Chapter 34

“The wrath of God has come upon them,” he writes in one such passage, “of which I do not like to think, nor has this book been a cheerful one for me to write, for I have been forced to avert my eyes from the terrible picture, sometimes in anger, sometimes in scorn; and it is painful to me to have to speak of their horrible blasphemies against our Lord and His dear Mother, to which we Christians are loath indeed to listen; I can well understand what St. Paul means in Romans x. 1, when he says that his heart was sore when he thought of them; such is the case with every Christian who earnestly dwells, not on the temporal misery and misfortune of which the Jews complain, but on their addiction to blasphemy, to cursing, to spitting at God Himself and all that is God’s, even to their eternal damnation, and who yet refuse to listen or lend an ear but will have it that allthey do is done out of zeal for God. O God, our Heavenly Father, turn aside Thy wrath and let there be an end of it for the sake of Thy dear Son. Amen.”[1645]“O my God,” he groans elsewhere, “my beloved Creator and Father, do Thou graciously take into account my unwillingness to have to speak so shamefully of Thine accursed enemies, the devil and the Jews. Thou knowest I do so out of the ardour of my faith and to the glory of Thy Divine Majesty, for it pierces me to the very quick.”[1646]If, however, we look more closely into the matter we shall see that the “ardour of his faith” was also fed from other sources. There was, for instance, the reaction of his own protracted struggle in defence of the new doctrines and against the Papacy, a struggle which left deep marks on all his labours and on all his writings.Towards the end of a career which had worked such untold disaster to the Christianity of the past he feels keenly the need of vindicating the dignity of Christ if only to soothe his own conscience; he was resolved to hammer it in with the utmost defiance, just as formerly he had clung to the idea that, by his doctrine, he was defending the rights of Christ against the Pope. He is now resolved again to take his stand on this, his efforts becoming the more violent the more the sight of the ruin wrought by his own work affrights him. Hence his eagerness to take advantage of Jewish attacks on the pillars of the faith in order, while triumphing over them, to enjoy the sense of his comradeship with Christ, the Son of God now so soon to come in Judgment. Here again he allows his vanity to mislead him and to paint his intervention on behalf of the great truth of Christianity as far more successful than that of any of the Popes; this helps him to close his eyes to the wounds which the inner voice tells him he had inflicted on the Christian truths and on the public life of Christendom. For was he not doing for Christ what the Pope was quite unable to do? Indeed, “the world, the Turk, the Jew and the Pope are all raging blasphemously against the name of the Lord, laying waste His Kingdom and deriding His Will; but ‘greater is He that is with us than he that is with the world’; He triumphs,” so he wrote at that time to some foreign sympathisers, “andwill triumph in you to all eternity; may He console you by His Holy Spirit in which He has called you to oneness with His Body.”[1647]It is true, so he says elsewhere, that the Pope admits the existence of Christ, but, in spite of this, neither Jews nor Turks are quite so bad; the Jews have far better arguments than the Papists for themselves and their religion; the foundations of the latter are easily shaken; the Papist Church is a worse “den of murderers” than Turks, Tartars, or Jews.[1648]All the more glorious and creditable to the new Evangel is therefore the victory won by Luther over the Jews; it may serve to show the world that his school’s study of the Bible could furnish the weapons to bring about such a result. The Pope, with his unbiblical treatment of the Jews, had merely succeeded in making them doubly un-Christian; but to us God has unlocked the Holy Books, hence on us devolves the duty of pointing out to the Jews their errors.[1649]Luther accordingly claims, that his “Von den Jüden” was the first real work of instruction on Judaism, one which “might teach us Germans from history what a Jew is and warn our Christians against them as against veriest devils.” It was only fitting that he who had unearthed Scripture should also “wipe clean the holy old Bible from Jewish ‘Hamperes’ and ‘Judas-water.’”[1650]Nevertheless everything else—even his yeoman service in the cause of the Bible, and his shaming of the Papacy, which had so ineffectively struggled against the Jews—recedes into the background before his determination to crown his whole life-work by snatching from the Jewish devil the honour of Christ our one Salvation.This was admittedly his motive for taking up his pen yet a third time.The Third Work against the Jews, 1543As early as June, 1543, Luther was engaged on a new polemical work against the Jews entitled “On the last words of David.”[1651]It is a lengthy essay on 2 Kings xxiii. 1-7,and certain other striking passages, with the object of proving that the Messias was to be a God-man and of vindicating the mystery of the Trinity.He intended to show by these examples how helpful Hebrew learning and Bible study can be in defending Scripture against the attacks of unbelievers; he also wanted to establish that neither Jews nor Papists possessed the real key to the Bible, viz. the knowledge of Christ; “for in this all sticks, and lies, and rests: Whosoever has not or will not have this man called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whom we Christians preach [the new Evangel undefiled], let him avoid the Bible; such is my conscientious advice, else he will certainly come a cropper, and become ever blinder and more crazy the more he studies.”[1652]In David’s final words on the Messias, Luther saw something peculiarly solemn; David, when “about to die and depart,” gives his parting injunction and adds: “This is my firm belief; on this I stand fast and immoveable.... Hence I am joyful, and will gladly live or die as and when God wills.”[1653]“Whoever can boast [like David] that the Spirit of the Lord speaks through him, and that His word is on his tongue, must indeed be very sure of his cause.”[1654]In this writing the Jews are not attacked in such unmeasured language as in the two others just considered; the tone of the whole is much calmer, indeed comparatively kind. It may be that the representations made to him concerning his violence had not been without some effect.The end, like the beginning, expresses the wish that, without suffering ourselves to be led astray by the false readings of the Jews, we should “plainly and clearly find and recognise our dear Lord and Saviour in Holy Writ.”[1655]This is what leads Melanchthon to praise the work as enjoyable reading, because there is nothing sweeter to the pious than to deepen their knowledge of the God-man and to learn the art of real prayer so different from that of the heathen, the Jew and the Turk.[1656]Against the TurksThe honour of Christianity and of its Divine Founder was also what Luther had at heart in the two books which in his later years he was instrumental in publishing against the Turks, viz. his “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den Türcken”(1541) and his new edition (1542) of an old work against the Koran, the “Verlegung des Alcoran Bruder Richardi.”In one passage of the Vermanunge he even couches this thought in the form of a prayer:“Yes, indeed, this is our offence against them [the Turks], that we preach, believe and confess Thee, God the Father, as the only True God, and Thy Beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost as one eternal God.” “Thou knowest, God the Father Almighty, that we have not sinned in any other way against the devil, Pope or Turk and that they have no right or power to punish us.” Most fervently, as in the very presence of God, he declares that he must withstand the devil who is helping the Turk to set up “his Mahmed in the stead of Jesus Christ Thy Beloved Son.”[1657]Speaking of prayer against the Turk he makes every Christian say to God: “Thou tellest, nay, compellest, me to pray in the name of Thy Beloved Son Our Lord Jesus Christ.”[1658]In this writing he strongly reprobates both the public disorders on the side of the new Evangel and the Papists’ obstinate resistance to the Word of God; both would be terribly punished by means of the Turks unless people set about amending their lives and giving themselves up to earnest prayer. Now, after the Evangel had been preached for so many years, “everyone knew, thank God, what each class and individual man should do or leave undone, which, alas, formerly we did not know, though we would gladly have done it.”[1659]Should our prayer fail to achieve the desired object, “then let us say a longer and a better one.” “How happy should we be were our prayers against the Turk again to prove of no avail, but, instead, the Last Day came—which indeed cannot any longer be far off—spelling the end of both Turk and Pope as I do not for a moment doubt.”[1660]At any rate Luther might have used better weapons against the Turks than he actually did in this so-called admonition.About the time he wrote it we hear Luther occasionally expressing a hope that the Turks may be converted to the Evangel, now shining so brightly and convincingly.“I should like to see the Evangel make its way amongst the Turks, which may indeed very well happen.” “It is quite in God’s power to work a miracle and make them listen to the Evangel.... If a ‘Wascha’ [Pasha] were toaccept the Gospel we should soon see what effect it would have on the Grand Turk; and as he has many sons it is quite likely one of them might reach it.”—He despaired of the overthrow of the Turkish empire, but was fond of dreaming of the coming of a “good man who should withstand the dogma of Mohamed.”[1661]“The Turk rules more mightily by his religion than by arms”; such was Luther’s opinion. He had to be confronted with the belief in Christ, that belief which Luther had learnt “amidst the bitter pangs of death,” viz. “that Christ is God”; in great temptations nothing could help us but this faith, “the most powerful consolation that is bestowed on us”; this same article of faith God was vindicating, even by miracles, against Turk and Pope. To this he too would cleave in spite of any objections of reason.[1662]He did not, however, patiently wait till the “good man” came who was to oppose the dogma of the Turks; he himself set about this undertaking in March, 1542.[1663]After having, shortly before, become acquainted with the Koran in a poor translation, he proceeded himself to translate into German a work against the Koran, written in 1300, by the Dominican Richardus (Ricoldus). To it he appended a preface of his own and a “Treue Warnung.”[1664]He had undertaken, so he says, to disclose and answer the devil-inspired “infamies” contained in the Alcoran, “the better to strengthen us in our Christian faith.”[1665]—This out-of-date book of a mediæval theologian was, however, hardly the work to furnish an insight into the Koran, particularly as it built far too much on badly read texts and doubtful stories uncritically taken for granted; from such defects the refutation was bound to suffer.Some of Luther’s own additions are characteristic.Here he gives up all hope of any conversion of the Moslem; he likewise despairs of the success of the Christian armies.[1666]—“Mahmet,” so he teaches, “leads people to eternal damnationas the Pope also did and still does.” He reigns “in the Levant” as the Pope does “in the land of the setting sun,” thanks to a system of “wilful lying.”[1667]“Oh, Lord God! Let all who can, pray, sigh and implore that of God’s anger we may see an end,” as Daniel says (Dan. xi. 36).[1668]Bad as Mahmet was, Luther was loath to see in him Antichrist; “the Pope, whom we have with us, he is the real Antichrist, with his ‘Drecktal,’ Alcoran and man-made doctrines.” “The chaste Pope takes no wife, but all women are his.... Obscene Mahmet at least makes no pretence of chastity.... As for the other points such as murder, avarice and pride, I will not enumerate them, but here again the Pope far outdoes Mahmet.” “May God give us His grace and punish both the Pope and Mahmet together with their devils. I have done my part as a faithful prophet and preacher.”[1669]Words such as these were certainly as little calculated to further the common cause of the Christians against the Turks as had been the somewhat similar thoughts which, at an earlier date, he had been wont to weave into his exhortations to resist the Turks.[1670]As a last straw Luther in the “Treue Warnung” goes on to declare, that, unless Christians mend their life, are converted to the Evangel and live up to it, it is to be hoped that the Turkish arms will prove victorious.For amongst those who “pretend to be Christians and to constitute the holy Church” there are, so he declares, so many who “knowingly and wantonly despise and persecute the known truth and vindicate their open and notorious idolatry, lying and unrighteousness.” Such Christians, of whom the forces that had been raised chiefly consisted, formed, so he thought, an army which might itself well be styled Turkish. “If then two such ‘Turkish’ armies were to advance against one another, the one called Mahmetish and the other dubbing itself Christian, then, good friend, I should suggest you might give Our Lord God some advice, for He would assuredly need it, as to which Turks He is to help and carry to victory. I, the worst of advisers, would counsel Him to give the victory to the Mahmetish Turks over the Christian Turks, as indeed He has done hitherto without any advice from us and even contrary to our prayers and complaints. The reason is, that the Mahmetish Turks have neither God’s Word nor those who might preach it.... Had they preachers of the Godly Word they might perhaps, some of them at least, be presently changed from swine into men. But our Christian Turks have the Word of God and preachers, and yet they refuse to listen, and from men become mere swine.”[1671]The public danger which threatened owing to the advance of the Turks caused Luther, however, about this time to promote the sale of the Latin translation and confutation of the Koran brought out under Melanchthon’s auspices by Bibliander (Buchmann) of Zürich. In a popular hymn which he composed he also took care to couple the Turkish danger with that to be apprehended from the Papists. This short hymn, “which became a favourite with the German Evangelicals” (Köstlin), begins:“In Thy Word preserve us, Lord,Ward off Pope and Turkish sword.”The picture which Luther incidentally paints of himself in his effusions against the Jews and the Turks, receives its final touch in his last great and solemn pronouncement against Popery which the lines just quoted may serve to introduce.The Hideous Caricatures of “Popery Pictured”One cannot contemplate without sadness Luther’s last efforts against the Papacy.Fortunately for literature the projected continuation of the frightful book “Wider das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft” never saw the light; Luther’s intention had been to make it even worse than the first part.His final labours, aimed directly at the Pope and the Council of Trent, consisted in suggesting the subjects and drafting the versified letterpress for a number of woodcuts, designed expressly to ridicule and defame the Papal office in the eyes of the lower classes. Even apart from the verses the caricatures were vulgar enough in all conscience. Nudities in the grossest postures alternate with comicalities the better to ensure success with the populace.An attempt has been made to exonerate him of direct responsibility for the pictures, and to set them down to the account of the draughtsman who, according to a passage in a letter of Luther’s, was believed to be his friend, the famous painter Lucas Cranach.That the whole was really a child of Luther’s own mind is proved, however, by the very title-page “Popery Pictured by Dr. M. Luther,” Wittenberg, 1545, as well as by his clear and outspoken statement shortly before his death to Pastor Matthias Wanckel of Halle. “I still have muchthat ought to be told the world concerning the Pope and his kingdom, and for this reason I have published these images and figures, each of which stands for a separate book to be written against the Pope and his kingdom. I wanted to witness before the whole world what I thought of the Pope and his devil’s kingdom; let them be my last Will and Testament.” “I have greatly vexed the Pope with these nasty pictures,” “Oh, how the sow will lift her tail! But, even should they kill me, they must gorge on the filth that the Pope holds in his hand. I have placed a golden thing in the Pope’s hands [i.e. in the picture to be described immediately] that he may pledge them in it.”[1672]—Again, in a letter to Amsdorf, he alludes to a scene in which the Furies figure, saying that he had designed them (“appingerem”), and describing in detail what he meant the figures to stand for.[1673]Hence it is impossible to contest Luther’s real authorship.It is true that, on one occasion, he speaks of Cranach the painter as the draughtsman of one of the pictures; he may, however, have simply meant that it originated in his studio. According to expert opinion the technique of the woodcuts differs so much from the master’s that they cannot be attributed to him; they may, however, have been executed by one of his pupils under his direction.[1674]We may now glance at the nine pictures which make up the “Abbildung des Bapstum,” commencing with that just referred to.[1675]The picture with the Furies to which Luther refers is that which represents the “birth and origin of the Pope,” as the Latin superscription describes it. Here is depicted, in a peculiarly revolting way, what Luther says in his “Wider das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft,” viz. the Pope’s being born from the “devil’s behind.” The devil-mother is portrayed as a hideous woman with a tail, from under which Pope and Cardinals are emerging head foremost. Of the Furies one is suckling, another carrying, and the third rocking the cradle of the Papal infant, whom the draughtsman everywhere depicts wearing the tiara. These are the Furies Megæra, Alecto and Tisiphone.[1676]Another picture shows the “Worship of the Pope as God of the World.” This, too, expresses a thought contained in the “Wider das Bapstum,” where Luther says: “We may also with a safe conscience take to the closet his coat of arms with the Papal keys and his crown, and use them for the relief of nature.”