Hans Holbein the Younger, Luther as German Hercules, 1523
GERMAN HERCULES: THE IMPACT OF SCATOLOGY ON THE DEFINITION OF MARTIN LUTHER AS A MAN 1483-1546
Danielle Mead Skjelver University of Maryland University College
2 INTRODUCTION The writings of Martin Luther are among the most studied in the world. With words sublime, he gave the Christian God back to the common man, and yet Luther also spoke with shocking cruelty and vulgarity. Martin Luther’s employment of vulgarity, and specifically scatological vulgarity, in his writings and speech has drawn criticism, embarrassment, and accusations of psychological instability. But there was power in this coarse language, for Martin Luther’s combative use of scatology defined him as a virile male in sixteenth century Germany. Brash and full of bravado, the scatology of Martin Luther lent him the appearance of fearlessness. Scatology in many societies is associated with the locker room and the military, two bastions of virility. Even among elites in Europe of Luther’s day, scatology was not unusual. This was particularly true in German speaking lands.1 In a time of rising nationalism, his combative and demeaning brand of scatology leveled against not only a spiritual but also a foreign enemy in the Papacy, secured for him the definition of virile German male. In spite of his emaciated condition from years of fasting, and later in life in spite of corpulence, and even in spite of his public proclamations that he proudly helped his wife wash diapers, Luther was ever the man in the eyes of both allies and enemies. This virility was largely the product of Luther's aggressive use of scatological language, for in demeaning his enemies, Luther diminished their virility. His adversaries, however, vilified his character in such a way that their attacks emphasized Luther's masculinity.
3 HISTORIOGRAPHICAL SURVEY Reformation era fighters of verbal and visual battles left for us evidence of a culture free with scatology, a culture where artists, writers, and theologians employed urine, feces, and flatulence as weapons to belittle their enemies. In this battle, the sheer volume of scatology coming from the Lutheran side far outweighed that coming from the Catholic side.2 It is not only the volume but the intensity and graphic nature of Lutheran scatology that has caused historians to take up the study of the vulgar side of Luther’s writing and sayings. Martin Luther’s coarse language combined with woodcuts appearing in his writings, including a woodcut depicting the Pope and his curia being birthed from a she-devil’s bowels and therefore not even human but rather the she-devil’s feces, jolt historians out of any illusions they may have developed in the study of Luther’s more lofty works.3 Attempts to explain Luther’s scatology vary widely. Some argue from a psychoanalytical view that his crudeness proves that he suffered from emotional instability and from the lasting effects of alleged child abuse; some find Luther’s vulgarity repugnant and have used it as evidence of a lack of moral character. Others see his scatology as nothing more than a product of his times and national culture; within this group, historians do not agree on the degree to which Luther’s language was scatological. Some claim he outdid all of his contemporaries in both the extremity and quantity of this kind of language while others claim he was merely one of many vulgar literary figures, no more and perhaps even less vulgar than his literary contemporaries. There is yet one more camp; this group of historians argues that Luther’s crude language served him as a weapon against enemies both corporeal and incorporeal.
4 Premier among those arguing from a psychoanalytic viewpoint of Luther’s scatology is psychoanalyst Erik H. Erikson. Drawing on Luther’s German works and Table Talks in the original German, secondary sources in both the German and English languages, as well as the work of Soeren Kierkegard, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud among others, Erikson offers a unique look at Luther’s scatology. Erikson’s Young Man Luther takes the approach that Luther’s scatology derives from “active remnants of childhood repressions.”4 Erikson examines Luther as a patient dealing with “neurotic suffering” who, as a young child, made mental connection between his own bowels and the “fickle and dangerous bowels” of the earth, which were the world of his copper mining father.5 That Luther was spanked exacerbated this obsession with bowels, for in Erikson’s view, “punishment aggravates the significance of this general area as a battlefield of parental and infantile wills.”6 For Erikson, Luther’s scatology indicates a manic-depressive response to corporal punishment and overzealous toilet training, manifesting itself in “anal defiance” toward the paternal figure of the Pope.7 Erikson pays close attention to Luther’s constipation and kidney stones, to which Luther himself paid close attention and about which he unblushingly informed his friends. Erikson argues that these painful ailments too were linked to the psyche where he says that for Luther, “the hind end has a malignant dominance.”8 In Erikson’s view, Luther’s coarse language was a symptom of psychological struggles and corporal punishment bordering on child abuse.9 Numbering among those citing Luther’s scatology as proof of low moral character are Hartmann Grisar and Heinrich Denifle. Grisar coolly quotes Luther’s crude language to prove his point and acknowledges that while Luther’s language was not sexual in
and at times his language was so strong that even Catherine Bora [Luther’s wife] was forced to cry halt. Among those who assert that Luther’s scatology was nothing more than the product of his times. going so far as to say that Luther’s scatological writings comprise a small portion of his works. and would not have disgusted people of his era to the degree it might modern readers.12 According to Denifle. Denifle seems to be above quoting Luther’s scatology and refers to it in more delicate terms.14 Arguing that Luther took up the prevailing scatological elements of exegetical theology of his day. “…that Luther should have cultivated this particular sort of language so as to outstrip in it all his literary contemporaries. and many German and English language histories of Luther. and his scatology simply adds to the stack of evidence Denifle cites in his works on Luther. Both historians cite original German texts contemporary to Luther. on the other hand.”10 For Grisar.13 Both Grisar and Denifle take full advantage of their access to the oldest sources of Luther’s works. immoral “buffoon” and “rogue” among other things. His readers and hearers of that day frequently expressed their disgust. Schwiebert claim that Luther’s scatology was not as prolific as suggested by Erikson.”16 Both men said remarkably little about Luther’s scatology. scarcely redounds to his credit.5 nature.
. G. Luther was a shameless. Bainton contends that Luther wrote and spoke with less vulgarity than did his contemporaries. Grisar and Denifle. Roland H. they dismissed it. Bainton and E. would indicate a much larger percentage. Luther’s vulgarity betrays a lack of self-control and “questionable character. letters. for the most part. and Table Talks in German.”11 While Grisar freely quotes Luther at his most graphic.15 Likewise Schwiebert argues that Luther’s scatological expressions were simply the norm for his era. and “Shakespeare.
