585]“Epp. ad viros aetatis suae doctissimos,” ed. Rieggerus, 1774, p. 97.[586]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 376, quoted in the introduction to the circular-letter.[587]“Hyperaspistes,” “Opp.,” 1, p. 1032.[588]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 284 (Tischreden). Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 307, Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 290.[589]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, 714, 717 f.[590]Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 181, n. 1.[591]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 62.[592]Ed. W. Friedensburg, “Zur Vorgesch. des Gotha-Torgauischen Bündnisses der Evangelischen,” 1884. Cp. Kawerau in “Theolog. Literaturztng.,” 1884, p. 502.[593]Cp. Fr. Herrmann, “Evangelische Regungen zu Mainz in den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” in “Schriften für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910, pp. 275-304.[594]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 7 f. For the tract, so far as it is known, see “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 252 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 22 ff.[595]Frank G. Ward, “Darstellung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat und seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben,” 1898, p. 31.[596]To Hans Luther, February 15, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 130 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 230).[597]Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 526 n. “Luther’s conduct in the Peasant War was not ambiguous, but in both his writings merely violent as usual; in the first, against the nobles, more especially the higher clergy; in the second, against the peasants.”[598]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 276.[599]Ibid., 33, p. 390. In the “Exhortation to Peace” Luther had represented to the peasants that their demand for the abrogation of serfdom was “rapacious,” “and directly contrary to the gospel.” Cp. vol. v., xxxv. 5.[600]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 118.[601]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 125. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” 216.[602]Ibid., p. 127. Cordatus,ibid., p. 217.[603]Ibid., p. 131. Cordatus, p. 221.[604]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, undated Fragment.[605]On August 25, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 333.[606]P. Schreckenbach, “Luther und der Bauernkrieg,” 1895, p. 45.[607]“De servo arbitrio,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 776. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 367: “ipsum iugulum petisti.”[608]To Michael Stiefel, September 29, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 248 f.[609]Ibid., p. 248: “metuens, ne non esset divinum, quod gerimus.”[610]May 30, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 182.[611]In “Eurici Cordi Medici antilutheromastigos calumnias expurgatio pro catholicis,” 1526. Cp. G. Kawerau, “Hieron. Emser,” 1898, p. 83 f. For Emser’s work I made use of the very rare copy in the University library at Munich.
[427]The text in question runs as follows: “De Helia Luthero vulgata est apud (nos) creberrima fama morbo laborare hominem. Giengerius tamen ex Lipsiis rediens nundinis refert foeliciter, convaluisse scilicet Heliam, qui nos omnes mira affecit lætitia. Clamabant adversarii pseudoregem interiisse de Sickingero gloriantes, pseudopapam autem ægrotum propediem obiturum. Deus tamen, cuius res agitur, melius consuluit. Apriolus tamen multa mihi ex compassione de Lutheri nostri mala valetudine adscripsit, et inter reliqua de nimia vigilia, qua dominus Helias molestetur. Non est mirum, hominem tot cerebri laboribus immersum, in siccitatem cerebri incidere, unde nimia causatur vigilia. Tu autem, qui medicum agis, non debes esse oblitus, si lac mulieris mixtum cum oleo violato in commissuram coronalem ungatur, quam familiariter humectet cerebrum ad somnumque disponat; et si cum hoc doloresmali Franciesomno impedimento fuerint, mitigandi sunt cum emplastro, quod fit ex medulla cervi, in qua coquuntur vermes terræ cum modico croco et vino sublimato. Hec si dormituro apponuntur, somnum conciliant, qui somnus maxime est necessarius ad restaurandam sanitatem. Nam quod caret alterna requie durabile non est. Cura nobis Lutherum propter Deum, cuius fidei me commenda et charitati. Melanchthonis (?) notum fac Apriolumque saluta.” (From the “Cod. Rych.” in the Wolff collection of the Hamburg Town Library, p. 560.)[428]In a letter to Staupitz, February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431, Luther complains of “molestiæ,” which were not physical sufferings but the weight of his position and undertaking. In the letter to Melanchthon, July 13, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189, he means by the “othermolestia” which tormented him, the constipation which “together with temptations of the flesh had prevented him for a whole week from writing, praying, and studying.” Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 171: “Malum auctum est, quo Vormaciæ laborabam: durissima patior excrementa, ut nunquam in vita, ut remedium desperaverim.” To Spalatin, June 10, 1521. Cp. above, p. 95.[429]Above, p. 79 ff. Cp. also volume iii., xviii.[430]“Contra Henricum,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 184; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 391.[431]Preface to Justus Menius’s book, “Œconomia Christiana,” 1529, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 61; Erl. ed., 63, p. 279 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 73). The preface is in the shape of a letter to Hans Metzsch, the Captain of the Wittenberg garrison, an unmarried man whom Luther urged in vain to marry.[432]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 773 f.[433]To Spalatin, March 4, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 133.[434]Ibid.[435]Ibid., March 23, 1525,ibid., 5, p. 140.[436]Ibid., March 12, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 138.[437]Ibid., April 15, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 290, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 157.[438]Ibid., March 27, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 147.[439]Ibid.[440]Ibid., April 3, 1525,ibid., p. 152. To Amsdorf, April 11, 1525,ibid., p. 156.[441]To the Christians at Antwerp, beginning of April, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 547; Erl. ed., 53, p. 342 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151).[442]To Spalatin, March 27, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 147.[443]Ibid., March 11, 1525,ibid., p. 136.[444]Ibid., March 27, 1525,ibid., p. 147.[445]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 19 ff. Sermon of 1533, the second in the “Postils.”[446]“Contra Henricum regem,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 205 f.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 424.[447]“On the two kinds of the Sacrament,” 1522, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 35; Erl. ed., 28, p. 311.[448]On March 12, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 138.[449]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 277 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 73). See[450]“Nos afflicti satis et tentati sumus.”[451]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 796, n. 2, 729.[452]See above, p. 133.[453]“Handschriftl. Gesch.,” ed. Neudecker, p. 58.[454]G. Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (“Deutsch-evangelische Blätter,” 29, 1904, p. 303 ff.), p. 305.[455]“Handschriftl. Gesch.,” p. 59.[456]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 276. Letters edited by De Wette, 4 (not 3, as stated by the editor of Ratzeberger), p. 181.[457]From Psalm iv. 9 ff.[458]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 60 (“Tischreden”).[459]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 61.[460]Ibid., 61, p. 307.[461]Ibid., p. 309.[462]Ibid.[463]On November 30, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 77 (see p. 181, n. 2). Here Luther remarks that there is much gossip (“garriri”) about him and his marriage.[464]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 293 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 164). In October, 1524, he speaks of Pastor Caspar Glatz as her future husband, without mentioning his own intentions (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 35).[465]To Amsdorf, June 21, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 204. Cp. Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 195.[466]To the Marshal Johann von Dolzigk, June 21, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 322 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 201). Cp. p. 175, n. 5, “coniux.”[467]Jonas to Spalatin, June 14, 1525, in “Jonas’ Briefwechsel,” ed. Kawerau, 1, 1884, p. 94.[468]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 238, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 184.[469]To Spalatin, April 10, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 153.[470]See above, p. 142.[471]To Johann Rühel, May 4, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., p. 53, 294 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 164).[472]To Wenceslaus Link, June 20, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 201: “Dominus me subito aliaque cogitantem coniecit mire in coniugium.”[473]Vogt, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” 1888, p. 32: “Maligna fama effecit, ut doctor Martinus insperato fieret coniux; post aliquot tamen dies publica solemnitate duximus istas sacras nuptias etiam coram mundo venerandas.”[474]On June 16, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 197: “Os obstruxi infamantibus me cum Catharina Bora.” At a much later date he excuses the haste by his wish to anticipate the proposal of his friends that he should select some other woman.[475]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 197, 198.[476]See Amsdorf in Scultetus († 1625), “Annales Evangelii,” 1, p. 274.[477]V. Druffel, “Die Melanchthon-Handschriften der Chigi-Bibliothek,” in “SB. der Bayr. Akad. phil.-hist. Kl.,” 1876, p. 491 ff. W. Meyer, “Uber die Originale von Melanchthons Briefen an Camerarius,”ibid., p. 596 ff. “Katholik,” 1900, 1, p. 392, an article by P. A. Kirsch with photo of letter. We are forced to depart from his translation on certain points. Cp. also Nik. Müller’s reprint in “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” 21, 1901, p. 595. The letter runs:“Εὖ πράττειν. Ὅτι μὲν ἔμελλε πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἡ φήμη οὐχ ὅμοια περὶ τοῦ γάμου τοῦ Λουθέρου ἀγγεῖλαι, ἔδοξέ μοι περὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς γνώμην ἔχω σοι ἐπιστέλλειν. μηνὸς ἰουνίου ἡμέρᾳι γ̓ ἀπροσδοκήτως ἔγημε τὴν Βορείαν ὁ Λούθερος μηδενὶ τῶν φίλων τὸ πρᾶγμα πρὸ τοῦ ἀναθέμενος, ἀλλ̓ ἑσπέρας πρὸς δεῖπνον καλέσας τὸν Πομερανιέα καὶ Λούκαν τὸν γραφέα καὶ τὸν Ἄπελλον μόνους ἐποίησε τὰ εἰθισμένα προτέλεια.“Θαυμάσειας δὲ ἂν, τούτῳ τῳ δυστυχεῖ χρόνῳ, καλῶν κἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν πάντοτε ταλαιπωρουμένων τοῦτον οὐ συμπάσχειν, ἀλλ̓ ὡς δοκεῖ μᾶλλον τρυφᾶν καὶ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἀξίωμα ἐλαττοῦν, ὅτε μάλιστα χρείαν ἔχει ἡ Γερμανία φρονήματός τε καὶ ἐξουσίας αὐτοῦ. Ἐγὰ δὲ ταῦτα οὕτω πως γενέσθαι οἷμαι. Ἐστὶν ὁ ἀνὴρ ὡς μάλιστα εὐχερὴς και αἱ μοναχαὶ πασῃ μηχανᾖ ἐπι βουλευομέναι προσέπασαν αὐτόν. Ἲσως ἡ πολλὴ συνήθεια, ἡ σὺν ταῖς μοναχαῖς κἂν γενναῖον ὄντα καὶ μεγαλόψυχον κατεμάλθαξε ἤ καὶ προσεξέκαυσε. τοῦτον τρόπον εἰσπεσεῖν δοκεῖ εἰς ταύτην τὴν ἄαιρον βίου μεταβολήν. Θρυλλούμενον δὲ, ὃτι καὶ πρὸ τοῦ διακόρευσεν αὐτὴν, ἐψεῦσθαι δῆλόν ἐστι.