[1677]As a matter of fact in this picture we see on a stool decorated with the papal insignia a crown or tiara set upside down on which a man-at-arms is seated in the action of easing himself; a second, with his breeches undone, prepares to do the same, while a third who has already done so is adjusting his dress.The picture with the title “The Pope gives a Council in Germany” shows the Pope in his tiara riding on a sow and digging his spurs into her sides. The sow is Germany which is obliged to submit to such ignominious treatment from the Papists; as for the Council which the Pope is giving to the German people it is depicted as his own, the Pope’s, excrement, which he holds in his hand pledging the Germans in it, as Luther says in the passage quoted above (p. 422). The Pope blesses the steaming object while the sow noses it with her snout. Underneath stands the ribald verse:“Sow, I want to have a ride,Spur you well on either side.Did you say ‘Concilium’?Take instead my ‘merdrum.’”[1678]“Here the Pope’s feet are kissed,” are the words over another picture, and, from the Pope who is seated on his throne with the Bull of Excommunication in his hand, two men are seen running away, showing him, as Köstlin says, “their tongues and hinder parts with the utmost indecency.”[1679]The inscription below runs:“Pope, don’t scare us so with your ban;Please don’t be so angry a man;Or else we shall take good careTo show you the ‘Belvedere.’”Köstlin’s description must be supplemented by adding that the two men, whose faces and bared posteriors are turned towards the Pope, are depicted as emitting wind in his direction in the shape of puffs of smoke; from the Pope’s Bull fire, flames and stones are bursting forth.Of the remaining woodcuts one reproduces the scene which formed the title-page to the first edition of the “Wider das Bapstum,” viz. the gaping jaws of hell, between the teeth of which is seen the Pope surrounded by a cohort of devils, some of whom are crowning him with the tiara; another portrays the famous Pope-Ass, said to have been cast up by the Tiber near Rome; it shows “what God Himself thinks of Popery,”[1680]yet another depicts a pet idea of Luther’s,[1681]viz. the “reward of the ‘Papa satanissimus’ and his cardinals,” i.e. their being hanged, while their tongues, which had been torn out by the root, are nailed fast to the gallows. “How the Pope teaches faith and theology”; here the Pope is shown as a robed donkey sitting upright on a throne and playing the bagpipes with the help of his hoofs. “How the Pope thanks the Emperors for their boundless favours” introduces a scene where Clement IV with his own hand strikes off the head of Conradin. “How the Pope, following Peter’s example, honours the King” is the title of a woodcut where a Pope (probably Alexander III) sets his foot on the neck of the Emperor (Frederick Barbarossa at Venice).[1682]It is not necessary to waste words on the notorious falsehoods embodied in the last two pictures. Luther, moreover, further embellished the accounts he found, for not even the bitterest antagonist of the Papacy had ever dared to accuse Clement IV of having slain with his own hand the last of the Staufens. Among the ignorant masses to whom these pictures and verses were intended to appeal, there were, nevertheless, many who were prepared to accept such tales as true on the word of one known as the “man of God,” the Evangelist, the new Elias and the Prophet of Germany.In the “Historien des ehrwirdigen in Gott seligen thewren Mannes Gottes,” Mathesius says of Luther: “In the year [15]45 he brought out the mighty, earnest book against the Papacyfounded by the devil and maintained and bolstered up by lying signs, and, in the same year, also caused many scathing pictures to be struck off in which he portrayed for the benefit of those unable to read, the true nature and monstrosity of Antichrist, just as the Spirit of God in the Apocalypse of St. John depicted the red bride of Babylon, or as Master John Hus summed up his teaching in pictures for the people, of the Lord Christ and of Antichrist.” “The Holy Ghost is well able to be severe and cutting,” says Mathesius of this book and the caricatures: “God is a jealous God and a burning fire, and those who are driven and inflamed by His Spirit to wage a ghostly warfare against the foes of God show themselves worthy foemen of those who withstand their Lord and Saviour.”[1683]Mathesius, like many others, was full of admiration for the work.The woodcuts pleased Luther so well that he himself wrote autograph inscriptions above and below a proof set, and hung them up in his room.[1684]“The devil knows well, that, when the foolish people hear high-sounding words of abuse, they are taken in and blindly believe them without asking for any further grounds or reasons.” The words are Luther’s own, though written at an earlier date.[1685]That they applied even more to caricatures Luther was well aware, nor was this the first time that he had flung such pictures amongst the masses the better to excite them. As early as 1521, at Luther’s instigation, with the help of Cranach’s pencil, Melanchthon and Schwertfeger had done something of the sort in the “Passional Christi und Antichristi.”[1686]In a booklet of 1526, “Das Bapstum mit seinen Gliedern,” containing sixty-five caricatures and scurrilous doggerel verses composed by Luther, everything religious, from the Pope down to the monks and nuns, was held up to ridicule.[1687]The use of caricature was, it is true, not unusual in those days of violent controversy, nor were Catholics slow to have recourse to it against Luther; Cochlæus, for instance, in his “Lutherus Septiceps” has a crude illustration of a figurewith seven heads. But everything of this nature, his own earlier productions included, was put into the shade by Luther’s final pictures of the Papacy.At the end of his “Wider das Bapstum” Luther had ventured to hope that he would be able to go even further in another booklet, and, that, should he die in the meantime, God would raise up another man who would “make things a thousand times hotter.” His threat he practically carried out in his “Popery Pictured,” in what Paul Lehfeldt calls his “highly offensive and revolting woodcuts,” which “certainly made things a thousand times worse seeing the appeal they made to the imagination.”[1688]The fact, that, “in spite of the numerous reprints,” very few copies indeed have survived is attributed by Lehfeldt to the indignation felt in both camps, Lutheran and Catholic, which led to the wholesale destruction of the book.So pleased was the Elector of Saxony with the “Wider das Bapstum” that he helped to push it; he bought twenty florins’ worth of copies and had them distributed; this Luther hastened to tell Amsdorf with all the greater satisfaction, seeing that he had heard that others were expressing their disapproval of the book.[1689]It may be that the Elector also helped to spread the caricatures. If we may believe a sermon by Cyriacus Spangenberg, some of Luther’s own friends nevertheless made representations and begged him “to desist from publishing such figures, as of late he had caused to be circulated against the Pope.”[1690]Yet three years after Luther’s death the fanatical Flacius Illyricus, in bringing out a new edition of the caricature of the Pope on the sow, with a fresh description of it, characterised it as a “prophetic picture by Elias the Third of blessed memory,” and took severely to task all who felt otherwise.[1691]He has it, that “Many who walk according to the flesh rather than in the wisdom, piety and retirement of the spirit, did a few years ago [1545] actually dare to call these and certain other like figures shameless prints, and fancies of a brainless old fool.” The writer thinks he has proved, that, “far from being an outcome of wanton stupidity they proceeded from a ghostly, godly wisdom and zeal.”[1692]Such attempts at vindication only prove that Luther was not alone in allowing himself to be dominated, and his mind darkened by such morbid fancies.The psychology reflected in these much-debated woodcuts deserves more careful scrutiny.Those undoubtedly take too superficial a view of thematter, who, in their desire to exonerate Luther, refuse to see in these caricatures anything more than the exuberant effusions of ridicule gone mad. On the other hand, some of Luther’s enemies are no less wrong in failing to see that the indignation which speaks from these drawings is meant in bitter earnest.If, as is only right, we view this frivolous imagery in the light of Luther’s mental state at the time and of his whole attitude then, it will stand out as a sort of confession of faith on the part of the author, appalling indeed, but absolutely truthful, a picture of his deepest thoughts and feelings, steeped as they were in his sombre pseudo-mysticism and devil-craze. The same holds good likewise of the “Wider das Bapstum” of which this set of illustrations is a sort of supplement.The revolting images which rise before his mind like bubbles to the surface of the fermenting tan, seem to him so true to fact that he protests that the cuts are in no sense defamatory; “should anyone feel offended or hurt in his feelings by them I am ready to answer for their publication before the whole Empire.”[1693]So much had he brooded over the illustrations, that, as is shown by his answer to Amsdorf concerning the Furies, he could describe their every detail with an enthusiasm and minuteness such as few artists could equal, even when descanting on their own work. In the midst of his sufferings of body and mind and of all his toil, he finds leisure to explain to his friend how: The first Fury, Megæra, assists at the birth of the Pope-Antichrist, because she is the incarnation of hate and envy and thus shows that the Pope “as the true imitator, nay, ape, of Satan hinders all that is good”; the second, Alecto, according to classic teaching, has the special task of symbolising that “the Pope works all that is evil”; in this he is helped by the “old serpent of Paradise”; the latter it is who is to blame for all the misfortunes of the human race from the beginning, and for still “daily filling the world with new misfortunes by means of the Pope, Mohamed, the Cardinals, the Archbishop of Mayence, etc.; and who simply can’t cease its sad abominations”; as for the third Fury, Tisiphone, she is passive, she arouses God’s anger, whereby the tyrants and the wicked, as, for instance, Cain, Saul and Absalom, are punished for the doings of the two other Furies, etc. “Such is the devil of those possessed and of the insane, who also blaspheme God. This Fury rules more particularlyin the opinions of the Pope and the heretics and in their blasphemous doctrines which fall under a well-merited reprobation.”[1694]It is characteristic of the mental attitude of the writer that, in the very next letter to the same friend, he replies to a question of Amsdorf’s regarding a fox of abnormal shape recently caught; according to Luther “it might well portend the end of all things”; this end he will “pray for and await”; but “of any Council or negotiations” he is determined “to hear nothing, believe nothing, hope nothing and think nothing.” “Vanity of vanities,” such is his greeting to Trent; as for Germany, he can only discern “the spark of the coming fire prepared for its chastisement, the decline of all justice, the undermining of law and order and the end of the Empire.” “May God remove us and ours before the desolation comes!”[1695]When in such a mood he is convinced that the fresh revelation of Antichrist in the new engravings constitute a grand service to the Kingdom of God. He knows already the exalted reward of their faith prepared for himself and his faithful followers. “I have this great advantage: my Master is called Shevlimini [see above, vol. iv., p. 46]; He told us: ‘I will raise you up at the last day’; then He will say: ‘Dr. Martin, Dr. Jonas, Mr. Michael, come forth,’ and summon us all by our names as Christ says in John: ‘And He calls them all by name.’ Therefore be not affrighted.” This he said shortly before his death, reviewing his last publications.[1696]By a similar misuse of the words of the Bible he invites all his followers, and that too in the name of the “Spirit,” to do to the Pope just what the three rude fellows are doing over the inverted tiara of the Pope in the woodcut entitled “The worship of the Pope as God of the world.” The verses below the picture are scarcely credible:“To Christ’s dear Kingdom the Pope has doneWhat they are doing to his own crown.Says the Spirit: Give him quits,Fill it brimful as God bids.”In the margin express reference is made to the solemn words of God (Apoc. xviii. 6), where the voice from heaven proclaims judgment on Babylon: “Render to her as she also hath rendered to you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup wherein she hath mingled, mingle ye double unto her.”It would surely be hard to find anywhere so filthy a parody of the sacred text as Luther here permits himself.The same must be said of the utter hatred which gleams from every one of the pictures. Into it we gain some insight from aletter of Luther’s to Jonas: To console his suffering colleague he has a fling at the Council of Trent: “God has cursed them as it is written: ‘Cursed be he who trusts in man.’” God, says he, will surely destroy the Council, legates and all.[1697]Jonas was ailing from stone, besides being tormented with “dire fancies.”[1698]Luther, who himself suffered severely from stone, exclaimed to his friend Amsdorf: Would that the stone would pass into the Pope and these Gomorrhaic cardinals![1699]A prey to anger and depression, to hatred, defiance and fear of the devil, he is yet determined to mock at Satan who is ever at his heels in small matters as well as in great. “I shall, please God, laugh at Satan though he seeks to deride me and my Church.”[1700]Such, judging by the letters he wrote in that period, was the soil which produced both the caricatures and the “Wider das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft.”So deeply seated in Luther’s devil-lore, not to say devil-mania, was the tendency that inspired the woodcuts, that, when once his conscience pricked him on account of the excessive coarseness of one of the scenes, he could not be moved to admit any more than that the drawing might be improved on the score of decency and be made to look ... “more diabolical.” The picture in question was that of the “Birth of the Pope-Antichrist.” Evidently some friends had protested against the cynical boldness of the birth-scene. Luther writes to Amsdorf: “Your nephew George has shown me the picture of the Pope, but Master Lucas is a coarse painter. He might have spared the female sex as the creature of God and for the sake of our own mothers. He could well design other figures more worthy of the Pope, i.e. more diabolical; but do you be judge.”[1701]Later on, when Amsdorf still betrayed some scruple, Luther promised him: “I shall take diligent steps should I survive to see that Lucas the painter substitutes for this obscene picturea more seemly one.”[1702]So far as is known, however, no such substitution took place, and still less was the caricature withdrawn from circulation; nor, again, would it have been at all easy even for the cleverest painter to produce something “more diabolical.”For the coarseness of the drawings there exists no shred of excuse.Luther had indeed never disdained to be coarse and vulgar when this served his purpose; as time went on, however, his love for the language of the gutter became much more noticeable, at least in his controversial writings. To some extent this was the reaction of the impression he saw produced on the masses by his words, his growing sense of the power of his tongue being in part responsible for the ever more frequent recourse he had to this “original” mode of speech; to some extent too his obscene language and imagery were simply an outcome of his devil-craze, with which, indeed, they were in perfect keeping.Certain admirers have sought to excuse Luther by pointing out that, after all, none of his obscenities was of a nature to excite concupiscence; this we must indeed allow, but the admission affords but a small crumb of comfort. Without finding anything actually lascivious, either in the draughtsmanship of these pictures or in the filthy language to which Luther was generally addicted, one can still regret his “peculiarity” in this respect.That, in those days, people were more inured than our refined contemporaries to the controversial use of such revolting coarseness has been stated and is indeed perfectly true. The fact is, however, that what contributed to harden the people was the frequency with which the Protestants in their polemics had recourse to the weapon of obscenity. Who had more responsibility in the decline in the sense of modesty and propriety among German folk than the Wittenberg writer whose works enjoyed so wide a circulation? It has been pointed out elsewhere that though certain Catholic writers of that age, and even of earlier times, were not entirely innocent of a tendency to indelicacy, Luther outdid them all in this respect.[1703]Nevertheless, however great thelack of refinement may have been, though the lowest classes then may have been even more prone than now to speak with alarming frankness of certain functions of the body, and though even the better classes and the writers may have followed suit, yet so far did Luther venture to go, that the humanist Willibald Pirkheimer was expressing the feeling of very many when he said, in 1529: “Such is the audacity of his unwashed tongue that Luther cannot hide what is in his heart; he seems either to have completely gone off his head or to be egged on by some evil demon.”[1704]As day is to night so is the contrast between such strictures and the praise bestowed on Luther by his own side, not indeed so much for the works last mentioned as for his literary labours in general. The unprejudiced historian must admit that there is some ground for such praise (cp. xxxiv., 2). That Luther’s popular writings must contain much that is really instructive and edifying amidst a deal of dross is surely clear from the favourable reception they met even in quarters not at all blinded by prejudice. In what has gone before we ourselves have repeatedly dwelt on the better elements often to be found in the non-polemical portion of Luther’s literary legacy.