” and say further that Luther. “provided the scatological with a fervor never read or heard before.6 In his examination of five centuries of German folklore. Alan Dundes takes this concept of culture and extends it to a distinctly German aspect of Luther’s world.17 As Alan Dundes puts forth his argument that scatology was and still is a distinct part of German culture. and according to the ferocity of the attack. letters. While Bernhard Lohse finds Luther’s crudeness shameful.18 A slightly different approach is that Luther was not only a product of his culture but a creator of it.21 Also seeing scatology as a weapon is Herman Pleij. and argue that the Reformation era bears much responsibility for the scatological bent to modern German culture. More seems to have been truly disgusted by the necessity to use such language. more so than of similar cultures. Pleij notes that in Luther’s lifetime. More felt compelled to apologize for the necessity to respond to Luther in his own filthy language.”19 Schmidt and Simon cite Dundes as they find German culture exceptionally free with the scatological. In a larger series of works entitled Studies in European Cultural Transition appears a volume on scatology in which Josef Schmidt and Mary Simon examine Martin Luther’s impact on the modern German language. Schmidt and Simon refer to Luther as a “theological shit-spreader. Without crediting Luther with the shift. he refutes the work of Erikson and asserts that Luther’s scatology was quite normal in terms of his national identity and era. and song. for he notes that while Thomas More of England returned excrement for excrement in a retort to Luther. scatology moved from primarily a comic thing to a
. he notes that Luther’s vulgarity increased according to whether or not he was under attack.20 The fourth theory also accepts that Luther’s scatology was prolific and asserts that Luther used scatology as a weapon against his enemies.
28 Oberman draws on Scribner’s view that Luther employed scatology to weaken the popular view of the papal
. copulation. defecation.”22 While Pleij only mentions Luther briefly in his study of scatology in elite culture. For the Sake of Simple Folk: Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation. he illustrates that scatology was effectively used as a weapon against earthly and supernatural foes. for Luther spoke freely with scatological language to his fellow clerics and academic elites. The title of Scribner’s work. the masses who by and large could not read. and that it had the effect of “exorcising” fear of these enemies by diminishing their stature.”27 While Oberman praises Scribner’s work and agrees as do most historians that fecal matter was closely linked to the Devil. “In the popular mind it would also have served to link the pope and his followers with the demonic.24 The foundation for this approach to Luther’s crude language originates in the Bakhtinian philosophy of a ‘material bodily principal. Scribner and Heiko A.7 “weapon of ridicule. illustrates his view: ‘Popular’ as he uses the word refers to commoners. Oberman.23 Claude Gandelman expands on this as he demonstrates that Luther’s scatology provided direct inspiration to French revolutionaries when they created their scatological iconography. and nudity degrade the powerful. Scribner and Oberman agree that Luther used scatology to combat the Devil and the Pope.25 Approaching Luther’s vulgarity with this interpretation are R. Scribner says of scatology. In popular superstition the privy was the haunt of demons and evil spirits.26 Beyond reducing enemies to objects of mockery and derision. In their thorough examination of the oldest German sources.W.’ meaning that depictions of the powerful at their most basic and vulnerable levels of consumption. he does not accept that Luther’s vulgarity was designed primarily for an unlettered audience.
he makes no attempt to explain it away as the product of an unbalanced mind. while perhaps
. have drawn attention from Luther’s detractors and admirers alike. as nothing more than a manifestation of his contemporary culture. More and more historians are taking the view that Luther’s scatology. “Get lost Satan. “Luther’s ravings should not be suppressed out of embarrassed respect.31 Heiko Oberman accepts Luther’s filthy language without blushing. for.”32 The scatological writings and speech of Martin Luther together with woodcuts commissioned to appear in his work. it was an acceptable and powerful way to speak in academic circles. Luther’s coarse language was not only a valid weapon. and finally as a weapon in the Reformation fight and in Luther’s personal war with the Devil. Luther was elected as the right hand of Staupitz and placed in charge of eleven monastic houses and the only two studia in Erfurt and Wittenberg – the very ‘foundation of the order. or of time. eat your own shit!” and says further of this 1515 sermon. “Immediately after the sermon. Oberman paraphrases Luther thusly.’”30 This proved for Oberman that Luther’s scatology was not mere propaganda for commoners. even those views that may no longer be held by mainstream historians still hold sway in popular beliefs of Luther. Each of the above views is still held by various modern students of Luther. Dealing so gingerly with him means not taking him at his word. Researchers have approached Luther’s vulgarity as evidence of a troubled psyche. as evidence of a lack of moral fiber. of culture. He goes so far as to say. his fellow monastic academics received it approvingly.8 enemy. In describing one of Luther’s filthiest sermons. but he adamantly insists that Luther’s scatology was not solely or even primarily “for the sake of simple folk. and certainly not because they might not be considered proper today.”29 For Oberman. The responses hitherto have varied widely.
It mattered that Luther be seen as virile.”33 In October of the same year. it was a rejection of foreign authority. Did Martin Luther’s scatology aid him by defining him as a virile German male? Martin Luther was not the first man to challenge the Church. he wrote in a letter to the Augustinian monastery in Neustadt. its people cling to men who display the definitive characteristics of that nation’s definition of virility. for when a nation suffers uncertainty and violence. he wrote. plague and famine called for men on whom people could rely to stand strong. there is yet to be explored the issue of gender. While Luther may not have seen himself as rejecting foreign authority. unpolished. in September of 1516. un-papal language that was comfortable and familiar to Germanspeaking people. From Wittenberg.
LUTHER’S WORLD Luther’s world of violence. defined him as a virile and distinctly German male. and we daily expect the fate the people of Magdeburg suffer. but other men paid for such challenges with their lives.9 excessive even in his own era and certainly repugnant to any modern sense of decorum. In this final approach that scatology was an acceptable weapon in general German society and not solely at the bottom of German society. “The plague roars around us. Luther arrived on the stage of history at a time when spiritual and nationalist hunger met. aided him as a weapon in his battle against his enemies human and demonic. “Around us the plague takes at the most three or two [in a
. That this bold rejection was made in coarse and graphic language. Luther’s thumbing his nose at papal power was not just a rejection of papal theology and corruption in the Church. his insolent vulgarity toward Rome could not help but be a rejection of both the Papacy and Rome itself.