“Νυνὶ δὲ τὸ πραχθὲν μὴ βαρέως φέρειν δεῖ ἢ ὀνειδίζειν. ἀλλὰ ἡγοῦμαι ὑπὸ φύσεως ἀναγκασθῆναι γαμεῖν. Οὗτος δὲ βίος ταπεινὸς μέν, ἀλλὰ ὅσιός ἐστι καὶ θεῷ μᾶλλον τοῦ ἀγέμου ἀρέσκει. Καὶ ὅτι αὐτὸν τὸν Λούθερον ἐπίλυπόν πως ὄντα ὁρῶ καὶ ταραχθέντα διὰ τὴν βιου μεταγολήν, πάσῃ σπουδῇ καὶ ἐννοίᾳ ἐπιχειρῶ παραμυθεῖσθαι, ἐπειδὴ οὔπω ἔπραξέ τι, ὅπερ ἐγκαλεῖσθαι ἀξιῶ ἢ ἀναπολόγητον δοκεῖ. ἔτι δὲ τεκμήριά τινα ἔχω τῆς εὐσεβείας αὐτοῦ ὥστε κατακρίνειν οὐκ ἐξεῖναι. ἔπειτα ἂν μᾶλλον ἠυχόμην αὐτὸν ταπεινοῦσθαι ἢ ὐψοῦσθαι καὶ ἐπαίρεσθαι, ὅπερ ἐστίν ἐπισφαλές, οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἐν ἱερωσύνῃ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις. τὸ γὰρ εὖ πράττειν, ἀφορμὴ τοῦ κακῶς φρονεῖν γίνεται, οὐ μόνον, ὡς ὁ ῥήτωρ ἔφη, τοῖς ἀνοήτοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς σοφοῖς.“Πρὸς τούτῳ καὶ ἐλπίζω, ὅτι ὁ βίος οὑτοσὶ σεμνότερον αὐτὸν ποιήσει, ὥστε καὶ ἀποβαλεῖν τὴν βωμολοχίαν, ἧς πολλάκις ἐμεμψάμεθα. ἄλλος γὰρ βίος ἄλλην δίαιταν κατὰπαροιμίαν καταστήσει.“Ταῦτα πρός σε μακρολογῶ ὤστε μή σε ὑπὸ παραδόξου πράγματος ἄγαν ταράττεσθαι. οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι μέλει σοι τοῦ ἀξιώματος τοῦ Λουθέρον, ὅπερ νυνὶ ἐλαττοῦθαι ἀχθεσθήσῃ. Παρακαλῶ δέ σε πράως ταῦτα φέρειν, ὄτι τίμιος βίος ὁ γάμος ἐν ἁγίαις γραφαῖς εἶναι λέγεται. εἰκὸς δὲ ἀναγκασθῆναι ἀληθῶς γαμεῖν. Πολλὰ τῶν πάλαι ἀγίων πταίσματα ἔδειξεν ὁ θεὸς ἡμῖν, ὄτι θέλει ἡμᾶς βασανίζοντας τὸν αὐτοῦ λόγον, οὐκ ἀξίωμα ἀνθρώπων ἢ πρόσωπον σύμβουλον πολεῖν, ἀλλὰ μόνον αὐτοῦ λόγον. πάλιν δὲ ἀσεβέστατος ἐστιν, ὃστις διὰ τὸ διδασκάλον πταῖσμα καταγιγνώσκει τῆς διδαχῆς.“Michaelis pergrata consuetudo in his turbis mihi est, quem miror, qui passus sis isthinc discedere. Patrem officiosissime tractato, et puta te hanc illi pro paterno amore gratiam debereκαὶ ἀντιπελαργεῖν. De Francicis rebus a te litteras expecto. Vale foeliciter. Postridie corp. Christi. Tabellarius qui has reddet, recta ad nos rediturus est.Φίλιππος.” (The seal is still preserved.)[478]Notβδελυρίαν, debauchery, as was thought, butβωμολοχίαν, is the correct reading. The latter might perhaps be translated as “the passion for making coarse jests.” This is the opinion of G. Kawerau in “Deutsch-Evangelische Blätter,” 1906, “Luther und Melanchthon” (in the reprint, p. 37), who remarks that the only thing damning for Luther in this letter was Melanchthon’s statement “concerning the coarse jests to which Luther was given in his bachelor days, and which had so often scandalised his friend.” Kawerau, for this very reason, thinks that this much-discussed letter, “which Camerarius only ventured to print after much revision” (p. 34), is much better calculated to “make us acquainted with Melanchthon than with Luther, and simply bears witness to the former’s sensitiveness” (p. 37). It is true that “some of Luther’s talk appears to us to-day frightfully coarse, and Melanchthon felt as we do on the subject”; but apart from the fact that Melanchthon’s views were not representative of his age, Mathesius declares that “he never heard an immodest word from Luther’s lips.” We shall return later to the question of that age as a linguistic standard of morality and to Mathesius’s statement, which, we may remark, refers to a later period.[479]εἰκὸς δὲ ἀναγκασθῆναι ἀληθῶς γαμεῖν.The subject of the verbἀναγκασθῆναιis the infinitiveγαμεῖν, as in the previous passageἡγοῦμαι ὑπὸ φύσεως ἀναγκασθῆναι γαμεῖν. On the passive formἀναγκασθῆναι, see e.g. Plato, “Phæd.,” 242a, 254a.[480]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 750.[481]Loc. cit., p. 36.[482]To Johann Rühel, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 293 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 164).[483]To Spalatin, November 30, 1524 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 77): “Animus alienus est a coniugio, cum expectem quotidie mortem et meritum hæretici supplicium.” This he wrote under the influence of the stringent decrees of the Diet of Nuremberg (April 18, 1524), and in order to work upon his Elector. The decrees had led him to write: “You are in a great hurry to put me, a poor man, to death,” but that his death would be the undoing of his enemies. “Two unequal decrees of the Emperor,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 222 f.; Weim. ed., 15, p. 254.[484]To Johann Rühel, Johann Thür and Caspar Müller, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 314 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 195).[485]Sermon on Psalm xxvi. preached in Wittenberg shortly after his marriage, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 115.[486]From the concluding words of the tract of 1525: “Against the murderous, thievish bands of peasants,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18, p. 361; Erl. ed., 24², p. 309.[487]See above, p. 175.[488]See above, p. 178.[489]To Leonard Koppe, June 17, 1525 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 199).[490]To Michael Stiefel, June 17, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 199.[491]To Amsdorf, June 21, 1525,ibid., p. 204.[492]To Wenceslaus Link, June 20, 1525,ibid., p. 201.[493]In letter quoted above, p. 181, n. 3.[494]To Michael Stiefel, September 29, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 248.[495]To Johann Brismann (after August 15?), 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 226.[496]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 641.[497]On May 11, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 340.[498]In the letter quoted above, p. 174, n. 3.[499]To Leonard Koppe, June 21, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 202.[500]To Wenceslaus Link, July 20, 1525,ibid., p. 222.[501]In the letter quoted above, p. 182, n. 4: “Vehementer irritantur sapientes etiam inter nostros.” These are the followers whom he had complained of already on April 10, 1525: “Nostri sapienticuli quotidie idem (coniugium) ridere.” To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 153.[502]To Amsdorf, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 314, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 204.[503]“Archiv für Frankfurter Gesch.,” 7, 1855, p. 102 in Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 5, p. 195, n. 4.[504]To Amsdorf, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 204.[505]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 167.[506]Ibid., p. 265.[507]“Opp.,” Lugd. Batav., 1703, t. 3, col. 900. Erasmus to Nicholas Everardus, Präses in Holland, from Basle, December 24, 1525.[508]Ibid., col. 919, to Franciscus Sylvius, from Basle, March 13, 1526.[509]“Articuli sive libelli triginta,” art. 17, p. 87seq.[510]“Opp.,” Lugd. Batav., 1703, 3, col. 900, ep. 781.[511]Ibid., col. 919, ep. 801.[512]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 322; see above, p. 183.[513]See Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 334.[514]See Strobel, “Neue Beiträge zur Literatur,” 3, 1, p. 137 ff. Cp. Höfler, “SB. der k. böhm. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften,” 1892, p. 110 f. Denifle states, “Luther,” 1², p. 284, n. 3, that there is a specimen of the above work in the town library at Mayence.[515]See above, pp. 145, 177.[516]“Eberlins Sämtliche Schriften,” ed. L. Enders, 3, p. 165.[517]Eobanus Hessus says of the escaped nuns: “Nulla Phyllis nonnis est nostris mammosior.” Cp. above, p. 125, n. 1.[518]Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 284.[519]“Luther und der Bauernkrieg,” Oldenburg, 1895, p. 8.[520]“Gesch. der deutschen Reformation,” Berlin, 1890, p. 447.[521]“Die Kultur der Gegenwart,” T. 2, Abt. 5, 1, Berlin, 1908, p. 68.[522]The passages were quoted above, cp. pp. 6 f., 9 f., 49 f., 55 f., 63, 69, 100 f., 107.[523]“Dissertationes quatuor contra M. Lutherum et Lutheranismi fautores,” Moguntiæ, 1532, fol. 19. See Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 4, 1900, p. 56 ff.[524]Ed. A. Goetze in “Hist. Vierteljahrsschrift,” 4, 1901, p. 1 ff.[525]In Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 697, after a reference to the oppression of the peasantry, their insolence and desire for innovation, we read: “In addition to all this there now supervened the preaching of the new Evangel.... A higher warrant was bestowed upon the complaints and the demands concerning secular and material matters.... The Christian liberty of which the New Testament speaks and which Luther proclaimed was applied directly to temporal questions. Paul’s words that in Christ there is neither bond nor free became a weapon.... Even the Old Testament was also appealed to. From the circumstance that God had granted to our first parents dominion over the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, and the beasts of the field, they concluded that at least the right to fish and hunt was common to all. Great opposition was raised, above all, to the taxes due to the monasteries and clergy, and even the very existence of the monastic state and temporal authority of the clergy was called into question. Such ideas were readily fostered among the excited masses when the new preaching found its way amongst them by word of mouth or in writings”; p. 701: “Luther, however, was the man of the Evangel on whom the eyes of the great mass of the peasants in southern Germany were directed when their rising commenced.” The editors of the Weimar edition of Luther’s writings (18, 1908) remark in the first introduction to the same (p. 279): “The rebellion found its encouragement and support in Luther’s victorious gospel of ecclesiastical reformation; ultimately, however, it secularised the new gospel. Whence it came to pass that in the end, not Luther, but rather the religious fanatics, above all, Thomas Münzer, drew the excited masses under their spell and impressed their stamp on the whole movement.” Concerning Luther’s attitude towards the revolt at the time it was preparing, we read on p. 280: “Up to that time [the spring of 1525], Luther had taken no direct part in the social movement. He was, however, without doubt indirectly engaged; his writings had fallen like firebrands on the inflammable masses, who misunderstood them, interpreted them according to their own ideas and forged from them weapons for their own use.”[526]Fritz Herrmann, “Evangelische Regungen zu Mainz in den ersten Zeiten der Reformation,” in “Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910 (p. 275-304), p. 297.[527]F. Herrmann,ibid., p. 298.[528]F. Herrmann, p. 296. W. Vogt, “Die Vorgesch. des Bauernkrieges” (in “Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” 20, 1887), points to the general expectation prevailing, more particularly in the south-west of Germany, that a fundamental change in the existing state of things was imminent. “Every reform, however, even the most trifling, in the social sphere encroached upon the political and even the ecclesiastical domain, for the nobility and clergy, whose authority and possessions were the subject of discussion, were at the same time political and ecclesiastical factors.... All felt that in the last instance the appeal would be to force” (p. 142).[529]For examples, see above, p. 152 ff., and below, p. 297 ff. Cp. also P. Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum Luthers Ideal?” Tübingen, 1908, p. 31.[530]Concerning Usingen’s utterance of 1523: “Nescitis populum esse bestiam ... quæ sanguinem sitit?” etc., cp. N. Paulus, “Barthol. Usingen,” p. 102. And (ibid.) another striking saying of Usingen concerning the preacher Culsamer. He declared that he feared Germany would see a storm similar to that which Constantinople had suffered at the hands of the iconoclasts (p. 101). The preacher Eberlin von Günzburg announced in 1521: “There will be no end to the impositions of the clergy until the peasants rise and hang and drown good and bad alike; then the cheating will meet with its reward.” See Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 490 ff.[531]F. Herrmann,loc. cit., p. 297.[532]The circular letter, reprinted in the “Annalen des Vereins für Nassauisshe Gesch.,” 17, 1882, p. 16 ff.[533]W. Stolze, “Der deutsche Bauernkrieg,” Halle, 1907, p. v.[534]Cp. particularly p. 22 ff. In “Archiv. f. Reformationsgesch.,” 1909, Hft. 1, p. 160, the author’s blame of the “previous prejudiced insistence on the social side of the Peasant War” meets with recognition; we read there, “the emphasis laid on the religious side by Stolze appears to be thoroughly justified.”[535]“Die scharf Metz wider die, die sich evangelisch nennen und doch dem Evangelium entgegen sind,” 1525, ed. W. Lucke, in “Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” vol. i., No. 3, Halle, 1906.