“The wrath of God has come upon them,” he writes in one such passage, “of which I do not like to think, nor has this book been a cheerful one for me to write, for I have been forced to avert my eyes from the terrible picture, sometimes in anger, sometimes in scorn; and it is painful to me to have to speak of their horrible blasphemies against our Lord and His dear Mother, to which we Christians are loath indeed to listen; I can well understand what St. Paul means in Romans x. 1, when he says that his heart was sore when he thought of them; such is the case with every Christian who earnestly dwells, not on the temporal misery and misfortune of which the Jews complain, but on their addiction to blasphemy, to cursing, to spitting at God Himself and all that is God’s, even to their eternal damnation, and who yet refuse to listen or lend an ear but will have it that allthey do is done out of zeal for God. O God, our Heavenly Father, turn aside Thy wrath and let there be an end of it for the sake of Thy dear Son. Amen.”[1645]“O my God,” he groans elsewhere, “my beloved Creator and Father, do Thou graciously take into account my unwillingness to have to speak so shamefully of Thine accursed enemies, the devil and the Jews. Thou knowest I do so out of the ardour of my faith and to the glory of Thy Divine Majesty, for it pierces me to the very quick.”[1646]If, however, we look more closely into the matter we shall see that the “ardour of his faith” was also fed from other sources. There was, for instance, the reaction of his own protracted struggle in defence of the new doctrines and against the Papacy, a struggle which left deep marks on all his labours and on all his writings.Towards the end of a career which had worked such untold disaster to the Christianity of the past he feels keenly the need of vindicating the dignity of Christ if only to soothe his own conscience; he was resolved to hammer it in with the utmost defiance, just as formerly he had clung to the idea that, by his doctrine, he was defending the rights of Christ against the Pope. He is now resolved again to take his stand on this, his efforts becoming the more violent the more the sight of the ruin wrought by his own work affrights him. Hence his eagerness to take advantage of Jewish attacks on the pillars of the faith in order, while triumphing over them, to enjoy the sense of his comradeship with Christ, the Son of God now so soon to come in Judgment. Here again he allows his vanity to mislead him and to paint his intervention on behalf of the great truth of Christianity as far more successful than that of any of the Popes; this helps him to close his eyes to the wounds which the inner voice tells him he had inflicted on the Christian truths and on the public life of Christendom. For was he not doing for Christ what the Pope was quite unable to do? Indeed, “the world, the Turk, the Jew and the Pope are all raging blasphemously against the name of the Lord, laying waste His Kingdom and deriding His Will; but ‘greater is He that is with us than he that is with the world’; He triumphs,” so he wrote at that time to some foreign sympathisers, “andwill triumph in you to all eternity; may He console you by His Holy Spirit in which He has called you to oneness with His Body.”[1647]It is true, so he says elsewhere, that the Pope admits the existence of Christ, but, in spite of this, neither Jews nor Turks are quite so bad; the Jews have far better arguments than the Papists for themselves and their religion; the foundations of the latter are easily shaken; the Papist Church is a worse “den of murderers” than Turks, Tartars, or Jews.[1648]All the more glorious and creditable to the new Evangel is therefore the victory won by Luther over the Jews; it may serve to show the world that his school’s study of the Bible could furnish the weapons to bring about such a result. The Pope, with his unbiblical treatment of the Jews, had merely succeeded in making them doubly un-Christian; but to us God has unlocked the Holy Books, hence on us devolves the duty of pointing out to the Jews their errors.[1649]Luther accordingly claims, that his “Von den Jüden” was the first real work of instruction on Judaism, one which “might teach us Germans from history what a Jew is and warn our Christians against them as against veriest devils.” It was only fitting that he who had unearthed Scripture should also “wipe clean the holy old Bible from Jewish ‘Hamperes’ and ‘Judas-water.’”[1650]Nevertheless everything else—even his yeoman service in the cause of the Bible, and his shaming of the Papacy, which had so ineffectively struggled against the Jews—recedes into the background before his determination to crown his whole life-work by snatching from the Jewish devil the honour of Christ our one Salvation.This was admittedly his motive for taking up his pen yet a third time.The Third Work against the Jews, 1543As early as June, 1543, Luther was engaged on a new polemical work against the Jews entitled “On the last words of David.”[1651]It is a lengthy essay on 2 Kings xxiii. 1-7,and certain other striking passages, with the object of proving that the Messias was to be a God-man and of vindicating the mystery of the Trinity.He intended to show by these examples how helpful Hebrew learning and Bible study can be in defending Scripture against the attacks of unbelievers; he also wanted to establish that neither Jews nor Papists possessed the real key to the Bible, viz. the knowledge of Christ; “for in this all sticks, and lies, and rests: Whosoever has not or will not have this man called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whom we Christians preach [the new Evangel undefiled], let him avoid the Bible; such is my conscientious advice, else he will certainly come a cropper, and become ever blinder and more crazy the more he studies.”[1652]In David’s final words on the Messias, Luther saw something peculiarly solemn; David, when “about to die and depart,” gives his parting injunction and adds: “This is my firm belief; on this I stand fast and immoveable.... Hence I am joyful, and will gladly live or die as and when God wills.”[1653]“Whoever can boast [like David] that the Spirit of the Lord speaks through him, and that His word is on his tongue, must indeed be very sure of his cause.”[1654]In this writing the Jews are not attacked in such unmeasured language as in the two others just considered; the tone of the whole is much calmer, indeed comparatively kind. It may be that the representations made to him concerning his violence had not been without some effect.The end, like the beginning, expresses the wish that, without suffering ourselves to be led astray by the false readings of the Jews, we should “plainly and clearly find and recognise our dear Lord and Saviour in Holy Writ.”[1655]This is what leads Melanchthon to praise the work as enjoyable reading, because there is nothing sweeter to the pious than to deepen their knowledge of the God-man and to learn the art of real prayer so different from that of the heathen, the Jew and the Turk.[1656]Against the TurksThe honour of Christianity and of its Divine Founder was also what Luther had at heart in the two books which in his later years he was instrumental in publishing against the Turks, viz. his “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den Türcken”(1541) and his new edition (1542) of an old work against the Koran, the “Verlegung des Alcoran Bruder Richardi.”In one passage of the Vermanunge he even couches this thought in the form of a prayer:“Yes, indeed, this is our offence against them [the Turks], that we preach, believe and confess Thee, God the Father, as the only True God, and Thy Beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost as one eternal God.” “Thou knowest, God the Father Almighty, that we have not sinned in any other way against the devil, Pope or Turk and that they have no right or power to punish us.” Most fervently, as in the very presence of God, he declares that he must withstand the devil who is helping the Turk to set up “his Mahmed in the stead of Jesus Christ Thy Beloved Son.”[1657]Speaking of prayer against the Turk he makes every Christian say to God: “Thou tellest, nay, compellest, me to pray in the name of Thy Beloved Son Our Lord Jesus Christ.”[1658]In this writing he strongly reprobates both the public disorders on the side of the new Evangel and the Papists’ obstinate resistance to the Word of God; both would be terribly punished by means of the Turks unless people set about amending their lives and giving themselves up to earnest prayer. Now, after the Evangel had been preached for so many years, “everyone knew, thank God, what each class and individual man should do or leave undone, which, alas, formerly we did not know, though we would gladly have done it.”[1659]Should our prayer fail to achieve the desired object, “then let us say a longer and a better one.” “How happy should we be were our prayers against the Turk again to prove of no avail, but, instead, the Last Day came—which indeed cannot any longer be far off—spelling the end of both Turk and Pope as I do not for a moment doubt.”[1660]At any rate Luther might have used better weapons against the Turks than he actually did in this so-called admonition.About the time he wrote it we hear Luther occasionally expressing a hope that the Turks may be converted to the Evangel, now shining so brightly and convincingly.“I should like to see the Evangel make its way amongst the Turks, which may indeed very well happen.” “It is quite in God’s power to work a miracle and make them listen to the Evangel.... If a ‘Wascha’ [Pasha] were toaccept the Gospel we should soon see what effect it would have on the Grand Turk; and as he has many sons it is quite likely one of them might reach it.”—He despaired of the overthrow of the Turkish empire, but was fond of dreaming of the coming of a “good man who should withstand the dogma of Mohamed.”[1661]“The Turk rules more mightily by his religion than by arms”; such was Luther’s opinion. He had to be confronted with the belief in Christ, that belief which Luther had learnt “amidst the bitter pangs of death,” viz. “that Christ is God”; in great temptations nothing could help us but this faith, “the most powerful consolation that is bestowed on us”; this same article of faith God was vindicating, even by miracles, against Turk and Pope. To this he too would cleave in spite of any objections of reason.[1662]He did not, however, patiently wait till the “good man” came who was to oppose the dogma of the Turks; he himself set about this undertaking in March, 1542.[1663]After having, shortly before, become acquainted with the Koran in a poor translation, he proceeded himself to translate into German a work against the Koran, written in 1300, by the Dominican Richardus (Ricoldus). To it he appended a preface of his own and a “Treue Warnung.”[1664]He had undertaken, so he says, to disclose and answer the devil-inspired “infamies” contained in the Alcoran, “the better to strengthen us in our Christian faith.”[1665]—This out-of-date book of a mediæval theologian was, however, hardly the work to furnish an insight into the Koran, particularly as it built far too much on badly read texts and doubtful stories uncritically taken for granted; from such defects the refutation was bound to suffer.Some of Luther’s own additions are characteristic.Here he gives up all hope of any conversion of the Moslem; he likewise despairs of the success of the Christian armies.[1666]—“Mahmet,” so he teaches, “leads people to eternal damnationas the Pope also did and still does.” He reigns “in the Levant” as the Pope does “in the land of the setting sun,” thanks to a system of “wilful lying.”[1667]“Oh, Lord God! Let all who can, pray, sigh and implore that of God’s anger we may see an end,” as Daniel says (Dan. xi. 36).[1668]Bad as Mahmet was, Luther was loath to see in him Antichrist; “the Pope, whom we have with us, he is the real Antichrist, with his ‘Drecktal,’ Alcoran and man-made doctrines.” “The chaste Pope takes no wife, but all women are his.... Obscene Mahmet at least makes no pretence of chastity.... As for the other points such as murder, avarice and pride, I will not enumerate them, but here again the Pope far outdoes Mahmet.” “May God give us His grace and punish both the Pope and Mahmet together with their devils. I have done my part as a faithful prophet and preacher.”[1669]Words such as these were certainly as little calculated to further the common cause of the Christians against the Turks as had been the somewhat similar thoughts which, at an earlier date, he had been wont to weave into his exhortations to resist the Turks.[1670]As a last straw Luther in the “Treue Warnung” goes on to declare, that, unless Christians mend their life, are converted to the Evangel and live up to it, it is to be hoped that the Turkish arms will prove victorious.For amongst those who “pretend to be Christians and to constitute the holy Church” there are, so he declares, so many who “knowingly and wantonly despise and persecute the known truth and vindicate their open and notorious idolatry, lying and unrighteousness.” Such Christians, of whom the forces that had been raised chiefly consisted, formed, so he thought, an army which might itself well be styled Turkish. “If then two such ‘Turkish’ armies were to advance against one another, the one called Mahmetish and the other dubbing itself Christian, then, good friend, I should suggest you might give Our Lord God some advice, for He would assuredly need it, as to which Turks He is to help and carry to victory. I, the worst of advisers, would counsel Him to give the victory to the Mahmetish Turks over the Christian Turks, as indeed He has done hitherto without any advice from us and even contrary to our prayers and complaints. The reason is, that the Mahmetish Turks have neither God’s Word nor those who might preach it.... Had they preachers of the Godly Word they might perhaps, some of them at least, be presently changed from swine into men. But our Christian Turks have the Word of God and preachers, and yet they refuse to listen, and from men become mere swine.”[1671]The public danger which threatened owing to the advance of the Turks caused Luther, however, about this time to promote the sale of the Latin translation and confutation of the Koran brought out under Melanchthon’s auspices by Bibliander (Buchmann) of Zürich. In a popular hymn which he composed he also took care to couple the Turkish danger with that to be apprehended from the Papists. This short hymn, “which became a favourite with the German Evangelicals” (Köstlin), begins:“In Thy Word preserve us, Lord,Ward off Pope and Turkish sword.”The picture which Luther incidentally paints of himself in his effusions against the Jews and the Turks, receives its final touch in his last great and solemn pronouncement against Popery which the lines just quoted may serve to introduce.The Hideous Caricatures of “Popery Pictured”One cannot contemplate without sadness Luther’s last efforts against the Papacy.Fortunately for literature the projected continuation of the frightful book “Wider das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft” never saw the light; Luther’s intention had been to make it even worse than the first part.His final labours, aimed directly at the Pope and the Council of Trent, consisted in suggesting the subjects and drafting the versified letterpress for a number of woodcuts, designed expressly to ridicule and defame the Papal office in the eyes of the lower classes. Even apart from the verses the caricatures were vulgar enough in all conscience. Nudities in the grossest postures alternate with comicalities the better to ensure success with the populace.An attempt has been made to exonerate him of direct responsibility for the pictures, and to set them down to the account of the draughtsman who, according to a passage in a letter of Luther’s, was believed to be his friend, the famous painter Lucas Cranach.That the whole was really a child of Luther’s own mind is proved, however, by the very title-page “Popery Pictured by Dr. M. Luther,” Wittenberg, 1545, as well as by his clear and outspoken statement shortly before his death to Pastor Matthias Wanckel of Halle. “I still have muchthat ought to be told the world concerning the Pope and his kingdom, and for this reason I have published these images and figures, each of which stands for a separate book to be written against the Pope and his kingdom. I wanted to witness before the whole world what I thought of the Pope and his devil’s kingdom; let them be my last Will and Testament.” “I have greatly vexed the Pope with these nasty pictures,” “Oh, how the sow will lift her tail! But, even should they kill me, they must gorge on the filth that the Pope holds in his hand. I have placed a golden thing in the Pope’s hands [i.e. in the picture to be described immediately] that he may pledge them in it.”[1672]—Again, in a letter to Amsdorf, he alludes to a scene in which the Furies figure, saying that he had designed them (“appingerem”), and describing in detail what he meant the figures to stand for.[1673]Hence it is impossible to contest Luther’s real authorship.It is true that, on one occasion, he speaks of Cranach the painter as the draughtsman of one of the pictures; he may, however, have simply meant that it originated in his studio. According to expert opinion the technique of the woodcuts differs so much from the master’s that they cannot be attributed to him; they may, however, have been executed by one of his pupils under his direction.[1674]We may now glance at the nine pictures which make up the “Abbildung des Bapstum,” commencing with that just referred to.[1675]The picture with the Furies to which Luther refers is that which represents the “birth and origin of the Pope,” as the Latin superscription describes it. Here is depicted, in a peculiarly revolting way, what Luther says in his “Wider das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft,” viz. the Pope’s being born from the “devil’s behind.” The devil-mother is portrayed as a hideous woman with a tail, from under which Pope and Cardinals are emerging head foremost. Of the Furies one is suckling, another carrying, and the third rocking the cradle of the Papal infant, whom the draughtsman everywhere depicts wearing the tiara. These are the Furies Megæra, Alecto and Tisiphone.[1676]Another picture shows the “Worship of the Pope as God of the World.” This, too, expresses a thought contained in the “Wider das Bapstum,” where Luther says: “We may also with a safe conscience take to the closet his coat of arms with the Papal keys and his crown, and use them for the relief of nature.”