[611]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 79.[612]Ibid., p. 147 f. We shall treat more fully of Luther’s “Temptations” against faith and his inner wavering in vol. v., xxxii.[613]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 153. Exposition of John xvi.[614]Ibid., p. 154.[615]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 407, in a Sermon on Genesis xxviii. Joh. Poliander’s Collection.[616]Ibid., 11, p. 197, Sermon in 1523 from Rörer’s notes. Though in the passages just quoted he lays great stress on the fact, that nothing is needed on our part for the obtaining of forgiveness (not even as Catholics taught any co-operation on our part with God’s helping grace), yet he speaks here again of the “emptying of the heart of all affection” for creatures, and of the “works” which proceed from a heart that is purified by faith. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 409. “If you have now the wedding garment, then serve your neighbour, give yourself up to him entirely, take compassion on him. [For] the Christian life consists in faith in God and charity towards our neighbour.”Ibid., 12, p. 670, in another set of notes of the sermon just quoted. “First we become brides [of Christ] by faith, and, then, through charity, Christs to every man.”Ibid., 11, p. 197.[617]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 42.[618]Veit Dietrich, in Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 139.[619]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 179.[620]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 209.[621]Ibid., p. 238.[622]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 353.[623]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 115.[624]Ibid., p. 95.[625]“Comment. in Gal.,” ed. Irmischer, 2, p. 351.[626]“Briefe.,” ed. De Wette, 5, pp. 515, 566.[627]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 428 f.[628]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 178.[629]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 631; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 321, “De votis monasticis,” 1521.[630]Ibid.[631]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 254 f. “Rathschlag von der Kirche,” 1538.[632]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 470; Erl. ed., 25², p. 128, at the close of “Widder den Meuchler zu Dresen,” 1531. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 423.[633]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 22, “Tischreden.”[634]Letter of July 31, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 157.[635]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 49.[636]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 294. Noted in the winter of 1542-3 by Heydenreich.[637]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 21. Certain prayers spoken by Luther at critical moments, which appear in Protestant biographies, more particularly the older ones, are purely legendary. So, for instance, his solemn prayer at Worms: “O God, my God, stand by me against all the wit and wisdom of the world,” etc. (Uckert, “Luthers Leben,” 2, Gotha, 1817, p. 6, and also in Walch’s edition of Luther’s Works, 10, p. 1720). From Melanchthon’s time (ibid., 21, Nachl. 354) and that of such enthusiastic pupils of Luther as Spangenberg, it became the custom to extol Luther as a man of prayer. Spangenberg even declares that “no one can deny” that Luther during his lifetime “checked and prevented God’s chastisements, wars and desolation” by means of his “Christian prayers, so full of faith.” See Preface to his “Lutherus Theander,” No. 18. A certain Protestant theological periodical assured its readers quite recently, that “Luther spent three hours of his working day in prayer”; it is true that people pray even in the Roman Church, but amid much “superficiality and desecration.”[638]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 73 f. (Khummer).[639]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 245, in the Sermon for Easter Monday, 1525.[640]Ibid., p. 243 f.[641]Ibid., p. 244.[642]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 658.[643]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 207.[644]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 630 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 378seq.in Concl., 3seq.(of 1518). Passages in which he advocates contrition will, however, be quoted below. Cp. vol. i., p. 293.[645]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” pp. 33, 51.[646]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 435 (“Tischreden”).[647]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 245 f. Cp. p. 210, n. 1.[648]Above, p. 24 ff. and vol. v., xxix. 8.[649]Cp. G. Kawerau, “Warum fehlte der deutschen evang. Kirche des 16. u. 17. Jahrh. das volle Verständnis für d. Missionsgedanken der H. Schrift? Vortrag,” Breslau, 1896. The author says that “none of the reformers” found in Holy Scripture the duty of missionary effort on the part of Christendom; an exception must, however, be made in the case of Bucer. See N. P(aulus) in the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 18, 1897, p. 199.[650]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 33; Erl. ed., 30, p. 9. “Against the King of England,” 1527.[651]Letter of February 23, 1542, in Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 378.[652]“Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1907, p. 246 f. Art. by E. Thiele on some Notes of Joh. Agricola’s in a Hebrew Bible at Wernigerode.[653]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 313seq.The passage will be given later.[654]G. Kroker, “Katharina von Bora,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 282.[655]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 484.[656]See Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 2.[657]Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 286. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 485seq.Rebenstock, 2, p. 20.[658]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 141.[659]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 569.[660]On this girl, see below, p. 280 f.[661]E.g. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.[662]For biographical data concerning these, see Kroker, “Luthers Tischreden in der Mathesischen Sammlung,” Einl., p. 8 ff. For Rörer’s Collections of the Table-talk, etc., cp. G. Koffmane, “Die hds. Überlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1907, p. xviii. ff., and Kroker, “Rörers Handschriftenbände und Luthers Tischreden” (“Archiv. f. Reformationsgesch,” 5, 1908, p. 337 ff., and 7, 1910, p. 57 ff.). Among the occasional guests was Ch. Gross, Magistrate at Wittenberg, who is mentioned in Luther’s letters (De Wette, 5, p. 410) in 1541 as “praefectus noster.” In his Catholic days the last had served for three years as one of the bearers of the Pope’s sedan; a great traveller, he was noted as an excellent conversationalist and a thorough man of the world. There can be no doubt that he reported to Luther many of the malicious and unveracious tales current of Roman morals, which the latter made use of in his attacks on Popery. Cp. with regard to him “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 424, and 1, p. 372 (where accounts, probably by him, follow), “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 431 (“Tischreden”). He makes unseemly jests on the Latin word for “art,” and it appears highly probable that he was the “M. Christo,” whom we meet with in Kroker, p. 175, n. 287, in Luther’s Table-Talk of 1540, whose “calida natura” is mentioned in excuse of a love affair. This gives an answer to Kroker’s question: “Who is this Magister Christophorus?” We learn from Bindseil’s “Colloquia” that Christopher Gross was anxious to become a widower because his wife was a “vetula.”[663]“Historien,” Nuremberg, 1566, p. 139.[664]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 18; Erl. ed., 28, p. 260. The passage was omitted in the later Luther editions; cp.ibid., p. 18=219 f.[665]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 337.[666]For the full titles of the publications referred to here and elsewhere under an abbreviated form as “Tagebuch,” “Aufzeichnungen,” etc., see the Bibliography at the commencement of vol. i. of the present work. Besides these collections heed must be paid to the old German Table-Talk in the Erlangen edition (“Werke,” 57-62) and the Latin Table-Talk in Bindseil. Only exceptionally do we quote the other editions, such as the Latin one by Rebenstock, and the older and more recent German editions of Förstemann and Bindseil. Moreover, the Table-Talk in most cases merely serves to prove that this or that idea was expressed more or less in the language recorded, not that Luther actually uttered every word of it. The historical circumstances under which the words were uttered are in most cases unknown. Kroker’s publication has been of great service in determining the dates of the various collections. As regards the present position of the investigation of the sources whence the Table-Talk is derived, see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 479-481, and P. Smith, “Luther’s Table-Talk,” New York, 1907, which sums up the results arrived at in Germany.[667]Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. xxxxviii.seq., and Kroker, p. 9.[668]See the title of Rebenstock’s Collection. Rebenstock’s assurance that, in his Collection he sought nothing but the honour of God and had not introduced any extraneous matter, is reprinted in Bindseil, 1, p. lii.[669]Page 64.[670]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 5², p. 107.[671]Walch, in the edition of the Table-Talk, Luther’s Works, in Jena ed., 22, quotes various passages from Protestant scholars who thought as he did. Preface, p. 25 f.[672]He points out incidentally (p. 36) that the authority for the Table-Talk was not absolutely unquestioned. He was not acquainted with the original documents, most of which have now been published.[673]Bindseil also remarked of the “Colloquia”: “We cannot deny that it would have been better had much of this not been written.” “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann and Bindseil, 4, p. xi. Cp. similar passages,ibid., p. xxiv., n., and contrast with them Aurifaber’s eulogy of the Table-Talk which came “from the saintly lips of Luther,” p. xxii.[674]Kroker, p. 2.[675]Ibid., p. 192.[676]Ibid., p. 3. Moreover, the rough notes drafted at the table were afterwards re-copied and amended, and this amended form alone is all we have. Cp. Kroker, “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” 7, 1909, p. 84. In the Weimar ed. a first volume, edited by E. Kroker, of the Table-Talk is at present appearing. In it are found the accounts given by Veit Dietrich, and another important collection dating from the earlier portion of the third decade of the sixteenth century. Vol. ii., commencing with Schlaginhaufen, is already in the hands of the printers.[677]Vol. i., Preface, p. vii. In the Latin edition of the Table-Talk Bindseil, in spite of the scruples alluded to above (n. 1), speaks in praise of the Table-Talk, and makes his own the words of J. Müllensiefen (1857). The Table-Talk showed Luther as “the noblest offshoot of his nation”; it is true the coarseness and plainness of speech are inexcusable, but it all contributes towards the “perfect characterisation of the great man,” for “the wrinkles and furrows are part of his portrait” (“Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. xiii.). Luther’s opponents were, however, of a different opinion even in the early days. G. Steinhausen, in his “Deutsche Kulturgesch.,” Leipzig, 1904, p. 513, quotes Johann Fickler of Salzburg, who describes the Table-Talk as “full of obscene and stinking jests,” and compares it to the erotic products of the Epicureans. Steinhausen himself is loath to go so far.[678]“Theol. Jahresbericht,” 23, p. 488.[679]Wetzer and Welte, “KL.,”³ art. “Aurifaber.” H. Böhmer likewise admits that: “Although their [the principal witnesses’: Dietrich, Lauterbach, and Mathesius] statements must always be critically examined, yet it is established, that they have preserved for us an exceptional number of data concerning Luther’s life, acts, and opinions. They supply us with what on the whole is an accurate account, arranged in chronological order, which brings the real Luther almost as closely before us as his own letters and writings.” In his objections against the “principal witnesses” he does not pay sufficient attention to the existence of the original notes (“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² 1910, p. 105). Protestant theologians and historians of Luther are now in the habit of laying stress on the Table-Talk, no less than on Luther’s other works, and that even in the case of weighty and controverted questions. Examples might be quoted from Loofs, Drews, G. Kawerau, J. Köstlin, G. Ward, etc.[680]“RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ art. “Aurifaber.” In the “Abh. der Kgl. Ges. d. Wissensch. Götting., Phil.-hist. Kl., N.F.,” 1, Wilhelm Meyer deals with the Collections of Lauterbach and Aurifaber. In the same way Kawerau points out in his “Studien und Kritiken,” 81, 1908, p. 338, “the importance of these notes for Luther’s biography and for a knowledge of his home life.” Cp. Kawerau,ibid., p. 354, on the old re-arrangement according to the subject-matter. The “authenticity” of the sayings which occur in these revised editions can be proved in many instances from the original writings and from the light thrown on them by parallel passages now in print, but the “dates” are another matter. Where, in the present work, any date is taken from the revised editions, it rests solely on the authority of the latter. Cp. Kroker’s remarks on the Table-Talk of 1540 in the “Archiv f. Reformationsgesch.,” 1908, above, p. 218, n. 2. On Aurifaber’s re-arrangement of the Table-Talk, see Cristiani, “Revue de questions historiques,” 91, 1912, p. 113.[681]Lauterbach, Luther’s pupil, who was also the author of the Diary, revised his Collection and sought to improve upon the arrangement; a similar, later revision of this formed the basis of the “Colloquia” of Rebenstock. Kawerau,ibid.[682]Cp. below, p. 231, n. 2.[683]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 23.[684]Ibid., p. 11.[685]Ibid., p. 48.[686]Ibid., p. 108.[687]Ibid., p. 115.[688]Ibid., p. 26.[689]Ibid., p. 79.[690]Ibid., p. 88 (Khummer).[691]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 131.[692]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 115.[693]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 95.[694]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 773 f. Sermon in 1524.[695]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7, p. 213. Church-Postils.[696]Ibid., 13², p. 108, Church-Postils.[697]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 35.[698]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 304, “Tischreden.”[699]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” pp. 136, 135.[700]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 465. Church-Postils.[701]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 1: “Qui me invito hec describit, tantum tali animo describat, quali ego, simplici et candido, et laudet verba Lutheri magis quam Apollinis miracula [oracula].”[702]“Historien von des ehrwürdigen in Gott seligen thewren Manns Gottes Doctoris Martini Lutheri Leben,” etc., Nuremberg, 1566, p. 146.[703]Ibid., p. 147: “Arvinam quaerunt multi in podice porci” (Philo), applied by Luther to the marriage of a “young fellow with an old hag (vetula).”[704]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 27.[705]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 82.[706]Ibid., p. 89.[707]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 78. In the first edition of the German Table-Talk, 1566, p. 307. Cp. against O. Waltz, on the authenticity of the account, N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrhundert,” 1910, p. 39.[708]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380, said between October 28 and December 12, 1536. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121: “The village pastor and the schoolmaster had their own way of dealing [with the witches] and plagued them greatly. But D. Pommer’s way is the best of all, viz. to plague them with filth and stir it well up and so make all their things to stink.”[709]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 56.[710]Ibid., p. 74 (Khummer).[711]Ibid., p. 111.[712]Cp. N. Paulus in his art. on Kroker’s edition of the “Tischreden in der Mathesischen Sammlung” (“Hist, polit. Blätter,” 133, 1904, pp. 199 ff., 208 f.).[713]W. Preger, “Tischreden ... nach den Aufzeichnungen von J. Schlaginhaufen,” p. iv.[714]Cp. N. Paulus,ibid., p. 40; Kroker, pp. 156, 158, 262. Kroker says (p. 158), “Luther probably made use of a colloquial word for phallus, or something similar.” Luther is complaining of the excesses to which the Catholics gave themselves up on pilgrimages, and which the Pope constantly indulged in. One MS. there cited omits the passage altogether. The Table-Talk of Mathesius (p. 141) contains the following speech of Luther’s in 1540 under the title “Exemplum verecundiae Lutheri”: “Rochlicensis princeps. Is interrogabat ‘Qui vocatur verum[sic]de domina vestra natante cum equite per aquas? Non volo autem obscoenum audire sed verum.’ Ich mein, das heisst: die × ausgeschwembt”. For the liberty which Aurifaber permits himself in the matter of toning down and weakening the original text of the Table-Talk, cp., for instance, the remarks in the Preface to the Cordatus Collection. What the latter gives in all its crudity (see the twenty-four passages there quoted by Wrampelmeyer) Aurifaber either does not reproduce at all or does so in an inoffensive form, or accompanied with such expressions as “to speak decently,” etc. Cordatus knew and acknowledged that it was an “audax facinus” to write down all he heard, but his opinion was that “pudorem vincebat utilitas”; Luther, who was watching his work, never gave him to understand by so much as one word that it did not meet with his approval.[715]“Beil. zur Münchener Allg. Ztng.,” 1904, No. 26.[716]G. Evers (“Martin Luther,” 6, p. 701), for instance, says that “In his Table-Talk we find not merely plain-spoken, but really cynical discourses, and much which to us sounds obscene. Still, his admirers may possibly be right when they absolve him of indecency or of any intention to arouse sensual passion.”[717]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen” (Loesche), p. 218.[718]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 83.[719]Ibid., p. 61, and “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 296.[720]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.[721]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 7.[722]Ibid., p. 65.[723]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 106.[724]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 154.[725]Ibid., p. 203.[726]Ibid., p. 88.[727]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 417.[728]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 428.[729]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 99.[730]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 219.[731]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 188. For the equivalent passages in Latin see “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 306, and “Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock (Francof., 1571), 1, p. 149´, where the famous “adorabunt nostra stercora” occurs. Cp. the passages in the old German Table-Talk, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 397, which agrees substantially with the above: “They will oppress us until we forget ourselves, and then they will worship our filth and regard it as balsam,” and in Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 303: “I am ripe dung,” etc.[732]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 81.[733]Ibid., p. 340. A revolting collection of low abuse of the lawyers might be made from the Table-Talk, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, pp. 229, 233, 235, 244, 246 f.[734]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 139, with the disgusting verses: “Ventre urges merdam vellesque cacare libenter | ingentem. Facis at, merdipoeta, nihil.” Within ten lines the word “merda” occurs twelve times. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 673, N. 422.[735]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 48.[736]See the detailed examples given in vol. iv., xxv. 3.[737]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 149.[738]Ibid., p. 148. Cp. above, p. 151, n. 3.[739]Ibid., p. 169 f.[740]Ibid., p. 173 f. Jonas, in his Latin edition of the work “Wider das Bapstum,” rendered the passage: “Ne sine ullo laxativo vel pillulis ventris onere honores papam,” etc.[741]Ibid., p. 201. Cp. Luther’s insolent language towards the Pope in his other writings and letters; for instance, when he declares that the Princes who were not on his own side were “dem Papst in den Arsch gebacken” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 45, p. 398); or: “I s—— on the dispensation of the legate and his master” (Briefwechsel, 8, p. 53; cp. p. 113); or “that Pope and Legate ‘im Arsch wollten lecken’” (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233). As early as 1518, in a Lenten sermon, he shows his predisposition to crudity: “If we drag our good works into the light, ‘so soll der Teufel den Arsch daran wischen,’ as indeed he does” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 276). Cp. also his discourse in 1515 against the “Little Saints” (vol. i., p. 69 f.). In the saying just referred to he is playing on a coarse proverb. In his collection of proverbs (not intended for publication, but edited by Thiele) he has accumulated quite a number of filthy sayings, those containing the word “Dreck” being unpleasantly numerous. Many of the obscenities occurring in his sermons and writings were suggested by proverbs which themselves reek too much of the stable, but which he sometimes still further embellishes. The manner in which he uses the gross word “Farzen” with reference to the Pope or the monks can be seen in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 715, and Erl. ed., 25², p. 74. In one of his attacks on the Jews he says: “Kiss the pig on its ‘Pacem’ and ‘Pirzl,’” etc. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 211); and again: “Here, here for a kiss! The devil has ‘in die Hosen geschmissen und den Bauch abermal geleeret.’ This is indeed a holy thing for the Jews, and all would-be Jews to kiss, eat, drink, and worship, while the devil in his turn must eat and drink what his disciples ‘speien, oben und unten auswerfen können.’ Host and guest have indeed met, have cooked and served the meat.... The devil is feasting with his English [angelic?] snout and gobbles up greedily whatever ‘der Juden unteres und oberes Maul speiet und spritzet.’ Yes, that is the dainty he enjoys” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 282).[742]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 203.[743]Such was the writer’s indignation that his words are scarcely worthy of a Humanist. The following comes from the “Responsio ad convitia Lutheri” (1523, “Opera,” Lovanii, 1566, p. 116´), not published under More’s own name: “Nihil habet in ore (Lutherus) praeter latrinas, merdas, stercora, quibus foedius et spurcius quam ullus unquam scurra scurratur.... Si pergat scurrilitate ludere nec aliud in ore gestare quam sentinas, cloacas, latrinas, merdas, stercora, faciant quod volent alii, nos ex tempore capiemus consilium, velimusne sic bacchantem ... cum suis merdis et stercoribus cacantem cacatumque relinquere.”[744]In “Replica contra periculosa scripta,” etc., 1522, O, 4´. Also in “Opp. omnia,” Ingolstadii, 1543.[745]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 47, p. 315.[746]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 57.[747]Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” p. 72; 2 ed., p. 106.[748]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 45, p. 153; cp. 44. p. 321.[749]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 296. In a sermon.[750]Lutherophilus (Wilh. Walther), “Das sechste Gebot und Luthers Leben,” 1893, p. 33 f.; and “Für Luther,” p. 593 ff.[751]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 276; Erl. ed., 16², p. 511. Sermon on the Married Life, 1522, i.e. long before his own marriage.[752]Letter of June 2, 1525,ibid., 53, p. 311; Letters, ed. De Wette, 2, 676 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186).[753]To Reissenbusch, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 276 f.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 286 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).[754]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 191.[755]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 53 ff.[756]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 156=28, p. 199.[757]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 196.[758]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 94; Erl. ed., 51, p. 6.[759]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 276=53; p. 288; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 2, p. 639 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).[760]Ibid., p. 410=311=676 (to Archbishop Albert of Mayence).[761]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 279=16², p. 515, in sermon quoted above, p. 242, n. 1; Luther here speaks of “three kinds of men” whom God has exempted from matrimony.[762]In the letter to the Archbishop of Mayence. “I speak of the natural man. With those to whom God gives the grace of chastity I do not interfere.”[763]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 291 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 527 f. “Vom Eelichen Leben,” 1522.[764]Letter of July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189. Cp. our vol. ii., pp. 82 f., 94 f.[765]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 511; cp. p. 512.[766]For other passages in which Luther inculcates either chastity or faithfulness in the married state, see, for instance, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 298, 302; Erl. ed., 16², pp. 132 f., 137, and “Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, 2, p. 95; “Deus omnipotens ... castus, etc.,castitatem diligit, pudicitiam et verecundiam ornat,” etc.[767]To Nicholas Gerbel, Nov. 1, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 241, from the Wartburg.Ibid.: “De votis religiosorum et sacerdotum Philippo et mihi est robusta conspiratio, tollendis et evacuandis videlicet. O sceleratum illum Antichristum cum squamis suis!”[768]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 303 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 139.[769]Erl. ed., 61, p. 167.[770]See vol. ii., p. 115 ff., and vol. iv., xxii. 5.[771]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 114; Erl. ed., 51, p. 30. “1 Cor. vii.,” 1523.[772]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 212. “Enarr. in Genesim,” c. 3; “Maior enim pars conjugatorum vivit in adulteriis,” etc.[773]Ibid., p. 302seq., in c. 4.[774]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 148. Sermon on Matthew xviii. ff.[775]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 115; Erl. ed., 51, p. 32. “1 Cor. vii.,” etc.[776]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 279=16², p. 113. Sermon on Married Life.[777]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 302=137.[778]Ibid., 12, p. 137=51, p. 63 f.[779]Ibid., p. 99=10.[780]Ibid., Erl. ed., 44, p. 151 f. Sermon on Matthew xviii. ff.[781]Ibid., p. 153, where he tells a tale of how St. Bernard and St. Francis made snow-women, “to lie beside them and thus subdue their passion.”[782]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 20, p. 126seq.[783]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 55; Erl. ed., 33, p. 59. Sermons on Genesis, 1527.[784]Ibid., 12, p. 104=51, p. 16 f. “1 Corinthians, vii.,” etc.[785]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 22. “Enarr. in Genesim,” c. 24.[786]Ibid., 7, p. 286, in c. 30.[787]Ibid., 20, p. 131. “Enarr. in Ps. 128.”[788]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 488 f.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 160seqq.“Decem praecepta praedicata populo,” 1518.[789]Ibid., 2, p, 168; Erl. ed., 16², p. 62. Sermon on the conjugal state, 1519, “altered and corrected.” Cp. also present work, vol. iv., xxii. 5.[790]“Die Stellung des Christentums zum Geschlechtsleben,” Tübingen, 1910, p. 40.[791]Ibid., p. 53.[792]Ibid., p. 49.[793]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 137; Erl. ed., 51, p. 64.[794]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 104 f.=16 ff.[795]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 291. For proofs that the Western law of continence goes back to the early ages of the Church, and was spoken of even at the Synod of Elvira in 305 or 306, see my “History of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages” (Eng. Trans.), iii., p. 271 ff.[796]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 298.[797]Ibid., p. 297; “Colloq.,” 2, p. 366seq.[798]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 553seq.; Erl ed., 28, p. 128.[799]Ibid., 24, p. 517=34, p. 139 f., in the Sermons on Genesis, 1527.[800]Ibid., 518=140. We may add some further statements characteristic of Luther’s unseemly language on the necessity of marriage and the alleged abuses on the Catholic side. Of these passages the first two are for obvious reasons given in Latin.“Major pars puellarum in monasteriis positarum non potest voluntarie statum suum observare.... Puella non potest esse sine viro, sicut non sine esu, potu et somno. Ideo Deus dedit homini membra, venas, fluxus et omnia, quae ad generandum inserviunt. Qui his rebus obsistit, quid aliud facit, quam velle ut ignis non urat?... Ubi castitas involuntaria est, natura non desistit ab opere suo; caro semen concipit sicut creata est a Deo; venae secundum genus suum operantur. Tunc incipiunt fluxus et peccata clandestina, quae s. Paulus mollitiem vocat(1 Cor. vi. 10).Et, ut crude dicam, propter miseram necessitatem, quod non fluit in carnem, fluit in vestimenta. Id deinde accusare et confiteri verentur.... Vide, hoc ipsum voluit diabolus, docens te coercere et domare naturam, quae non vult esse coacta” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 156 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 199).He had spoken in much the same way in the Tract against celibacy which preceded in 1521 his book on Monastic Vows, and which appeared again in the Church Sermons and also several times separately (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 694 ff.; Erl. ed., 10², p. 448 ff.; Sermon on the Feast of the Three Kings, 1522): “Ubi magna et coelestis gratia non assistit, oportet naturam secundum ordinem suum fluxus pati. Si non conveniunt vir et femina, natura tamen propriam viam sequitur et indignatur; ita ut melius sit masculum et feminam esse simul, sicut Deus (eos) creavit et natura vult.... Interrogo igitur, quid consilii dabis ei, qui se continere non potest? Si dicis, inhibitione utendum, respondeo, unum ex tribus secuturum esse: aut masculus et femina sese conjungent, ut placuerit sicuti nunc fit sub sacerdotibus papistarum, aut natura sponte sese solvet, aut, deficiente primo et secundo, sine cessatione homo uretur et clam patietur. Hoc modo creasti martyrium diabolicum, et fiet, ut vir mulieri deformissimae sese sociaret et mulier viro taediosissimo prae malo impetu carnis. Ignoscant mihi aures pudicae, debeo tractare animi morbos, sicut medicus tractat stercus et latrinam.... Tu facis, ut ille pauper homo continuo corde peccet contra votum suum, et melius fortasse sit, quod masculus nonnunquam secum habeat femellam et femina juvenem.... At papa sinit eos fluxus pati, uri et torqueri sicut possunt, ita ut eos habeam pro infantibus immolatis a populo Israel idolo igneo Moloch ad concremandum.... Non vis impedire tandem aliquando, quominus fornicentur, fluxibus maculentur et urantur?”Ibid., p. 108= “Si in singulis civitatibus forent vel quinque juvenes et quinque puellae viginti annorum, integri, sine fluxibus naturae, tunc dicerem, primitiva tempora apostolorum et martyrum rediisse. Nunc autem qualem Sodomam et Gomorrham fecit diabolus ubicunque plane per istam singularem castitatem votorum!”In the sermon on conjugal life, in 1522, he says: “It is true that the man who does not marry is obliged to sin. How can it be otherwise, seeing that God created man and woman to be fruitful and multiply? But why do we not forestall sin by marriage?” (“ Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 300; Erl. ed., 16², p. 537). In his latter years he penned the following attack upon the older Church of which the obscenity vies with its untruth: “The chaste Pope does not take a wife, yet all women are his. The lily-white, chaste, shamefaced, modest, Holy Father wears the semblance of chastity and refuses to take a wife honourably and in the sight of God; but how many other women he keeps, not only prostitutes, but married women and virgins, look at his Court of Cardinals, his Bishoprics, Foundations, Courtesans, Convents, Clergy, Chaplains, Schoolmasters and his whole curia, not to speak of countless unnamable sins. Well, may God give us His grace and punish both the Pope and Mohammed with all their devils!” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 204, in the Preface to the writing: “Verlegung des Alcoran Bruder Richardi,” 1542). It is simply an example of Luther’s habitual misrepresentation when we read in one of his sermons dating from 1524 (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 667): “Up to this time marriage has been a despised state, being termed a state of easy virtue; but Scripture says: ‘Male and female He created them’ (Gen. i. 27): that is enough for us. In practice we all extol this state. Oh, that all men lived in it! Whoever has not been exempted by God, let him see that he finds his like [a spouse].” Upon himself he looked as one “exempted by God,” at least he declared in several passages of this sermon, delivered in the very year of his marriage, that “by the Grace of God he did not desire a wife; I have no need of a wife, but must assist you in your necessity.” He himself could not yet make up his mind to carry out what he urged so strongly upon others.[801]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 290; Erl. ed., 16², p. 526, in the Sermon on conjugal life, 1522.