Johannes Cochlaeus. that it would snatch the life away from a healthy man within twenty-four hours.” Cochlaeus recalled.37 As did their peers.. but since it was entirely unusable. I do not want to promise it. and with time it became so vile and bad-tasting that not even vinegar could be made from it.’ This malady was so violent and deadly. expressed the precarious nature of their world. too wrote of wars throughout the Reformation era not only in their own lands but also in the greater Holy Roman Empire and its Christian neighbors. and … a certain plague. if not constantly in Luther’s vicinity. yesterday he was still healthy—and another son also suffers from the epidemic.. people followed him.”38 War and plague were not the only hazards of the era. of necessity in this paternal culture. and who would not walk away. basic sustenance was ever in question. and other hazards all around. “…famine. and these leaders were. was visceral in times like these. such as had never been within human memory. plague. Security and health were fickle and fleeting as Cochlaeus recorded.”39 The need for a leader who would not falter.35 War too was omnipresent.”34 In spite of the plague. which was called the ‘English sweat. then in the greater German-speaking lands and the Holy Roman Empire at large. “And the wine in that year was so bitter that it could not easily be drunk because of its acidity. People needed leaders on whom they could rely. not to speak of fulfilling [such a promise]. male. For him to have been seen as a leader in this world of
. it was poured away in vain. Today a son of the craftsman (a neighbor living across from us) was buried. and a lack of all goods.10 day]—though not yet daily. While Luther did not originally seek to lead people. “But now in such times of dangers of war. Luther refused to leave. Luther in 1519. both men wrote of the danger and uncertainty of their time.36 Luther’s Catholic foe.
three centuries before Luther’s era. 154540 This was an era of rising nationalism ripe with opportunity for political protection without which Luther would have burned exactly as had Huss. Emperor Frederick Barbarossa.43
. he needed to appear not only virile but distinctly German in his virility.41 Luther himself used this legend more than once as imagery in his resentment of the Pope. Popular in this era was the untrue but widely believed story of Pope Alexander III having stepped on the neck of the German hero.
Figure 1.11 uncertainty and danger.42 The woodcut above appeared in a pamphlet devoted to this very topic. The Pope’s Threat.
. To have any legitimacy as a national champion. but equally strong was German resentment of Italian authority. Hans Schäuffelein. Diaper Washer. For Luther to be useful to these friendly powers.
Figure 2. he needed to be useful enough to gain the protection of maverick secular princes looking to get out from under Rome’s authority. that those shoulders would not be weak or inadequate.12 Resentment against Church corruption was strong. his secular allies needed Luther to be viewed not only as virile but as fitting a distinctly German mold of virility. it was necessary that if they were to throw on his shoulders the mantle of national champion as well as spiritual champion. In order for Luther to find refuge from Church authorities and their secular adherents.
the perception of Luther was always masculine. Luther’s image as a man was already firmly established by the time he married. but these examples still strike the modern observer. Luther preached that he washed diapers and so ought other men. A man who washed diapers was no man at all.45 In spite of the gender definition battle going on in Luther’s world or perhaps because of it.’ and this was not only to her but about her when he wrote or spoke to others. Luther also referred to his wife as ‘my lord Katie. hardly a manly profession in those days. How did Luther gain such an image? He was a monk. Men were trying to regain some perceived loss of authority as evidenced by the many woodcuts depicting wives beating their husbands and trying to take their husband’s pants. and yet this half-starved walking skeleton became the image of a German Hercules. A common battleground image depicted in woodcuts on this topic was the diaper.46 The very task depicted here as so beneath a man.47 In spite of these steps outside the gender boundaries of his day. Luther proudly performed. and the insult ‘diaper washer’ referred to a man who did not wear the pants in his home.
. Granted.13 This need arose for him in a time when people in the German-speaking lands of the Holy Roman Empire were strengthening gender definitions.
Luther was commonly portrayed as a saint. Luther as German Hercules.14 THE PERCEPTION OF VIRILITY
Figure 3. but images of him side by side with the knight and poet Ulrich von Hutten as co-defenders of the Gospel
. 152348 The hanged Pope dangled from a rope clenched in Luther’s teeth as Luther slew the enemies of the Gospel. Hans Holbein the Younger.
Figure 4. they deliberately created a robust and manly Luther.49 As in this woodcut of Luther as German Hercules and in images with Hutten. and as he was often accused. a lecher.15 and of German liberty were very popular. than other figures in woodcuts. a
. Luther was not portrayed by his enemies as the masculine ideal. for if they had grasped the need for Luther to be perceived as virile. What set of princes would rally around the image of a skeletal monk? Those who wanted Luther to win needed him to be viewed as a dominant male. if only slightly. a heretic among heretics. Luther as Winesack50 Clearly. Luther’s enemies did not seem to understand this. from a desire to see him successfully champion their cause. Luther was often portrayed as larger. they would have portrayed him as weak and effeminate. This illustrates that pro-Luther artists either viewed Luther as virile. here he was obese. or.
pimps in his dishonesty. and as a two-faced trickster who pandered to the masses and did not play by the rules. what More said of Luther could have been said of any mercenary soldier of the era. for Luther often did not play by the rules as when he published a personal letter from a rare female adversary. and one can see how his enemies might have harbored rather nasty feelings toward him. Luther was seen as a liar by his enemies.”51 But even as Luther in this and similar woodcuts was no specimen of manhood. and as scathing as this was. thereby fostering the view of him as masculine even if negatively masculine. neither was he effeminate. “a nun married to a monk. This is not to imply that these traits were distinctly masculine. an infamous woman to an infamous man…”52 While certainly this was not a positive thing. sometimes dishonest. If one assumes that a soldier in Luther’s day typified much of what defined masculinity in all its good and bad forms. prostitutes in his obscenity.54 This sort of thing was not unusual for Luther. it portrayed Luther as a sexual male. soldiers were rascals. for they were not.16 “drunkard. Under the pseudonym William Ross. a damned woman to a damned man. and all buffoons in his buffoonery so that he might adorn his sect with worthy emblems. who because he had outstripped the very devils themselves in impiety. and certainly obscene. While perhaps not necessarily given to garrulousness. impious. but neither were they a threat to one’s identity as male.53 Some of these accusations were well-founded. “…a certain rascal whose name was Luther. the Englishman Thomas More wrote. it only attacked Luther’s character. Luther’s masculinity remained intact. Luther’s enemies seemed to have
.”55 This was representative of many complaints about Luther. surpassed magpies in his garrulousness. Luther’s immorality was shown here by his having taken a nun as bride.