[1677]As a matter of fact in this picture we see on a stool decorated with the papal insignia a crown or tiara set upside down on which a man-at-arms is seated in the action of easing himself; a second, with his breeches undone, prepares to do the same, while a third who has already done so is adjusting his dress.The picture with the title “The Pope gives a Council in Germany” shows the Pope in his tiara riding on a sow and digging his spurs into her sides. The sow is Germany which is obliged to submit to such ignominious treatment from the Papists; as for the Council which the Pope is giving to the German people it is depicted as his own, the Pope’s, excrement, which he holds in his hand pledging the Germans in it, as Luther says in the passage quoted above (p. 422). The Pope blesses the steaming object while the sow noses it with her snout. Underneath stands the ribald verse:“Sow, I want to have a ride,Spur you well on either side.Did you say ‘Concilium’?Take instead my ‘merdrum.’”[1678]“Here the Pope’s feet are kissed,” are the words over another picture, and, from the Pope who is seated on his throne with the Bull of Excommunication in his hand, two men are seen running away, showing him, as Köstlin says, “their tongues and hinder parts with the utmost indecency.”[1679]The inscription below runs:“Pope, don’t scare us so with your ban;Please don’t be so angry a man;Or else we shall take good careTo show you the ‘Belvedere.’”Köstlin’s description must be supplemented by adding that the two men, whose faces and bared posteriors are turned towards the Pope, are depicted as emitting wind in his direction in the shape of puffs of smoke; from the Pope’s Bull fire, flames and stones are bursting forth.Of the remaining woodcuts one reproduces the scene which formed the title-page to the first edition of the “Wider das Bapstum,” viz. the gaping jaws of hell, between the teeth of which is seen the Pope surrounded by a cohort of devils, some of whom are crowning him with the tiara; another portrays the famous Pope-Ass, said to have been cast up by the Tiber near Rome; it shows “what God Himself thinks of Popery,”[1680]yet another depicts a pet idea of Luther’s,[1681]viz. the “reward of the ‘Papa satanissimus’ and his cardinals,” i.e. their being hanged, while their tongues, which had been torn out by the root, are nailed fast to the gallows. “How the Pope teaches faith and theology”; here the Pope is shown as a robed donkey sitting upright on a throne and playing the bagpipes with the help of his hoofs. “How the Pope thanks the Emperors for their boundless favours” introduces a scene where Clement IV with his own hand strikes off the head of Conradin. “How the Pope, following Peter’s example, honours the King” is the title of a woodcut where a Pope (probably Alexander III) sets his foot on the neck of the Emperor (Frederick Barbarossa at Venice).[1682]It is not necessary to waste words on the notorious falsehoods embodied in the last two pictures. Luther, moreover, further embellished the accounts he found, for not even the bitterest antagonist of the Papacy had ever dared to accuse Clement IV of having slain with his own hand the last of the Staufens. Among the ignorant masses to whom these pictures and verses were intended to appeal, there were, nevertheless, many who were prepared to accept such tales as true on the word of one known as the “man of God,” the Evangelist, the new Elias and the Prophet of Germany.In the “Historien des ehrwirdigen in Gott seligen thewren Mannes Gottes,” Mathesius says of Luther: “In the year [15]45 he brought out the mighty, earnest book against the Papacyfounded by the devil and maintained and bolstered up by lying signs, and, in the same year, also caused many scathing pictures to be struck off in which he portrayed for the benefit of those unable to read, the true nature and monstrosity of Antichrist, just as the Spirit of God in the Apocalypse of St. John depicted the red bride of Babylon, or as Master John Hus summed up his teaching in pictures for the people, of the Lord Christ and of Antichrist.” “The Holy Ghost is well able to be severe and cutting,” says Mathesius of this book and the caricatures: “God is a jealous God and a burning fire, and those who are driven and inflamed by His Spirit to wage a ghostly warfare against the foes of God show themselves worthy foemen of those who withstand their Lord and Saviour.”[1683]Mathesius, like many others, was full of admiration for the work.The woodcuts pleased Luther so well that he himself wrote autograph inscriptions above and below a proof set, and hung them up in his room.[1684]“The devil knows well, that, when the foolish people hear high-sounding words of abuse, they are taken in and blindly believe them without asking for any further grounds or reasons.” The words are Luther’s own, though written at an earlier date.[1685]That they applied even more to caricatures Luther was well aware, nor was this the first time that he had flung such pictures amongst the masses the better to excite them. As early as 1521, at Luther’s instigation, with the help of Cranach’s pencil, Melanchthon and Schwertfeger had done something of the sort in the “Passional Christi und Antichristi.”[1686]In a booklet of 1526, “Das Bapstum mit seinen Gliedern,” containing sixty-five caricatures and scurrilous doggerel verses composed by Luther, everything religious, from the Pope down to the monks and nuns, was held up to ridicule.[1687]The use of caricature was, it is true, not unusual in those days of violent controversy, nor were Catholics slow to have recourse to it against Luther; Cochlæus, for instance, in his “Lutherus Septiceps” has a crude illustration of a figurewith seven heads. But everything of this nature, his own earlier productions included, was put into the shade by Luther’s final pictures of the Papacy.At the end of his “Wider das Bapstum” Luther had ventured to hope that he would be able to go even further in another booklet, and, that, should he die in the meantime, God would raise up another man who would “make things a thousand times hotter.” His threat he practically carried out in his “Popery Pictured,” in what Paul Lehfeldt calls his “highly offensive and revolting woodcuts,” which “certainly made things a thousand times worse seeing the appeal they made to the imagination.”[1688]The fact, that, “in spite of the numerous reprints,” very few copies indeed have survived is attributed by Lehfeldt to the indignation felt in both camps, Lutheran and Catholic, which led to the wholesale destruction of the book.So pleased was the Elector of Saxony with the “Wider das Bapstum” that he helped to push it; he bought twenty florins’ worth of copies and had them distributed; this Luther hastened to tell Amsdorf with all the greater satisfaction, seeing that he had heard that others were expressing their disapproval of the book.[1689]It may be that the Elector also helped to spread the caricatures. If we may believe a sermon by Cyriacus Spangenberg, some of Luther’s own friends nevertheless made representations and begged him “to desist from publishing such figures, as of late he had caused to be circulated against the Pope.”[1690]Yet three years after Luther’s death the fanatical Flacius Illyricus, in bringing out a new edition of the caricature of the Pope on the sow, with a fresh description of it, characterised it as a “prophetic picture by Elias the Third of blessed memory,” and took severely to task all who felt otherwise.[1691]He has it, that “Many who walk according to the flesh rather than in the wisdom, piety and retirement of the spirit, did a few years ago [1545] actually dare to call these and certain other like figures shameless prints, and fancies of a brainless old fool.” The writer thinks he has proved, that, “far from being an outcome of wanton stupidity they proceeded from a ghostly, godly wisdom and zeal.”[1692]Such attempts at vindication only prove that Luther was not alone in allowing himself to be dominated, and his mind darkened by such morbid fancies.The psychology reflected in these much-debated woodcuts deserves more careful scrutiny.Those undoubtedly take too superficial a view of thematter, who, in their desire to exonerate Luther, refuse to see in these caricatures anything more than the exuberant effusions of ridicule gone mad. On the other hand, some of Luther’s enemies are no less wrong in failing to see that the indignation which speaks from these drawings is meant in bitter earnest.If, as is only right, we view this frivolous imagery in the light of Luther’s mental state at the time and of his whole attitude then, it will stand out as a sort of confession of faith on the part of the author, appalling indeed, but absolutely truthful, a picture of his deepest thoughts and feelings, steeped as they were in his sombre pseudo-mysticism and devil-craze. The same holds good likewise of the “Wider das Bapstum” of which this set of illustrations is a sort of supplement.The revolting images which rise before his mind like bubbles to the surface of the fermenting tan, seem to him so true to fact that he protests that the cuts are in no sense defamatory; “should anyone feel offended or hurt in his feelings by them I am ready to answer for their publication before the whole Empire.”[1693]So much had he brooded over the illustrations, that, as is shown by his answer to Amsdorf concerning the Furies, he could describe their every detail with an enthusiasm and minuteness such as few artists could equal, even when descanting on their own work. In the midst of his sufferings of body and mind and of all his toil, he finds leisure to explain to his friend how: The first Fury, Megæra, assists at the birth of the Pope-Antichrist, because she is the incarnation of hate and envy and thus shows that the Pope “as the true imitator, nay, ape, of Satan hinders all that is good”; the second, Alecto, according to classic teaching, has the special task of symbolising that “the Pope works all that is evil”; in this he is helped by the “old serpent of Paradise”; the latter it is who is to blame for all the misfortunes of the human race from the beginning, and for still “daily filling the world with new misfortunes by means of the Pope, Mohamed, the Cardinals, the Archbishop of Mayence, etc.; and who simply can’t cease its sad abominations”; as for the third Fury, Tisiphone, she is passive, she arouses God’s anger, whereby the tyrants and the wicked, as, for instance, Cain, Saul and Absalom, are punished for the doings of the two other Furies, etc. “Such is the devil of those possessed and of the insane, who also blaspheme God. This Fury rules more particularlyin the opinions of the Pope and the heretics and in their blasphemous doctrines which fall under a well-merited reprobation.”[1694]It is characteristic of the mental attitude of the writer that, in the very next letter to the same friend, he replies to a question of Amsdorf’s regarding a fox of abnormal shape recently caught; according to Luther “it might well portend the end of all things”; this end he will “pray for and await”; but “of any Council or negotiations” he is determined “to hear nothing, believe nothing, hope nothing and think nothing.” “Vanity of vanities,” such is his greeting to Trent; as for Germany, he can only discern “the spark of the coming fire prepared for its chastisement, the decline of all justice, the undermining of law and order and the end of the Empire.” “May God remove us and ours before the desolation comes!”[1695]When in such a mood he is convinced that the fresh revelation of Antichrist in the new engravings constitute a grand service to the Kingdom of God. He knows already the exalted reward of their faith prepared for himself and his faithful followers. “I have this great advantage: my Master is called Shevlimini [see above, vol. iv., p. 46]; He told us: ‘I will raise you up at the last day’; then He will say: ‘Dr. Martin, Dr. Jonas, Mr. Michael, come forth,’ and summon us all by our names as Christ says in John: ‘And He calls them all by name.’ Therefore be not affrighted.” This he said shortly before his death, reviewing his last publications.[1696]By a similar misuse of the words of the Bible he invites all his followers, and that too in the name of the “Spirit,” to do to the Pope just what the three rude fellows are doing over the inverted tiara of the Pope in the woodcut entitled “The worship of the Pope as God of the world.” The verses below the picture are scarcely credible:“To Christ’s dear Kingdom the Pope has doneWhat they are doing to his own crown.Says the Spirit: Give him quits,Fill it brimful as God bids.”In the margin express reference is made to the solemn words of God (Apoc. xviii. 6), where the voice from heaven proclaims judgment on Babylon: “Render to her as she also hath rendered to you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup wherein she hath mingled, mingle ye double unto her.”It would surely be hard to find anywhere so filthy a parody of the sacred text as Luther here permits himself.The same must be said of the utter hatred which gleams from every one of the pictures. Into it we gain some insight from aletter of Luther’s to Jonas: To console his suffering colleague he has a fling at the Council of Trent: “God has cursed them as it is written: ‘Cursed be he who trusts in man.’” God, says he, will surely destroy the Council, legates and all.[1697]Jonas was ailing from stone, besides being tormented with “dire fancies.”[1698]Luther, who himself suffered severely from stone, exclaimed to his friend Amsdorf: Would that the stone would pass into the Pope and these Gomorrhaic cardinals![1699]A prey to anger and depression, to hatred, defiance and fear of the devil, he is yet determined to mock at Satan who is ever at his heels in small matters as well as in great. “I shall, please God, laugh at Satan though he seeks to deride me and my Church.”[1700]Such, judging by the letters he wrote in that period, was the soil which produced both the caricatures and the “Wider das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft.”So deeply seated in Luther’s devil-lore, not to say devil-mania, was the tendency that inspired the woodcuts, that, when once his conscience pricked him on account of the excessive coarseness of one of the scenes, he could not be moved to admit any more than that the drawing might be improved on the score of decency and be made to look ... “more diabolical.” The picture in question was that of the “Birth of the Pope-Antichrist.” Evidently some friends had protested against the cynical boldness of the birth-scene. Luther writes to Amsdorf: “Your nephew George has shown me the picture of the Pope, but Master Lucas is a coarse painter. He might have spared the female sex as the creature of God and for the sake of our own mothers. He could well design other figures more worthy of the Pope, i.e. more diabolical; but do you be judge.”[1701]Later on, when Amsdorf still betrayed some scruple, Luther promised him: “I shall take diligent steps should I survive to see that Lucas the painter substitutes for this obscene picturea more seemly one.”[1702]So far as is known, however, no such substitution took place, and still less was the caricature withdrawn from circulation; nor, again, would it have been at all easy even for the cleverest painter to produce something “more diabolical.”For the coarseness of the drawings there exists no shred of excuse.Luther had indeed never disdained to be coarse and vulgar when this served his purpose; as time went on, however, his love for the language of the gutter became much more noticeable, at least in his controversial writings. To some extent this was the reaction of the impression he saw produced on the masses by his words, his growing sense of the power of his tongue being in part responsible for the ever more frequent recourse he had to this “original” mode of speech; to some extent too his obscene language and imagery were simply an outcome of his devil-craze, with which, indeed, they were in perfect keeping.Certain admirers have sought to excuse Luther by pointing out that, after all, none of his obscenities was of a nature to excite concupiscence; this we must indeed allow, but the admission affords but a small crumb of comfort. Without finding anything actually lascivious, either in the draughtsmanship of these pictures or in the filthy language to which Luther was generally addicted, one can still regret his “peculiarity” in this respect.That, in those days, people were more inured than our refined contemporaries to the controversial use of such revolting coarseness has been stated and is indeed perfectly true. The fact is, however, that what contributed to harden the people was the frequency with which the Protestants in their polemics had recourse to the weapon of obscenity. Who had more responsibility in the decline in the sense of modesty and propriety among German folk than the Wittenberg writer whose works enjoyed so wide a circulation? It has been pointed out elsewhere that though certain Catholic writers of that age, and even of earlier times, were not entirely innocent of a tendency to indelicacy, Luther outdid them all in this respect.[1703]Nevertheless, however great thelack of refinement may have been, though the lowest classes then may have been even more prone than now to speak with alarming frankness of certain functions of the body, and though even the better classes and the writers may have followed suit, yet so far did Luther venture to go, that the humanist Willibald Pirkheimer was expressing the feeling of very many when he said, in 1529: “Such is the audacity of his unwashed tongue that Luther cannot hide what is in his heart; he seems either to have completely gone off his head or to be egged on by some evil demon.”[1704]As day is to night so is the contrast between such strictures and the praise bestowed on Luther by his own side, not indeed so much for the works last mentioned as for his literary labours in general. The unprejudiced historian must admit that there is some ground for such praise (cp. xxxiv., 2). That Luther’s popular writings must contain much that is really instructive and edifying amidst a deal of dross is surely clear from the favourable reception they met even in quarters not at all blinded by prejudice. In what has gone before we ourselves have repeatedly dwelt on the better elements often to be found in the non-polemical portion of Luther’s literary legacy.