[536]W. Maurenbrecher, “Gesch. der kath. Reformation,” 1, Nördlingen, 1880, p. 257. Janssen, in his “Hist. of the German People,” has brought this point out clearly. See more particularly (Engl. trans.) volume iii.: “The populace inflamed by preaching and the press,” and volume iv.: “The social revolution,” where it is pointed out that even apart from Luther’s action and that of his followers, risings were imminent, but that the “social revolution first received the stamp of universal and inhuman ferocity from the conditions created or developed among the people by the religious disturbances.” Concerning the effect of the sermons and pamphlets on the people we read, in the original, vol. 218, p. 490, n. 5, in a letter of Archduke Ferdinand to the Pope, that the deluded people believed, “se Dei negotium agere in templis, cœnobiis, monasteriis diruendis,” etc. Johann Adam Möhler, in the Church History (ed. Gams), which appeared after his death, compares (3, p. 118) the effects of the preaching of the liberty of the children of God in the primitive Church, and describes the pure, virtuous life of self-renunciation which resulted, how the lower classes learnt to be content with their lot and the slaves became more faithful to their masters. “The contrast between the effects of the old gospel and the new evangel gave the most convincing proof of the difference between them.” “From the spirit of the flesh which combined with the religious in Luther’s writings to form one living whole, a tendency to revolt gradually spread over all Germany; ecclesiastical and secular, divine and human, spiritual and corporal, all ran riot together in the people’s minds; everywhere prevailed a fanatical, perverted longing for the liberty of the children of God” (p. 116). When Luther urged the Princes to severity in repressing the movement, his ruling idea was “to repress the opinion that elements dangerous to public order were embodied in his principles” (p. 118).[537]W. Maurenbrecher, “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reformationszeit,” 1874, p. 22.[538]Cp. the writing, “Handlung, Ordnung und Instruktion,” in which the delegates to be chosen to negotiate with the Swabian League on the question of “divine law,” are referred, among others, to “Hertzog Friederich von Sachsen sampt D. Martin Luther, oder Philipp Melanchthon oder Pomeran [Bugenhagen].” In the introduction of the Weim. ed. (see above, p. 191, n. 2), p. 280. Luther refers to this passage in his “Ermanunge zum Fride auff die 12 Artikel” with the words: “particularly as they appeal to me by name in the other writing.”[539]The pamphlet in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, 1908, p. 279 ff. Erl. ed., 24², p. 271 ff. For the date seeibid., Weim. ed., 18, p. 281, and Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 793.[540]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 344 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 303 ff.[541]Ibid., p. 375 ff. = 310 ff.[542]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 293 f.=273 f.[543]Ibid., p. 300=277.[544]Ibid., p. 329 f.=296 f. In the Weim. ed., 18, p. 790, it is rightly remarked that Luther sees in the peasants of South Germany, to whom the “Ermanunge zum Fride” was principally addressed, persecuted men, and that from a distance he welcomes their rising with a certain sympathy.[545]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 717; cp. p. 792 ff.[546]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 291; Erl. ed., 24², p. 272.[547]Ibid., p. 316 = p. 288.[548]Ibid., p. 334 = p. 299.[549]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 293=p. 273.[550]A. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 55.[551]K. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910, p. 140.[552]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 358; Erl. ed., 24², p. 304.[553]Ibid., p. 358 f.=p. 305. “The violent words of the circular letter ‘Wider die ... Bawren’ were really directed against his bitter opponent Thomas Münzer, the ‘arch-devil of Mühlhausen,’ and the seditious Thuringian peasants.” So runs the introduction of the Weimar edition, with which we may, to some extent, agree, though the pamphlet speaks throughout of the rebellious peasants generally; on the very first page we read, however: “More particularly the arch-devil who reigns at Mühlhausen and who incites to nothing but pillage, murder, and bloodshed.”[554]Ibid., p. 360; Erl. ed., 24², p. 308.[555]Ibid., p. 359=p. 306.[556]Ibid., p. 361=p. 308.[557]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, and p. 359 = p. 306.[558]Ibid., p. 360 ff. = 307 ff.[559]Melanchthon’s and Luther’s words given more in detail in Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 59.[560]Luther to Amsdorf, May 30, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 182: “adulator principum.” Luther pronounces the “Curse of the Lord” on those Magdeburg preachers who had sided with the rebels.[561]On May 21, 1525, Kawerau’s edition of the letter in “Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910, p. 339 (“ Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 177).[562]Kawerau’s edition,ibid., p. 342 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 180).[563]Cp. K. Müller above (p. 201, n. 3), p. 148, where another explanation is given which, however, cannot stand. Müller, p. 140 ff., deals with Barge’s “Karlstadt” (vol. ii.), and Barge’s reply to his criticism. Barge was of opinion that “it is plain the princes and their mercenaries [in their ruthless treatment of the conquered peasants] understood Luther aright” (“Frühprotestantisches Gemeindechristentum,” 1909, p. 333). “Luther, in his pamphlet against the peasants, gave high sanction to the impure lust for blood which had been kindled in the souls of hundreds and thousands who played the part of hangmen.... By seeking to exalt the cynical thirst for revenge into a religious sentiment he has stained the cause of the Reformation more than he could have done even by allying himself with the rebels” (“Karlstadt,” 2, 1905, p. 357).[564]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186). “I would that in these perilous days you would write a letter of consolation and exhortation to my most gracious lord of Magdeburg concerning his making a change in his mode of life; you understand what I mean. But please send me a copy. I purpose going to Magdeburg to-day to take steps in the matter. Pray God in heaven to give His grace in this serious work and undertaking. Be hopeful; you understand me; it cannot be committed to writing. For God’s sake implore, seek and pray that grace and strength may be bestowed on me for the work.” Words so pious concerning such a business prove how far men may be carried away by their own prepossession.[565]Cp. Kolde, “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 64.[566]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 715, with the references p. 794 and Weim. ed., 18, p. 376, Introduction. E. Rolffs (“Preuss. Jahrbücher,” 15, 1904, p. 481): “When, incited thereto by his evangel of the freedom of a Christian man, the oppressed and down-trodden peasantry sought by flame and bloodshed to secure for themselves an existence fit for human beings, then he no longer understood his German people. And when, thereupon, he wrote his frightful book, ‘Against the murderous and thieving hordes of Peasants,’ the German people also ceased to understand him.”[567]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 58 f.[568]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 306 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 181). “This rabble [the peasants under Thomas Münzer] was an enemy of the evangel, and its leaders bitter opponents of the Lutheran teaching.” Introduction to the circular-letter. Weim. ed., 18, p. 376.[569]Luther’s own way of putting the objection, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 399; Erl. ed., 24², p. 331. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau,ibid.[570]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 367 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 12 ff. The date is determined by K. Müller in the work quoted above, p. 201, n. 3, p. 144.[571]In the sermon at Wittenberg on June 4, 1525, Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 715.[572]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 401; Erl. ed., 24², p. 334.[573]Ibid., p. 384 ff.=pp. 311-14.[574]Ibid., p. 387 f.=pp. 315-16.[575]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 715, 717.[576]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 390 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 319, 320.[577]Ibid., pp. 392-4 = 322, 324.[578]Ibid., pp. 394, 396; Erl. ed., 24², pp. 324, 327.[579]Ibid., p. 397 = 328.[580]“Against the murderous Peasants,”ibid., p. 358 = 304.[581]Ibid., p. 398 f. = 330.[582]Ibid., p. 399 = 331.[583]Ibid., p. 399 f. = 330-3.[584]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 29.[585]“Epp. ad viros aetatis suae doctissimos,” ed. Rieggerus, 1774, p. 97.[586]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 376, quoted in the introduction to the circular-letter.[587]“Hyperaspistes,” “Opp.,” 1, p. 1032.[588]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 284 (Tischreden). Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 307, Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 290.[589]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, 714, 717 f.[590]Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 181, n. 1.[591]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 62.[592]Ed. W. Friedensburg, “Zur Vorgesch. des Gotha-Torgauischen Bündnisses der Evangelischen,” 1884. Cp. Kawerau in “Theolog. Literaturztng.,” 1884, p. 502.[593]Cp. Fr. Herrmann, “Evangelische Regungen zu Mainz in den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” in “Schriften für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910, pp. 275-304.[594]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 7 f. For the tract, so far as it is known, see “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 252 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 22 ff.[595]Frank G. Ward, “Darstellung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat und seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben,” 1898, p. 31.[596]To Hans Luther, February 15, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 130 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 230).[597]Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 526 n. “Luther’s conduct in the Peasant War was not ambiguous, but in both his writings merely violent as usual; in the first, against the nobles, more especially the higher clergy; in the second, against the peasants.”[598]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 276.[599]Ibid., 33, p. 390. In the “Exhortation to Peace” Luther had represented to the peasants that their demand for the abrogation of serfdom was “rapacious,” “and directly contrary to the gospel.” Cp. vol. v., xxxv. 5.[600]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 118.[601]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 125. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” 216.[602]Ibid., p. 127. Cordatus,ibid., p. 217.[603]Ibid., p. 131. Cordatus, p. 221.[604]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, undated Fragment.[605]On August 25, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 333.[606]P. Schreckenbach, “Luther und der Bauernkrieg,” 1895, p. 45.[607]“De servo arbitrio,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 776. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 367: “ipsum iugulum petisti.”[608]To Michael Stiefel, September 29, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 248 f.[609]Ibid., p. 248: “metuens, ne non esset divinum, quod gerimus.”[610]May 30, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 182.[611]In “Eurici Cordi Medici antilutheromastigos calumnias expurgatio pro catholicis,” 1526. Cp. G. Kawerau, “Hieron. Emser,” 1898, p. 83 f. For Emser’s work I made use of the very rare copy in the University library at Munich.