Note the thick neck. and in so doing.17 missed this.
Figure 5. often a muscular threat. they fed the image of Luther as a potent male. Next to this head is a club. They continuously portrayed Luther as a threat. all of them maleficent. 152956 Commissioned for a work by Luther’s enemy Cochlaeus. The last head on the right is that of Barabbas. and the musculature in the exposed chest and shoulders. In both the seven-headed and
. Seven-Headed Luther. the brawny chest. this woodcut depicted the many faces of Dr. Martin Luther. another version of this woodcut is a two-headed Luther with a larger club over his heads.
Other than one side depicting Luther as virile in order that he be viewed as an effective champion for its cause. what else might have led to this prevailing view of Martin Luther. biology may have played a role. “He was. these images implied brute force. 152058 In part. Lucas Cranach the Elder. the Pope too was portrayed as a wild man. His friend Philip Melanchthon noted. and the other side depicting him as virile in order that he be viewed as a threat that must be stopped.59 Even half-starved from years of attempting to mortify the flesh through fasting. I saw him on four consecutive days neither eat nor
. Luther appeared here quite robust. This image of craggy features is consistent with the description by a papal nuncio who noted Luther’s powerful shoulders in spite of his emaciated condition. the club was designed to portray him as a wild man. neither small nor weak in body though he ate and drank little.57 This kind of imagery communicated the threat of a back-stabbing. By the Lutheran side. it further reinforced the image of Luther as masculine. duplicitous traitor. as a dominant male?
Figure 6. monk. by nature something I often marveled at. Coupled with the club. Martin Luther. however. Negative as this was. Here we see Luther as the monk who inflicted severe fasts and austerity on himself.18 two-headed versions.
Friends referred to them as being like a raptor’s or lion’s eyes while enemies considered them reptilian. his physical features impacted the prevailing views of Luther. 153562 Another factor contributing to perceived virility may have been Luther’s unashamed claims of peasant ancestry.61 It is inarguable that combined with charisma. Luther possessed peculiar eyes that were noted by friend and foe alike. yet he remained completely strong…”60 His physical makeup must have contributed to a virile image.
Figure 7. for he was in fact only half-peasant. Sebald Beham. sometimes appearing black. his eyes were reputed to be part of his powerful effect on people whether to signify genius as his friends believed or to hypnotize hapless souls as his enemies believed. Charismatic as well.19 drink a thing the entire time. his eyes were rimmed with gold giving them a bestial appearance. In any case.63 Luther did not have to identify himself as a peasant. Dark brown. and his father’s achievements by the time
. Large Peasant Holiday.
. earthy German culture. the physician of Prince Frederick. unruliness. especially non-German enemies. Kaspar Lindemann. Luther could have claimed his maternal family's erudition to fit the Italian church's definition of masculinity.65 While the latter accusation was a rumor with little merit. and would in some measure have set him outside the rules of civility. Luther always claimed his paternal ancestors as they were: peasants. The image of peasantry added not only to the perception of Luther as masculine but also to the perception of Luther as distinctly German in masculinity. violence. As a monk. His mother appears to have come from an erudite family boasting Dr. for his uncle was a violent man. In Figure 7. this pride in peasant ancestry would have made him humble and folksy. we see something of what it meant to be a peasant. but he chose the rugged peasant. To Luther’s allies. drunkenness. there is evidence to suggest that Luther’s paternal uncle was indeed a violent man.64 Despite these ways to avoid discussing that he was of peasant stock in his classed society.20 Luther had become a priest were more than enough to remove that label of peasant if Luther had not wished to acknowledge it. and gluttony were the themes in woodcuts of peasants. and his father was reputed to have committed murder. as well as many other prominent Lindemanns including a mayor of Eisenach. Luther typified a common German man in a time of nationalist pride. Violence. In many ways.66 Ultimately. the son of a prosperous man and a burgher mother. and illustrated the gulf between smooth Italian culture and robust. this identification with peasant stock would have made him unpredictable. Adding to this was the belief that Luther’s paternal family had a dangerous streak. and drunkenness were arguably masculine. To his enemies. unruliness. Precisely in the middle of the image is a hand that has been cut off in the brawl. and while these were far from positive things.
which the Lord has entrusted to him for the salvation of souls. “Here I stand. Face to face with his deeply Catholic emperor. Luther was unwilling to recant. may not perish.68 While Cochlaeus and Luther’s other enemies did not see Luther’s anger as righteous. That head must be preserved.”70 Further.21 whether or not a murder was committed may not have been as important as that some of Luther’s enemies believed that his father was a murderer. when Luther stood in his humble monk’s garb appearing as he did in Figure 6. God help me.69 Yet Luther did not allow the same danger to befall others. he was surrounded by those who wanted him to burn for his heresy. Coarse language would have gone a long way in cementing the image of Luther as a sturdy German peasant. so that the Word. Luther was surrounded by supportive friends. This must have endowed Luther with a violent aura. “I implore you not to let Philip stay in Wittenberg if the plague breaks out there. Luther refused to leave Wittenberg when plague hit. but more importantly to this image of courage. and this outrageous and bold means of belittling his enemies must also have contributed to his
. and he spoke the words by which he is still known. one of the most dramatic moments in Reformation history occurred at the Imperial Diet of Worms in 1521. Two more factors that may have contributed to the view of Luther as masculine were his temper and his courage. As to his courage. I can do no other. He was very emotional and often flew into rages. Amen.67 While this certainly did not make him look good.”71 Clearly there were many factors contributing to Martin Luther’s image of virility. a man’s inability to contain righteous anger was in fact a sign of his virility. this notion of an inability to contain wrath can be added to the factors that may have contributed to a view of Luther as masculine. however scatology has not yet been explored as a possibility.