“The wrath of God has come upon them,” he writes in one such passage, “of which I do not like to think, nor has this book been a cheerful one for me to write, for I have been forced to avert my eyes from the terrible picture, sometimes in anger, sometimes in scorn; and it is painful to me to have to speak of their horrible blasphemies against our Lord and His dear Mother, to which we Christians are loath indeed to listen; I can well understand what St. Paul means in Romans x. 1, when he says that his heart was sore when he thought of them; such is the case with every Christian who earnestly dwells, not on the temporal misery and misfortune of which the Jews complain, but on their addiction to blasphemy, to cursing, to spitting at God Himself and all that is God’s, even to their eternal damnation, and who yet refuse to listen or lend an ear but will have it that allthey do is done out of zeal for God. O God, our Heavenly Father, turn aside Thy wrath and let there be an end of it for the sake of Thy dear Son. Amen.”[1645]“O my God,” he groans elsewhere, “my beloved Creator and Father, do Thou graciously take into account my unwillingness to have to speak so shamefully of Thine accursed enemies, the devil and the Jews. Thou knowest I do so out of the ardour of my faith and to the glory of Thy Divine Majesty, for it pierces me to the very quick.”[1646]

“The wrath of God has come upon them,” he writes in one such passage, “of which I do not like to think, nor has this book been a cheerful one for me to write, for I have been forced to avert my eyes from the terrible picture, sometimes in anger, sometimes in scorn; and it is painful to me to have to speak of their horrible blasphemies against our Lord and His dear Mother, to which we Christians are loath indeed to listen; I can well understand what St. Paul means in Romans x. 1, when he says that his heart was sore when he thought of them; such is the case with every Christian who earnestly dwells, not on the temporal misery and misfortune of which the Jews complain, but on their addiction to blasphemy, to cursing, to spitting at God Himself and all that is God’s, even to their eternal damnation, and who yet refuse to listen or lend an ear but will have it that allthey do is done out of zeal for God. O God, our Heavenly Father, turn aside Thy wrath and let there be an end of it for the sake of Thy dear Son. Amen.”[1645]

“O my God,” he groans elsewhere, “my beloved Creator and Father, do Thou graciously take into account my unwillingness to have to speak so shamefully of Thine accursed enemies, the devil and the Jews. Thou knowest I do so out of the ardour of my faith and to the glory of Thy Divine Majesty, for it pierces me to the very quick.”[1646]

If, however, we look more closely into the matter we shall see that the “ardour of his faith” was also fed from other sources. There was, for instance, the reaction of his own protracted struggle in defence of the new doctrines and against the Papacy, a struggle which left deep marks on all his labours and on all his writings.

Towards the end of a career which had worked such untold disaster to the Christianity of the past he feels keenly the need of vindicating the dignity of Christ if only to soothe his own conscience; he was resolved to hammer it in with the utmost defiance, just as formerly he had clung to the idea that, by his doctrine, he was defending the rights of Christ against the Pope. He is now resolved again to take his stand on this, his efforts becoming the more violent the more the sight of the ruin wrought by his own work affrights him. Hence his eagerness to take advantage of Jewish attacks on the pillars of the faith in order, while triumphing over them, to enjoy the sense of his comradeship with Christ, the Son of God now so soon to come in Judgment. Here again he allows his vanity to mislead him and to paint his intervention on behalf of the great truth of Christianity as far more successful than that of any of the Popes; this helps him to close his eyes to the wounds which the inner voice tells him he had inflicted on the Christian truths and on the public life of Christendom. For was he not doing for Christ what the Pope was quite unable to do? Indeed, “the world, the Turk, the Jew and the Pope are all raging blasphemously against the name of the Lord, laying waste His Kingdom and deriding His Will; but ‘greater is He that is with us than he that is with the world’; He triumphs,” so he wrote at that time to some foreign sympathisers, “andwill triumph in you to all eternity; may He console you by His Holy Spirit in which He has called you to oneness with His Body.”[1647]

It is true, so he says elsewhere, that the Pope admits the existence of Christ, but, in spite of this, neither Jews nor Turks are quite so bad; the Jews have far better arguments than the Papists for themselves and their religion; the foundations of the latter are easily shaken; the Papist Church is a worse “den of murderers” than Turks, Tartars, or Jews.[1648]All the more glorious and creditable to the new Evangel is therefore the victory won by Luther over the Jews; it may serve to show the world that his school’s study of the Bible could furnish the weapons to bring about such a result. The Pope, with his unbiblical treatment of the Jews, had merely succeeded in making them doubly un-Christian; but to us God has unlocked the Holy Books, hence on us devolves the duty of pointing out to the Jews their errors.[1649]Luther accordingly claims, that his “Von den Jüden” was the first real work of instruction on Judaism, one which “might teach us Germans from history what a Jew is and warn our Christians against them as against veriest devils.” It was only fitting that he who had unearthed Scripture should also “wipe clean the holy old Bible from Jewish ‘Hamperes’ and ‘Judas-water.’”[1650]

It is true, so he says elsewhere, that the Pope admits the existence of Christ, but, in spite of this, neither Jews nor Turks are quite so bad; the Jews have far better arguments than the Papists for themselves and their religion; the foundations of the latter are easily shaken; the Papist Church is a worse “den of murderers” than Turks, Tartars, or Jews.[1648]

All the more glorious and creditable to the new Evangel is therefore the victory won by Luther over the Jews; it may serve to show the world that his school’s study of the Bible could furnish the weapons to bring about such a result. The Pope, with his unbiblical treatment of the Jews, had merely succeeded in making them doubly un-Christian; but to us God has unlocked the Holy Books, hence on us devolves the duty of pointing out to the Jews their errors.[1649]Luther accordingly claims, that his “Von den Jüden” was the first real work of instruction on Judaism, one which “might teach us Germans from history what a Jew is and warn our Christians against them as against veriest devils.” It was only fitting that he who had unearthed Scripture should also “wipe clean the holy old Bible from Jewish ‘Hamperes’ and ‘Judas-water.’”[1650]

Nevertheless everything else—even his yeoman service in the cause of the Bible, and his shaming of the Papacy, which had so ineffectively struggled against the Jews—recedes into the background before his determination to crown his whole life-work by snatching from the Jewish devil the honour of Christ our one Salvation.

This was admittedly his motive for taking up his pen yet a third time.