[427]The text in question runs as follows: “De Helia Luthero vulgata est apud (nos) creberrima fama morbo laborare hominem. Giengerius tamen ex Lipsiis rediens nundinis refert foeliciter, convaluisse scilicet Heliam, qui nos omnes mira affecit lætitia. Clamabant adversarii pseudoregem interiisse de Sickingero gloriantes, pseudopapam autem ægrotum propediem obiturum. Deus tamen, cuius res agitur, melius consuluit. Apriolus tamen multa mihi ex compassione de Lutheri nostri mala valetudine adscripsit, et inter reliqua de nimia vigilia, qua dominus Helias molestetur. Non est mirum, hominem tot cerebri laboribus immersum, in siccitatem cerebri incidere, unde nimia causatur vigilia. Tu autem, qui medicum agis, non debes esse oblitus, si lac mulieris mixtum cum oleo violato in commissuram coronalem ungatur, quam familiariter humectet cerebrum ad somnumque disponat; et si cum hoc doloresmali Franciesomno impedimento fuerint, mitigandi sunt cum emplastro, quod fit ex medulla cervi, in qua coquuntur vermes terræ cum modico croco et vino sublimato. Hec si dormituro apponuntur, somnum conciliant, qui somnus maxime est necessarius ad restaurandam sanitatem. Nam quod caret alterna requie durabile non est. Cura nobis Lutherum propter Deum, cuius fidei me commenda et charitati. Melanchthonis (?) notum fac Apriolumque saluta.” (From the “Cod. Rych.” in the Wolff collection of the Hamburg Town Library, p. 560.)[428]In a letter to Staupitz, February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431, Luther complains of “molestiæ,” which were not physical sufferings but the weight of his position and undertaking. In the letter to Melanchthon, July 13, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189, he means by the “othermolestia” which tormented him, the constipation which “together with temptations of the flesh had prevented him for a whole week from writing, praying, and studying.” Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 171: “Malum auctum est, quo Vormaciæ laborabam: durissima patior excrementa, ut nunquam in vita, ut remedium desperaverim.” To Spalatin, June 10, 1521. Cp. above, p. 95.[429]Above, p. 79 ff. Cp. also volume iii., xviii.[430]“Contra Henricum,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 184; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 391.[431]Preface to Justus Menius’s book, “Œconomia Christiana,” 1529, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 61; Erl. ed., 63, p. 279 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 73). The preface is in the shape of a letter to Hans Metzsch, the Captain of the Wittenberg garrison, an unmarried man whom Luther urged in vain to marry.[432]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 773 f.[433]To Spalatin, March 4, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 133.[434]Ibid.[435]Ibid., March 23, 1525,ibid., 5, p. 140.[436]Ibid., March 12, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 138.[437]Ibid., April 15, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 290, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 157.[438]Ibid., March 27, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 147.[439]Ibid.[440]Ibid., April 3, 1525,ibid., p. 152. To Amsdorf, April 11, 1525,ibid., p. 156.[441]To the Christians at Antwerp, beginning of April, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 547; Erl. ed., 53, p. 342 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151).[442]To Spalatin, March 27, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 147.[443]Ibid., March 11, 1525,ibid., p. 136.[444]Ibid., March 27, 1525,ibid., p. 147.[445]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 19 ff. Sermon of 1533, the second in the “Postils.”[446]“Contra Henricum regem,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 205 f.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 424.[447]“On the two kinds of the Sacrament,” 1522, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 35; Erl. ed., 28, p. 311.[448]On March 12, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 138.[449]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 277 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 73). See[450]“Nos afflicti satis et tentati sumus.”[451]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 796, n. 2, 729.[452]See above, p. 133.[453]“Handschriftl. Gesch.,” ed. Neudecker, p. 58.[454]G. Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (“Deutsch-evangelische Blätter,” 29, 1904, p. 303 ff.), p. 305.[455]“Handschriftl. Gesch.,” p. 59.[456]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 276. Letters edited by De Wette, 4 (not 3, as stated by the editor of Ratzeberger), p. 181.[457]From Psalm iv. 9 ff.[458]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 60 (“Tischreden”).[459]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 61.[460]Ibid., 61, p. 307.[461]Ibid., p. 309.[462]Ibid.[463]On November 30, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 77 (see p. 181, n. 2). Here Luther remarks that there is much gossip (“garriri”) about him and his marriage.[464]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 293 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 164). In October, 1524, he speaks of Pastor Caspar Glatz as her future husband, without mentioning his own intentions (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 35).[465]To Amsdorf, June 21, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 204. Cp. Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 195.[466]To the Marshal Johann von Dolzigk, June 21, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 322 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 201). Cp. p. 175, n. 5, “coniux.”[467]Jonas to Spalatin, June 14, 1525, in “Jonas’ Briefwechsel,” ed. Kawerau, 1, 1884, p. 94.[468]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 238, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 184.[469]To Spalatin, April 10, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 153.[470]See above, p. 142.[471]To Johann Rühel, May 4, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., p. 53, 294 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 164).[472]To Wenceslaus Link, June 20, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 201: “Dominus me subito aliaque cogitantem coniecit mire in coniugium.”[473]Vogt, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” 1888, p. 32: “Maligna fama effecit, ut doctor Martinus insperato fieret coniux; post aliquot tamen dies publica solemnitate duximus istas sacras nuptias etiam coram mundo venerandas.”[474]On June 16, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 197: “Os obstruxi infamantibus me cum Catharina Bora.” At a much later date he excuses the haste by his wish to anticipate the proposal of his friends that he should select some other woman.[475]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 197, 198.[476]See Amsdorf in Scultetus († 1625), “Annales Evangelii,” 1, p. 274.[477]V. Druffel, “Die Melanchthon-Handschriften der Chigi-Bibliothek,” in “SB. der Bayr. Akad. phil.-hist. Kl.,” 1876, p. 491 ff. W. Meyer, “Uber die Originale von Melanchthons Briefen an Camerarius,”ibid., p. 596 ff. “Katholik,” 1900, 1, p. 392, an article by P. A. Kirsch with photo of letter. We are forced to depart from his translation on certain points. Cp. also Nik. Müller’s reprint in “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” 21, 1901, p. 595. The letter runs:“Εὖ πράττειν. Ὅτι μὲν ἔμελλε πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἡ φήμη οὐχ ὅμοια περὶ τοῦ γάμου τοῦ Λουθέρου ἀγγεῖλαι, ἔδοξέ μοι περὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς γνώμην ἔχω σοι ἐπιστέλλειν. μηνὸς ἰουνίου ἡμέρᾳι γ̓ ἀπροσδοκήτως ἔγημε τὴν Βορείαν ὁ Λούθερος μηδενὶ τῶν φίλων τὸ πρᾶγμα πρὸ τοῦ ἀναθέμενος, ἀλλ̓ ἑσπέρας πρὸς δεῖπνον καλέσας τὸν Πομερανιέα καὶ Λούκαν τὸν γραφέα καὶ τὸν Ἄπελλον μόνους ἐποίησε τὰ εἰθισμένα προτέλεια.“Θαυμάσειας δὲ ἂν, τούτῳ τῳ δυστυχεῖ χρόνῳ, καλῶν κἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν πάντοτε ταλαιπωρουμένων τοῦτον οὐ συμπάσχειν, ἀλλ̓ ὡς δοκεῖ μᾶλλον τρυφᾶν καὶ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἀξίωμα ἐλαττοῦν, ὅτε μάλιστα χρείαν ἔχει ἡ Γερμανία φρονήματός τε καὶ ἐξουσίας αὐτοῦ. Ἐγὰ δὲ ταῦτα οὕτω πως γενέσθαι οἷμαι. Ἐστὶν ὁ ἀνὴρ ὡς μάλιστα εὐχερὴς και αἱ μοναχαὶ πασῃ μηχανᾖ ἐπι βουλευομέναι προσέπασαν αὐτόν. Ἲσως ἡ πολλὴ συνήθεια, ἡ σὺν ταῖς μοναχαῖς κἂν γενναῖον ὄντα καὶ μεγαλόψυχον κατεμάλθαξε ἤ καὶ προσεξέκαυσε. τοῦτον τρόπον εἰσπεσεῖν δοκεῖ εἰς ταύτην τὴν ἄαιρον βίου μεταβολήν. Θρυλλούμενον δὲ, ὃτι καὶ πρὸ τοῦ διακόρευσεν αὐτὴν, ἐψεῦσθαι δῆλόν ἐστι.“Νυνὶ δὲ τὸ πραχθὲν μὴ βαρέως φέρειν δεῖ ἢ ὀνειδίζειν. ἀλλὰ ἡγοῦμαι ὑπὸ φύσεως ἀναγκασθῆναι γαμεῖν. Οὗτος δὲ βίος ταπεινὸς μέν, ἀλλὰ ὅσιός ἐστι καὶ θεῷ μᾶλλον τοῦ ἀγέμου ἀρέσκει. Καὶ ὅτι αὐτὸν τὸν Λούθερον ἐπίλυπόν πως ὄντα ὁρῶ καὶ ταραχθέντα διὰ τὴν βιου μεταγολήν, πάσῃ σπουδῇ καὶ ἐννοίᾳ ἐπιχειρῶ παραμυθεῖσθαι, ἐπειδὴ οὔπω ἔπραξέ τι, ὅπερ ἐγκαλεῖσθαι ἀξιῶ ἢ ἀναπολόγητον δοκεῖ. ἔτι δὲ τεκμήριά τινα ἔχω τῆς εὐσεβείας αὐτοῦ ὥστε κατακρίνειν οὐκ ἐξεῖναι. ἔπειτα ἂν μᾶλλον ἠυχόμην αὐτὸν ταπεινοῦσθαι ἢ ὐψοῦσθαι καὶ ἐπαίρεσθαι, ὅπερ ἐστίν ἐπισφαλές, οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἐν ἱερωσύνῃ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις. τὸ γὰρ εὖ πράττειν, ἀφορμὴ τοῦ κακῶς φρονεῖν γίνεται, οὐ μόνον, ὡς ὁ ῥήτωρ ἔφη, τοῖς ἀνοήτοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς σοφοῖς.“Πρὸς τούτῳ καὶ ἐλπίζω, ὅτι ὁ βίος οὑτοσὶ σεμνότερον αὐτὸν ποιήσει, ὥστε καὶ ἀποβαλεῖν τὴν βωμολοχίαν, ἧς πολλάκις ἐμεμψάμεθα. ἄλλος γὰρ βίος ἄλλην δίαιταν κατὰπαροιμίαν καταστήσει.“Ταῦτα πρός σε μακρολογῶ ὤστε μή σε ὑπὸ παραδόξου πράγματος ἄγαν ταράττεσθαι. οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι μέλει σοι τοῦ ἀξιώματος τοῦ Λουθέρον, ὅπερ νυνὶ ἐλαττοῦθαι ἀχθεσθήσῃ. Παρακαλῶ δέ σε πράως ταῦτα φέρειν, ὄτι τίμιος βίος ὁ γάμος ἐν ἁγίαις γραφαῖς εἶναι λέγεται. εἰκὸς δὲ ἀναγκασθῆναι ἀληθῶς γαμεῖν. Πολλὰ τῶν πάλαι ἀγίων πταίσματα ἔδειξεν ὁ θεὸς ἡμῖν, ὄτι θέλει ἡμᾶς βασανίζοντας τὸν αὐτοῦ λόγον, οὐκ ἀξίωμα ἀνθρώπων ἢ πρόσωπον σύμβουλον πολεῖν, ἀλλὰ μόνον αὐτοῦ λόγον. πάλιν δὲ ἀσεβέστατος ἐστιν, ὃστις διὰ τὸ διδασκάλον πταῖσμα καταγιγνώσκει τῆς διδαχῆς.“Michaelis pergrata consuetudo in his turbis mihi est, quem miror, qui passus sis isthinc discedere. Patrem officiosissime tractato, et puta te hanc illi pro paterno amore gratiam debereκαὶ ἀντιπελαργεῖν. De Francicis rebus a te litteras expecto. Vale foeliciter. Postridie corp. Christi. Tabellarius qui has reddet, recta ad nos rediturus est.Φίλιππος.” (The seal is still preserved.)[478]Notβδελυρίαν, debauchery, as was thought, butβωμολοχίαν, is the correct reading. The latter might perhaps be translated as “the passion for making coarse jests.” This is the opinion of G. Kawerau in “Deutsch-Evangelische Blätter,” 1906, “Luther und Melanchthon” (in the reprint, p. 37), who remarks that the only thing damning for Luther in this letter was Melanchthon’s statement “concerning the coarse jests to which Luther was given in his bachelor days, and which had so often scandalised his friend.” Kawerau, for this very reason, thinks that this much-discussed letter, “which Camerarius only ventured to print after much revision” (p. 34), is much better calculated to “make us acquainted with Melanchthon than with Luther, and simply bears witness to the former’s sensitiveness” (p. 37). It is true that “some of Luther’s talk appears to us to-day frightfully coarse, and Melanchthon felt as we do on the subject”; but apart from the fact that Melanchthon’s views were not representative of his age, Mathesius declares that “he never heard an immodest word from Luther’s lips.” We shall return later to the question of that age as a linguistic standard of morality and to Mathesius’s statement, which, we may remark, refers to a later period.[479]εἰκὸς δὲ ἀναγκασθῆναι ἀληθῶς γαμεῖν.The subject of the verbἀναγκασθῆναιis the infinitiveγαμεῖν, as in the previous passageἡγοῦμαι ὑπὸ φύσεως ἀναγκασθῆναι γαμεῖν. On the passive formἀναγκασθῆναι, see e.g. Plato, “Phæd.,” 242a, 254a.[480]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 750.[481]Loc. cit., p. 36.[482]To Johann Rühel, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 293 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 164).[483]To Spalatin, November 30, 1524 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 77): “Animus alienus est a coniugio, cum expectem quotidie mortem et meritum hæretici supplicium.” This he wrote under the influence of the stringent decrees of the Diet of Nuremberg (April 18, 1524), and in order to work upon his Elector. The decrees had led him to write: “You are in a great hurry to put me, a poor man, to death,” but that his death would be the undoing of his enemies. “Two unequal decrees of the Emperor,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 222 f.; Weim. ed., 15, p. 254.[484]To Johann Rühel, Johann Thür and Caspar Müller, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 314 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 195).[485]Sermon on Psalm xxvi. preached in Wittenberg shortly after his marriage, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 115.[486]From the concluding words of the tract of 1525: “Against the murderous, thievish bands of peasants,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18, p. 361; Erl. ed., 24², p. 309.[487]See above, p. 175.[488]See above, p. 178.[489]To Leonard Koppe, June 17, 1525 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 199).[490]To Michael Stiefel, June 17, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 199.[491]To Amsdorf, June 21, 1525,ibid., p. 204.[492]To Wenceslaus Link, June 20, 1525,ibid., p. 201.[493]In letter quoted above, p. 181, n. 3.