Note 1258 — Chapter XXVII

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.