As early as June, 1543, Luther was engaged on a new polemical work against the Jews entitled “On the last words of David.”[1651]It is a lengthy essay on 2 Kings xxiii. 1-7,and certain other striking passages, with the object of proving that the Messias was to be a God-man and of vindicating the mystery of the Trinity.

He intended to show by these examples how helpful Hebrew learning and Bible study can be in defending Scripture against the attacks of unbelievers; he also wanted to establish that neither Jews nor Papists possessed the real key to the Bible, viz. the knowledge of Christ; “for in this all sticks, and lies, and rests: Whosoever has not or will not have this man called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whom we Christians preach [the new Evangel undefiled], let him avoid the Bible; such is my conscientious advice, else he will certainly come a cropper, and become ever blinder and more crazy the more he studies.”[1652]In David’s final words on the Messias, Luther saw something peculiarly solemn; David, when “about to die and depart,” gives his parting injunction and adds: “This is my firm belief; on this I stand fast and immoveable.... Hence I am joyful, and will gladly live or die as and when God wills.”[1653]“Whoever can boast [like David] that the Spirit of the Lord speaks through him, and that His word is on his tongue, must indeed be very sure of his cause.”[1654]

He intended to show by these examples how helpful Hebrew learning and Bible study can be in defending Scripture against the attacks of unbelievers; he also wanted to establish that neither Jews nor Papists possessed the real key to the Bible, viz. the knowledge of Christ; “for in this all sticks, and lies, and rests: Whosoever has not or will not have this man called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whom we Christians preach [the new Evangel undefiled], let him avoid the Bible; such is my conscientious advice, else he will certainly come a cropper, and become ever blinder and more crazy the more he studies.”[1652]

In David’s final words on the Messias, Luther saw something peculiarly solemn; David, when “about to die and depart,” gives his parting injunction and adds: “This is my firm belief; on this I stand fast and immoveable.... Hence I am joyful, and will gladly live or die as and when God wills.”[1653]

“Whoever can boast [like David] that the Spirit of the Lord speaks through him, and that His word is on his tongue, must indeed be very sure of his cause.”[1654]

In this writing the Jews are not attacked in such unmeasured language as in the two others just considered; the tone of the whole is much calmer, indeed comparatively kind. It may be that the representations made to him concerning his violence had not been without some effect.

The end, like the beginning, expresses the wish that, without suffering ourselves to be led astray by the false readings of the Jews, we should “plainly and clearly find and recognise our dear Lord and Saviour in Holy Writ.”[1655]This is what leads Melanchthon to praise the work as enjoyable reading, because there is nothing sweeter to the pious than to deepen their knowledge of the God-man and to learn the art of real prayer so different from that of the heathen, the Jew and the Turk.[1656]

The honour of Christianity and of its Divine Founder was also what Luther had at heart in the two books which in his later years he was instrumental in publishing against the Turks, viz. his “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den Türcken”(1541) and his new edition (1542) of an old work against the Koran, the “Verlegung des Alcoran Bruder Richardi.”

In one passage of the Vermanunge he even couches this thought in the form of a prayer:

“Yes, indeed, this is our offence against them [the Turks], that we preach, believe and confess Thee, God the Father, as the only True God, and Thy Beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost as one eternal God.” “Thou knowest, God the Father Almighty, that we have not sinned in any other way against the devil, Pope or Turk and that they have no right or power to punish us.” Most fervently, as in the very presence of God, he declares that he must withstand the devil who is helping the Turk to set up “his Mahmed in the stead of Jesus Christ Thy Beloved Son.”[1657]Speaking of prayer against the Turk he makes every Christian say to God: “Thou tellest, nay, compellest, me to pray in the name of Thy Beloved Son Our Lord Jesus Christ.”[1658]

“Yes, indeed, this is our offence against them [the Turks], that we preach, believe and confess Thee, God the Father, as the only True God, and Thy Beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost as one eternal God.” “Thou knowest, God the Father Almighty, that we have not sinned in any other way against the devil, Pope or Turk and that they have no right or power to punish us.” Most fervently, as in the very presence of God, he declares that he must withstand the devil who is helping the Turk to set up “his Mahmed in the stead of Jesus Christ Thy Beloved Son.”[1657]Speaking of prayer against the Turk he makes every Christian say to God: “Thou tellest, nay, compellest, me to pray in the name of Thy Beloved Son Our Lord Jesus Christ.”[1658]

In this writing he strongly reprobates both the public disorders on the side of the new Evangel and the Papists’ obstinate resistance to the Word of God; both would be terribly punished by means of the Turks unless people set about amending their lives and giving themselves up to earnest prayer. Now, after the Evangel had been preached for so many years, “everyone knew, thank God, what each class and individual man should do or leave undone, which, alas, formerly we did not know, though we would gladly have done it.”[1659]Should our prayer fail to achieve the desired object, “then let us say a longer and a better one.” “How happy should we be were our prayers against the Turk again to prove of no avail, but, instead, the Last Day came—which indeed cannot any longer be far off—spelling the end of both Turk and Pope as I do not for a moment doubt.”[1660]

At any rate Luther might have used better weapons against the Turks than he actually did in this so-called admonition.

About the time he wrote it we hear Luther occasionally expressing a hope that the Turks may be converted to the Evangel, now shining so brightly and convincingly.

“I should like to see the Evangel make its way amongst the Turks, which may indeed very well happen.” “It is quite in God’s power to work a miracle and make them listen to the Evangel.... If a ‘Wascha’ [Pasha] were toaccept the Gospel we should soon see what effect it would have on the Grand Turk; and as he has many sons it is quite likely one of them might reach it.”—He despaired of the overthrow of the Turkish empire, but was fond of dreaming of the coming of a “good man who should withstand the dogma of Mohamed.”[1661]

“The Turk rules more mightily by his religion than by arms”; such was Luther’s opinion. He had to be confronted with the belief in Christ, that belief which Luther had learnt “amidst the bitter pangs of death,” viz. “that Christ is God”; in great temptations nothing could help us but this faith, “the most powerful consolation that is bestowed on us”; this same article of faith God was vindicating, even by miracles, against Turk and Pope. To this he too would cleave in spite of any objections of reason.[1662]

He did not, however, patiently wait till the “good man” came who was to oppose the dogma of the Turks; he himself set about this undertaking in March, 1542.[1663]After having, shortly before, become acquainted with the Koran in a poor translation, he proceeded himself to translate into German a work against the Koran, written in 1300, by the Dominican Richardus (Ricoldus). To it he appended a preface of his own and a “Treue Warnung.”[1664]

He had undertaken, so he says, to disclose and answer the devil-inspired “infamies” contained in the Alcoran, “the better to strengthen us in our Christian faith.”[1665]—This out-of-date book of a mediæval theologian was, however, hardly the work to furnish an insight into the Koran, particularly as it built far too much on badly read texts and doubtful stories uncritically taken for granted; from such defects the refutation was bound to suffer.

Some of Luther’s own additions are characteristic.Here he gives up all hope of any conversion of the Moslem; he likewise despairs of the success of the Christian armies.[1666]—“Mahmet,” so he teaches, “leads people to eternal damnationas the Pope also did and still does.” He reigns “in the Levant” as the Pope does “in the land of the setting sun,” thanks to a system of “wilful lying.”[1667]“Oh, Lord God! Let all who can, pray, sigh and implore that of God’s anger we may see an end,” as Daniel says (Dan. xi. 36).[1668]Bad as Mahmet was, Luther was loath to see in him Antichrist; “the Pope, whom we have with us, he is the real Antichrist, with his ‘Drecktal,’ Alcoran and man-made doctrines.” “The chaste Pope takes no wife, but all women are his.... Obscene Mahmet at least makes no pretence of chastity.... As for the other points such as murder, avarice and pride, I will not enumerate them, but here again the Pope far outdoes Mahmet.” “May God give us His grace and punish both the Pope and Mahmet together with their devils. I have done my part as a faithful prophet and preacher.”[1669]

Some of Luther’s own additions are characteristic.

Here he gives up all hope of any conversion of the Moslem; he likewise despairs of the success of the Christian armies.[1666]—“Mahmet,” so he teaches, “leads people to eternal damnationas the Pope also did and still does.” He reigns “in the Levant” as the Pope does “in the land of the setting sun,” thanks to a system of “wilful lying.”[1667]“Oh, Lord God! Let all who can, pray, sigh and implore that of God’s anger we may see an end,” as Daniel says (Dan. xi. 36).[1668]

Bad as Mahmet was, Luther was loath to see in him Antichrist; “the Pope, whom we have with us, he is the real Antichrist, with his ‘Drecktal,’ Alcoran and man-made doctrines.” “The chaste Pope takes no wife, but all women are his.... Obscene Mahmet at least makes no pretence of chastity.... As for the other points such as murder, avarice and pride, I will not enumerate them, but here again the Pope far outdoes Mahmet.” “May God give us His grace and punish both the Pope and Mahmet together with their devils. I have done my part as a faithful prophet and preacher.”[1669]

Words such as these were certainly as little calculated to further the common cause of the Christians against the Turks as had been the somewhat similar thoughts which, at an earlier date, he had been wont to weave into his exhortations to resist the Turks.[1670]

As a last straw Luther in the “Treue Warnung” goes on to declare, that, unless Christians mend their life, are converted to the Evangel and live up to it, it is to be hoped that the Turkish arms will prove victorious.

For amongst those who “pretend to be Christians and to constitute the holy Church” there are, so he declares, so many who “knowingly and wantonly despise and persecute the known truth and vindicate their open and notorious idolatry, lying and unrighteousness.” Such Christians, of whom the forces that had been raised chiefly consisted, formed, so he thought, an army which might itself well be styled Turkish. “If then two such ‘Turkish’ armies were to advance against one another, the one called Mahmetish and the other dubbing itself Christian, then, good friend, I should suggest you might give Our Lord God some advice, for He would assuredly need it, as to which Turks He is to help and carry to victory. I, the worst of advisers, would counsel Him to give the victory to the Mahmetish Turks over the Christian Turks, as indeed He has done hitherto without any advice from us and even contrary to our prayers and complaints. The reason is, that the Mahmetish Turks have neither God’s Word nor those who might preach it.... Had they preachers of the Godly Word they might perhaps, some of them at least, be presently changed from swine into men. But our Christian Turks have the Word of God and preachers, and yet they refuse to listen, and from men become mere swine.”[1671]

For amongst those who “pretend to be Christians and to constitute the holy Church” there are, so he declares, so many who “knowingly and wantonly despise and persecute the known truth and vindicate their open and notorious idolatry, lying and unrighteousness.” Such Christians, of whom the forces that had been raised chiefly consisted, formed, so he thought, an army which might itself well be styled Turkish. “If then two such ‘Turkish’ armies were to advance against one another, the one called Mahmetish and the other dubbing itself Christian, then, good friend, I should suggest you might give Our Lord God some advice, for He would assuredly need it, as to which Turks He is to help and carry to victory. I, the worst of advisers, would counsel Him to give the victory to the Mahmetish Turks over the Christian Turks, as indeed He has done hitherto without any advice from us and even contrary to our prayers and complaints. The reason is, that the Mahmetish Turks have neither God’s Word nor those who might preach it.... Had they preachers of the Godly Word they might perhaps, some of them at least, be presently changed from swine into men. But our Christian Turks have the Word of God and preachers, and yet they refuse to listen, and from men become mere swine.”[1671]

The public danger which threatened owing to the advance of the Turks caused Luther, however, about this time to promote the sale of the Latin translation and confutation of the Koran brought out under Melanchthon’s auspices by Bibliander (Buchmann) of Zürich. In a popular hymn which he composed he also took care to couple the Turkish danger with that to be apprehended from the Papists. This short hymn, “which became a favourite with the German Evangelicals” (Köstlin), begins:

“In Thy Word preserve us, Lord,Ward off Pope and Turkish sword.”

The picture which Luther incidentally paints of himself in his effusions against the Jews and the Turks, receives its final touch in his last great and solemn pronouncement against Popery which the lines just quoted may serve to introduce.

One cannot contemplate without sadness Luther’s last efforts against the Papacy.

Fortunately for literature the projected continuation of the frightful book “Wider das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft” never saw the light; Luther’s intention had been to make it even worse than the first part.

His final labours, aimed directly at the Pope and the Council of Trent, consisted in suggesting the subjects and drafting the versified letterpress for a number of woodcuts, designed expressly to ridicule and defame the Papal office in the eyes of the lower classes. Even apart from the verses the caricatures were vulgar enough in all conscience. Nudities in the grossest postures alternate with comicalities the better to ensure success with the populace.

An attempt has been made to exonerate him of direct responsibility for the pictures, and to set them down to the account of the draughtsman who, according to a passage in a letter of Luther’s, was believed to be his friend, the famous painter Lucas Cranach.

That the whole was really a child of Luther’s own mind is proved, however, by the very title-page “Popery Pictured by Dr. M. Luther,” Wittenberg, 1545, as well as by his clear and outspoken statement shortly before his death to Pastor Matthias Wanckel of Halle. “I still have muchthat ought to be told the world concerning the Pope and his kingdom, and for this reason I have published these images and figures, each of which stands for a separate book to be written against the Pope and his kingdom. I wanted to witness before the whole world what I thought of the Pope and his devil’s kingdom; let them be my last Will and Testament.” “I have greatly vexed the Pope with these nasty pictures,” “Oh, how the sow will lift her tail! But, even should they kill me, they must gorge on the filth that the Pope holds in his hand. I have placed a golden thing in the Pope’s hands [i.e. in the picture to be described immediately] that he may pledge them in it.”[1672]—Again, in a letter to Amsdorf, he alludes to a scene in which the Furies figure, saying that he had designed them (“appingerem”), and describing in detail what he meant the figures to stand for.[1673]

Hence it is impossible to contest Luther’s real authorship.