[494]To Michael Stiefel, September 29, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 248.[495]To Johann Brismann (after August 15?), 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 226.[496]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 641.[497]On May 11, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 340.[498]In the letter quoted above, p. 174, n. 3.[499]To Leonard Koppe, June 21, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 202.[500]To Wenceslaus Link, July 20, 1525,ibid., p. 222.[501]In the letter quoted above, p. 182, n. 4: “Vehementer irritantur sapientes etiam inter nostros.” These are the followers whom he had complained of already on April 10, 1525: “Nostri sapienticuli quotidie idem (coniugium) ridere.” To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 153.[502]To Amsdorf, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 314, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 204.[503]“Archiv für Frankfurter Gesch.,” 7, 1855, p. 102 in Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 5, p. 195, n. 4.[504]To Amsdorf, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 204.[505]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 167.[506]Ibid., p. 265.[507]“Opp.,” Lugd. Batav., 1703, t. 3, col. 900. Erasmus to Nicholas Everardus, Präses in Holland, from Basle, December 24, 1525.[508]Ibid., col. 919, to Franciscus Sylvius, from Basle, March 13, 1526.[509]“Articuli sive libelli triginta,” art. 17, p. 87seq.[510]“Opp.,” Lugd. Batav., 1703, 3, col. 900, ep. 781.[511]Ibid., col. 919, ep. 801.[512]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 322; see above, p. 183.[513]See Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 334.[514]See Strobel, “Neue Beiträge zur Literatur,” 3, 1, p. 137 ff. Cp. Höfler, “SB. der k. böhm. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften,” 1892, p. 110 f. Denifle states, “Luther,” 1², p. 284, n. 3, that there is a specimen of the above work in the town library at Mayence.[515]See above, pp. 145, 177.[516]“Eberlins Sämtliche Schriften,” ed. L. Enders, 3, p. 165.[517]Eobanus Hessus says of the escaped nuns: “Nulla Phyllis nonnis est nostris mammosior.” Cp. above, p. 125, n. 1.[518]Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 284.[519]“Luther und der Bauernkrieg,” Oldenburg, 1895, p. 8.[520]“Gesch. der deutschen Reformation,” Berlin, 1890, p. 447.[521]“Die Kultur der Gegenwart,” T. 2, Abt. 5, 1, Berlin, 1908, p. 68.[522]The passages were quoted above, cp. pp. 6 f., 9 f., 49 f., 55 f., 63, 69, 100 f., 107.[523]“Dissertationes quatuor contra M. Lutherum et Lutheranismi fautores,” Moguntiæ, 1532, fol. 19. See Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 4, 1900, p. 56 ff.[524]Ed. A. Goetze in “Hist. Vierteljahrsschrift,” 4, 1901, p. 1 ff.[525]In Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 697, after a reference to the oppression of the peasantry, their insolence and desire for innovation, we read: “In addition to all this there now supervened the preaching of the new Evangel.... A higher warrant was bestowed upon the complaints and the demands concerning secular and material matters.... The Christian liberty of which the New Testament speaks and which Luther proclaimed was applied directly to temporal questions. Paul’s words that in Christ there is neither bond nor free became a weapon.... Even the Old Testament was also appealed to. From the circumstance that God had granted to our first parents dominion over the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, and the beasts of the field, they concluded that at least the right to fish and hunt was common to all. Great opposition was raised, above all, to the taxes due to the monasteries and clergy, and even the very existence of the monastic state and temporal authority of the clergy was called into question. Such ideas were readily fostered among the excited masses when the new preaching found its way amongst them by word of mouth or in writings”; p. 701: “Luther, however, was the man of the Evangel on whom the eyes of the great mass of the peasants in southern Germany were directed when their rising commenced.” The editors of the Weimar edition of Luther’s writings (18, 1908) remark in the first introduction to the same (p. 279): “The rebellion found its encouragement and support in Luther’s victorious gospel of ecclesiastical reformation; ultimately, however, it secularised the new gospel. Whence it came to pass that in the end, not Luther, but rather the religious fanatics, above all, Thomas Münzer, drew the excited masses under their spell and impressed their stamp on the whole movement.” Concerning Luther’s attitude towards the revolt at the time it was preparing, we read on p. 280: “Up to that time [the spring of 1525], Luther had taken no direct part in the social movement. He was, however, without doubt indirectly engaged; his writings had fallen like firebrands on the inflammable masses, who misunderstood them, interpreted them according to their own ideas and forged from them weapons for their own use.”[526]Fritz Herrmann, “Evangelische Regungen zu Mainz in den ersten Zeiten der Reformation,” in “Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910 (p. 275-304), p. 297.[527]F. Herrmann,ibid., p. 298.[528]F. Herrmann, p. 296. W. Vogt, “Die Vorgesch. des Bauernkrieges” (in “Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” 20, 1887), points to the general expectation prevailing, more particularly in the south-west of Germany, that a fundamental change in the existing state of things was imminent. “Every reform, however, even the most trifling, in the social sphere encroached upon the political and even the ecclesiastical domain, for the nobility and clergy, whose authority and possessions were the subject of discussion, were at the same time political and ecclesiastical factors.... All felt that in the last instance the appeal would be to force” (p. 142).[529]For examples, see above, p. 152 ff., and below, p. 297 ff. Cp. also P. Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum Luthers Ideal?” Tübingen, 1908, p. 31.[530]Concerning Usingen’s utterance of 1523: “Nescitis populum esse bestiam ... quæ sanguinem sitit?” etc., cp. N. Paulus, “Barthol. Usingen,” p. 102. And (ibid.) another striking saying of Usingen concerning the preacher Culsamer. He declared that he feared Germany would see a storm similar to that which Constantinople had suffered at the hands of the iconoclasts (p. 101). The preacher Eberlin von Günzburg announced in 1521: “There will be no end to the impositions of the clergy until the peasants rise and hang and drown good and bad alike; then the cheating will meet with its reward.” See Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 490 ff.[531]F. Herrmann,loc. cit., p. 297.[532]The circular letter, reprinted in the “Annalen des Vereins für Nassauisshe Gesch.,” 17, 1882, p. 16 ff.[533]W. Stolze, “Der deutsche Bauernkrieg,” Halle, 1907, p. v.[534]Cp. particularly p. 22 ff. In “Archiv. f. Reformationsgesch.,” 1909, Hft. 1, p. 160, the author’s blame of the “previous prejudiced insistence on the social side of the Peasant War” meets with recognition; we read there, “the emphasis laid on the religious side by Stolze appears to be thoroughly justified.”[535]“Die scharf Metz wider die, die sich evangelisch nennen und doch dem Evangelium entgegen sind,” 1525, ed. W. Lucke, in “Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” vol. i., No. 3, Halle, 1906.[536]W. Maurenbrecher, “Gesch. der kath. Reformation,” 1, Nördlingen, 1880, p. 257. Janssen, in his “Hist. of the German People,” has brought this point out clearly. See more particularly (Engl. trans.) volume iii.: “The populace inflamed by preaching and the press,” and volume iv.: “The social revolution,” where it is pointed out that even apart from Luther’s action and that of his followers, risings were imminent, but that the “social revolution first received the stamp of universal and inhuman ferocity from the conditions created or developed among the people by the religious disturbances.” Concerning the effect of the sermons and pamphlets on the people we read, in the original, vol. 218, p. 490, n. 5, in a letter of Archduke Ferdinand to the Pope, that the deluded people believed, “se Dei negotium agere in templis, cœnobiis, monasteriis diruendis,” etc. Johann Adam Möhler, in the Church History (ed. Gams), which appeared after his death, compares (3, p. 118) the effects of the preaching of the liberty of the children of God in the primitive Church, and describes the pure, virtuous life of self-renunciation which resulted, how the lower classes learnt to be content with their lot and the slaves became more faithful to their masters. “The contrast between the effects of the old gospel and the new evangel gave the most convincing proof of the difference between them.” “From the spirit of the flesh which combined with the religious in Luther’s writings to form one living whole, a tendency to revolt gradually spread over all Germany; ecclesiastical and secular, divine and human, spiritual and corporal, all ran riot together in the people’s minds; everywhere prevailed a fanatical, perverted longing for the liberty of the children of God” (p. 116). When Luther urged the Princes to severity in repressing the movement, his ruling idea was “to repress the opinion that elements dangerous to public order were embodied in his principles” (p. 118).[537]W. Maurenbrecher, “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reformationszeit,” 1874, p. 22.[538]Cp. the writing, “Handlung, Ordnung und Instruktion,” in which the delegates to be chosen to negotiate with the Swabian League on the question of “divine law,” are referred, among others, to “Hertzog Friederich von Sachsen sampt D. Martin Luther, oder Philipp Melanchthon oder Pomeran [Bugenhagen].” In the introduction of the Weim. ed. (see above, p. 191, n. 2), p. 280. Luther refers to this passage in his “Ermanunge zum Fride auff die 12 Artikel” with the words: “particularly as they appeal to me by name in the other writing.”[539]The pamphlet in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, 1908, p. 279 ff. Erl. ed., 24², p. 271 ff. For the date seeibid., Weim. ed., 18, p. 281, and Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 793.[540]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 344 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 303 ff.[541]Ibid., p. 375 ff. = 310 ff.[542]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 293 f.=273 f.[543]Ibid., p. 300=277.[544]Ibid., p. 329 f.=296 f. In the Weim. ed., 18, p. 790, it is rightly remarked that Luther sees in the peasants of South Germany, to whom the “Ermanunge zum Fride” was principally addressed, persecuted men, and that from a distance he welcomes their rising with a certain sympathy.[545]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 717; cp. p. 792 ff.[546]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 291; Erl. ed., 24², p. 272.[547]Ibid., p. 316 = p. 288.[548]Ibid., p. 334 = p. 299.[549]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 293=p. 273.[550]A. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 55.[551]K. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910, p. 140.[552]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 358; Erl. ed., 24², p. 304.[553]Ibid., p. 358 f.=p. 305. “The violent words of the circular letter ‘Wider die ... Bawren’ were really directed against his bitter opponent Thomas Münzer, the ‘arch-devil of Mühlhausen,’ and the seditious Thuringian peasants.” So runs the introduction of the Weimar edition, with which we may, to some extent, agree, though the pamphlet speaks throughout of the rebellious peasants generally; on the very first page we read, however: “More particularly the arch-devil who reigns at Mühlhausen and who incites to nothing but pillage, murder, and bloodshed.”[554]Ibid., p. 360; Erl. ed., 24², p. 308.[555]Ibid., p. 359=p. 306.[556]Ibid., p. 361=p. 308.[557]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, and p. 359 = p. 306.[558]Ibid., p. 360 ff. = 307 ff.[559]Melanchthon’s and Luther’s words given more in detail in Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 59.[560]Luther to Amsdorf, May 30, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 182: “adulator principum.” Luther pronounces the “Curse of the Lord” on those Magdeburg preachers who had sided with the rebels.[561]On May 21, 1525, Kawerau’s edition of the letter in “Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910, p. 339 (“ Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 177).[562]Kawerau’s edition,ibid., p. 342 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 180).[563]Cp. K. Müller above (p. 201, n. 3), p. 148, where another explanation is given which, however, cannot stand. Müller, p. 140 ff., deals with Barge’s “Karlstadt” (vol. ii.), and Barge’s reply to his criticism. Barge was of opinion that “it is plain the princes and their mercenaries [in their ruthless treatment of the conquered peasants] understood Luther aright” (“Frühprotestantisches Gemeindechristentum,” 1909, p. 333). “Luther, in his pamphlet against the peasants, gave high sanction to the impure lust for blood which had been kindled in the souls of hundreds and thousands who played the part of hangmen.... By seeking to exalt the cynical thirst for revenge into a religious sentiment he has stained the cause of the Reformation more than he could have done even by allying himself with the rebels” (“Karlstadt,” 2, 1905, p. 357).