Cochlaeus supports this view. an appearance that scatology and an association with peasant heritage would have given him. Hans Sebald Beham.22 image as gutsy and courageous. 153773
.”72 Perhaps equally important as appearing courageous in this era of nationalism. Acknowledging peasant ancestry in concert with the use of coarse language surely made his message more appealing to the common man.
SCATOLOGY IN LUTHER’S WORLD
Figure 8. was appearing quite unlike the Roman Church. “…for he greatly preferred the judgment of the common and confused multitude to that of Doctors in the University. Du Machst Es Gar zu Grob.
public defecation was not uncommon.75 Likewise.23 The text in the banner. and while it met with disapproval. and it manifested itself verbally in nearly every area of his speech. “You really are being too coarse. approve of Luther’s filthy language? Perhaps it was because while certainly not all virile men engaged in scatological speech.
.80 Why was this? Why would these monks. In 1515. Scatology was clearly associated with a derogatory view of peasants. “I am ripe shit.77 He shared with his table guests. In the winter of 1542-43.74 Public defecation was even occasionally used to insult and threaten as in a case where townspeople went so far as to wipe their feces on the doorknob of an unwelcome priest -. he seems to have suffered one of his many bouts of depression. these highly educated men.”78 Even German nobility used scatological imagery in attacking one another as when they displayed one another’s coats of arms dipped in excrement. Luther’s allies used copies of an anti-Luther pamphlet as toilet paper and then sent the pamphlets to the original writers. one of his filthiest sermons appears to have been instrumental in his election to one of the highest posts in the Reformed Augustinian order.76 The commonness of public defecation provides context for the scatological imagery Luther used.79 Monks used scatological language and approved of it in Luther.” is a caption of one peasant scolding the other for defecating and vomiting in public. it appears that scatology might have been a liability for Luther. scatology was inherently associated with men.this after leaving their excrement to greet him as he opened the door. eventually we will part. At first glance based on an image like this. so is the world a great wide asshole. Fecal matter was a visual part of his world.
the Landsknecht defeated as he was expected to defeat. we have in woodcuts of the Landsknecht soldiery the examples of two means of striking down the Pope. vulgar. Mercenaries serving in the armies of various princes and nobles. which while perhaps not as apocalyptic was easily as blasphemous. Landsknecht soldiers were viewed as a necessary evil.24
Figure 9. Illustration for a Prognostic81 In a visual illustration of this. as well as the emperor. and in many ways above the law. he defeated in another fashion. but they were also glorified. Erhard Schoen.
.82 In this image full of apocalyptic symbolism. a Landsknecht struck the Pope down with his traditional weapon. First in Figure 9. the sword. They were dangerous. But below.
and we do not see women baring their backsides in woodcuts associated with Luther. he did so with less strong language. was associated with men. Scatology. and particularly scatology as a weapon. The Pope is Adored as an Earthly God. 154583 Here Landsknecht mercenaries were depicted depositing their feces into the papal tiara and defeating the Pope with a weapon other than the sword. and even when he did. fecal matter was a weapon nonetheless. Luther changed the way he spoke when men were not in the audience. While the weapon here is not the sword. for we see in letters to women that Luther was far less likely to use fecal imagery.84
Figure 10. and weapons belonged to the domain of men. It is worth noting that Luther’s choice of words depending on the gender of his audience showed further the gender difference in scatology. These were not women.
it appears that there is good evidence to support the theory that scatology was a greater part of Reformation era German culture than of similar cultures in the same era. to talk nonsense in his stupidity. to rave in his insanity. we will take counsel at that time to consider whether we should treat him as he raves thus according to his own strengths. Bearing in mind the deep and
. sewers. by the nobility using scatology to demean one another. befouling and himself befouled with his shit and his dung. latrines. and if he continues to rage. and as we shall see later by the unwillingness of many of Luther’s enemies to stoop to his level in verbal and visual combat. to cast insults about. he went so far to distance himself from the work as to author it under a pseudonym. referred not so much to Luther’s theology as ‘shit. shit. to carry nothing in his mouth other than cesspools. That the commonness of scatology across all layers of society was distinctly German is attested to by the fact that when More felt the necessity to respond to Luther in Luther’s own filthy language.’ but rather to the manner in which Luther treated his adversaries: But if he continues to act the buffoon in the same manner as he has begun. Scatology aided him by defining him not only as a virile man but as a virile German man. by the use of feces to threaten.86 As seen by the monks of Luther’s Augustinian monastery receiving a foul sermon so approvingly.85 More was so utterly repulsed at the extent to which he felt forced to use coarse language to respond to Luther that he never publicly owned up to this work. with his furies and ravings. and dung – then let others do what they will.87 That Germans were not as easily offended and perhaps enjoyed scatological humor more than other cultures defined the very crude Martin Luther as all the more German. In the following.26 Luther’s scatological language did not meet with unanimous approval particularly outside German-speaking lands. or whether we should leave this raving little brother and this idler in the latrines. Luther’s English adversary Thomas More writing under the pen name William Ross. to play in his buffoonery. and paint him in his own colors.
27 long history of German resentment against the papacy. these definitions largely hinged on the mastery of a set of skills specific to one’s field.93 Luther also belittled Cochlaeus by referring to him as ‘Snot-Nose. A man who could defeat another in academic argumentation had a means of expressing his masculinity even if he were not a soldier or miner or peasant. access to power required fitting within a mold of current and local definitions of masculinity. resolute German masculinity at least within his field.’ a label that reduced him to a little boy. Cochlaeus said that Eck.95
. and Luther returned fire for fire to Cochlaeus with reference to femininity.”90 Regarding a disputation between Luther’s enemy Eck and Luther’s ally Karlstadt.