[611]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 79.[612]Ibid., p. 147 f. We shall treat more fully of Luther’s “Temptations” against faith and his inner wavering in vol. v., xxxii.[613]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 153. Exposition of John xvi.[614]Ibid., p. 154.[615]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 407, in a Sermon on Genesis xxviii. Joh. Poliander’s Collection.[616]Ibid., 11, p. 197, Sermon in 1523 from Rörer’s notes. Though in the passages just quoted he lays great stress on the fact, that nothing is needed on our part for the obtaining of forgiveness (not even as Catholics taught any co-operation on our part with God’s helping grace), yet he speaks here again of the “emptying of the heart of all affection” for creatures, and of the “works” which proceed from a heart that is purified by faith. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 409. “If you have now the wedding garment, then serve your neighbour, give yourself up to him entirely, take compassion on him. [For] the Christian life consists in faith in God and charity towards our neighbour.”Ibid., 12, p. 670, in another set of notes of the sermon just quoted. “First we become brides [of Christ] by faith, and, then, through charity, Christs to every man.”Ibid., 11, p. 197.[617]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 42.[618]Veit Dietrich, in Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 139.[619]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 179.[620]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 209.[621]Ibid., p. 238.[622]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 353.[623]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 115.[624]Ibid., p. 95.[625]“Comment. in Gal.,” ed. Irmischer, 2, p. 351.[626]“Briefe.,” ed. De Wette, 5, pp. 515, 566.[627]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 428 f.[628]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 178.[629]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 631; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 321, “De votis monasticis,” 1521.[630]Ibid.[631]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 254 f. “Rathschlag von der Kirche,” 1538.[632]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 470; Erl. ed., 25², p. 128, at the close of “Widder den Meuchler zu Dresen,” 1531. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 423.[633]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 22, “Tischreden.”[634]Letter of July 31, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 157.[635]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 49.[636]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 294. Noted in the winter of 1542-3 by Heydenreich.[637]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 21. Certain prayers spoken by Luther at critical moments, which appear in Protestant biographies, more particularly the older ones, are purely legendary. So, for instance, his solemn prayer at Worms: “O God, my God, stand by me against all the wit and wisdom of the world,” etc. (Uckert, “Luthers Leben,” 2, Gotha, 1817, p. 6, and also in Walch’s edition of Luther’s Works, 10, p. 1720). From Melanchthon’s time (ibid., 21, Nachl. 354) and that of such enthusiastic pupils of Luther as Spangenberg, it became the custom to extol Luther as a man of prayer. Spangenberg even declares that “no one can deny” that Luther during his lifetime “checked and prevented God’s chastisements, wars and desolation” by means of his “Christian prayers, so full of faith.” See Preface to his “Lutherus Theander,” No. 18. A certain Protestant theological periodical assured its readers quite recently, that “Luther spent three hours of his working day in prayer”; it is true that people pray even in the Roman Church, but amid much “superficiality and desecration.”[638]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 73 f. (Khummer).[639]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 245, in the Sermon for Easter Monday, 1525.[640]Ibid., p. 243 f.[641]Ibid., p. 244.[642]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 658.[643]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 207.[644]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 630 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 378seq.in Concl., 3seq.(of 1518). Passages in which he advocates contrition will, however, be quoted below. Cp. vol. i., p. 293.[645]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” pp. 33, 51.[646]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 435 (“Tischreden”).[647]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 245 f. Cp. p. 210, n. 1.[648]Above, p. 24 ff. and vol. v., xxix. 8.[649]Cp. G. Kawerau, “Warum fehlte der deutschen evang. Kirche des 16. u. 17. Jahrh. das volle Verständnis für d. Missionsgedanken der H. Schrift? Vortrag,” Breslau, 1896. The author says that “none of the reformers” found in Holy Scripture the duty of missionary effort on the part of Christendom; an exception must, however, be made in the case of Bucer. See N. P(aulus) in the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 18, 1897, p. 199.[650]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 33; Erl. ed., 30, p. 9. “Against the King of England,” 1527.[651]Letter of February 23, 1542, in Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 378.[652]“Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1907, p. 246 f. Art. by E. Thiele on some Notes of Joh. Agricola’s in a Hebrew Bible at Wernigerode.[653]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 313seq.The passage will be given later.[654]G. Kroker, “Katharina von Bora,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 282.[655]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 484.[656]See Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 2.[657]Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 286. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 485seq.Rebenstock, 2, p. 20.[658]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 141.[659]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 569.[660]On this girl, see below, p. 280 f.[661]E.g. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.[662]For biographical data concerning these, see Kroker, “Luthers Tischreden in der Mathesischen Sammlung,” Einl., p. 8 ff. For Rörer’s Collections of the Table-talk, etc., cp. G. Koffmane, “Die hds. Überlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1907, p. xviii. ff., and Kroker, “Rörers Handschriftenbände und Luthers Tischreden” (“Archiv. f. Reformationsgesch,” 5, 1908, p. 337 ff., and 7, 1910, p. 57 ff.). Among the occasional guests was Ch. Gross, Magistrate at Wittenberg, who is mentioned in Luther’s letters (De Wette, 5, p. 410) in 1541 as “praefectus noster.” In his Catholic days the last had served for three years as one of the bearers of the Pope’s sedan; a great traveller, he was noted as an excellent conversationalist and a thorough man of the world. There can be no doubt that he reported to Luther many of the malicious and unveracious tales current of Roman morals, which the latter made use of in his attacks on Popery. Cp. with regard to him “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 424, and 1, p. 372 (where accounts, probably by him, follow), “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 431 (“Tischreden”). He makes unseemly jests on the Latin word for “art,” and it appears highly probable that he was the “M. Christo,” whom we meet with in Kroker, p. 175, n. 287, in Luther’s Table-Talk of 1540, whose “calida natura” is mentioned in excuse of a love affair. This gives an answer to Kroker’s question: “Who is this Magister Christophorus?” We learn from Bindseil’s “Colloquia” that Christopher Gross was anxious to become a widower because his wife was a “vetula.”[663]“Historien,” Nuremberg, 1566, p. 139.[664]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 18; Erl. ed., 28, p. 260. The passage was omitted in the later Luther editions; cp.ibid., p. 18=219 f.[665]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 337.[666]For the full titles of the publications referred to here and elsewhere under an abbreviated form as “Tagebuch,” “Aufzeichnungen,” etc., see the Bibliography at the commencement of vol. i. of the present work. Besides these collections heed must be paid to the old German Table-Talk in the Erlangen edition (“Werke,” 57-62) and the Latin Table-Talk in Bindseil. Only exceptionally do we quote the other editions, such as the Latin one by Rebenstock, and the older and more recent German editions of Förstemann and Bindseil. Moreover, the Table-Talk in most cases merely serves to prove that this or that idea was expressed more or less in the language recorded, not that Luther actually uttered every word of it. The historical circumstances under which the words were uttered are in most cases unknown. Kroker’s publication has been of great service in determining the dates of the various collections. As regards the present position of the investigation of the sources whence the Table-Talk is derived, see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 479-481, and P. Smith, “Luther’s Table-Talk,” New York, 1907, which sums up the results arrived at in Germany.[667]Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. xxxxviii.seq., and Kroker, p. 9.[668]See the title of Rebenstock’s Collection. Rebenstock’s assurance that, in his Collection he sought nothing but the honour of God and had not introduced any extraneous matter, is reprinted in Bindseil, 1, p. lii.[669]Page 64.[670]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 5², p. 107.[671]Walch, in the edition of the Table-Talk, Luther’s Works, in Jena ed., 22, quotes various passages from Protestant scholars who thought as he did. Preface, p. 25 f.[672]He points out incidentally (p. 36) that the authority for the Table-Talk was not absolutely unquestioned. He was not acquainted with the original documents, most of which have now been published.[673]Bindseil also remarked of the “Colloquia”: “We cannot deny that it would have been better had much of this not been written.” “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann and Bindseil, 4, p. xi. Cp. similar passages,ibid., p. xxiv., n., and contrast with them Aurifaber’s eulogy of the Table-Talk which came “from the saintly lips of Luther,” p. xxii.[674]Kroker, p. 2.[675]Ibid., p. 192.[676]Ibid., p. 3. Moreover, the rough notes drafted at the table were afterwards re-copied and amended, and this amended form alone is all we have. Cp. Kroker, “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” 7, 1909, p. 84. In the Weimar ed. a first volume, edited by E. Kroker, of the Table-Talk is at present appearing. In it are found the accounts given by Veit Dietrich, and another important collection dating from the earlier portion of the third decade of the sixteenth century. Vol. ii., commencing with Schlaginhaufen, is already in the hands of the printers.[677]Vol. i., Preface, p. vii. In the Latin edition of the Table-Talk Bindseil, in spite of the scruples alluded to above (n. 1), speaks in praise of the Table-Talk, and makes his own the words of J. Müllensiefen (1857). The Table-Talk showed Luther as “the noblest offshoot of his nation”; it is true the coarseness and plainness of speech are inexcusable, but it all contributes towards the “perfect characterisation of the great man,” for “the wrinkles and furrows are part of his portrait” (“Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. xiii.). Luther’s opponents were, however, of a different opinion even in the early days. G. Steinhausen, in his “Deutsche Kulturgesch.,” Leipzig, 1904, p. 513, quotes Johann Fickler of Salzburg, who describes the Table-Talk as “full of obscene and stinking jests,” and compares it to the erotic products of the Epicureans. Steinhausen himself is loath to go so far.[678]“Theol. Jahresbericht,” 23, p. 488.[679]Wetzer and Welte, “KL.,”³ art. “Aurifaber.” H. Böhmer likewise admits that: “Although their [the principal witnesses’: Dietrich, Lauterbach, and Mathesius] statements must always be critically examined, yet it is established, that they have preserved for us an exceptional number of data concerning Luther’s life, acts, and opinions. They supply us with what on the whole is an accurate account, arranged in chronological order, which brings the real Luther almost as closely before us as his own letters and writings.” In his objections against the “principal witnesses” he does not pay sufficient attention to the existence of the original notes (“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² 1910, p. 105). Protestant theologians and historians of Luther are now in the habit of laying stress on the Table-Talk, no less than on Luther’s other works, and that even in the case of weighty and controverted questions. Examples might be quoted from Loofs, Drews, G. Kawerau, J. Köstlin, G. Ward, etc.[680]“RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ art. “Aurifaber.” In the “Abh. der Kgl. Ges. d. Wissensch. Götting., Phil.-hist. Kl., N.F.,” 1, Wilhelm Meyer deals with the Collections of Lauterbach and Aurifaber. In the same way Kawerau points out in his “Studien und Kritiken,” 81, 1908, p. 338, “the importance of these notes for Luther’s biography and for a knowledge of his home life.” Cp. Kawerau,ibid., p. 354, on the old re-arrangement according to the subject-matter. The “authenticity” of the sayings which occur in these revised editions can be proved in many instances from the original writings and from the light thrown on them by parallel passages now in print, but the “dates” are another matter. Where, in the present work, any date is taken from the revised editions, it rests solely on the authority of the latter. Cp. Kroker’s remarks on the Table-Talk of 1540 in the “Archiv f. Reformationsgesch.,” 1908, above, p. 218, n. 2. On Aurifaber’s re-arrangement of the Table-Talk, see Cristiani, “Revue de questions historiques,” 91, 1912, p. 113.[681]Lauterbach, Luther’s pupil, who was also the author of the Diary, revised his Collection and sought to improve upon the arrangement; a similar, later revision of this formed the basis of the “Colloquia” of Rebenstock. Kawerau,ibid.[682]Cp. below, p. 231, n. 2.[683]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 23.[684]Ibid., p. 11.[685]Ibid., p. 48.[686]Ibid., p. 108.[687]Ibid., p. 115.[688]Ibid., p. 26.[689]Ibid., p. 79.[690]Ibid., p. 88 (Khummer).[691]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 131.[692]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 115.[693]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 95.[694]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 773 f. Sermon in 1524.[695]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7, p. 213. Church-Postils.[696]Ibid., 13², p. 108, Church-Postils.[697]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 35.[698]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 304, “Tischreden.”[699]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” pp. 136, 135.[700]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 465. Church-Postils.[701]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 1: “Qui me invito hec describit, tantum tali animo describat, quali ego, simplici et candido, et laudet verba Lutheri magis quam Apollinis miracula [oracula].”[702]“Historien von des ehrwürdigen in Gott seligen thewren Manns Gottes Doctoris Martini Lutheri Leben,” etc., Nuremberg, 1566, p. 146.[703]Ibid., p. 147: “Arvinam quaerunt multi in podice porci” (Philo), applied by Luther to the marriage of a “young fellow with an old hag (vetula).”[704]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 27.[705]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 82.[706]Ibid., p. 89.[707]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 78. In the first edition of the German Table-Talk, 1566, p. 307. Cp. against O. Waltz, on the authenticity of the account, N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrhundert,” 1910, p. 39.[708]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380, said between October 28 and December 12, 1536. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121: “The village pastor and the schoolmaster had their own way of dealing [with the witches] and plagued them greatly. But D. Pommer’s way is the best of all, viz. to plague them with filth and stir it well up and so make all their things to stink.”[709]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 56.[710]Ibid., p. 74 (Khummer).[711]Ibid., p. 111.[712]Cp. N. Paulus in his art. on Kroker’s edition of the “Tischreden in der Mathesischen Sammlung” (“Hist, polit. Blätter,” 133, 1904, pp. 199 ff., 208 f.).[713]W. Preger, “Tischreden ... nach den Aufzeichnungen von J. Schlaginhaufen,” p. iv.[714]Cp. N. Paulus,ibid., p. 40; Kroker, pp. 156, 158, 262. Kroker says (p. 158), “Luther probably made use of a colloquial word for phallus, or something similar.” Luther is complaining of the excesses to which the Catholics gave themselves up on pilgrimages, and which the Pope constantly indulged in. One MS. there cited omits the passage altogether. The Table-Talk of Mathesius (p. 141) contains the following speech of Luther’s in 1540 under the title “Exemplum verecundiae Lutheri”: “Rochlicensis princeps. Is interrogabat ‘Qui vocatur verum[sic]de domina vestra natante cum equite per aquas? Non volo autem obscoenum audire sed verum.’ Ich mein, das heisst: die × ausgeschwembt”. For the liberty which Aurifaber permits himself in the matter of toning down and weakening the original text of the Table-Talk, cp., for instance, the remarks in the Preface to the Cordatus Collection. What the latter gives in all its crudity (see the twenty-four passages there quoted by Wrampelmeyer) Aurifaber either does not reproduce at all or does so in an inoffensive form, or accompanied with such expressions as “to speak decently,” etc. Cordatus knew and acknowledged that it was an “audax facinus” to write down all he heard, but his opinion was that “pudorem vincebat utilitas”; Luther, who was watching his work, never gave him to understand by so much as one word that it did not meet with his approval.[715]“Beil. zur Münchener Allg. Ztng.,” 1904, No. 26.[716]G. Evers (“Martin Luther,” 6, p. 701), for instance, says that “In his Table-Talk we find not merely plain-spoken, but really cynical discourses, and much which to us sounds obscene. Still, his admirers may possibly be right when they absolve him of indecency or of any intention to arouse sensual passion.”[717]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen” (Loesche), p. 218.[718]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 83.[719]Ibid., p. 61, and “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 296.[720]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.[721]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 7.[722]Ibid., p. 65.[723]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 106.[724]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 154.[725]Ibid., p. 203.[726]Ibid., p. 88.[727]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 417.[728]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 428.[729]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 99.[730]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 219.[731]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 188. For the equivalent passages in Latin see “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 306, and “Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock (Francof., 1571), 1, p. 149´, where the famous “adorabunt nostra stercora” occurs. Cp. the passages in the old German Table-Talk, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 397, which agrees substantially with the above: “They will oppress us until we forget ourselves, and then they will worship our filth and regard it as balsam,” and in Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 303: “I am ripe dung,” etc.[732]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 81.[733]Ibid., p. 340. A revolting collection of low abuse of the lawyers might be made from the Table-Talk, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, pp. 229, 233, 235, 244, 246 f.[734]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 139, with the disgusting verses: “Ventre urges merdam vellesque cacare libenter | ingentem. Facis at, merdipoeta, nihil.” Within ten lines the word “merda” occurs twelve times. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 673, N. 422.[735]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 48.[736]See the detailed examples given in vol. iv., xxv. 3.[737]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 149.[738]Ibid., p. 148. Cp. above, p. 151, n. 3.[739]Ibid., p. 169 f.[740]Ibid., p. 173 f. Jonas, in his Latin edition of the work “Wider das Bapstum,” rendered the passage: “Ne sine ullo laxativo vel pillulis ventris onere honores papam,” etc.[741]Ibid., p. 201. Cp. Luther’s insolent language towards the Pope in his other writings and letters; for instance, when he declares that the Princes who were not on his own side were “dem Papst in den Arsch gebacken” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 45, p. 398); or: “I s—— on the dispensation of the legate and his master” (Briefwechsel, 8, p. 53; cp. p. 113); or “that Pope and Legate ‘im Arsch wollten lecken’” (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233). As early as 1518, in a Lenten sermon, he shows his predisposition to crudity: “If we drag our good works into the light, ‘so soll der Teufel den Arsch daran wischen,’ as indeed he does” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 276). Cp. also his discourse in 1515 against the “Little Saints” (vol. i., p. 69 f.). In the saying just referred to he is playing on a coarse proverb. In his collection of proverbs (not intended for publication, but edited by Thiele) he has accumulated quite a number of filthy sayings, those containing the word “Dreck” being unpleasantly numerous. Many of the obscenities occurring in his sermons and writings were suggested by proverbs which themselves reek too much of the stable, but which he sometimes still further embellishes. The manner in which he uses the gross word “Farzen” with reference to the Pope or the monks can be seen in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 715, and Erl. ed., 25², p. 74. In one of his attacks on the Jews he says: “Kiss the pig on its ‘Pacem’ and ‘Pirzl,’” etc. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 211); and again: “Here, here for a kiss! The devil has ‘in die Hosen geschmissen und den Bauch abermal geleeret.’ This is indeed a holy thing for the Jews, and all would-be Jews to kiss, eat, drink, and worship, while the devil in his turn must eat and drink what his disciples ‘speien, oben und unten auswerfen können.’ Host and guest have indeed met, have cooked and served the meat.... The devil is feasting with his English [angelic?] snout and gobbles up greedily whatever ‘der Juden unteres und oberes Maul speiet und spritzet.’ Yes, that is the dainty he enjoys” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 282).[742]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 203.[743]Such was the writer’s indignation that his words are scarcely worthy of a Humanist. The following comes from the “Responsio ad convitia Lutheri” (1523, “Opera,” Lovanii, 1566, p. 116´), not published under More’s own name: “Nihil habet in ore (Lutherus) praeter latrinas, merdas, stercora, quibus foedius et spurcius quam ullus unquam scurra scurratur.... Si pergat scurrilitate ludere nec aliud in ore gestare quam sentinas, cloacas, latrinas, merdas, stercora, faciant quod volent alii, nos ex tempore capiemus consilium, velimusne sic bacchantem ... cum suis merdis et stercoribus cacantem cacatumque relinquere.”[744]In “Replica contra periculosa scripta,” etc., 1522, O, 4´. Also in “Opp. omnia,” Ingolstadii, 1543.[745]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 47, p. 315.[746]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 57.[747]Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” p. 72; 2 ed., p. 106.[748]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 45, p. 153; cp. 44. p. 321.[749]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 296. In a sermon.[750]Lutherophilus (Wilh. Walther), “Das sechste Gebot und Luthers Leben,” 1893, p. 33 f.; and “Für Luther,” p. 593 ff.[751]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 276; Erl. ed., 16², p. 511. Sermon on the Married Life, 1522, i.e. long before his own marriage.[752]Letter of June 2, 1525,ibid., 53, p. 311; Letters, ed. De Wette, 2, 676 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186).[753]To Reissenbusch, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 276 f.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 286 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).[754]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 191.[755]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 53 ff.[756]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 156=28, p. 199.[757]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 196.[758]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 94; Erl. ed., 51, p. 6.[759]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 276=53; p. 288; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 2, p. 639 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).[760]Ibid., p. 410=311=676 (to Archbishop Albert of Mayence).[761]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 279=16², p. 515, in sermon quoted above, p. 242, n. 1; Luther here speaks of “three kinds of men” whom God has exempted from matrimony.[762]In the letter to the Archbishop of Mayence. “I speak of the natural man. With those to whom God gives the grace of chastity I do not interfere.”[763]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 291 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 527 f. “Vom Eelichen Leben,” 1522.[764]Letter of July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189. Cp. our vol. ii., pp. 82 f., 94 f.[765]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 511; cp. p. 512.[766]For other passages in which Luther inculcates either chastity or faithfulness in the married state, see, for instance, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 298, 302; Erl. ed., 16², pp. 132 f., 137, and “Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, 2, p. 95; “Deus omnipotens ... castus, etc.,castitatem diligit, pudicitiam et verecundiam ornat,” etc.[767]To Nicholas Gerbel, Nov. 1, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 241, from the Wartburg.Ibid.: “De votis religiosorum et sacerdotum Philippo et mihi est robusta conspiratio, tollendis et evacuandis videlicet. O sceleratum illum Antichristum cum squamis suis!”[768]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 303 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 139.[769]Erl. ed., 61, p. 167.[770]See vol. ii., p. 115 ff., and vol. iv., xxii. 5.[771]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 114; Erl. ed., 51, p. 30. “1 Cor. vii.,” 1523.[772]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 212. “Enarr. in Genesim,” c. 3; “Maior enim pars conjugatorum vivit in adulteriis,” etc.[773]Ibid., p. 302seq., in c. 4.[774]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 148. Sermon on Matthew xviii. ff.[775]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 115; Erl. ed., 51, p. 32. “1 Cor. vii.,” etc.[776]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 279=16², p. 113. Sermon on Married Life.[777]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 302=137.[778]Ibid., 12, p. 137=51, p. 63 f.[779]Ibid., p. 99=10.[780]Ibid., Erl. ed., 44, p. 151 f. Sermon on Matthew xviii. ff.[781]Ibid., p. 153, where he tells a tale of how St. Bernard and St. Francis made snow-women, “to lie beside them and thus subdue their passion.”[782]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 20, p. 126seq.[783]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 55; Erl. ed., 33, p. 59. Sermons on Genesis, 1527.[784]Ibid., 12, p. 104=51, p. 16 f. “1 Corinthians, vii.,” etc.[785]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 22. “Enarr. in Genesim,” c. 24.[786]Ibid., 7, p. 286, in c. 30.[787]Ibid., 20, p. 131. “Enarr. in Ps. 128.”[788]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 488 f.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 160seqq.“Decem praecepta praedicata populo,” 1518.[789]Ibid., 2, p, 168; Erl. ed., 16², p. 62. Sermon on the conjugal state, 1519, “altered and corrected.” Cp. also present work, vol. iv., xxii. 5.[790]“Die Stellung des Christentums zum Geschlechtsleben,” Tübingen, 1910, p. 40.[791]Ibid., p. 53.[792]Ibid., p. 49.[793]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 137; Erl. ed., 51, p. 64.[794]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 104 f.=16 ff.[795]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 291. For proofs that the Western law of continence goes back to the early ages of the Church, and was spoken of even at the Synod of Elvira in 305 or 306, see my “History of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages” (Eng. Trans.), iii., p. 271 ff.[796]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 298.[797]Ibid., p. 297; “Colloq.,” 2, p. 366seq.[798]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 553seq.; Erl ed., 28, p. 128.[799]Ibid., 24, p. 517=34, p. 139 f., in the Sermons on Genesis, 1527.[800]Ibid., 518=140. We may add some further statements characteristic of Luther’s unseemly language on the necessity of marriage and the alleged abuses on the Catholic side. Of these passages the first two are for obvious reasons given in Latin.“Major pars puellarum in monasteriis positarum non potest voluntarie statum suum observare.... Puella non potest esse sine viro, sicut non sine esu, potu et somno. Ideo Deus dedit homini membra, venas, fluxus et omnia, quae ad generandum inserviunt. Qui his rebus obsistit, quid aliud facit, quam velle ut ignis non urat?... Ubi castitas involuntaria est, natura non desistit ab opere suo; caro semen concipit sicut creata est a Deo; venae secundum genus suum operantur. Tunc incipiunt fluxus et peccata clandestina, quae s. Paulus mollitiem vocat(1 Cor. vi. 10).Et, ut crude dicam, propter miseram necessitatem, quod non fluit in carnem, fluit in vestimenta. Id deinde accusare et confiteri verentur.... Vide, hoc ipsum voluit diabolus, docens te coercere et domare naturam, quae non vult esse coacta” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 156 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 199).He had spoken in much the same way in the Tract against celibacy which preceded in 1521 his book on Monastic Vows, and which appeared again in the Church Sermons and also several times separately (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 694 ff.; Erl. ed., 10², p. 448 ff.; Sermon on the Feast of the Three Kings, 1522): “Ubi magna et coelestis gratia non assistit, oportet naturam secundum ordinem suum fluxus pati. Si non conveniunt vir et femina, natura tamen propriam viam sequitur et indignatur; ita ut melius sit masculum et feminam esse simul, sicut Deus (eos) creavit et natura vult.... Interrogo igitur, quid consilii dabis ei, qui se continere non potest? Si dicis, inhibitione utendum, respondeo, unum ex tribus secuturum esse: aut masculus et femina sese conjungent, ut placuerit sicuti nunc fit sub sacerdotibus papistarum, aut natura sponte sese solvet, aut, deficiente primo et secundo, sine cessatione homo uretur et clam patietur. Hoc modo creasti martyrium diabolicum, et fiet, ut vir mulieri deformissimae sese sociaret et mulier viro taediosissimo prae malo impetu carnis. Ignoscant mihi aures pudicae, debeo tractare animi morbos, sicut medicus tractat stercus et latrinam.... Tu facis, ut ille pauper homo continuo corde peccet contra votum suum, et melius fortasse sit, quod masculus nonnunquam secum habeat femellam et femina juvenem.... At papa sinit eos fluxus pati, uri et torqueri sicut possunt, ita ut eos habeam pro infantibus immolatis a populo Israel idolo igneo Moloch ad concremandum.... Non vis impedire tandem aliquando, quominus fornicentur, fluxibus maculentur et urantur?”Ibid., p. 108= “Si in singulis civitatibus forent vel quinque juvenes et quinque puellae viginti annorum, integri, sine fluxibus naturae, tunc dicerem, primitiva tempora apostolorum et martyrum rediisse. Nunc autem qualem Sodomam et Gomorrham fecit diabolus ubicunque plane per istam singularem castitatem votorum!”In the sermon on conjugal life, in 1522, he says: “It is true that the man who does not marry is obliged to sin. How can it be otherwise, seeing that God created man and woman to be fruitful and multiply? But why do we not forestall sin by marriage?” (“ Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 300; Erl. ed., 16², p. 537). In his latter years he penned the following attack upon the older Church of which the obscenity vies with its untruth: “The chaste Pope does not take a wife, yet all women are his. The lily-white, chaste, shamefaced, modest, Holy Father wears the semblance of chastity and refuses to take a wife honourably and in the sight of God; but how many other women he keeps, not only prostitutes, but married women and virgins, look at his Court of Cardinals, his Bishoprics, Foundations, Courtesans, Convents, Clergy, Chaplains, Schoolmasters and his whole curia, not to speak of countless unnamable sins. Well, may God give us His grace and punish both the Pope and Mohammed with all their devils!” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 204, in the Preface to the writing: “Verlegung des Alcoran Bruder Richardi,” 1542). It is simply an example of Luther’s habitual misrepresentation when we read in one of his sermons dating from 1524 (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 667): “Up to this time marriage has been a despised state, being termed a state of easy virtue; but Scripture says: ‘Male and female He created them’ (Gen. i. 27): that is enough for us. In practice we all extol this state. Oh, that all men lived in it! Whoever has not been exempted by God, let him see that he finds his like [a spouse].” Upon himself he looked as one “exempted by God,” at least he declared in several passages of this sermon, delivered in the very year of his marriage, that “by the Grace of God he did not desire a wife; I have no need of a wife, but must assist you in your necessity.” He himself could not yet make up his mind to carry out what he urged so strongly upon others.[801]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 290; Erl. ed., 16², p. 526, in the Sermon on conjugal life, 1522.