[564]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186). “I would that in these perilous days you would write a letter of consolation and exhortation to my most gracious lord of Magdeburg concerning his making a change in his mode of life; you understand what I mean. But please send me a copy. I purpose going to Magdeburg to-day to take steps in the matter. Pray God in heaven to give His grace in this serious work and undertaking. Be hopeful; you understand me; it cannot be committed to writing. For God’s sake implore, seek and pray that grace and strength may be bestowed on me for the work.” Words so pious concerning such a business prove how far men may be carried away by their own prepossession.[565]Cp. Kolde, “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 64.[566]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 715, with the references p. 794 and Weim. ed., 18, p. 376, Introduction. E. Rolffs (“Preuss. Jahrbücher,” 15, 1904, p. 481): “When, incited thereto by his evangel of the freedom of a Christian man, the oppressed and down-trodden peasantry sought by flame and bloodshed to secure for themselves an existence fit for human beings, then he no longer understood his German people. And when, thereupon, he wrote his frightful book, ‘Against the murderous and thieving hordes of Peasants,’ the German people also ceased to understand him.”[567]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 58 f.[568]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 306 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 181). “This rabble [the peasants under Thomas Münzer] was an enemy of the evangel, and its leaders bitter opponents of the Lutheran teaching.” Introduction to the circular-letter. Weim. ed., 18, p. 376.[569]Luther’s own way of putting the objection, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 399; Erl. ed., 24², p. 331. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau,ibid.[570]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 367 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 12 ff. The date is determined by K. Müller in the work quoted above, p. 201, n. 3, p. 144.[571]In the sermon at Wittenberg on June 4, 1525, Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 715.[572]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 401; Erl. ed., 24², p. 334.[573]Ibid., p. 384 ff.=pp. 311-14.[574]Ibid., p. 387 f.=pp. 315-16.[575]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 715, 717.[576]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 390 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 319, 320.[577]Ibid., pp. 392-4 = 322, 324.[578]Ibid., pp. 394, 396; Erl. ed., 24², pp. 324, 327.[579]Ibid., p. 397 = 328.[580]“Against the murderous Peasants,”ibid., p. 358 = 304.[581]Ibid., p. 398 f. = 330.[582]Ibid., p. 399 = 331.[583]Ibid., p. 399 f. = 330-3.[584]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 29.[585]“Epp. ad viros aetatis suae doctissimos,” ed. Rieggerus, 1774, p. 97.[586]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 376, quoted in the introduction to the circular-letter.[587]“Hyperaspistes,” “Opp.,” 1, p. 1032.[588]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 284 (Tischreden). Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 307, Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 290.[589]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, 714, 717 f.[590]Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 181, n. 1.[591]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 62.[592]Ed. W. Friedensburg, “Zur Vorgesch. des Gotha-Torgauischen Bündnisses der Evangelischen,” 1884. Cp. Kawerau in “Theolog. Literaturztng.,” 1884, p. 502.[593]Cp. Fr. Herrmann, “Evangelische Regungen zu Mainz in den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” in “Schriften für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910, pp. 275-304.[594]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 7 f. For the tract, so far as it is known, see “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 252 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 22 ff.[595]Frank G. Ward, “Darstellung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat und seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben,” 1898, p. 31.[596]To Hans Luther, February 15, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 130 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 230).[597]Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 526 n. “Luther’s conduct in the Peasant War was not ambiguous, but in both his writings merely violent as usual; in the first, against the nobles, more especially the higher clergy; in the second, against the peasants.”[598]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 276.[599]Ibid., 33, p. 390. In the “Exhortation to Peace” Luther had represented to the peasants that their demand for the abrogation of serfdom was “rapacious,” “and directly contrary to the gospel.” Cp. vol. v., xxxv. 5.[600]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 118.[601]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 125. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” 216.[602]Ibid., p. 127. Cordatus,ibid., p. 217.[603]Ibid., p. 131. Cordatus, p. 221.[604]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, undated Fragment.[605]On August 25, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 333.[606]P. Schreckenbach, “Luther und der Bauernkrieg,” 1895, p. 45.[607]“De servo arbitrio,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 776. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 367: “ipsum iugulum petisti.”[608]To Michael Stiefel, September 29, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 248 f.[609]Ibid., p. 248: “metuens, ne non esset divinum, quod gerimus.”[610]May 30, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 182.[611]In “Eurici Cordi Medici antilutheromastigos calumnias expurgatio pro catholicis,” 1526. Cp. G. Kawerau, “Hieron. Emser,” 1898, p. 83 f. For Emser’s work I made use of the very rare copy in the University library at Munich.
[427]The text in question runs as follows: “De Helia Luthero vulgata est apud (nos) creberrima fama morbo laborare hominem. Giengerius tamen ex Lipsiis rediens nundinis refert foeliciter, convaluisse scilicet Heliam, qui nos omnes mira affecit lætitia. Clamabant adversarii pseudoregem interiisse de Sickingero gloriantes, pseudopapam autem ægrotum propediem obiturum. Deus tamen, cuius res agitur, melius consuluit. Apriolus tamen multa mihi ex compassione de Lutheri nostri mala valetudine adscripsit, et inter reliqua de nimia vigilia, qua dominus Helias molestetur. Non est mirum, hominem tot cerebri laboribus immersum, in siccitatem cerebri incidere, unde nimia causatur vigilia. Tu autem, qui medicum agis, non debes esse oblitus, si lac mulieris mixtum cum oleo violato in commissuram coronalem ungatur, quam familiariter humectet cerebrum ad somnumque disponat; et si cum hoc doloresmali Franciesomno impedimento fuerint, mitigandi sunt cum emplastro, quod fit ex medulla cervi, in qua coquuntur vermes terræ cum modico croco et vino sublimato. Hec si dormituro apponuntur, somnum conciliant, qui somnus maxime est necessarius ad restaurandam sanitatem. Nam quod caret alterna requie durabile non est. Cura nobis Lutherum propter Deum, cuius fidei me commenda et charitati. Melanchthonis (?) notum fac Apriolumque saluta.” (From the “Cod. Rych.” in the Wolff collection of the Hamburg Town Library, p. 560.)
[428]In a letter to Staupitz, February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431, Luther complains of “molestiæ,” which were not physical sufferings but the weight of his position and undertaking. In the letter to Melanchthon, July 13, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189, he means by the “othermolestia” which tormented him, the constipation which “together with temptations of the flesh had prevented him for a whole week from writing, praying, and studying.” Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 171: “Malum auctum est, quo Vormaciæ laborabam: durissima patior excrementa, ut nunquam in vita, ut remedium desperaverim.” To Spalatin, June 10, 1521. Cp. above, p. 95.
[429]Above, p. 79 ff. Cp. also volume iii., xviii.
[430]“Contra Henricum,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 184; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 391.
[431]Preface to Justus Menius’s book, “Œconomia Christiana,” 1529, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 61; Erl. ed., 63, p. 279 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 73). The preface is in the shape of a letter to Hans Metzsch, the Captain of the Wittenberg garrison, an unmarried man whom Luther urged in vain to marry.
[432]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 773 f.
[433]To Spalatin, March 4, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 133.
[434]Ibid.
[435]Ibid., March 23, 1525,ibid., 5, p. 140.
[436]Ibid., March 12, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 138.
[437]Ibid., April 15, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 290, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 157.
[438]Ibid., March 27, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 147.
[439]Ibid.
[440]Ibid., April 3, 1525,ibid., p. 152. To Amsdorf, April 11, 1525,ibid., p. 156.
[441]To the Christians at Antwerp, beginning of April, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 547; Erl. ed., 53, p. 342 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151).
[442]To Spalatin, March 27, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 147.
[443]Ibid., March 11, 1525,ibid., p. 136.
[444]Ibid., March 27, 1525,ibid., p. 147.
[445]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 19 ff. Sermon of 1533, the second in the “Postils.”
[446]“Contra Henricum regem,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 205 f.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 424.
[447]“On the two kinds of the Sacrament,” 1522, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 35; Erl. ed., 28, p. 311.
[448]On March 12, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 138.
[449]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 277 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 73). See
[450]“Nos afflicti satis et tentati sumus.”
[451]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 796, n. 2, 729.
[452]See above, p. 133.
[453]“Handschriftl. Gesch.,” ed. Neudecker, p. 58.
[454]G. Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (“Deutsch-evangelische Blätter,” 29, 1904, p. 303 ff.), p. 305.
[455]“Handschriftl. Gesch.,” p. 59.
[456]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 276. Letters edited by De Wette, 4 (not 3, as stated by the editor of Ratzeberger), p. 181.
[457]From Psalm iv. 9 ff.
[458]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 60 (“Tischreden”).
[459]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 61.
[460]Ibid., 61, p. 307.
[461]Ibid., p. 309.
[462]Ibid.
[463]On November 30, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 77 (see p. 181, n. 2). Here Luther remarks that there is much gossip (“garriri”) about him and his marriage.
[464]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 293 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 164). In October, 1524, he speaks of Pastor Caspar Glatz as her future husband, without mentioning his own intentions (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 35).
[465]To Amsdorf, June 21, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 204. Cp. Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 195.
[466]To the Marshal Johann von Dolzigk, June 21, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 322 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 201). Cp. p. 175, n. 5, “coniux.”
[467]Jonas to Spalatin, June 14, 1525, in “Jonas’ Briefwechsel,” ed. Kawerau, 1, 1884, p. 94.
[468]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 238, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 184.
[469]To Spalatin, April 10, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 153.
[470]See above, p. 142.
[471]To Johann Rühel, May 4, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., p. 53, 294 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 164).
[472]To Wenceslaus Link, June 20, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 201: “Dominus me subito aliaque cogitantem coniecit mire in coniugium.”
[473]Vogt, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” 1888, p. 32: “Maligna fama effecit, ut doctor Martinus insperato fieret coniux; post aliquot tamen dies publica solemnitate duximus istas sacras nuptias etiam coram mundo venerandas.”
[474]On June 16, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 197: “Os obstruxi infamantibus me cum Catharina Bora.” At a much later date he excuses the haste by his wish to anticipate the proposal of his friends that he should select some other woman.
[475]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 197, 198.
[476]See Amsdorf in Scultetus († 1625), “Annales Evangelii,” 1, p. 274.
[477]V. Druffel, “Die Melanchthon-Handschriften der Chigi-Bibliothek,” in “SB. der Bayr. Akad. phil.-hist. Kl.,” 1876, p. 491 ff. W. Meyer, “Uber die Originale von Melanchthons Briefen an Camerarius,”ibid., p. 596 ff. “Katholik,” 1900, 1, p. 392, an article by P. A. Kirsch with photo of letter. We are forced to depart from his translation on certain points. Cp. also Nik. Müller’s reprint in “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” 21, 1901, p. 595. The letter runs:
“Εὖ πράττειν. Ὅτι μὲν ἔμελλε πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἡ φήμη οὐχ ὅμοια περὶ τοῦ γάμου τοῦ Λουθέρου ἀγγεῖλαι, ἔδοξέ μοι περὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς γνώμην ἔχω σοι ἐπιστέλλειν. μηνὸς ἰουνίου ἡμέρᾳι γ̓ ἀπροσδοκήτως ἔγημε τὴν Βορείαν ὁ Λούθερος μηδενὶ τῶν φίλων τὸ πρᾶγμα πρὸ τοῦ ἀναθέμενος, ἀλλ̓ ἑσπέρας πρὸς δεῖπνον καλέσας τὸν Πομερανιέα καὶ Λούκαν τὸν γραφέα καὶ τὸν Ἄπελλον μόνους ἐποίησε τὰ εἰθισμένα προτέλεια.
