[1253] “Dicta memorabilia,” Coloniæ, 1543, p. 13´. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hoffmeister,” p. 53, n. 4.
[1254] “Lobgesang auff des Luthers Winckelmesse,” Leipzig, 1534, Bl. D 2´. The author says, that Luther himself admits in his “Von der Winckelmesse” that he had received his ideas on the Mass “through the disputation and revelation of the devil” (Bl. A 2).
[1255] “Czu Errettung den schwachen Ordenspersonen ... eyn trostlich Rede,” Dresden, 1534, B1. C 3´: “His brother monks who were with him in the Convent at Erfurt, say, that once, when the Gospel ‘Jesus was casting out a devil and it was dumb’ was being read, Luther fell down and lay for some time screaming, ‘I am not dumb, I am not dumb.’” Bachmann also mentions the same incident in “Ein Maulstreich dem Lutherischen ... Rachen, das Closterleben zu lestern” (Dresden, 1534), B1. B 2. Cp. O. Clemen, “Paul Bachmann” (“N. Archiv f. sächs. Gesch.,” 26, 1905, p. 30). In “Ein Maulstreich” he also says: “What sort of an attack would that be, Luther, were I to write or relate what some say, viz. that the devil Incubus was your father! I will, however, refrain from doing so and not bring this charge against you.” (B1. B 1´). He thinks he has stronger evidence for Luther’s possession than for this legend.
[1256] Cp. above, p. 101.
[1257] Letter of 1529 to Prior Kilian Leib of Rebdorf, in Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 533, and J. Schlecht, “Leibs Briefwechsel,” p. 12, from Leib, “Verantwortung des Klosterstandes,” Bl. 170´: “vel a malo dæmonio agitari.”
[1258] In his “Purgatio adv. epistolam non sobriam Lutheri,” 1534, “Opp.,” 10, col. 1557: “a sinistro quopiam agitari genio” (for the whole passage see vol. iii., p. 136, n. 2). It is worth while to select from this reply of Erasmus, and from his “Hyperaspistes” against Luther, some passages in which he expresses doubts as to Luther’s mental equilibrium, or as to his sobriety. In his “Purgatio” (c. 1548) Erasmus says of certain propositions of Luther’s: “Num hæc tam delira videntur esse mentis sobriæ?” And before this: “Sed longe perniciosior est philautiæ et odii temulentia quam vini” (c. 1546). “Demiror, si Martinus febri caruit, quum hæc deliramenta inauspicatis illineret chartis” (c. 1545). “Ipsa febris non posset loqui febrilius” (c. 1546). “Arbitror, Orestem olim dixisse saniora, etiam extra lucida intervalla” (c. 1547). “Hic nihil crepat nisi Satanas, Diabolos, Larvas, Lamias, Megæras, aliasque voces plus quam tragicas. Fortassis ex abundantia cordis os loquitur; certe hæc esse solent venturæ insaniæ præsagia” (c. 1542). “Quæ cum scribit, videtur sibi mire δεινός; verum hæc δείνωσις sobriis videtur esse mera insania” (c. 1543). Martin may wish to make him out an unbeliever, but his readers were more likely to look upon him himself as mad (“citius lymphatum,” etc., c. 1557, first passage given above).—In the first book of his “Hyperaspistes” (ib.) he writes: “Hæc enim tam stulta aut alius addidit tuo libro, aut non eras sobrius, quum scriberes” (c. 1281). “Totus enim hic sensus sapit culinam, in qua non sobrius videtur hæc scripsisse” (c. 1367). “Si qui hæc scribit, sobrius est, ego nunquam vidi temulentem” (c. 1371). “Quis non videt hæc sine mente scribi, nec agere Lutherum, quum hæc scribit, sed agi spiritu quodam maledicentiæ” (c. 1394). “An hic Lutherus videtur fuisse sobrius?” (c. 1411; in connection with Luther’s assertion that God had wrought the evil in Pharaoh). “Non est sobrius, ut paucis dicam, non vino fortassis aut cerevisia, sed philautia et dulcedine quadam maledicendi, qua nunquam satiatur, quantumvis sese ingurgitaverit” (c. 1477). “Quam multa hic delirat Lutherus, sine mente fundens verba” (c. 1472).—Luther’s contemporary, Caspar Schatzgeyer, a Franciscan of kindly ways, speaks like Erasmus and describes Luther’s “De votis monasticis” as the work either of a drunken man or of one possessed (“Replica,” s. l. et. a., Augsb., 1522, f. E 1), the Paris theologian, Jodocus Clichtovæus (“Antilutherus,” Paris., 1524, f. 124´), speaks of it in the same way.—All these statements, with those already given, are worth the consideration of pathologists; though emanating from opponents, their number gives them importance.
[1259] Dungersheim, “Erzeigung,” p. 15. His authority is a statement twice made by Nathin, first (see above, p. 352, n. 3), that Luther as a young monk fell into a fit in choir during the reading of the Gospel on the man possessed, “and had raved like one possessed,” and then a later more detailed explanation of the same incident.
[1260] “Septiceps Lutherus ubique sibi suis scriptis contrarius,” Dresdæ, 1529 (dedication).
[1261] “Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri” (ed. Mogunt., 1549), p. 1.
[1262] Ibid.