LANGUAGE AS WEAPONRY For men. More than just a stronger weapon than solid erudition. scatology associated the target of such speech with the Devil because fecal matter was associated with the Devil. this meant mastery of language.”91 Cochlaeus also mocked Luther’s attempt to placate a prince. “…to see if perhaps by womanly flatteries he could conquer and defeat the firm mind and manly heart of that strong constancy.89 They were access to a perception of stout.”92 We see the use of gender here. Luther frequently used scatological language as a sharper sword than the weapons of clean erudite discourse. “unafraid ran boldly to meet the attacker. “…meet him in battle. the mockery of another’s masculinity.94 Unwilling to hold back no matter how it might have been viewed.88 For Luther as a monk. Luther’s distinctly German virility may have been as important as his virility alone. Words were his weapons. Luther’s enemy Cochlaeus referred to books as “reserve troops” and used phrases like.
threw every possible argument at Luther to keep him from enjoying salvation and trusting in God.” but Luther made a point of saying that it happened in the latrine in the tower.28 The latrine was something of a playground for the Devil. Luther often had yelling matches with the Devil at night. And then it hit him that by faith he was justified. Luther quipped back to the Devil that God deserved Luther’s praise anywhere and everywhere. He said later in life as he looked back on this revelation. “Here I felt that I was altogether born again. The just shall live by their faith. As darkness was much darker in Luther’s world.”100 Luther made the point of this revelation having reached him in the latrine because this was
.98 He was sitting in the latrine and pondering Romans 1:17. “For in it [the Gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed which comes from faith into faith as it is written. In the English speaking world. the Devil. These battles were more vehement before he had the revelation about justification by faith and not works. You deserve what descends and God what ascends.96 In Luther’s discussions of his relationship with the Devil.”99 This passage had always excluded him because he knew he was not just. and had entered Paradise itself through open gates. his adversary. Associating the Devil with the latrine and with all things fecal. this revelation is known as “The Experience in the Tower. while the Devil deserved only Luther’s ordure. and not by anything he could or could not do. God was ubiquitous and could be worshipped anywhere. and as the Devil was as real as scent or wind or anything else one could sense but not see. In Luther’s thinking. we see how strong this association was. And it hit him in the latrine. he recorded thoughts on a conversation with the Devil: Devil: You monk on the latrine. Shortly before Christmas. you may not read the matins here! Monk: I am cleansing my bowels and worshipping God Almighty. 1531.97 For Luther. long before the dawn of electricity.
and often it is with a fart that I chase him away. and as an academic. and with fecal language. it also gave the hearer an
. “Have you not had enough. Luther grew angry at the Devil. hang them on your neck and wipe your mouth with them. so this made the revelation doubly powerful. “Dear Devil … I have shat in my pants and breeches. you Devil. Have you written it down on your list?’”102 That when the Devil planted guilt over “silly sins.”104 The Devil was an enormous threat. for God had not only released him from the theology of works but had done so in the very place where the Devil ruled. When he tempts me with silly sins I say. far greater than the Pope. words were his weapons. and he clearly used language as a weapon against his foe.”105 While the Devil in this case could not be driven away with mere flatus. I have come to this conclusion: When the argument that the Christian is without the law and above the law doesn’t help. wipe your mouth on that and take yourself a full bite!”106 While this stronger language illustrated how very seriously Luther took the Devil. Often. Luther’s defensive volleys were often scatological. Luther was willing to use every weapon at his disposal. so have I also shat and pissed. Luther clearly took the Devil seriously as we see from stronger language. “But I resist the devil. Therefore God would go anywhere to reach His children.29 where the Devil was believed to loiter. yesterday I broke wind too. “Almost every night when I wake up the devil is there and wants to dispute with me.” he could be run off with a little flatulence weakened his power and reduced him to a comic level.103 Luther frequently used nothing more than flatus to drive the Devil away. I instantly chase him away with a fart.101 In his many battles with the Devil. Luther belittled the great and fearsome Satan. the effect was the same: weakening of his power. ‘Devil.
While Luther did not create the following woodcuts. and so where Luther degraded his enemies. for what response was there to name-calling and vulgar accusations? This degradation. Certainly the language Luther used also reinforced these images.
. when Luther’s logic did not persuade. he did to all enemies.30 image of the Devil or some such creature shamed or shocked into submission by the force of Luther’s anger and vulgarity. For them. he gained the perception of power. While many like Thomas More were repulsed by Luther’s choice of arms. they therefore represented Luther. many of them appeared in his writings and in the writings of the Lutheran camp. made Luther the victor in the eyes of his followers and allies. this sweeping away of any real chance for academic debate. it did not really matter what one said to Luther in return. be they spiritual or earthly. he chased them away with unanswerable diminishment. this vulgar degradation gave the perception of power to the degrader. Ultimately what Luther did to the Devil.
”109 Convinced by this time that the Pope was Anti-Christ.108 Near the end of his life. Luther wrote a foul piece entitled “Against the Papacy in Rome Founded by the Devil. Luther attacked him as follows.31
Figure 11.” As these peasants bare their buttocks and release flatulence in answer to the Pope’s decree. “The Pope speaks. but also lick your behind. we see reinforced Luther’s frequent comments about the Pope. and not only worship you. I would accept them all. The Papal Belvedere. the top line reads. Satan! And if you had more worlds than this. to whom he often referred as ‘pope fart-ass’ among other things. 1545107 In this Lutheran woodcut.’”110 Disgusted with papal power
. “But what does the Pope say? ‘Come here.
with which the Hellish Father fooled all the world and cheated them of their money. should such bishops and emperors have done wrong and should they be damned merely because this farting ass in Rome (what else can he do?) sets up. the Indulgence is an utter shitting [swindle].. which no letters of indulgence or “plentitude of power” could forgive. ordained by God. that would be dangerous! So consider your own great danger beforehand. dearest little donkey. “And you should know that it is not your prerogative to choose who shall be in the council. Luther addressed the practice of indulgence sales. out of his own mad head.”112 In this same document. for the consequences could be embarrassing and open for all the world to see: Gently.”113 Luther here warned the Pope not to make such a misstep. the devil! How the ass-pope has befouled himself!” And that would be a great crime of lese majesty against the Holy See in Rome.32 over secular leaders throughout history. for that is the prerogative of our jurisdiction. crude ass-pope and fart-ass in Rome?”111 Further in this work. dear Pauli. don’t dance around! Oh. Dear one. Hellish Father. Luther wrote. that it is not fitting for the emperor to convoke a council or to decide or name who shall attend?115
. don’t do it. dearest little ass-pope. dear donkey. “Similarly. If a fart should escape you while you were falling. Why do they tolerate such things from such a rotten paunch.114 Luther added in quotation marks the rebuttals he expected Papal supporters would offer him in response to the above: “Silence. Luther mocked and warned the Pope with scatology. “Ugh.. The warning below was specifically addressing this statement from the Pope to Emperor Charles V. For the ice is very solidly frozen this year because there was no wind—you might fall and break a leg. “They are temporal lords. don’t dance around—dearest. the whole world would laugh at you and say. Oh. and farts out of his stinking belly. you heretic! What comes out of our mouth must be kept!” I hear it— which mouth do you mean? The one from which the farts come? (You can keep that yourself!) Or the one into which the good Corsican wine flows? (Let a dog shit into that!) .
such a great horrid fart did the papal ass let go here! He certainly pressed with great might to let out such a thunderous fart—it is a wonder that it did not tear his hole and belly apart!116 This particular tract came at the end of Luther’s life.