“Θαυμάσειας δὲ ἂν, τούτῳ τῳ δυστυχεῖ χρόνῳ, καλῶν κἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν πάντοτε ταλαιπωρουμένων τοῦτον οὐ συμπάσχειν, ἀλλ̓ ὡς δοκεῖ μᾶλλον τρυφᾶν καὶ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἀξίωμα ἐλαττοῦν, ὅτε μάλιστα χρείαν ἔχει ἡ Γερμανία φρονήματός τε καὶ ἐξουσίας αὐτοῦ. Ἐγὰ δὲ ταῦτα οὕτω πως γενέσθαι οἷμαι. Ἐστὶν ὁ ἀνὴρ ὡς μάλιστα εὐχερὴς και αἱ μοναχαὶ πασῃ μηχανᾖ ἐπι βουλευομέναι προσέπασαν αὐτόν. Ἲσως ἡ πολλὴ συνήθεια, ἡ σὺν ταῖς μοναχαῖς κἂν γενναῖον ὄντα καὶ μεγαλόψυχον κατεμάλθαξε ἤ καὶ προσεξέκαυσε. τοῦτον τρόπον εἰσπεσεῖν δοκεῖ εἰς ταύτην τὴν ἄαιρον βίου μεταβολήν. Θρυλλούμενον δὲ, ὃτι καὶ πρὸ τοῦ διακόρευσεν αὐτὴν, ἐψεῦσθαι δῆλόν ἐστι.
“Νυνὶ δὲ τὸ πραχθὲν μὴ βαρέως φέρειν δεῖ ἢ ὀνειδίζειν. ἀλλὰ ἡγοῦμαι ὑπὸ φύσεως ἀναγκασθῆναι γαμεῖν. Οὗτος δὲ βίος ταπεινὸς μέν, ἀλλὰ ὅσιός ἐστι καὶ θεῷ μᾶλλον τοῦ ἀγέμου ἀρέσκει. Καὶ ὅτι αὐτὸν τὸν Λούθερον ἐπίλυπόν πως ὄντα ὁρῶ καὶ ταραχθέντα διὰ τὴν βιου μεταγολήν, πάσῃ σπουδῇ καὶ ἐννοίᾳ ἐπιχειρῶ παραμυθεῖσθαι, ἐπειδὴ οὔπω ἔπραξέ τι, ὅπερ ἐγκαλεῖσθαι ἀξιῶ ἢ ἀναπολόγητον δοκεῖ. ἔτι δὲ τεκμήριά τινα ἔχω τῆς εὐσεβείας αὐτοῦ ὥστε κατακρίνειν οὐκ ἐξεῖναι. ἔπειτα ἂν μᾶλλον ἠυχόμην αὐτὸν ταπεινοῦσθαι ἢ ὐψοῦσθαι καὶ ἐπαίρεσθαι, ὅπερ ἐστίν ἐπισφαλές, οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἐν ἱερωσύνῃ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις. τὸ γὰρ εὖ πράττειν, ἀφορμὴ τοῦ κακῶς φρονεῖν γίνεται, οὐ μόνον, ὡς ὁ ῥήτωρ ἔφη, τοῖς ἀνοήτοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς σοφοῖς.
“Πρὸς τούτῳ καὶ ἐλπίζω, ὅτι ὁ βίος οὑτοσὶ σεμνότερον αὐτὸν ποιήσει, ὥστε καὶ ἀποβαλεῖν τὴν βωμολοχίαν, ἧς πολλάκις ἐμεμψάμεθα. ἄλλος γὰρ βίος ἄλλην δίαιταν κατὰπαροιμίαν καταστήσει.
“Ταῦτα πρός σε μακρολογῶ ὤστε μή σε ὑπὸ παραδόξου πράγματος ἄγαν ταράττεσθαι. οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι μέλει σοι τοῦ ἀξιώματος τοῦ Λουθέρον, ὅπερ νυνὶ ἐλαττοῦθαι ἀχθεσθήσῃ. Παρακαλῶ δέ σε πράως ταῦτα φέρειν, ὄτι τίμιος βίος ὁ γάμος ἐν ἁγίαις γραφαῖς εἶναι λέγεται. εἰκὸς δὲ ἀναγκασθῆναι ἀληθῶς γαμεῖν. Πολλὰ τῶν πάλαι ἀγίων πταίσματα ἔδειξεν ὁ θεὸς ἡμῖν, ὄτι θέλει ἡμᾶς βασανίζοντας τὸν αὐτοῦ λόγον, οὐκ ἀξίωμα ἀνθρώπων ἢ πρόσωπον σύμβουλον πολεῖν, ἀλλὰ μόνον αὐτοῦ λόγον. πάλιν δὲ ἀσεβέστατος ἐστιν, ὃστις διὰ τὸ διδασκάλον πταῖσμα καταγιγνώσκει τῆς διδαχῆς.
“Michaelis pergrata consuetudo in his turbis mihi est, quem miror, qui passus sis isthinc discedere. Patrem officiosissime tractato, et puta te hanc illi pro paterno amore gratiam debereκαὶ ἀντιπελαργεῖν. De Francicis rebus a te litteras expecto. Vale foeliciter. Postridie corp. Christi. Tabellarius qui has reddet, recta ad nos rediturus est.Φίλιππος.” (The seal is still preserved.)
[478]Notβδελυρίαν, debauchery, as was thought, butβωμολοχίαν, is the correct reading. The latter might perhaps be translated as “the passion for making coarse jests.” This is the opinion of G. Kawerau in “Deutsch-Evangelische Blätter,” 1906, “Luther und Melanchthon” (in the reprint, p. 37), who remarks that the only thing damning for Luther in this letter was Melanchthon’s statement “concerning the coarse jests to which Luther was given in his bachelor days, and which had so often scandalised his friend.” Kawerau, for this very reason, thinks that this much-discussed letter, “which Camerarius only ventured to print after much revision” (p. 34), is much better calculated to “make us acquainted with Melanchthon than with Luther, and simply bears witness to the former’s sensitiveness” (p. 37). It is true that “some of Luther’s talk appears to us to-day frightfully coarse, and Melanchthon felt as we do on the subject”; but apart from the fact that Melanchthon’s views were not representative of his age, Mathesius declares that “he never heard an immodest word from Luther’s lips.” We shall return later to the question of that age as a linguistic standard of morality and to Mathesius’s statement, which, we may remark, refers to a later period.
[479]εἰκὸς δὲ ἀναγκασθῆναι ἀληθῶς γαμεῖν.The subject of the verbἀναγκασθῆναιis the infinitiveγαμεῖν, as in the previous passageἡγοῦμαι ὑπὸ φύσεως ἀναγκασθῆναι γαμεῖν. On the passive formἀναγκασθῆναι, see e.g. Plato, “Phæd.,” 242a, 254a.
[480]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 750.
[481]Loc. cit., p. 36.
[482]To Johann Rühel, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 293 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 164).
[483]To Spalatin, November 30, 1524 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 77): “Animus alienus est a coniugio, cum expectem quotidie mortem et meritum hæretici supplicium.” This he wrote under the influence of the stringent decrees of the Diet of Nuremberg (April 18, 1524), and in order to work upon his Elector. The decrees had led him to write: “You are in a great hurry to put me, a poor man, to death,” but that his death would be the undoing of his enemies. “Two unequal decrees of the Emperor,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 222 f.; Weim. ed., 15, p. 254.
[484]To Johann Rühel, Johann Thür and Caspar Müller, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 314 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 195).
[485]Sermon on Psalm xxvi. preached in Wittenberg shortly after his marriage, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 115.
[486]From the concluding words of the tract of 1525: “Against the murderous, thievish bands of peasants,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18, p. 361; Erl. ed., 24², p. 309.
[487]See above, p. 175.
[488]See above, p. 178.
[489]To Leonard Koppe, June 17, 1525 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 199).
[490]To Michael Stiefel, June 17, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 199.
[491]To Amsdorf, June 21, 1525,ibid., p. 204.
[492]To Wenceslaus Link, June 20, 1525,ibid., p. 201.
[493]In letter quoted above, p. 181, n. 3.
[494]To Michael Stiefel, September 29, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 248.
[495]To Johann Brismann (after August 15?), 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 226.
[496]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 641.
[497]On May 11, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 340.
[498]In the letter quoted above, p. 174, n. 3.
[499]To Leonard Koppe, June 21, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 202.
[500]To Wenceslaus Link, July 20, 1525,ibid., p. 222.
[501]In the letter quoted above, p. 182, n. 4: “Vehementer irritantur sapientes etiam inter nostros.” These are the followers whom he had complained of already on April 10, 1525: “Nostri sapienticuli quotidie idem (coniugium) ridere.” To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 153.
[502]To Amsdorf, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 314, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 204.
[503]“Archiv für Frankfurter Gesch.,” 7, 1855, p. 102 in Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 5, p. 195, n. 4.
[504]To Amsdorf, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 204.
[505]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 167.
[506]Ibid., p. 265.
[507]“Opp.,” Lugd. Batav., 1703, t. 3, col. 900. Erasmus to Nicholas Everardus, Präses in Holland, from Basle, December 24, 1525.
[508]Ibid., col. 919, to Franciscus Sylvius, from Basle, March 13, 1526.
[509]“Articuli sive libelli triginta,” art. 17, p. 87seq.
[510]“Opp.,” Lugd. Batav., 1703, 3, col. 900, ep. 781.
[511]Ibid., col. 919, ep. 801.
[512]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 322; see above, p. 183.
[513]See Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 334.
[514]See Strobel, “Neue Beiträge zur Literatur,” 3, 1, p. 137 ff. Cp. Höfler, “SB. der k. böhm. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften,” 1892, p. 110 f. Denifle states, “Luther,” 1², p. 284, n. 3, that there is a specimen of the above work in the town library at Mayence.
[515]See above, pp. 145, 177.
[516]“Eberlins Sämtliche Schriften,” ed. L. Enders, 3, p. 165.
[517]Eobanus Hessus says of the escaped nuns: “Nulla Phyllis nonnis est nostris mammosior.” Cp. above, p. 125, n. 1.
[518]Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 284.
[519]“Luther und der Bauernkrieg,” Oldenburg, 1895, p. 8.
[520]“Gesch. der deutschen Reformation,” Berlin, 1890, p. 447.
[521]“Die Kultur der Gegenwart,” T. 2, Abt. 5, 1, Berlin, 1908, p. 68.
[522]The passages were quoted above, cp. pp. 6 f., 9 f., 49 f., 55 f., 63, 69, 100 f., 107.
[523]“Dissertationes quatuor contra M. Lutherum et Lutheranismi fautores,” Moguntiæ, 1532, fol. 19. See Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 4, 1900, p. 56 ff.
[524]Ed. A. Goetze in “Hist. Vierteljahrsschrift,” 4, 1901, p. 1 ff.
[525]In Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 697, after a reference to the oppression of the peasantry, their insolence and desire for innovation, we read: “In addition to all this there now supervened the preaching of the new Evangel.... A higher warrant was bestowed upon the complaints and the demands concerning secular and material matters.... The Christian liberty of which the New Testament speaks and which Luther proclaimed was applied directly to temporal questions. Paul’s words that in Christ there is neither bond nor free became a weapon.... Even the Old Testament was also appealed to. From the circumstance that God had granted to our first parents dominion over the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, and the beasts of the field, they concluded that at least the right to fish and hunt was common to all. Great opposition was raised, above all, to the taxes due to the monasteries and clergy, and even the very existence of the monastic state and temporal authority of the clergy was called into question. Such ideas were readily fostered among the excited masses when the new preaching found its way amongst them by word of mouth or in writings”; p. 701: “Luther, however, was the man of the Evangel on whom the eyes of the great mass of the peasants in southern Germany were directed when their rising commenced.” The editors of the Weimar edition of Luther’s writings (18, 1908) remark in the first introduction to the same (p. 279): “The rebellion found its encouragement and support in Luther’s victorious gospel of ecclesiastical reformation; ultimately, however, it secularised the new gospel. Whence it came to pass that in the end, not Luther, but rather the religious fanatics, above all, Thomas Münzer, drew the excited masses under their spell and impressed their stamp on the whole movement.” Concerning Luther’s attitude towards the revolt at the time it was preparing, we read on p. 280: “Up to that time [the spring of 1525], Luther had taken no direct part in the social movement. He was, however, without doubt indirectly engaged; his writings had fallen like firebrands on the inflammable masses, who misunderstood them, interpreted them according to their own ideas and forged from them weapons for their own use.”