It is true that, on one occasion, he speaks of Cranach the painter as the draughtsman of one of the pictures; he may, however, have simply meant that it originated in his studio. According to expert opinion the technique of the woodcuts differs so much from the master’s that they cannot be attributed to him; they may, however, have been executed by one of his pupils under his direction.[1674]

We may now glance at the nine pictures which make up the “Abbildung des Bapstum,” commencing with that just referred to.[1675]

The picture with the Furies to which Luther refers is that which represents the “birth and origin of the Pope,” as the Latin superscription describes it. Here is depicted, in a peculiarly revolting way, what Luther says in his “Wider das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft,” viz. the Pope’s being born from the “devil’s behind.” The devil-mother is portrayed as a hideous woman with a tail, from under which Pope and Cardinals are emerging head foremost. Of the Furies one is suckling, another carrying, and the third rocking the cradle of the Papal infant, whom the draughtsman everywhere depicts wearing the tiara. These are the Furies Megæra, Alecto and Tisiphone.[1676]Another picture shows the “Worship of the Pope as God of the World.” This, too, expresses a thought contained in the “Wider das Bapstum,” where Luther says: “We may also with a safe conscience take to the closet his coat of arms with the Papal keys and his crown, and use them for the relief of nature.”[1677]As a matter of fact in this picture we see on a stool decorated with the papal insignia a crown or tiara set upside down on which a man-at-arms is seated in the action of easing himself; a second, with his breeches undone, prepares to do the same, while a third who has already done so is adjusting his dress.The picture with the title “The Pope gives a Council in Germany” shows the Pope in his tiara riding on a sow and digging his spurs into her sides. The sow is Germany which is obliged to submit to such ignominious treatment from the Papists; as for the Council which the Pope is giving to the German people it is depicted as his own, the Pope’s, excrement, which he holds in his hand pledging the Germans in it, as Luther says in the passage quoted above (p. 422). The Pope blesses the steaming object while the sow noses it with her snout. Underneath stands the ribald verse:“Sow, I want to have a ride,Spur you well on either side.Did you say ‘Concilium’?Take instead my ‘merdrum.’”[1678]“Here the Pope’s feet are kissed,” are the words over another picture, and, from the Pope who is seated on his throne with the Bull of Excommunication in his hand, two men are seen running away, showing him, as Köstlin says, “their tongues and hinder parts with the utmost indecency.”[1679]The inscription below runs:“Pope, don’t scare us so with your ban;Please don’t be so angry a man;Or else we shall take good careTo show you the ‘Belvedere.’”Köstlin’s description must be supplemented by adding that the two men, whose faces and bared posteriors are turned towards the Pope, are depicted as emitting wind in his direction in the shape of puffs of smoke; from the Pope’s Bull fire, flames and stones are bursting forth.Of the remaining woodcuts one reproduces the scene which formed the title-page to the first edition of the “Wider das Bapstum,” viz. the gaping jaws of hell, between the teeth of which is seen the Pope surrounded by a cohort of devils, some of whom are crowning him with the tiara; another portrays the famous Pope-Ass, said to have been cast up by the Tiber near Rome; it shows “what God Himself thinks of Popery,”[1680]yet another depicts a pet idea of Luther’s,[1681]viz. the “reward of the ‘Papa satanissimus’ and his cardinals,” i.e. their being hanged, while their tongues, which had been torn out by the root, are nailed fast to the gallows. “How the Pope teaches faith and theology”; here the Pope is shown as a robed donkey sitting upright on a throne and playing the bagpipes with the help of his hoofs. “How the Pope thanks the Emperors for their boundless favours” introduces a scene where Clement IV with his own hand strikes off the head of Conradin. “How the Pope, following Peter’s example, honours the King” is the title of a woodcut where a Pope (probably Alexander III) sets his foot on the neck of the Emperor (Frederick Barbarossa at Venice).[1682]It is not necessary to waste words on the notorious falsehoods embodied in the last two pictures. Luther, moreover, further embellished the accounts he found, for not even the bitterest antagonist of the Papacy had ever dared to accuse Clement IV of having slain with his own hand the last of the Staufens. Among the ignorant masses to whom these pictures and verses were intended to appeal, there were, nevertheless, many who were prepared to accept such tales as true on the word of one known as the “man of God,” the Evangelist, the new Elias and the Prophet of Germany.In the “Historien des ehrwirdigen in Gott seligen thewren Mannes Gottes,” Mathesius says of Luther: “In the year [15]45 he brought out the mighty, earnest book against the Papacyfounded by the devil and maintained and bolstered up by lying signs, and, in the same year, also caused many scathing pictures to be struck off in which he portrayed for the benefit of those unable to read, the true nature and monstrosity of Antichrist, just as the Spirit of God in the Apocalypse of St. John depicted the red bride of Babylon, or as Master John Hus summed up his teaching in pictures for the people, of the Lord Christ and of Antichrist.” “The Holy Ghost is well able to be severe and cutting,” says Mathesius of this book and the caricatures: “God is a jealous God and a burning fire, and those who are driven and inflamed by His Spirit to wage a ghostly warfare against the foes of God show themselves worthy foemen of those who withstand their Lord and Saviour.”[1683]Mathesius, like many others, was full of admiration for the work.

The picture with the Furies to which Luther refers is that which represents the “birth and origin of the Pope,” as the Latin superscription describes it. Here is depicted, in a peculiarly revolting way, what Luther says in his “Wider das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft,” viz. the Pope’s being born from the “devil’s behind.” The devil-mother is portrayed as a hideous woman with a tail, from under which Pope and Cardinals are emerging head foremost. Of the Furies one is suckling, another carrying, and the third rocking the cradle of the Papal infant, whom the draughtsman everywhere depicts wearing the tiara. These are the Furies Megæra, Alecto and Tisiphone.[1676]

Another picture shows the “Worship of the Pope as God of the World.” This, too, expresses a thought contained in the “Wider das Bapstum,” where Luther says: “We may also with a safe conscience take to the closet his coat of arms with the Papal keys and his crown, and use them for the relief of nature.”[1677]As a matter of fact in this picture we see on a stool decorated with the papal insignia a crown or tiara set upside down on which a man-at-arms is seated in the action of easing himself; a second, with his breeches undone, prepares to do the same, while a third who has already done so is adjusting his dress.

The picture with the title “The Pope gives a Council in Germany” shows the Pope in his tiara riding on a sow and digging his spurs into her sides. The sow is Germany which is obliged to submit to such ignominious treatment from the Papists; as for the Council which the Pope is giving to the German people it is depicted as his own, the Pope’s, excrement, which he holds in his hand pledging the Germans in it, as Luther says in the passage quoted above (p. 422). The Pope blesses the steaming object while the sow noses it with her snout. Underneath stands the ribald verse:

“Sow, I want to have a ride,Spur you well on either side.Did you say ‘Concilium’?Take instead my ‘merdrum.’”[1678]

“Here the Pope’s feet are kissed,” are the words over another picture, and, from the Pope who is seated on his throne with the Bull of Excommunication in his hand, two men are seen running away, showing him, as Köstlin says, “their tongues and hinder parts with the utmost indecency.”[1679]The inscription below runs:

“Pope, don’t scare us so with your ban;Please don’t be so angry a man;Or else we shall take good careTo show you the ‘Belvedere.’”

Köstlin’s description must be supplemented by adding that the two men, whose faces and bared posteriors are turned towards the Pope, are depicted as emitting wind in his direction in the shape of puffs of smoke; from the Pope’s Bull fire, flames and stones are bursting forth.

Of the remaining woodcuts one reproduces the scene which formed the title-page to the first edition of the “Wider das Bapstum,” viz. the gaping jaws of hell, between the teeth of which is seen the Pope surrounded by a cohort of devils, some of whom are crowning him with the tiara; another portrays the famous Pope-Ass, said to have been cast up by the Tiber near Rome; it shows “what God Himself thinks of Popery,”[1680]yet another depicts a pet idea of Luther’s,[1681]viz. the “reward of the ‘Papa satanissimus’ and his cardinals,” i.e. their being hanged, while their tongues, which had been torn out by the root, are nailed fast to the gallows. “How the Pope teaches faith and theology”; here the Pope is shown as a robed donkey sitting upright on a throne and playing the bagpipes with the help of his hoofs. “How the Pope thanks the Emperors for their boundless favours” introduces a scene where Clement IV with his own hand strikes off the head of Conradin. “How the Pope, following Peter’s example, honours the King” is the title of a woodcut where a Pope (probably Alexander III) sets his foot on the neck of the Emperor (Frederick Barbarossa at Venice).[1682]It is not necessary to waste words on the notorious falsehoods embodied in the last two pictures. Luther, moreover, further embellished the accounts he found, for not even the bitterest antagonist of the Papacy had ever dared to accuse Clement IV of having slain with his own hand the last of the Staufens. Among the ignorant masses to whom these pictures and verses were intended to appeal, there were, nevertheless, many who were prepared to accept such tales as true on the word of one known as the “man of God,” the Evangelist, the new Elias and the Prophet of Germany.

In the “Historien des ehrwirdigen in Gott seligen thewren Mannes Gottes,” Mathesius says of Luther: “In the year [15]45 he brought out the mighty, earnest book against the Papacyfounded by the devil and maintained and bolstered up by lying signs, and, in the same year, also caused many scathing pictures to be struck off in which he portrayed for the benefit of those unable to read, the true nature and monstrosity of Antichrist, just as the Spirit of God in the Apocalypse of St. John depicted the red bride of Babylon, or as Master John Hus summed up his teaching in pictures for the people, of the Lord Christ and of Antichrist.” “The Holy Ghost is well able to be severe and cutting,” says Mathesius of this book and the caricatures: “God is a jealous God and a burning fire, and those who are driven and inflamed by His Spirit to wage a ghostly warfare against the foes of God show themselves worthy foemen of those who withstand their Lord and Saviour.”[1683]Mathesius, like many others, was full of admiration for the work.

The woodcuts pleased Luther so well that he himself wrote autograph inscriptions above and below a proof set, and hung them up in his room.[1684]

“The devil knows well, that, when the foolish people hear high-sounding words of abuse, they are taken in and blindly believe them without asking for any further grounds or reasons.” The words are Luther’s own, though written at an earlier date.[1685]That they applied even more to caricatures Luther was well aware, nor was this the first time that he had flung such pictures amongst the masses the better to excite them. As early as 1521, at Luther’s instigation, with the help of Cranach’s pencil, Melanchthon and Schwertfeger had done something of the sort in the “Passional Christi und Antichristi.”[1686]In a booklet of 1526, “Das Bapstum mit seinen Gliedern,” containing sixty-five caricatures and scurrilous doggerel verses composed by Luther, everything religious, from the Pope down to the monks and nuns, was held up to ridicule.[1687]

The use of caricature was, it is true, not unusual in those days of violent controversy, nor were Catholics slow to have recourse to it against Luther; Cochlæus, for instance, in his “Lutherus Septiceps” has a crude illustration of a figurewith seven heads. But everything of this nature, his own earlier productions included, was put into the shade by Luther’s final pictures of the Papacy.

At the end of his “Wider das Bapstum” Luther had ventured to hope that he would be able to go even further in another booklet, and, that, should he die in the meantime, God would raise up another man who would “make things a thousand times hotter.” His threat he practically carried out in his “Popery Pictured,” in what Paul Lehfeldt calls his “highly offensive and revolting woodcuts,” which “certainly made things a thousand times worse seeing the appeal they made to the imagination.”[1688]The fact, that, “in spite of the numerous reprints,” very few copies indeed have survived is attributed by Lehfeldt to the indignation felt in both camps, Lutheran and Catholic, which led to the wholesale destruction of the book.So pleased was the Elector of Saxony with the “Wider das Bapstum” that he helped to push it; he bought twenty florins’ worth of copies and had them distributed; this Luther hastened to tell Amsdorf with all the greater satisfaction, seeing that he had heard that others were expressing their disapproval of the book.[1689]It may be that the Elector also helped to spread the caricatures. If we may believe a sermon by Cyriacus Spangenberg, some of Luther’s own friends nevertheless made representations and begged him “to desist from publishing such figures, as of late he had caused to be circulated against the Pope.”[1690]Yet three years after Luther’s death the fanatical Flacius Illyricus, in bringing out a new edition of the caricature of the Pope on the sow, with a fresh description of it, characterised it as a “prophetic picture by Elias the Third of blessed memory,” and took severely to task all who felt otherwise.[1691]He has it, that “Many who walk according to the flesh rather than in the wisdom, piety and retirement of the spirit, did a few years ago [1545] actually dare to call these and certain other like figures shameless prints, and fancies of a brainless old fool.” The writer thinks he has proved, that, “far from being an outcome of wanton stupidity they proceeded from a ghostly, godly wisdom and zeal.”[1692]

At the end of his “Wider das Bapstum” Luther had ventured to hope that he would be able to go even further in another booklet, and, that, should he die in the meantime, God would raise up another man who would “make things a thousand times hotter.” His threat he practically carried out in his “Popery Pictured,” in what Paul Lehfeldt calls his “highly offensive and revolting woodcuts,” which “certainly made things a thousand times worse seeing the appeal they made to the imagination.”[1688]The fact, that, “in spite of the numerous reprints,” very few copies indeed have survived is attributed by Lehfeldt to the indignation felt in both camps, Lutheran and Catholic, which led to the wholesale destruction of the book.