. There was no argument in it except that the Pope’s arguments were nothing but flatulence and feces. How sweet it must have sounded to hear someone putting the Pope in his place. this must have been seen as childish. it was such a thunderclap. especially those less interested in theology than in German independence from Rome. “I was frightened and thought I was dreaming.33 Later in the same document. To his adversaries.117 There was no answer to such mockery. To his followers however. that his arguments were not worthy of debate. this kind of ‘argument’ must have been music to the ears. Luther toyed with the Pope. and scatology had been part of Luther’s speech from his young days as a monk. and as Luther retreating behind a wall of offal so foul that no one would bother to come close enough to fight back.
and that he was born rectally rendered him living excrement. for not only were his arguments nothing more than flatulence and feces. Birth and Origin of the Pope.34
Figure 12. How could one respond? Truly. Again. and received his nourishment and care from another she-devil. but he himself was fecal matter. there was no possible answer to this. That what the Pope consumed came from the body of a she-devil implied that what was inside him was devilish. but the Catholic side either did not understand the power of such
. the only response available to such arguments was to fight fire with fire. 1545118 Here this fecal association of the Pope with the Devil was taken to its extreme. The Pope in this image has been born of a she-devil’s rectum.
the latrine appeared hardly used.
Figure 13. 1522120 In terms of scatology. I wonder not at all if he is now considered unworthy for anyone to dispute with him. Thomas Murner.”119 When Catholics depicted Luther as the enemy. but equally he was portrayed as a mighty threat. they portrayed him as a lascivious sot. While Luther here was stuffed into the latrine.121 Thomas Murner allowed Luther more dignity than the
. this appears to have been the strongest Catholic attack against Luther. “No buffoon was ever found who exceeded him. and a fool. since he is of this sort. An Illustration From the Great Lutheran Fool. and Luther’s buttocks remained covered in contrast to a Lutheran depiction of the Pope shown in full nudity. They did not seem to understand how to diminish Luther. Therefore.35 imagery to shape the opinions of people in many strata of German society or they simply refused to pander at this level. a glutton. so stolid a bearer of blows that he will thrust filth into his own mouth which he spits out into another’s bosom. The disgust and frustration with Luther can be seen here again in the words of Thomas More.
Compare figures 13 and 14. Simultaneously he relieved himself of a free flow of books of excrement. Satire on Johann Cochlaeus 122 Cochlaeus here was portrayed as consuming the feces of the devil.
Figure 14. the buttocks of Luther’s enemy Cochlaeus were displayed for all the world to see. in fact he appeared unable to get enough.36 Lutherans offered their enemies. Murner’s answer to Lutheran scatology hardly makes a whisper compared to the appalling yawp of the depiction from Luther’s camp of Luther’s enemy Cochlaeus. and that was a mere fraction of the humiliation the Lutherans offered him in the following woodcut. While there was some legitimate theological symbolism in this woodcut such as the choice of bestial features that would have associated Cochlaeus’
he was virile. As victor. he also continued to win many verbal and visual battles by means of foul language. for in Luther’s world.124 Cochlaeus found the lack of Lutheran response to this astonishing. and so in addition to Luther’s many erudite and intellectual successes with clean academic language in winning his battles. Around 1525. This kind of response to Luther was not the norm however. is evidenced by the portrayals of two misbirths.37 admirers with hell. scatology was best fought with scatology. Polish Catholics came up with a song about Luther that seems to have shut even the cleverest of mouths: Since Luther considers everyone shit compared with him. it silences the other side. for Cochlaeus had already been rendered impotent with the etching of this image in the minds of Luther’s supporters. there was no answerable theological argument here. The Polish song demonstrated the power of fecal language as a weapon. And in his filthy mouth has nothing but shit. whether consciously or not. wouldn’t you say that he’s a shitty prophet? Such as a man’s words are so is the man himself. apparently it could even silence Luther.123 Any response Cochlaeus might have offered would have been laughed at by Luther’s allies. I ask you. for it could shut even the mouth of the very one who had introduced scatology into the argument. and thereby increased his stature as victor in his field.
. The only possible response to something like this would have been to add to the volley of excrement. That Luther succeeded in achieving an image of virility.125 But if scatology is effective.