[611]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 79.[612]Ibid., p. 147 f. We shall treat more fully of Luther’s “Temptations” against faith and his inner wavering in vol. v., xxxii.[613]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 153. Exposition of John xvi.[614]Ibid., p. 154.[615]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 407, in a Sermon on Genesis xxviii. Joh. Poliander’s Collection.[616]Ibid., 11, p. 197, Sermon in 1523 from Rörer’s notes. Though in the passages just quoted he lays great stress on the fact, that nothing is needed on our part for the obtaining of forgiveness (not even as Catholics taught any co-operation on our part with God’s helping grace), yet he speaks here again of the “emptying of the heart of all affection” for creatures, and of the “works” which proceed from a heart that is purified by faith. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 409. “If you have now the wedding garment, then serve your neighbour, give yourself up to him entirely, take compassion on him. [For] the Christian life consists in faith in God and charity towards our neighbour.”Ibid., 12, p. 670, in another set of notes of the sermon just quoted. “First we become brides [of Christ] by faith, and, then, through charity, Christs to every man.”Ibid., 11, p. 197.[617]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 42.[618]Veit Dietrich, in Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 139.[619]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 179.[620]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 209.[621]Ibid., p. 238.[622]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 353.[623]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 115.[624]Ibid., p. 95.[625]“Comment. in Gal.,” ed. Irmischer, 2, p. 351.[626]“Briefe.,” ed. De Wette, 5, pp. 515, 566.[627]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 428 f.[628]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 178.[629]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 631; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 321, “De votis monasticis,” 1521.[630]Ibid.[631]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 254 f. “Rathschlag von der Kirche,” 1538.[632]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 470; Erl. ed., 25², p. 128, at the close of “Widder den Meuchler zu Dresen,” 1531. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 423.[633]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 22, “Tischreden.”[634]Letter of July 31, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 157.[635]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 49.[636]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 294. Noted in the winter of 1542-3 by Heydenreich.[637]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 21. Certain prayers spoken by Luther at critical moments, which appear in Protestant biographies, more particularly the older ones, are purely legendary. So, for instance, his solemn prayer at Worms: “O God, my God, stand by me against all the wit and wisdom of the world,” etc. (Uckert, “Luthers Leben,” 2, Gotha, 1817, p. 6, and also in Walch’s edition of Luther’s Works, 10, p. 1720). From Melanchthon’s time (ibid., 21, Nachl. 354) and that of such enthusiastic pupils of Luther as Spangenberg, it became the custom to extol Luther as a man of prayer. Spangenberg even declares that “no one can deny” that Luther during his lifetime “checked and prevented God’s chastisements, wars and desolation” by means of his “Christian prayers, so full of faith.” See Preface to his “Lutherus Theander,” No. 18. A certain Protestant theological periodical assured its readers quite recently, that “Luther spent three hours of his working day in prayer”; it is true that people pray even in the Roman Church, but amid much “superficiality and desecration.”[638]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 73 f. (Khummer).[639]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 245, in the Sermon for Easter Monday, 1525.[640]Ibid., p. 243 f.[641]Ibid., p. 244.[642]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 658.[643]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 207.[644]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 630 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 378seq.in Concl., 3seq.(of 1518). Passages in which he advocates contrition will, however, be quoted below. Cp. vol. i., p. 293.[645]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” pp. 33, 51.[646]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 435 (“Tischreden”).[647]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 245 f. Cp. p. 210, n. 1.[648]Above, p. 24 ff. and vol. v., xxix. 8.[649]Cp. G. Kawerau, “Warum fehlte der deutschen evang. Kirche des 16. u. 17. Jahrh. das volle Verständnis für d. Missionsgedanken der H. Schrift? Vortrag,” Breslau, 1896. The author says that “none of the reformers” found in Holy Scripture the duty of missionary effort on the part of Christendom; an exception must, however, be made in the case of Bucer. See N. P(aulus) in the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 18, 1897, p. 199.[650]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 33; Erl. ed., 30, p. 9. “Against the King of England,” 1527.[651]Letter of February 23, 1542, in Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 378.[652]“Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1907, p. 246 f. Art. by E. Thiele on some Notes of Joh. Agricola’s in a Hebrew Bible at Wernigerode.[653]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 313seq.The passage will be given later.[654]G. Kroker, “Katharina von Bora,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 282.[655]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 484.[656]See Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 2.[657]Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 286. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 485seq.Rebenstock, 2, p. 20.[658]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 141.[659]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 569.[660]On this girl, see below, p. 280 f.[661]E.g. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.[662]For biographical data concerning these, see Kroker, “Luthers Tischreden in der Mathesischen Sammlung,” Einl., p. 8 ff. For Rörer’s Collections of the Table-talk, etc., cp. G. Koffmane, “Die hds. Überlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1907, p. xviii. ff., and Kroker, “Rörers Handschriftenbände und Luthers Tischreden” (“Archiv. f. Reformationsgesch,” 5, 1908, p. 337 ff., and 7, 1910, p. 57 ff.). Among the occasional guests was Ch. Gross, Magistrate at Wittenberg, who is mentioned in Luther’s letters (De Wette, 5, p. 410) in 1541 as “praefectus noster.” In his Catholic days the last had served for three years as one of the bearers of the Pope’s sedan; a great traveller, he was noted as an excellent conversationalist and a thorough man of the world. There can be no doubt that he reported to Luther many of the malicious and unveracious tales current of Roman morals, which the latter made use of in his attacks on Popery. Cp. with regard to him “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 424, and 1, p. 372 (where accounts, probably by him, follow), “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 431 (“Tischreden”). He makes unseemly jests on the Latin word for “art,” and it appears highly probable that he was the “M. Christo,” whom we meet with in Kroker, p. 175, n. 287, in Luther’s Table-Talk of 1540, whose “calida natura” is mentioned in excuse of a love affair. This gives an answer to Kroker’s question: “Who is this Magister Christophorus?” We learn from Bindseil’s “Colloquia” that Christopher Gross was anxious to become a widower because his wife was a “vetula.”[663]“Historien,” Nuremberg, 1566, p. 139.[664]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 18; Erl. ed., 28, p. 260. The passage was omitted in the later Luther editions; cp.ibid., p. 18=219 f.[665]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 337.[666]For the full titles of the publications referred to here and elsewhere under an abbreviated form as “Tagebuch,” “Aufzeichnungen,” etc., see the Bibliography at the commencement of vol. i. of the present work. Besides these collections heed must be paid to the old German Table-Talk in the Erlangen edition (“Werke,” 57-62) and the Latin Table-Talk in Bindseil. Only exceptionally do we quote the other editions, such as the Latin one by Rebenstock, and the older and more recent German editions of Förstemann and Bindseil. Moreover, the Table-Talk in most cases merely serves to prove that this or that idea was expressed more or less in the language recorded, not that Luther actually uttered every word of it. The historical circumstances under which the words were uttered are in most cases unknown. Kroker’s publication has been of great service in determining the dates of the various collections. As regards the present position of the investigation of the sources whence the Table-Talk is derived, see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 479-481, and P. Smith, “Luther’s Table-Talk,” New York, 1907, which sums up the results arrived at in Germany.[667]Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. xxxxviii.seq., and Kroker, p. 9.[668]See the title of Rebenstock’s Collection. Rebenstock’s assurance that, in his Collection he sought nothing but the honour of God and had not introduced any extraneous matter, is reprinted in Bindseil, 1, p. lii.[669]Page 64.[670]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 5², p. 107.[671]Walch, in the edition of the Table-Talk, Luther’s Works, in Jena ed., 22, quotes various passages from Protestant scholars who thought as he did. Preface, p. 25 f.[672]He points out incidentally (p. 36) that the authority for the Table-Talk was not absolutely unquestioned. He was not acquainted with the original documents, most of which have now been published.[673]Bindseil also remarked of the “Colloquia”: “We cannot deny that it would have been better had much of this not been written.” “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann and Bindseil, 4, p. xi. Cp. similar passages,ibid., p. xxiv., n., and contrast with them Aurifaber’s eulogy of the Table-Talk which came “from the saintly lips of Luther,” p. xxii.[674]Kroker, p. 2.[675]Ibid., p. 192.[676]Ibid., p. 3. Moreover, the rough notes drafted at the table were afterwards re-copied and amended, and this amended form alone is all we have. Cp. Kroker, “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” 7, 1909, p. 84. In the Weimar ed. a first volume, edited by E. Kroker, of the Table-Talk is at present appearing. In it are found the accounts given by Veit Dietrich, and another important collection dating from the earlier portion of the third decade of the sixteenth century. Vol. ii., commencing with Schlaginhaufen, is already in the hands of the printers.[677]Vol. i., Preface, p. vii. In the Latin edition of the Table-Talk Bindseil, in spite of the scruples alluded to above (n. 1), speaks in praise of the Table-Talk, and makes his own the words of J. Müllensiefen (1857). The Table-Talk showed Luther as “the noblest offshoot of his nation”; it is true the coarseness and plainness of speech are inexcusable, but it all contributes towards the “perfect characterisation of the great man,” for “the wrinkles and furrows are part of his portrait” (“Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. xiii.). Luther’s opponents were, however, of a different opinion even in the early days. G. Steinhausen, in his “Deutsche Kulturgesch.,” Leipzig, 1904, p. 513, quotes Johann Fickler of Salzburg, who describes the Table-Talk as “full of obscene and stinking jests,” and compares it to the erotic products of the Epicureans. Steinhausen himself is loath to go so far.[678]“Theol. Jahresbericht,” 23, p. 488.[679]Wetzer and Welte, “KL.,”³ art. “Aurifaber.” H. Böhmer likewise admits that: “Although their [the principal witnesses’: Dietrich, Lauterbach, and Mathesius] statements must always be critically examined, yet it is established, that they have preserved for us an exceptional number of data concerning Luther’s life, acts, and opinions. They supply us with what on the whole is an accurate account, arranged in chronological order, which brings the real Luther almost as closely before us as his own letters and writings.” In his objections against the “principal witnesses” he does not pay sufficient attention to the existence of the original notes (“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² 1910, p. 105). Protestant theologians and historians of Luther are now in the habit of laying stress on the Table-Talk, no less than on Luther’s other works, and that even in the case of weighty and controverted questions. Examples might be quoted from Loofs, Drews, G. Kawerau, J. Köstlin, G. Ward, etc.[680]“RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ art. “Aurifaber.” In the “Abh. der Kgl. Ges. d. Wissensch. Götting., Phil.-hist. Kl., N.F.,” 1, Wilhelm Meyer deals with the Collections of Lauterbach and Aurifaber. In the same way Kawerau points out in his “Studien und Kritiken,” 81, 1908, p. 338, “the importance of these notes for Luther’s biography and for a knowledge of his home life.” Cp. Kawerau,ibid., p. 354, on the old re-arrangement according to the subject-matter. The “authenticity” of the sayings which occur in these revised editions can be proved in many instances from the original writings and from the light thrown on them by parallel passages now in print, but the “dates” are another matter. Where, in the present work, any date is taken from the revised editions, it rests solely on the authority of the latter. Cp. Kroker’s remarks on the Table-Talk of 1540 in the “Archiv f. Reformationsgesch.,” 1908, above, p. 218, n. 2. On Aurifaber’s re-arrangement of the Table-Talk, see Cristiani, “Revue de questions historiques,” 91, 1912, p. 113.[681]Lauterbach, Luther’s pupil, who was also the author of the Diary, revised his Collection and sought to improve upon the arrangement; a similar, later revision of this formed the basis of the “Colloquia” of Rebenstock. Kawerau,ibid.[682]Cp. below, p. 231, n. 2.[683]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 23.[684]Ibid., p. 11.[685]Ibid., p. 48.[686]Ibid., p. 108.[687]Ibid., p. 115.[688]Ibid., p. 26.[689]Ibid., p. 79.[690]Ibid., p. 88 (Khummer).[691]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 131.[692]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 115.[693]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 95.[694]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 773 f. Sermon in 1524.[695]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7, p. 213. Church-Postils.[696]Ibid., 13², p. 108, Church-Postils.[697]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 35.[698]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 304, “Tischreden.”[699]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” pp. 136, 135.[700]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 465. Church-Postils.[701]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 1: “Qui me invito hec describit, tantum tali animo describat, quali ego, simplici et candido, et laudet verba Lutheri magis quam Apollinis miracula [oracula].”[702]“Historien von des ehrwürdigen in Gott seligen thewren Manns Gottes Doctoris Martini Lutheri Leben,” etc., Nuremberg, 1566, p. 146.[703]Ibid., p. 147: “Arvinam quaerunt multi in podice porci” (Philo), applied by Luther to the marriage of a “young fellow with an old hag (vetula).”[704]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 27.[705]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 82.[706]Ibid., p. 89.[707]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 78. In the first edition of the German Table-Talk, 1566, p. 307. Cp. against O. Waltz, on the authenticity of the account, N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrhundert,” 1910, p. 39.[708]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380, said between October 28 and December 12, 1536. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121: “The village pastor and the schoolmaster had their own way of dealing [with the witches] and plagued them greatly. But D. Pommer’s way is the best of all, viz. to plague them with filth and stir it well up and so make all their things to stink.”[709]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 56.[710]Ibid., p. 74 (Khummer).[711]Ibid., p. 111.[712]Cp. N. Paulus in his art. on Kroker’s edition of the “Tischreden in der Mathesischen Sammlung” (“Hist, polit. Blätter,” 133, 1904, pp. 199 ff., 208 f.).[713]W. Preger, “Tischreden ... nach den Aufzeichnungen von J. Schlaginhaufen,” p. iv.[714]Cp. N. Paulus,ibid., p. 40; Kroker, pp. 156, 158, 262. Kroker says (p. 158), “Luther probably made use of a colloquial word for phallus, or something similar.” Luther is complaining of the excesses to which the Catholics gave themselves up on pilgrimages, and which the Pope constantly indulged in. One MS. there cited omits the passage altogether. The Table-Talk of Mathesius (p. 141) contains the following speech of Luther’s in 1540 under the title “Exemplum verecundiae Lutheri”: “Rochlicensis princeps. Is interrogabat ‘Qui vocatur verum[sic]de domina vestra natante cum equite per aquas? Non volo autem obscoenum audire sed verum.’ Ich mein, das heisst: die × ausgeschwembt”. For the liberty which Aurifaber permits himself in the matter of toning down and weakening the original text of the Table-Talk, cp., for instance, the remarks in the Preface to the Cordatus Collection. What the latter gives in all its crudity (see the twenty-four passages there quoted by Wrampelmeyer) Aurifaber either does not reproduce at all or does so in an inoffensive form, or accompanied with such expressions as “to speak decently,” etc. Cordatus knew and acknowledged that it was an “audax facinus” to write down all he heard, but his opinion was that “pudorem vincebat utilitas”; Luther, who was watching his work, never gave him to understand by so much as one word that it did not meet with his approval.[715]“Beil. zur Münchener Allg. Ztng.,” 1904, No. 26.[716]G. Evers (“Martin Luther,” 6, p. 701), for instance, says that “In his Table-Talk we find not merely plain-spoken, but really cynical discourses, and much which to us sounds obscene. Still, his admirers may possibly be right when they absolve him of indecency or of any intention to arouse sensual passion.”[717]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen” (Loesche), p. 218.[718]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 83.[719]Ibid., p. 61, and “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 296.[720]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.[721]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 7.[722]Ibid., p. 65.[723]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 106.[724]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 154.[725]Ibid., p. 203.[726]Ibid., p. 88.[727]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 417.[728]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 428.[729]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 99.[730]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 219.[731]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 188. For the equivalent passages in Latin see “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 306, and “Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock (Francof., 1571), 1, p. 149´, where the famous “adorabunt nostra stercora” occurs. Cp. the passages in the old German Table-Talk, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 397, which agrees substantially with the above: “They will oppress us until we forget ourselves, and then they will worship our filth and regard it as balsam,” and in Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 303: “I am ripe dung,” etc.[732]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 81.[733]Ibid., p. 340. A revolting collection of low abuse of the lawyers might be made from the Table-Talk, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, pp. 229, 233, 235, 244, 246 f.[734]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 139, with the disgusting verses: “Ventre urges merdam vellesque cacare libenter | ingentem. Facis at, merdipoeta, nihil.” Within ten lines the word “merda” occurs twelve times. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 673, N. 422.[735]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 48.[736]See the detailed examples given in vol. iv., xxv. 3.[737]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 149.[738]Ibid., p. 148. Cp. above, p. 151, n. 3.[739]Ibid., p. 169 f.[740]Ibid., p. 173 f. Jonas, in his Latin edition of the work “Wider das Bapstum,” rendered the passage: “Ne sine ullo laxativo vel pillulis ventris onere honores papam,” etc.[741]Ibid., p. 201. Cp. Luther’s insolent language towards the Pope in his other writings and letters; for instance, when he declares that the Princes who were not on his own side were “dem Papst in den Arsch gebacken” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 45, p. 398); or: “I s—— on the dispensation of the legate and his master” (Briefwechsel, 8, p. 53; cp. p. 113); or “that Pope and Legate ‘im Arsch wollten lecken’” (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233). As early as 1518, in a Lenten sermon, he shows his predisposition to crudity: “If we drag our good works into the light, ‘so soll der Teufel den Arsch daran wischen,’ as indeed he does” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 276). Cp. also his discourse in 1515 against the “Little Saints” (vol. i., p. 69 f.). In the saying just referred to he is playing on a coarse proverb. In his collection of proverbs (not intended for publication, but edited by Thiele) he has accumulated quite a number of filthy sayings, those containing the word “Dreck” being unpleasantly numerous. Many of the obscenities occurring in his sermons and writings were suggested by proverbs which themselves reek too much of the stable, but which he sometimes still further embellishes. The manner in which he uses the gross word “Farzen” with reference to the Pope or the monks can be seen in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 715, and Erl. ed., 25², p. 74. In one of his attacks on the Jews he says: “Kiss the pig on its ‘Pacem’ and ‘Pirzl,’” etc. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 211); and again: “Here, here for a kiss! The devil has ‘in die Hosen geschmissen und den Bauch abermal geleeret.’ This is indeed a holy thing for the Jews, and all would-be Jews to kiss, eat, drink, and worship, while the devil in his turn must eat and drink what his disciples ‘speien, oben und unten auswerfen können.’ Host and guest have indeed met, have cooked and served the meat.... The devil is feasting with his English [angelic?] snout and gobbles up greedily whatever ‘der Juden unteres und oberes Maul speiet und spritzet.’ Yes, that is the dainty he enjoys” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 282).[742]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 203.[743]Such was the writer’s indignation that his words are scarcely worthy of a Humanist. The following comes from the “Responsio ad convitia Lutheri” (1523, “Opera,” Lovanii, 1566, p. 116´), not published under More’s own name: “Nihil habet in ore (Lutherus) praeter latrinas, merdas, stercora, quibus foedius et spurcius quam ullus unquam scurra scurratur.... Si pergat scurrilitate ludere nec aliud in ore gestare quam sentinas, cloacas, latrinas, merdas, stercora, faciant quod volent alii, nos ex tempore capiemus consilium, velimusne sic bacchantem ... cum suis merdis et stercoribus cacantem cacatumque relinquere.”[744]In “Replica contra periculosa scripta,” etc., 1522, O, 4´. Also in “Opp. omnia,” Ingolstadii, 1543.[745]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 47, p. 315.[746]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 57.[747]Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” p. 72; 2 ed., p. 106.[748]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 45, p. 153; cp. 44. p. 321.[749]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 296. In a sermon.[750]Lutherophilus (Wilh. Walther), “Das sechste Gebot und Luthers Leben,” 1893, p. 33 f.; and “Für Luther,” p. 593 ff.[751]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 276; Erl. ed., 16², p. 511. Sermon on the Married Life, 1522, i.e. long before his own marriage.[752]Letter of June 2, 1525,ibid., 53, p. 311; Letters, ed. De Wette, 2, 676 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186).[753]To Reissenbusch, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 276 f.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 286 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).[754]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 191.[755]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 53 ff.[756]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 156=28, p. 199.[757]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 196.[758]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 94; Erl. ed., 51, p. 6.[759]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 276=53; p. 288; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 2, p. 639 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).[760]Ibid., p. 410=311=676 (to Archbishop Albert of Mayence).[761]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 279=16², p. 515, in sermon quoted above, p. 242, n. 1; Luther here speaks of “three kinds of men” whom God has exempted from matrimony.[762]In the letter to the Archbishop of Mayence. “I speak of the natural man. With those to whom God gives the grace of chastity I do not interfere.”[763]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 291 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 527 f. “Vom Eelichen Leben,” 1522.[764]Letter of July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189. Cp. our vol. ii., pp. 82 f., 94 f.[765]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 511; cp. p. 512.[766]For other passages in which Luther inculcates either chastity or faithfulness in the married state, see, for instance, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 298, 302; Erl. ed., 16², pp. 132 f., 137, and “Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, 2, p. 95; “Deus omnipotens ... castus, etc.,castitatem diligit, pudicitiam et verecundiam ornat,” etc.[767]To Nicholas Gerbel, Nov. 1, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 241, from the Wartburg.Ibid.: “De votis religiosorum et sacerdotum Philippo et mihi est robusta conspiratio, tollendis et evacuandis videlicet. O sceleratum illum Antichristum cum squamis suis!”[768]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 303 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 139.[769]Erl. ed., 61, p. 167.[770]See vol. ii., p. 115 ff., and vol. iv., xxii. 5.[771]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 114; Erl. ed., 51, p. 30. “1 Cor. vii.,” 1523.[772]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 212. “Enarr. in Genesim,” c. 3; “Maior enim pars conjugatorum vivit in adulteriis,” etc.[773]Ibid., p. 302seq., in c. 4.[774]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 148. Sermon on Matthew xviii. ff.[775]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 115; Erl. ed., 51, p. 32. “1 Cor. vii.,” etc.[776]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 279=16², p. 113. Sermon on Married Life.[777]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 302=137.[778]Ibid., 12, p. 137=51, p. 63 f.[779]Ibid., p. 99=10.[780]Ibid., Erl. ed., 44, p. 151 f. Sermon on Matthew xviii. ff.[781]Ibid., p. 153, where he tells a tale of how St. Bernard and St. Francis made snow-women, “to lie beside them and thus subdue their passion.”[782]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 20, p. 126seq.[783]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 55; Erl. ed., 33, p. 59. Sermons on Genesis, 1527.[784]Ibid., 12, p. 104=51, p. 16 f. “1 Corinthians, vii.,” etc.[785]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 22. “Enarr. in Genesim,” c. 24.[786]Ibid., 7, p. 286, in c. 30.[787]Ibid., 20, p. 131. “Enarr. in Ps. 128.”[788]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 488 f.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 160seqq.“Decem praecepta praedicata populo,” 1518.[789]Ibid., 2, p, 168; Erl. ed., 16², p. 62. Sermon on the conjugal state, 1519, “altered and corrected.” Cp. also present work, vol. iv., xxii. 5.[790]“Die Stellung des Christentums zum Geschlechtsleben,” Tübingen, 1910, p. 40.[791]Ibid., p. 53.[792]Ibid., p. 49.[793]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 137; Erl. ed., 51, p. 64.[794]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 104 f.=16 ff.[795]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 291. For proofs that the Western law of continence goes back to the early ages of the Church, and was spoken of even at the Synod of Elvira in 305 or 306, see my “History of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages” (Eng. Trans.), iii., p. 271 ff.[796]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 298.[797]Ibid., p. 297; “Colloq.,” 2, p. 366seq.[798]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 553seq.; Erl ed., 28, p. 128.[799]Ibid., 24, p. 517=34, p. 139 f., in the Sermons on Genesis, 1527.[800]Ibid., 518=140. We may add some further statements characteristic of Luther’s unseemly language on the necessity of marriage and the alleged abuses on the Catholic side. Of these passages the first two are for obvious reasons given in Latin.“Major pars puellarum in monasteriis positarum non potest voluntarie statum suum observare.... Puella non potest esse sine viro, sicut non sine esu, potu et somno. Ideo Deus dedit homini membra, venas, fluxus et omnia, quae ad generandum inserviunt. Qui his rebus obsistit, quid aliud facit, quam velle ut ignis non urat?... Ubi castitas involuntaria est, natura non desistit ab opere suo; caro semen concipit sicut creata est a Deo; venae secundum genus suum operantur. Tunc incipiunt fluxus et peccata clandestina, quae s. Paulus mollitiem vocat(1 Cor. vi. 10).Et, ut crude dicam, propter miseram necessitatem, quod non fluit in carnem, fluit in vestimenta. Id deinde accusare et confiteri verentur.... Vide, hoc ipsum voluit diabolus, docens te coercere et domare naturam, quae non vult esse coacta” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 156 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 199).He had spoken in much the same way in the Tract against celibacy which preceded in 1521 his book on Monastic Vows, and which appeared again in the Church Sermons and also several times separately (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 694 ff.; Erl. ed., 10², p. 448 ff.; Sermon on the Feast of the Three Kings, 1522): “Ubi magna et coelestis gratia non assistit, oportet naturam secundum ordinem suum fluxus pati. Si non conveniunt vir et femina, natura tamen propriam viam sequitur et indignatur; ita ut melius sit masculum et feminam esse simul, sicut Deus (eos) creavit et natura vult.... Interrogo igitur, quid consilii dabis ei, qui se continere non potest? Si dicis, inhibitione utendum, respondeo, unum ex tribus secuturum esse: aut masculus et femina sese conjungent, ut placuerit sicuti nunc fit sub sacerdotibus papistarum, aut natura sponte sese solvet, aut, deficiente primo et secundo, sine cessatione homo uretur et clam patietur. Hoc modo creasti martyrium diabolicum, et fiet, ut vir mulieri deformissimae sese sociaret et mulier viro taediosissimo prae malo impetu carnis. Ignoscant mihi aures pudicae, debeo tractare animi morbos, sicut medicus tractat stercus et latrinam.... Tu facis, ut ille pauper homo continuo corde peccet contra votum suum, et melius fortasse sit, quod masculus nonnunquam secum habeat femellam et femina juvenem.... At papa sinit eos fluxus pati, uri et torqueri sicut possunt, ita ut eos habeam pro infantibus immolatis a populo Israel idolo igneo Moloch ad concremandum.... Non vis impedire tandem aliquando, quominus fornicentur, fluxibus maculentur et urantur?”Ibid., p. 108= “Si in singulis civitatibus forent vel quinque juvenes et quinque puellae viginti annorum, integri, sine fluxibus naturae, tunc dicerem, primitiva tempora apostolorum et martyrum rediisse. Nunc autem qualem Sodomam et Gomorrham fecit diabolus ubicunque plane per istam singularem castitatem votorum!”In the sermon on conjugal life, in 1522, he says: “It is true that the man who does not marry is obliged to sin. How can it be otherwise, seeing that God created man and woman to be fruitful and multiply? But why do we not forestall sin by marriage?” (“ Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 300; Erl. ed., 16², p. 537). In his latter years he penned the following attack upon the older Church of which the obscenity vies with its untruth: “The chaste Pope does not take a wife, yet all women are his. The lily-white, chaste, shamefaced, modest, Holy Father wears the semblance of chastity and refuses to take a wife honourably and in the sight of God; but how many other women he keeps, not only prostitutes, but married women and virgins, look at his Court of Cardinals, his Bishoprics, Foundations, Courtesans, Convents, Clergy, Chaplains, Schoolmasters and his whole curia, not to speak of countless unnamable sins. Well, may God give us His grace and punish both the Pope and Mohammed with all their devils!” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 204, in the Preface to the writing: “Verlegung des Alcoran Bruder Richardi,” 1542). It is simply an example of Luther’s habitual misrepresentation when we read in one of his sermons dating from 1524 (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 667): “Up to this time marriage has been a despised state, being termed a state of easy virtue; but Scripture says: ‘Male and female He created them’ (Gen. i. 27): that is enough for us. In practice we all extol this state. Oh, that all men lived in it! Whoever has not been exempted by God, let him see that he finds his like [a spouse].” Upon himself he looked as one “exempted by God,” at least he declared in several passages of this sermon, delivered in the very year of his marriage, that “by the Grace of God he did not desire a wife; I have no need of a wife, but must assist you in your necessity.” He himself could not yet make up his mind to carry out what he urged so strongly upon others.[801]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 290; Erl. ed., 16², p. 526, in the Sermon on conjugal life, 1522.
[611]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 79.
[612]Ibid., p. 147 f. We shall treat more fully of Luther’s “Temptations” against faith and his inner wavering in vol. v., xxxii.
[613]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 153. Exposition of John xvi.
[614]Ibid., p. 154.
[615]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 407, in a Sermon on Genesis xxviii. Joh. Poliander’s Collection.