So pleased was the Elector of Saxony with the “Wider das Bapstum” that he helped to push it; he bought twenty florins’ worth of copies and had them distributed; this Luther hastened to tell Amsdorf with all the greater satisfaction, seeing that he had heard that others were expressing their disapproval of the book.[1689]It may be that the Elector also helped to spread the caricatures. If we may believe a sermon by Cyriacus Spangenberg, some of Luther’s own friends nevertheless made representations and begged him “to desist from publishing such figures, as of late he had caused to be circulated against the Pope.”[1690]Yet three years after Luther’s death the fanatical Flacius Illyricus, in bringing out a new edition of the caricature of the Pope on the sow, with a fresh description of it, characterised it as a “prophetic picture by Elias the Third of blessed memory,” and took severely to task all who felt otherwise.[1691]He has it, that “Many who walk according to the flesh rather than in the wisdom, piety and retirement of the spirit, did a few years ago [1545] actually dare to call these and certain other like figures shameless prints, and fancies of a brainless old fool.” The writer thinks he has proved, that, “far from being an outcome of wanton stupidity they proceeded from a ghostly, godly wisdom and zeal.”[1692]

Such attempts at vindication only prove that Luther was not alone in allowing himself to be dominated, and his mind darkened by such morbid fancies.

The psychology reflected in these much-debated woodcuts deserves more careful scrutiny.

Those undoubtedly take too superficial a view of thematter, who, in their desire to exonerate Luther, refuse to see in these caricatures anything more than the exuberant effusions of ridicule gone mad. On the other hand, some of Luther’s enemies are no less wrong in failing to see that the indignation which speaks from these drawings is meant in bitter earnest.

If, as is only right, we view this frivolous imagery in the light of Luther’s mental state at the time and of his whole attitude then, it will stand out as a sort of confession of faith on the part of the author, appalling indeed, but absolutely truthful, a picture of his deepest thoughts and feelings, steeped as they were in his sombre pseudo-mysticism and devil-craze. The same holds good likewise of the “Wider das Bapstum” of which this set of illustrations is a sort of supplement.

The revolting images which rise before his mind like bubbles to the surface of the fermenting tan, seem to him so true to fact that he protests that the cuts are in no sense defamatory; “should anyone feel offended or hurt in his feelings by them I am ready to answer for their publication before the whole Empire.”[1693]

So much had he brooded over the illustrations, that, as is shown by his answer to Amsdorf concerning the Furies, he could describe their every detail with an enthusiasm and minuteness such as few artists could equal, even when descanting on their own work. In the midst of his sufferings of body and mind and of all his toil, he finds leisure to explain to his friend how: The first Fury, Megæra, assists at the birth of the Pope-Antichrist, because she is the incarnation of hate and envy and thus shows that the Pope “as the true imitator, nay, ape, of Satan hinders all that is good”; the second, Alecto, according to classic teaching, has the special task of symbolising that “the Pope works all that is evil”; in this he is helped by the “old serpent of Paradise”; the latter it is who is to blame for all the misfortunes of the human race from the beginning, and for still “daily filling the world with new misfortunes by means of the Pope, Mohamed, the Cardinals, the Archbishop of Mayence, etc.; and who simply can’t cease its sad abominations”; as for the third Fury, Tisiphone, she is passive, she arouses God’s anger, whereby the tyrants and the wicked, as, for instance, Cain, Saul and Absalom, are punished for the doings of the two other Furies, etc. “Such is the devil of those possessed and of the insane, who also blaspheme God. This Fury rules more particularlyin the opinions of the Pope and the heretics and in their blasphemous doctrines which fall under a well-merited reprobation.”[1694]It is characteristic of the mental attitude of the writer that, in the very next letter to the same friend, he replies to a question of Amsdorf’s regarding a fox of abnormal shape recently caught; according to Luther “it might well portend the end of all things”; this end he will “pray for and await”; but “of any Council or negotiations” he is determined “to hear nothing, believe nothing, hope nothing and think nothing.” “Vanity of vanities,” such is his greeting to Trent; as for Germany, he can only discern “the spark of the coming fire prepared for its chastisement, the decline of all justice, the undermining of law and order and the end of the Empire.” “May God remove us and ours before the desolation comes!”[1695]When in such a mood he is convinced that the fresh revelation of Antichrist in the new engravings constitute a grand service to the Kingdom of God. He knows already the exalted reward of their faith prepared for himself and his faithful followers. “I have this great advantage: my Master is called Shevlimini [see above, vol. iv., p. 46]; He told us: ‘I will raise you up at the last day’; then He will say: ‘Dr. Martin, Dr. Jonas, Mr. Michael, come forth,’ and summon us all by our names as Christ says in John: ‘And He calls them all by name.’ Therefore be not affrighted.” This he said shortly before his death, reviewing his last publications.[1696]By a similar misuse of the words of the Bible he invites all his followers, and that too in the name of the “Spirit,” to do to the Pope just what the three rude fellows are doing over the inverted tiara of the Pope in the woodcut entitled “The worship of the Pope as God of the world.” The verses below the picture are scarcely credible:“To Christ’s dear Kingdom the Pope has doneWhat they are doing to his own crown.Says the Spirit: Give him quits,Fill it brimful as God bids.”In the margin express reference is made to the solemn words of God (Apoc. xviii. 6), where the voice from heaven proclaims judgment on Babylon: “Render to her as she also hath rendered to you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup wherein she hath mingled, mingle ye double unto her.”It would surely be hard to find anywhere so filthy a parody of the sacred text as Luther here permits himself.The same must be said of the utter hatred which gleams from every one of the pictures. Into it we gain some insight from aletter of Luther’s to Jonas: To console his suffering colleague he has a fling at the Council of Trent: “God has cursed them as it is written: ‘Cursed be he who trusts in man.’” God, says he, will surely destroy the Council, legates and all.[1697]Jonas was ailing from stone, besides being tormented with “dire fancies.”[1698]Luther, who himself suffered severely from stone, exclaimed to his friend Amsdorf: Would that the stone would pass into the Pope and these Gomorrhaic cardinals![1699]A prey to anger and depression, to hatred, defiance and fear of the devil, he is yet determined to mock at Satan who is ever at his heels in small matters as well as in great. “I shall, please God, laugh at Satan though he seeks to deride me and my Church.”[1700]

So much had he brooded over the illustrations, that, as is shown by his answer to Amsdorf concerning the Furies, he could describe their every detail with an enthusiasm and minuteness such as few artists could equal, even when descanting on their own work. In the midst of his sufferings of body and mind and of all his toil, he finds leisure to explain to his friend how: The first Fury, Megæra, assists at the birth of the Pope-Antichrist, because she is the incarnation of hate and envy and thus shows that the Pope “as the true imitator, nay, ape, of Satan hinders all that is good”; the second, Alecto, according to classic teaching, has the special task of symbolising that “the Pope works all that is evil”; in this he is helped by the “old serpent of Paradise”; the latter it is who is to blame for all the misfortunes of the human race from the beginning, and for still “daily filling the world with new misfortunes by means of the Pope, Mohamed, the Cardinals, the Archbishop of Mayence, etc.; and who simply can’t cease its sad abominations”; as for the third Fury, Tisiphone, she is passive, she arouses God’s anger, whereby the tyrants and the wicked, as, for instance, Cain, Saul and Absalom, are punished for the doings of the two other Furies, etc. “Such is the devil of those possessed and of the insane, who also blaspheme God. This Fury rules more particularlyin the opinions of the Pope and the heretics and in their blasphemous doctrines which fall under a well-merited reprobation.”[1694]

It is characteristic of the mental attitude of the writer that, in the very next letter to the same friend, he replies to a question of Amsdorf’s regarding a fox of abnormal shape recently caught; according to Luther “it might well portend the end of all things”; this end he will “pray for and await”; but “of any Council or negotiations” he is determined “to hear nothing, believe nothing, hope nothing and think nothing.” “Vanity of vanities,” such is his greeting to Trent; as for Germany, he can only discern “the spark of the coming fire prepared for its chastisement, the decline of all justice, the undermining of law and order and the end of the Empire.” “May God remove us and ours before the desolation comes!”[1695]

When in such a mood he is convinced that the fresh revelation of Antichrist in the new engravings constitute a grand service to the Kingdom of God. He knows already the exalted reward of their faith prepared for himself and his faithful followers. “I have this great advantage: my Master is called Shevlimini [see above, vol. iv., p. 46]; He told us: ‘I will raise you up at the last day’; then He will say: ‘Dr. Martin, Dr. Jonas, Mr. Michael, come forth,’ and summon us all by our names as Christ says in John: ‘And He calls them all by name.’ Therefore be not affrighted.” This he said shortly before his death, reviewing his last publications.[1696]

By a similar misuse of the words of the Bible he invites all his followers, and that too in the name of the “Spirit,” to do to the Pope just what the three rude fellows are doing over the inverted tiara of the Pope in the woodcut entitled “The worship of the Pope as God of the world.” The verses below the picture are scarcely credible:

“To Christ’s dear Kingdom the Pope has doneWhat they are doing to his own crown.Says the Spirit: Give him quits,Fill it brimful as God bids.”

In the margin express reference is made to the solemn words of God (Apoc. xviii. 6), where the voice from heaven proclaims judgment on Babylon: “Render to her as she also hath rendered to you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup wherein she hath mingled, mingle ye double unto her.”

It would surely be hard to find anywhere so filthy a parody of the sacred text as Luther here permits himself.

The same must be said of the utter hatred which gleams from every one of the pictures. Into it we gain some insight from aletter of Luther’s to Jonas: To console his suffering colleague he has a fling at the Council of Trent: “God has cursed them as it is written: ‘Cursed be he who trusts in man.’” God, says he, will surely destroy the Council, legates and all.[1697]Jonas was ailing from stone, besides being tormented with “dire fancies.”[1698]Luther, who himself suffered severely from stone, exclaimed to his friend Amsdorf: Would that the stone would pass into the Pope and these Gomorrhaic cardinals![1699]A prey to anger and depression, to hatred, defiance and fear of the devil, he is yet determined to mock at Satan who is ever at his heels in small matters as well as in great. “I shall, please God, laugh at Satan though he seeks to deride me and my Church.”[1700]

Such, judging by the letters he wrote in that period, was the soil which produced both the caricatures and the “Wider das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft.”

So deeply seated in Luther’s devil-lore, not to say devil-mania, was the tendency that inspired the woodcuts, that, when once his conscience pricked him on account of the excessive coarseness of one of the scenes, he could not be moved to admit any more than that the drawing might be improved on the score of decency and be made to look ... “more diabolical.” The picture in question was that of the “Birth of the Pope-Antichrist.” Evidently some friends had protested against the cynical boldness of the birth-scene. Luther writes to Amsdorf: “Your nephew George has shown me the picture of the Pope, but Master Lucas is a coarse painter. He might have spared the female sex as the creature of God and for the sake of our own mothers. He could well design other figures more worthy of the Pope, i.e. more diabolical; but do you be judge.”[1701]Later on, when Amsdorf still betrayed some scruple, Luther promised him: “I shall take diligent steps should I survive to see that Lucas the painter substitutes for this obscene picturea more seemly one.”[1702]So far as is known, however, no such substitution took place, and still less was the caricature withdrawn from circulation; nor, again, would it have been at all easy even for the cleverest painter to produce something “more diabolical.”

For the coarseness of the drawings there exists no shred of excuse.

Luther had indeed never disdained to be coarse and vulgar when this served his purpose; as time went on, however, his love for the language of the gutter became much more noticeable, at least in his controversial writings. To some extent this was the reaction of the impression he saw produced on the masses by his words, his growing sense of the power of his tongue being in part responsible for the ever more frequent recourse he had to this “original” mode of speech; to some extent too his obscene language and imagery were simply an outcome of his devil-craze, with which, indeed, they were in perfect keeping.

Certain admirers have sought to excuse Luther by pointing out that, after all, none of his obscenities was of a nature to excite concupiscence; this we must indeed allow, but the admission affords but a small crumb of comfort. Without finding anything actually lascivious, either in the draughtsmanship of these pictures or in the filthy language to which Luther was generally addicted, one can still regret his “peculiarity” in this respect.

That, in those days, people were more inured than our refined contemporaries to the controversial use of such revolting coarseness has been stated and is indeed perfectly true. The fact is, however, that what contributed to harden the people was the frequency with which the Protestants in their polemics had recourse to the weapon of obscenity. Who had more responsibility in the decline in the sense of modesty and propriety among German folk than the Wittenberg writer whose works enjoyed so wide a circulation? It has been pointed out elsewhere that though certain Catholic writers of that age, and even of earlier times, were not entirely innocent of a tendency to indelicacy, Luther outdid them all in this respect.[1703]Nevertheless, however great thelack of refinement may have been, though the lowest classes then may have been even more prone than now to speak with alarming frankness of certain functions of the body, and though even the better classes and the writers may have followed suit, yet so far did Luther venture to go, that the humanist Willibald Pirkheimer was expressing the feeling of very many when he said, in 1529: “Such is the audacity of his unwashed tongue that Luther cannot hide what is in his heart; he seems either to have completely gone off his head or to be egged on by some evil demon.”[1704]

As day is to night so is the contrast between such strictures and the praise bestowed on Luther by his own side, not indeed so much for the works last mentioned as for his literary labours in general. The unprejudiced historian must admit that there is some ground for such praise (cp. xxxiv., 2). That Luther’s popular writings must contain much that is really instructive and edifying amidst a deal of dross is surely clear from the favourable reception they met even in quarters not at all blinded by prejudice. In what has gone before we ourselves have repeatedly dwelt on the better elements often to be found in the non-polemical portion of Luther’s literary legacy.

Back to IndexNext