[583] P. 188.
[584] See above, vol. i., p. 16.
[585] “Zeitschr. des Harzvereins,” 39, 1906, p. 191 ff. It cannot be proved from the records that the second Hans Luther had been guilty of actual manslaughter. Hence in vol. i., it was not necessary to point out that the manslaughter of which Wicel accuses Martin Luther’s father, repeating his accusation most emphatically in public writings without its being called into question by Luther, cannot be placed to the account of the second Hans with any semblance of likelihood (though it has been done, cp. “Luther-Kalender,” 1910, p. 76 f). Wicel came to Eisleben in 1533, thus only a few years after the father’s death, and was able to assure himself of the facts, concerning which there was not likely to be any mistake owing to Martin Luther’s celebrity at that time.
[586] Aug. Cramer, “Die Nervosität,” Jena, 1906.
[587] “Grundriss der Psychiatrie,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 104.
[588] Ib., p. 141 f.
[589] “Monatsschr. für Psychiatrie,” Berlin, 1907, p. 230.
[590] Ib., p. 236.
[591] A. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 432.
[592] Ib., p. 432 f.