[616]Ibid., 11, p. 197, Sermon in 1523 from Rörer’s notes. Though in the passages just quoted he lays great stress on the fact, that nothing is needed on our part for the obtaining of forgiveness (not even as Catholics taught any co-operation on our part with God’s helping grace), yet he speaks here again of the “emptying of the heart of all affection” for creatures, and of the “works” which proceed from a heart that is purified by faith. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 409. “If you have now the wedding garment, then serve your neighbour, give yourself up to him entirely, take compassion on him. [For] the Christian life consists in faith in God and charity towards our neighbour.”Ibid., 12, p. 670, in another set of notes of the sermon just quoted. “First we become brides [of Christ] by faith, and, then, through charity, Christs to every man.”Ibid., 11, p. 197.
[617]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 42.
[618]Veit Dietrich, in Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 139.
[619]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 179.
[620]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 209.
[621]Ibid., p. 238.
[622]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 353.
[623]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 115.
[624]Ibid., p. 95.
[625]“Comment. in Gal.,” ed. Irmischer, 2, p. 351.
[626]“Briefe.,” ed. De Wette, 5, pp. 515, 566.
[627]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 428 f.
[628]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 178.
[629]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 631; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 321, “De votis monasticis,” 1521.
[630]Ibid.
[631]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 254 f. “Rathschlag von der Kirche,” 1538.
[632]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 470; Erl. ed., 25², p. 128, at the close of “Widder den Meuchler zu Dresen,” 1531. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 423.
[633]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 22, “Tischreden.”
[634]Letter of July 31, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 157.
[635]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 49.
[636]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 294. Noted in the winter of 1542-3 by Heydenreich.
[637]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 21. Certain prayers spoken by Luther at critical moments, which appear in Protestant biographies, more particularly the older ones, are purely legendary. So, for instance, his solemn prayer at Worms: “O God, my God, stand by me against all the wit and wisdom of the world,” etc. (Uckert, “Luthers Leben,” 2, Gotha, 1817, p. 6, and also in Walch’s edition of Luther’s Works, 10, p. 1720). From Melanchthon’s time (ibid., 21, Nachl. 354) and that of such enthusiastic pupils of Luther as Spangenberg, it became the custom to extol Luther as a man of prayer. Spangenberg even declares that “no one can deny” that Luther during his lifetime “checked and prevented God’s chastisements, wars and desolation” by means of his “Christian prayers, so full of faith.” See Preface to his “Lutherus Theander,” No. 18. A certain Protestant theological periodical assured its readers quite recently, that “Luther spent three hours of his working day in prayer”; it is true that people pray even in the Roman Church, but amid much “superficiality and desecration.”
[638]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 73 f. (Khummer).
[639]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 245, in the Sermon for Easter Monday, 1525.
[640]Ibid., p. 243 f.
[641]Ibid., p. 244.
[642]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 658.
[643]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 207.
[644]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 630 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 378seq.in Concl., 3seq.(of 1518). Passages in which he advocates contrition will, however, be quoted below. Cp. vol. i., p. 293.
[645]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” pp. 33, 51.
[646]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 435 (“Tischreden”).
[647]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 245 f. Cp. p. 210, n. 1.
[648]Above, p. 24 ff. and vol. v., xxix. 8.
[649]Cp. G. Kawerau, “Warum fehlte der deutschen evang. Kirche des 16. u. 17. Jahrh. das volle Verständnis für d. Missionsgedanken der H. Schrift? Vortrag,” Breslau, 1896. The author says that “none of the reformers” found in Holy Scripture the duty of missionary effort on the part of Christendom; an exception must, however, be made in the case of Bucer. See N. P(aulus) in the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 18, 1897, p. 199.
[650]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 33; Erl. ed., 30, p. 9. “Against the King of England,” 1527.
[651]Letter of February 23, 1542, in Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 378.
[652]“Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1907, p. 246 f. Art. by E. Thiele on some Notes of Joh. Agricola’s in a Hebrew Bible at Wernigerode.
[653]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 313seq.The passage will be given later.
[654]G. Kroker, “Katharina von Bora,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 282.
[655]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 484.
[656]See Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 2.
[657]Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 286. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 485seq.Rebenstock, 2, p. 20.
[658]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 141.
[659]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 569.
[660]On this girl, see below, p. 280 f.
[661]E.g. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.
[662]For biographical data concerning these, see Kroker, “Luthers Tischreden in der Mathesischen Sammlung,” Einl., p. 8 ff. For Rörer’s Collections of the Table-talk, etc., cp. G. Koffmane, “Die hds. Überlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1907, p. xviii. ff., and Kroker, “Rörers Handschriftenbände und Luthers Tischreden” (“Archiv. f. Reformationsgesch,” 5, 1908, p. 337 ff., and 7, 1910, p. 57 ff.). Among the occasional guests was Ch. Gross, Magistrate at Wittenberg, who is mentioned in Luther’s letters (De Wette, 5, p. 410) in 1541 as “praefectus noster.” In his Catholic days the last had served for three years as one of the bearers of the Pope’s sedan; a great traveller, he was noted as an excellent conversationalist and a thorough man of the world. There can be no doubt that he reported to Luther many of the malicious and unveracious tales current of Roman morals, which the latter made use of in his attacks on Popery. Cp. with regard to him “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 424, and 1, p. 372 (where accounts, probably by him, follow), “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 431 (“Tischreden”). He makes unseemly jests on the Latin word for “art,” and it appears highly probable that he was the “M. Christo,” whom we meet with in Kroker, p. 175, n. 287, in Luther’s Table-Talk of 1540, whose “calida natura” is mentioned in excuse of a love affair. This gives an answer to Kroker’s question: “Who is this Magister Christophorus?” We learn from Bindseil’s “Colloquia” that Christopher Gross was anxious to become a widower because his wife was a “vetula.”
[663]“Historien,” Nuremberg, 1566, p. 139.
[664]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 18; Erl. ed., 28, p. 260. The passage was omitted in the later Luther editions; cp.ibid., p. 18=219 f.
[665]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 337.
[666]For the full titles of the publications referred to here and elsewhere under an abbreviated form as “Tagebuch,” “Aufzeichnungen,” etc., see the Bibliography at the commencement of vol. i. of the present work. Besides these collections heed must be paid to the old German Table-Talk in the Erlangen edition (“Werke,” 57-62) and the Latin Table-Talk in Bindseil. Only exceptionally do we quote the other editions, such as the Latin one by Rebenstock, and the older and more recent German editions of Förstemann and Bindseil. Moreover, the Table-Talk in most cases merely serves to prove that this or that idea was expressed more or less in the language recorded, not that Luther actually uttered every word of it. The historical circumstances under which the words were uttered are in most cases unknown. Kroker’s publication has been of great service in determining the dates of the various collections. As regards the present position of the investigation of the sources whence the Table-Talk is derived, see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 479-481, and P. Smith, “Luther’s Table-Talk,” New York, 1907, which sums up the results arrived at in Germany.
[667]Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. xxxxviii.seq., and Kroker, p. 9.
[668]See the title of Rebenstock’s Collection. Rebenstock’s assurance that, in his Collection he sought nothing but the honour of God and had not introduced any extraneous matter, is reprinted in Bindseil, 1, p. lii.
[669]Page 64.
[670]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 5², p. 107.
[671]Walch, in the edition of the Table-Talk, Luther’s Works, in Jena ed., 22, quotes various passages from Protestant scholars who thought as he did. Preface, p. 25 f.
[672]He points out incidentally (p. 36) that the authority for the Table-Talk was not absolutely unquestioned. He was not acquainted with the original documents, most of which have now been published.
[673]Bindseil also remarked of the “Colloquia”: “We cannot deny that it would have been better had much of this not been written.” “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann and Bindseil, 4, p. xi. Cp. similar passages,ibid., p. xxiv., n., and contrast with them Aurifaber’s eulogy of the Table-Talk which came “from the saintly lips of Luther,” p. xxii.
[674]Kroker, p. 2.
[675]Ibid., p. 192.
[676]Ibid., p. 3. Moreover, the rough notes drafted at the table were afterwards re-copied and amended, and this amended form alone is all we have. Cp. Kroker, “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” 7, 1909, p. 84. In the Weimar ed. a first volume, edited by E. Kroker, of the Table-Talk is at present appearing. In it are found the accounts given by Veit Dietrich, and another important collection dating from the earlier portion of the third decade of the sixteenth century. Vol. ii., commencing with Schlaginhaufen, is already in the hands of the printers.
[677]Vol. i., Preface, p. vii. In the Latin edition of the Table-Talk Bindseil, in spite of the scruples alluded to above (n. 1), speaks in praise of the Table-Talk, and makes his own the words of J. Müllensiefen (1857). The Table-Talk showed Luther as “the noblest offshoot of his nation”; it is true the coarseness and plainness of speech are inexcusable, but it all contributes towards the “perfect characterisation of the great man,” for “the wrinkles and furrows are part of his portrait” (“Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. xiii.). Luther’s opponents were, however, of a different opinion even in the early days. G. Steinhausen, in his “Deutsche Kulturgesch.,” Leipzig, 1904, p. 513, quotes Johann Fickler of Salzburg, who describes the Table-Talk as “full of obscene and stinking jests,” and compares it to the erotic products of the Epicureans. Steinhausen himself is loath to go so far.
[678]“Theol. Jahresbericht,” 23, p. 488.
[679]Wetzer and Welte, “KL.,”³ art. “Aurifaber.” H. Böhmer likewise admits that: “Although their [the principal witnesses’: Dietrich, Lauterbach, and Mathesius] statements must always be critically examined, yet it is established, that they have preserved for us an exceptional number of data concerning Luther’s life, acts, and opinions. They supply us with what on the whole is an accurate account, arranged in chronological order, which brings the real Luther almost as closely before us as his own letters and writings.” In his objections against the “principal witnesses” he does not pay sufficient attention to the existence of the original notes (“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² 1910, p. 105). Protestant theologians and historians of Luther are now in the habit of laying stress on the Table-Talk, no less than on Luther’s other works, and that even in the case of weighty and controverted questions. Examples might be quoted from Loofs, Drews, G. Kawerau, J. Köstlin, G. Ward, etc.
[680]“RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ art. “Aurifaber.” In the “Abh. der Kgl. Ges. d. Wissensch. Götting., Phil.-hist. Kl., N.F.,” 1, Wilhelm Meyer deals with the Collections of Lauterbach and Aurifaber. In the same way Kawerau points out in his “Studien und Kritiken,” 81, 1908, p. 338, “the importance of these notes for Luther’s biography and for a knowledge of his home life.” Cp. Kawerau,ibid., p. 354, on the old re-arrangement according to the subject-matter. The “authenticity” of the sayings which occur in these revised editions can be proved in many instances from the original writings and from the light thrown on them by parallel passages now in print, but the “dates” are another matter. Where, in the present work, any date is taken from the revised editions, it rests solely on the authority of the latter. Cp. Kroker’s remarks on the Table-Talk of 1540 in the “Archiv f. Reformationsgesch.,” 1908, above, p. 218, n. 2. On Aurifaber’s re-arrangement of the Table-Talk, see Cristiani, “Revue de questions historiques,” 91, 1912, p. 113.
[681]Lauterbach, Luther’s pupil, who was also the author of the Diary, revised his Collection and sought to improve upon the arrangement; a similar, later revision of this formed the basis of the “Colloquia” of Rebenstock. Kawerau,ibid.
[682]Cp. below, p. 231, n. 2.
[683]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 23.
[684]Ibid., p. 11.
[685]Ibid., p. 48.
[686]Ibid., p. 108.
[687]Ibid., p. 115.
[688]Ibid., p. 26.
[689]Ibid., p. 79.
[690]Ibid., p. 88 (Khummer).
[691]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 131.
[692]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 115.
[693]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 95.
[694]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 773 f. Sermon in 1524.
[695]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7, p. 213. Church-Postils.
[696]Ibid., 13², p. 108, Church-Postils.
[697]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 35.
[698]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 304, “Tischreden.”
[699]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” pp. 136, 135.
[700]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 465. Church-Postils.
[701]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 1: “Qui me invito hec describit, tantum tali animo describat, quali ego, simplici et candido, et laudet verba Lutheri magis quam Apollinis miracula [oracula].”
[702]“Historien von des ehrwürdigen in Gott seligen thewren Manns Gottes Doctoris Martini Lutheri Leben,” etc., Nuremberg, 1566, p. 146.
[703]Ibid., p. 147: “Arvinam quaerunt multi in podice porci” (Philo), applied by Luther to the marriage of a “young fellow with an old hag (vetula).”
[704]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 27.
[705]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 82.
[706]Ibid., p. 89.
[707]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 78. In the first edition of the German Table-Talk, 1566, p. 307. Cp. against O. Waltz, on the authenticity of the account, N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrhundert,” 1910, p. 39.
[708]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380, said between October 28 and December 12, 1536. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121: “The village pastor and the schoolmaster had their own way of dealing [with the witches] and plagued them greatly. But D. Pommer’s way is the best of all, viz. to plague them with filth and stir it well up and so make all their things to stink.”
[709]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 56.
[710]Ibid., p. 74 (Khummer).
[711]Ibid., p. 111.
[712]Cp. N. Paulus in his art. on Kroker’s edition of the “Tischreden in der Mathesischen Sammlung” (“Hist, polit. Blätter,” 133, 1904, pp. 199 ff., 208 f.).
[713]W. Preger, “Tischreden ... nach den Aufzeichnungen von J. Schlaginhaufen,” p. iv.
[714]Cp. N. Paulus,ibid., p. 40; Kroker, pp. 156, 158, 262. Kroker says (p. 158), “Luther probably made use of a colloquial word for phallus, or something similar.” Luther is complaining of the excesses to which the Catholics gave themselves up on pilgrimages, and which the Pope constantly indulged in. One MS. there cited omits the passage altogether. The Table-Talk of Mathesius (p. 141) contains the following speech of Luther’s in 1540 under the title “Exemplum verecundiae Lutheri”: “Rochlicensis princeps. Is interrogabat ‘Qui vocatur verum[sic]de domina vestra natante cum equite per aquas? Non volo autem obscoenum audire sed verum.’ Ich mein, das heisst: die × ausgeschwembt”. For the liberty which Aurifaber permits himself in the matter of toning down and weakening the original text of the Table-Talk, cp., for instance, the remarks in the Preface to the Cordatus Collection. What the latter gives in all its crudity (see the twenty-four passages there quoted by Wrampelmeyer) Aurifaber either does not reproduce at all or does so in an inoffensive form, or accompanied with such expressions as “to speak decently,” etc. Cordatus knew and acknowledged that it was an “audax facinus” to write down all he heard, but his opinion was that “pudorem vincebat utilitas”; Luther, who was watching his work, never gave him to understand by so much as one word that it did not meet with his approval.