[526]Fritz Herrmann, “Evangelische Regungen zu Mainz in den ersten Zeiten der Reformation,” in “Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910 (p. 275-304), p. 297.
[527]F. Herrmann,ibid., p. 298.
[528]F. Herrmann, p. 296. W. Vogt, “Die Vorgesch. des Bauernkrieges” (in “Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” 20, 1887), points to the general expectation prevailing, more particularly in the south-west of Germany, that a fundamental change in the existing state of things was imminent. “Every reform, however, even the most trifling, in the social sphere encroached upon the political and even the ecclesiastical domain, for the nobility and clergy, whose authority and possessions were the subject of discussion, were at the same time political and ecclesiastical factors.... All felt that in the last instance the appeal would be to force” (p. 142).
[529]For examples, see above, p. 152 ff., and below, p. 297 ff. Cp. also P. Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum Luthers Ideal?” Tübingen, 1908, p. 31.
[530]Concerning Usingen’s utterance of 1523: “Nescitis populum esse bestiam ... quæ sanguinem sitit?” etc., cp. N. Paulus, “Barthol. Usingen,” p. 102. And (ibid.) another striking saying of Usingen concerning the preacher Culsamer. He declared that he feared Germany would see a storm similar to that which Constantinople had suffered at the hands of the iconoclasts (p. 101). The preacher Eberlin von Günzburg announced in 1521: “There will be no end to the impositions of the clergy until the peasants rise and hang and drown good and bad alike; then the cheating will meet with its reward.” See Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 490 ff.
[531]F. Herrmann,loc. cit., p. 297.
[532]The circular letter, reprinted in the “Annalen des Vereins für Nassauisshe Gesch.,” 17, 1882, p. 16 ff.
[533]W. Stolze, “Der deutsche Bauernkrieg,” Halle, 1907, p. v.
[534]Cp. particularly p. 22 ff. In “Archiv. f. Reformationsgesch.,” 1909, Hft. 1, p. 160, the author’s blame of the “previous prejudiced insistence on the social side of the Peasant War” meets with recognition; we read there, “the emphasis laid on the religious side by Stolze appears to be thoroughly justified.”
[535]“Die scharf Metz wider die, die sich evangelisch nennen und doch dem Evangelium entgegen sind,” 1525, ed. W. Lucke, in “Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” vol. i., No. 3, Halle, 1906.
[536]W. Maurenbrecher, “Gesch. der kath. Reformation,” 1, Nördlingen, 1880, p. 257. Janssen, in his “Hist. of the German People,” has brought this point out clearly. See more particularly (Engl. trans.) volume iii.: “The populace inflamed by preaching and the press,” and volume iv.: “The social revolution,” where it is pointed out that even apart from Luther’s action and that of his followers, risings were imminent, but that the “social revolution first received the stamp of universal and inhuman ferocity from the conditions created or developed among the people by the religious disturbances.” Concerning the effect of the sermons and pamphlets on the people we read, in the original, vol. 218, p. 490, n. 5, in a letter of Archduke Ferdinand to the Pope, that the deluded people believed, “se Dei negotium agere in templis, cœnobiis, monasteriis diruendis,” etc. Johann Adam Möhler, in the Church History (ed. Gams), which appeared after his death, compares (3, p. 118) the effects of the preaching of the liberty of the children of God in the primitive Church, and describes the pure, virtuous life of self-renunciation which resulted, how the lower classes learnt to be content with their lot and the slaves became more faithful to their masters. “The contrast between the effects of the old gospel and the new evangel gave the most convincing proof of the difference between them.” “From the spirit of the flesh which combined with the religious in Luther’s writings to form one living whole, a tendency to revolt gradually spread over all Germany; ecclesiastical and secular, divine and human, spiritual and corporal, all ran riot together in the people’s minds; everywhere prevailed a fanatical, perverted longing for the liberty of the children of God” (p. 116). When Luther urged the Princes to severity in repressing the movement, his ruling idea was “to repress the opinion that elements dangerous to public order were embodied in his principles” (p. 118).
[537]W. Maurenbrecher, “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reformationszeit,” 1874, p. 22.
[538]Cp. the writing, “Handlung, Ordnung und Instruktion,” in which the delegates to be chosen to negotiate with the Swabian League on the question of “divine law,” are referred, among others, to “Hertzog Friederich von Sachsen sampt D. Martin Luther, oder Philipp Melanchthon oder Pomeran [Bugenhagen].” In the introduction of the Weim. ed. (see above, p. 191, n. 2), p. 280. Luther refers to this passage in his “Ermanunge zum Fride auff die 12 Artikel” with the words: “particularly as they appeal to me by name in the other writing.”
[539]The pamphlet in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, 1908, p. 279 ff. Erl. ed., 24², p. 271 ff. For the date seeibid., Weim. ed., 18, p. 281, and Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 793.
[540]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 344 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 303 ff.
[541]Ibid., p. 375 ff. = 310 ff.
[542]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 293 f.=273 f.
[543]Ibid., p. 300=277.
[544]Ibid., p. 329 f.=296 f. In the Weim. ed., 18, p. 790, it is rightly remarked that Luther sees in the peasants of South Germany, to whom the “Ermanunge zum Fride” was principally addressed, persecuted men, and that from a distance he welcomes their rising with a certain sympathy.
[545]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 717; cp. p. 792 ff.
[546]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 291; Erl. ed., 24², p. 272.
[547]Ibid., p. 316 = p. 288.
[548]Ibid., p. 334 = p. 299.
[549]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 293=p. 273.
[550]A. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 55.
[551]K. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910, p. 140.
[552]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 358; Erl. ed., 24², p. 304.
[553]Ibid., p. 358 f.=p. 305. “The violent words of the circular letter ‘Wider die ... Bawren’ were really directed against his bitter opponent Thomas Münzer, the ‘arch-devil of Mühlhausen,’ and the seditious Thuringian peasants.” So runs the introduction of the Weimar edition, with which we may, to some extent, agree, though the pamphlet speaks throughout of the rebellious peasants generally; on the very first page we read, however: “More particularly the arch-devil who reigns at Mühlhausen and who incites to nothing but pillage, murder, and bloodshed.”
[554]Ibid., p. 360; Erl. ed., 24², p. 308.
[555]Ibid., p. 359=p. 306.
[556]Ibid., p. 361=p. 308.
[557]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, and p. 359 = p. 306.
[558]Ibid., p. 360 ff. = 307 ff.
[559]Melanchthon’s and Luther’s words given more in detail in Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 59.
[560]Luther to Amsdorf, May 30, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 182: “adulator principum.” Luther pronounces the “Curse of the Lord” on those Magdeburg preachers who had sided with the rebels.
[561]On May 21, 1525, Kawerau’s edition of the letter in “Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910, p. 339 (“ Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 177).
[562]Kawerau’s edition,ibid., p. 342 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 180).
[563]Cp. K. Müller above (p. 201, n. 3), p. 148, where another explanation is given which, however, cannot stand. Müller, p. 140 ff., deals with Barge’s “Karlstadt” (vol. ii.), and Barge’s reply to his criticism. Barge was of opinion that “it is plain the princes and their mercenaries [in their ruthless treatment of the conquered peasants] understood Luther aright” (“Frühprotestantisches Gemeindechristentum,” 1909, p. 333). “Luther, in his pamphlet against the peasants, gave high sanction to the impure lust for blood which had been kindled in the souls of hundreds and thousands who played the part of hangmen.... By seeking to exalt the cynical thirst for revenge into a religious sentiment he has stained the cause of the Reformation more than he could have done even by allying himself with the rebels” (“Karlstadt,” 2, 1905, p. 357).
[564]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186). “I would that in these perilous days you would write a letter of consolation and exhortation to my most gracious lord of Magdeburg concerning his making a change in his mode of life; you understand what I mean. But please send me a copy. I purpose going to Magdeburg to-day to take steps in the matter. Pray God in heaven to give His grace in this serious work and undertaking. Be hopeful; you understand me; it cannot be committed to writing. For God’s sake implore, seek and pray that grace and strength may be bestowed on me for the work.” Words so pious concerning such a business prove how far men may be carried away by their own prepossession.
[565]Cp. Kolde, “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 64.
[566]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 715, with the references p. 794 and Weim. ed., 18, p. 376, Introduction. E. Rolffs (“Preuss. Jahrbücher,” 15, 1904, p. 481): “When, incited thereto by his evangel of the freedom of a Christian man, the oppressed and down-trodden peasantry sought by flame and bloodshed to secure for themselves an existence fit for human beings, then he no longer understood his German people. And when, thereupon, he wrote his frightful book, ‘Against the murderous and thieving hordes of Peasants,’ the German people also ceased to understand him.”
[567]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 58 f.
[568]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 306 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 181). “This rabble [the peasants under Thomas Münzer] was an enemy of the evangel, and its leaders bitter opponents of the Lutheran teaching.” Introduction to the circular-letter. Weim. ed., 18, p. 376.
[569]Luther’s own way of putting the objection, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 399; Erl. ed., 24², p. 331. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau,ibid.
[570]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 367 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 12 ff. The date is determined by K. Müller in the work quoted above, p. 201, n. 3, p. 144.
[571]In the sermon at Wittenberg on June 4, 1525, Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 715.
[572]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 401; Erl. ed., 24², p. 334.
[573]Ibid., p. 384 ff.=pp. 311-14.
[574]Ibid., p. 387 f.=pp. 315-16.
[575]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 715, 717.
[576]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 390 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 319, 320.
[577]Ibid., pp. 392-4 = 322, 324.
[578]Ibid., pp. 394, 396; Erl. ed., 24², pp. 324, 327.
[579]Ibid., p. 397 = 328.
[580]“Against the murderous Peasants,”ibid., p. 358 = 304.
[581]Ibid., p. 398 f. = 330.
[582]Ibid., p. 399 = 331.
[583]Ibid., p. 399 f. = 330-3.
[584]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 29.
[585]“Epp. ad viros aetatis suae doctissimos,” ed. Rieggerus, 1774, p. 97.
[586]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 376, quoted in the introduction to the circular-letter.
[587]“Hyperaspistes,” “Opp.,” 1, p. 1032.
[588]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 284 (Tischreden). Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 307, Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 290.
[589]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, 714, 717 f.
[590]Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 181, n. 1.
[591]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 62.
[592]Ed. W. Friedensburg, “Zur Vorgesch. des Gotha-Torgauischen Bündnisses der Evangelischen,” 1884. Cp. Kawerau in “Theolog. Literaturztng.,” 1884, p. 502.
[593]Cp. Fr. Herrmann, “Evangelische Regungen zu Mainz in den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” in “Schriften für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910, pp. 275-304.
[594]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 7 f. For the tract, so far as it is known, see “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 252 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 22 ff.
[595]Frank G. Ward, “Darstellung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat und seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben,” 1898, p. 31.
[596]To Hans Luther, February 15, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 130 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 230).
[597]Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 526 n. “Luther’s conduct in the Peasant War was not ambiguous, but in both his writings merely violent as usual; in the first, against the nobles, more especially the higher clergy; in the second, against the peasants.”
[598]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 276.
[599]Ibid., 33, p. 390. In the “Exhortation to Peace” Luther had represented to the peasants that their demand for the abrogation of serfdom was “rapacious,” “and directly contrary to the gospel.” Cp. vol. v., xxxv. 5.
[600]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 118.
[601]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 125. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” 216.
[602]Ibid., p. 127. Cordatus,ibid., p. 217.
[603]Ibid., p. 131. Cordatus, p. 221.
[604]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, undated Fragment.
[605]On August 25, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 333.
[606]P. Schreckenbach, “Luther und der Bauernkrieg,” 1895, p. 45.
[607]“De servo arbitrio,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 776. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 367: “ipsum iugulum petisti.”
[608]To Michael Stiefel, September 29, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 248 f.
[609]Ibid., p. 248: “metuens, ne non esset divinum, quod gerimus.”
[610]May 30, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 182.
[611]In “Eurici Cordi Medici antilutheromastigos calumnias expurgatio pro catholicis,” 1526. Cp. G. Kawerau, “Hieron. Emser,” 1898, p. 83 f. For Emser’s work I made use of the very rare copy in the University library at Munich.