[715]“Beil. zur Münchener Allg. Ztng.,” 1904, No. 26.
[716]G. Evers (“Martin Luther,” 6, p. 701), for instance, says that “In his Table-Talk we find not merely plain-spoken, but really cynical discourses, and much which to us sounds obscene. Still, his admirers may possibly be right when they absolve him of indecency or of any intention to arouse sensual passion.”
[717]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen” (Loesche), p. 218.
[718]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 83.
[719]Ibid., p. 61, and “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 296.
[720]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.
[721]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 7.
[722]Ibid., p. 65.
[723]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 106.
[724]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 154.
[725]Ibid., p. 203.
[726]Ibid., p. 88.
[727]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 417.
[728]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 428.
[729]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 99.
[730]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 219.
[731]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 188. For the equivalent passages in Latin see “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 306, and “Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock (Francof., 1571), 1, p. 149´, where the famous “adorabunt nostra stercora” occurs. Cp. the passages in the old German Table-Talk, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 397, which agrees substantially with the above: “They will oppress us until we forget ourselves, and then they will worship our filth and regard it as balsam,” and in Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 303: “I am ripe dung,” etc.
[732]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 81.
[733]Ibid., p. 340. A revolting collection of low abuse of the lawyers might be made from the Table-Talk, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, pp. 229, 233, 235, 244, 246 f.
[734]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 139, with the disgusting verses: “Ventre urges merdam vellesque cacare libenter | ingentem. Facis at, merdipoeta, nihil.” Within ten lines the word “merda” occurs twelve times. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 673, N. 422.
[735]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 48.
[736]See the detailed examples given in vol. iv., xxv. 3.
[737]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 149.
[738]Ibid., p. 148. Cp. above, p. 151, n. 3.
[739]Ibid., p. 169 f.
[740]Ibid., p. 173 f. Jonas, in his Latin edition of the work “Wider das Bapstum,” rendered the passage: “Ne sine ullo laxativo vel pillulis ventris onere honores papam,” etc.
[741]Ibid., p. 201. Cp. Luther’s insolent language towards the Pope in his other writings and letters; for instance, when he declares that the Princes who were not on his own side were “dem Papst in den Arsch gebacken” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 45, p. 398); or: “I s—— on the dispensation of the legate and his master” (Briefwechsel, 8, p. 53; cp. p. 113); or “that Pope and Legate ‘im Arsch wollten lecken’” (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233). As early as 1518, in a Lenten sermon, he shows his predisposition to crudity: “If we drag our good works into the light, ‘so soll der Teufel den Arsch daran wischen,’ as indeed he does” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 276). Cp. also his discourse in 1515 against the “Little Saints” (vol. i., p. 69 f.). In the saying just referred to he is playing on a coarse proverb. In his collection of proverbs (not intended for publication, but edited by Thiele) he has accumulated quite a number of filthy sayings, those containing the word “Dreck” being unpleasantly numerous. Many of the obscenities occurring in his sermons and writings were suggested by proverbs which themselves reek too much of the stable, but which he sometimes still further embellishes. The manner in which he uses the gross word “Farzen” with reference to the Pope or the monks can be seen in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 715, and Erl. ed., 25², p. 74. In one of his attacks on the Jews he says: “Kiss the pig on its ‘Pacem’ and ‘Pirzl,’” etc. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 211); and again: “Here, here for a kiss! The devil has ‘in die Hosen geschmissen und den Bauch abermal geleeret.’ This is indeed a holy thing for the Jews, and all would-be Jews to kiss, eat, drink, and worship, while the devil in his turn must eat and drink what his disciples ‘speien, oben und unten auswerfen können.’ Host and guest have indeed met, have cooked and served the meat.... The devil is feasting with his English [angelic?] snout and gobbles up greedily whatever ‘der Juden unteres und oberes Maul speiet und spritzet.’ Yes, that is the dainty he enjoys” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 282).
[742]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 203.
[743]Such was the writer’s indignation that his words are scarcely worthy of a Humanist. The following comes from the “Responsio ad convitia Lutheri” (1523, “Opera,” Lovanii, 1566, p. 116´), not published under More’s own name: “Nihil habet in ore (Lutherus) praeter latrinas, merdas, stercora, quibus foedius et spurcius quam ullus unquam scurra scurratur.... Si pergat scurrilitate ludere nec aliud in ore gestare quam sentinas, cloacas, latrinas, merdas, stercora, faciant quod volent alii, nos ex tempore capiemus consilium, velimusne sic bacchantem ... cum suis merdis et stercoribus cacantem cacatumque relinquere.”
[744]In “Replica contra periculosa scripta,” etc., 1522, O, 4´. Also in “Opp. omnia,” Ingolstadii, 1543.
[745]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 47, p. 315.
[746]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 57.
[747]Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” p. 72; 2 ed., p. 106.
[748]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 45, p. 153; cp. 44. p. 321.
[749]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 296. In a sermon.
[750]Lutherophilus (Wilh. Walther), “Das sechste Gebot und Luthers Leben,” 1893, p. 33 f.; and “Für Luther,” p. 593 ff.
[751]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 276; Erl. ed., 16², p. 511. Sermon on the Married Life, 1522, i.e. long before his own marriage.
[752]Letter of June 2, 1525,ibid., 53, p. 311; Letters, ed. De Wette, 2, 676 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186).
[753]To Reissenbusch, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 276 f.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 286 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).
[754]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 191.
[755]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 53 ff.
[756]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 156=28, p. 199.
[757]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 196.
[758]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 94; Erl. ed., 51, p. 6.
[759]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 276=53; p. 288; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 2, p. 639 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).
[760]Ibid., p. 410=311=676 (to Archbishop Albert of Mayence).
[761]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 279=16², p. 515, in sermon quoted above, p. 242, n. 1; Luther here speaks of “three kinds of men” whom God has exempted from matrimony.
[762]In the letter to the Archbishop of Mayence. “I speak of the natural man. With those to whom God gives the grace of chastity I do not interfere.”
[763]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 291 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 527 f. “Vom Eelichen Leben,” 1522.
[764]Letter of July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189. Cp. our vol. ii., pp. 82 f., 94 f.
[765]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 511; cp. p. 512.
[766]For other passages in which Luther inculcates either chastity or faithfulness in the married state, see, for instance, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 298, 302; Erl. ed., 16², pp. 132 f., 137, and “Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, 2, p. 95; “Deus omnipotens ... castus, etc.,castitatem diligit, pudicitiam et verecundiam ornat,” etc.
[767]To Nicholas Gerbel, Nov. 1, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 241, from the Wartburg.Ibid.: “De votis religiosorum et sacerdotum Philippo et mihi est robusta conspiratio, tollendis et evacuandis videlicet. O sceleratum illum Antichristum cum squamis suis!”
[768]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 303 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 139.
[769]Erl. ed., 61, p. 167.
[770]See vol. ii., p. 115 ff., and vol. iv., xxii. 5.
[771]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 114; Erl. ed., 51, p. 30. “1 Cor. vii.,” 1523.
[772]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 212. “Enarr. in Genesim,” c. 3; “Maior enim pars conjugatorum vivit in adulteriis,” etc.
[773]Ibid., p. 302seq., in c. 4.
[774]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 148. Sermon on Matthew xviii. ff.
[775]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 115; Erl. ed., 51, p. 32. “1 Cor. vii.,” etc.
[776]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 279=16², p. 113. Sermon on Married Life.
[777]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 302=137.
[778]Ibid., 12, p. 137=51, p. 63 f.
[779]Ibid., p. 99=10.
[780]Ibid., Erl. ed., 44, p. 151 f. Sermon on Matthew xviii. ff.
[781]Ibid., p. 153, where he tells a tale of how St. Bernard and St. Francis made snow-women, “to lie beside them and thus subdue their passion.”
[782]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 20, p. 126seq.
[783]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 55; Erl. ed., 33, p. 59. Sermons on Genesis, 1527.
[784]Ibid., 12, p. 104=51, p. 16 f. “1 Corinthians, vii.,” etc.
[785]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 22. “Enarr. in Genesim,” c. 24.
[786]Ibid., 7, p. 286, in c. 30.
[787]Ibid., 20, p. 131. “Enarr. in Ps. 128.”
[788]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 488 f.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 160seqq.“Decem praecepta praedicata populo,” 1518.
[789]Ibid., 2, p, 168; Erl. ed., 16², p. 62. Sermon on the conjugal state, 1519, “altered and corrected.” Cp. also present work, vol. iv., xxii. 5.
[790]“Die Stellung des Christentums zum Geschlechtsleben,” Tübingen, 1910, p. 40.
[791]Ibid., p. 53.
[792]Ibid., p. 49.
[793]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 137; Erl. ed., 51, p. 64.
[794]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 104 f.=16 ff.
[795]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 291. For proofs that the Western law of continence goes back to the early ages of the Church, and was spoken of even at the Synod of Elvira in 305 or 306, see my “History of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages” (Eng. Trans.), iii., p. 271 ff.
[796]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 298.
[797]Ibid., p. 297; “Colloq.,” 2, p. 366seq.
[798]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 553seq.; Erl ed., 28, p. 128.
[799]Ibid., 24, p. 517=34, p. 139 f., in the Sermons on Genesis, 1527.
[800]Ibid., 518=140. We may add some further statements characteristic of Luther’s unseemly language on the necessity of marriage and the alleged abuses on the Catholic side. Of these passages the first two are for obvious reasons given in Latin.
“Major pars puellarum in monasteriis positarum non potest voluntarie statum suum observare.... Puella non potest esse sine viro, sicut non sine esu, potu et somno. Ideo Deus dedit homini membra, venas, fluxus et omnia, quae ad generandum inserviunt. Qui his rebus obsistit, quid aliud facit, quam velle ut ignis non urat?... Ubi castitas involuntaria est, natura non desistit ab opere suo; caro semen concipit sicut creata est a Deo; venae secundum genus suum operantur. Tunc incipiunt fluxus et peccata clandestina, quae s. Paulus mollitiem vocat(1 Cor. vi. 10).Et, ut crude dicam, propter miseram necessitatem, quod non fluit in carnem, fluit in vestimenta. Id deinde accusare et confiteri verentur.... Vide, hoc ipsum voluit diabolus, docens te coercere et domare naturam, quae non vult esse coacta” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 156 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 199).
He had spoken in much the same way in the Tract against celibacy which preceded in 1521 his book on Monastic Vows, and which appeared again in the Church Sermons and also several times separately (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 694 ff.; Erl. ed., 10², p. 448 ff.; Sermon on the Feast of the Three Kings, 1522): “Ubi magna et coelestis gratia non assistit, oportet naturam secundum ordinem suum fluxus pati. Si non conveniunt vir et femina, natura tamen propriam viam sequitur et indignatur; ita ut melius sit masculum et feminam esse simul, sicut Deus (eos) creavit et natura vult.... Interrogo igitur, quid consilii dabis ei, qui se continere non potest? Si dicis, inhibitione utendum, respondeo, unum ex tribus secuturum esse: aut masculus et femina sese conjungent, ut placuerit sicuti nunc fit sub sacerdotibus papistarum, aut natura sponte sese solvet, aut, deficiente primo et secundo, sine cessatione homo uretur et clam patietur. Hoc modo creasti martyrium diabolicum, et fiet, ut vir mulieri deformissimae sese sociaret et mulier viro taediosissimo prae malo impetu carnis. Ignoscant mihi aures pudicae, debeo tractare animi morbos, sicut medicus tractat stercus et latrinam.... Tu facis, ut ille pauper homo continuo corde peccet contra votum suum, et melius fortasse sit, quod masculus nonnunquam secum habeat femellam et femina juvenem.... At papa sinit eos fluxus pati, uri et torqueri sicut possunt, ita ut eos habeam pro infantibus immolatis a populo Israel idolo igneo Moloch ad concremandum.... Non vis impedire tandem aliquando, quominus fornicentur, fluxibus maculentur et urantur?”Ibid., p. 108= “Si in singulis civitatibus forent vel quinque juvenes et quinque puellae viginti annorum, integri, sine fluxibus naturae, tunc dicerem, primitiva tempora apostolorum et martyrum rediisse. Nunc autem qualem Sodomam et Gomorrham fecit diabolus ubicunque plane per istam singularem castitatem votorum!”
In the sermon on conjugal life, in 1522, he says: “It is true that the man who does not marry is obliged to sin. How can it be otherwise, seeing that God created man and woman to be fruitful and multiply? But why do we not forestall sin by marriage?” (“ Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 300; Erl. ed., 16², p. 537). In his latter years he penned the following attack upon the older Church of which the obscenity vies with its untruth: “The chaste Pope does not take a wife, yet all women are his. The lily-white, chaste, shamefaced, modest, Holy Father wears the semblance of chastity and refuses to take a wife honourably and in the sight of God; but how many other women he keeps, not only prostitutes, but married women and virgins, look at his Court of Cardinals, his Bishoprics, Foundations, Courtesans, Convents, Clergy, Chaplains, Schoolmasters and his whole curia, not to speak of countless unnamable sins. Well, may God give us His grace and punish both the Pope and Mohammed with all their devils!” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 204, in the Preface to the writing: “Verlegung des Alcoran Bruder Richardi,” 1542). It is simply an example of Luther’s habitual misrepresentation when we read in one of his sermons dating from 1524 (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 667): “Up to this time marriage has been a despised state, being termed a state of easy virtue; but Scripture says: ‘Male and female He created them’ (Gen. i. 27): that is enough for us. In practice we all extol this state. Oh, that all men lived in it! Whoever has not been exempted by God, let him see that he finds his like [a spouse].” Upon himself he looked as one “exempted by God,” at least he declared in several passages of this sermon, delivered in the very year of his marriage, that “by the Grace of God he did not desire a wife; I have no need of a wife, but must assist you in your necessity.” He himself could not yet make up his mind to carry out what he urged so strongly upon others.
[801]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 290; Erl. ed., 16², p. 526, in the Sermon on conjugal life, 1522.