this calf was used in propaganda by both sides.38
Figure 15. Polish Catholics made up a song about this calf with clear reference to Luther. 1523126 Misbirths were seen as omens and oracles. be on your guard. In the anti-Luther image above. and this image refers to a mutant calf born with a cowl in Saxony. Poor Saxon. and far more brawny than any calf could have been. The Monk Calf before Pope Adrian. Luther as the Monk Calf was being shown to the Pope. and destroy that monster. As the cowl was the universal symbol of monks. far larger. always show that it met its end in your lands.127 Note that this calf was far more muscular. who was of Saxony: A Saxon cow produced a cowled fetus. certainly a mutant calf that could not long have survived. signifying the monster which that land nourishes. and yet Luther was not portrayed as weak and near death but as robust.128
Figure 16. The Papal Ass. Luther with his close ally and friend Melanchthon published a pamphlet in which the new Monk Calf appeared with this image of the Papal Ass. this depiction of the Papal Ass portrayed the Pope as unquestionably female. The Pope was often cast as a virile threat. 1523129 Purportedly discovered in the Tiber River. Replete with symbolism. but it was believed nonetheless. this misbirth was more legend than reality. Reinterpreting the Monk Calf as an omen against monasticism in general and therefore not against Luther who was no longer a monk. for he was at times a wild monster. and often was depicted
and savage was the boar in imagery.” because he is wanton and fierce at the same time. “The wild boar from the forest seeks to destroy it and every wild beast feeds upon it. the Turk. Luther may or may not have been conscious of this. for the majority of their visual and verbal imagery was virile in nature.’ namely. brutal. have risked their lives and their fortunes to throw their support behind a man who was so easily portrayed as female? Indeed they might have.40 with a sword. “. he was ultimately viewed as virile by both sides. And I believe the prophet is speaking in this sense. The Pope in using the boar. But a monk? Luther needed to be viewed as male. what did it mean to be a wild boar? We have Luther’s own words describing the dreaded Turk as a wild boar. In the Papal Bull Exsurge Domine. and he compels all to adopt his faith by the force of arms.. wanton. Wild.”133 A wild boar was a thing to be feared. he teaches and permits wantonness. This was played out in his enemies’ attacks. and German. came and laid it waste again. virile. if he had already demonstrated himself as a leader in battle or in affairs of state.”132 Of all the images in Scripture. in any event. in order to achieve a following among powerful laymen. Luther’s description of the Turk illustrates for us what the Pope added to Luther’s image when he used this term. the Pope called Luther a wild boar. certainly achieved this among papal
. why was the boar chosen? In Luther’s world. if that man already possessed power. and Luther portrayed the Whore of Babylon in the papal tiara in chapter seventeen of Revelation in his New Testament.131 Would German princes..130 But he was also portrayed as female on more than one occasion.this ‘wild boar and unique one. he may or may not have cultivated this perception. while intending to convey the threat of Luther’s heresy and wantonness. German warriors. for the Turk is rightly the “wild boar.
The Pope lent this gravity to Luther. this imagery of the boar must have reinforced a sense of nationalism and pride. Coarse language illustrated the gulf between smooth Italian culture and robust. he was a distinctly masculine creature not to be taken lightly. a separate and
. but scatology set him apart from Rome and reinforced his image as distinctly German.41 followers. Whether Luther’s allies did not believe the accusations against his character. To be feared by the very figure Luther’s followers had so long resented for corruption and foreign dominance. and his mastery of language as a weapon in his field. The Pope feared a German. It was required of this champion that he fit their definition of masculinity. or whether they believed that any tactics against an enemy as great as the Pope were justified. is not the question. and as Luther through scatology had successfully identified himself as a robust. anti-Luther verbal and visual imagery. Those German laymen and clerics desirous of change in the Church needed a champion. his connection to the peasantry. The Pope clearly feared Luther. For as fierce and brutal. something quite useful. his anger and courage. and in turn to the German people.
CONCLUSION Many factors contributed to the image of Luther as virile: his physical structure and charisma. but he also lent something more to Luther. this must have transferred some latent pride to Luther’s followers. as did princes looking for justification to get out from under foreign authority. and had feared for excommunication must have held some large satisfaction! In a perverse way. it allowed Luther to typify a common German man in a time of rising nationalist pride. it appears that Luther’s strength was more important than his fairness. earthy German culture. one of their countrymen. earthy German. For.
insolent bravado lent him the appearance of boldness and courage. of argument. and it is widely believed that he did not. for others to see Luther as virile.134 For Luther to achieve a following of more than a few monks and a handful of pious people. One must imagine that he no longer needed such filthy language. for toward the end of his life.135 In his field. for he was now established as the head of one of the greatest movements in history. a sermon from 1515. Whether Luther wanted this role or not. One of the ways men fit into a mold of masculinity was to master a set of skills. war. Thus. and plague needed heroes.42 German definition. while clearly Luther’s scatology went beyond the rules of decorum even for his own era. In fact. he crossed every line of decency. this was when many of the above woodcuts were done. he gained allies and power. it also reinforced his image as a German peasant. We see this so strikingly in his fellow monks’ adulatory response to what was arguably Luther’s coarsest sermon. he had to fit the German definition of masculinity. and he outstripped even himself in his later years. for. This is not to say that Luther’s scatology was in and of itself a positive thing. for the end of the world was believed to be imminent. he had to be viewed as powerful. it seemed to work for him. and a demonstrated ability to dominate others with these skills. two years before he nailed the ninety-five theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. Although for Luther this did not seem to be the case. Luther’s coarse. only the educated in German society could fully comprehend
. mastery of skills meant mastery of language. with scatology. People in this time of famine. and the anti-Christ was on his temporal throne as Pope with the Holy Roman Empire and many other nations still largely at his beck and call. While often able to defeat enemies in his field with lofty words and truly towering intellect. he had to do this. they needed a champion.
240-242. whether he used it intentionally to manipulate the opinion of the masses. however. 8-14. Erik Erikson.jstor. Heiko A.. no. was his psychological brilliance. 444. 3 (Autumn. 1989). Life is Like a Chicken Coop Ladder: A Study of German National Character through Folklore (Detroit: Wayne State University Press.” Sixteenth Century Journal 19. <http://links. not just to the educated priest and lawyer. Whether he was aware of the effect scatology had or not. 1988): 443. 1958). Ibid. “Teufelsdreck: Eschatology and Scatology in the ‘Old’ Luther. When he used scatology. 1994).W. Young Man Luther: A Study in Psychoanalysis and History (London: Faber and Faber. than Luther’s theological brilliance.CO%3B2-P> (accessed February 12. Luther used the age-old method of demeaning adversaries: mockery. 152-153. he set forth in common language unanswerable insolence and dominated his enemies in a way that every German person could understand. Oberman. Scribner. 241.. he had to do it in a way that was comprehensible to all. 238.43 these battles.
5 6 7 4 3 2 1
Ibid. but to the German everyman.0. xvi. For the Sake of Simple Folk: Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation (Oxford: Clarendon Press.org/sici?sici=0361-0160%28198823%2919%3A3%3C435%3AT EASIT%3E2. Far more important to Luther’s survival. it rendered mute any response to the masses.
. R. Ibid. 2008). not just to the monk. 229. While this method may not have shut the mouths of his enemies. to defeat his enemy before the German people.
ENDNOTES Alan Dundes.
Roland H. tran. Jeff Persels and Russell Ganim (Aldershot. 239. 3. 112.
Heinrich Denifle. ed. 1913). vol. 109. and Others 21.org/sici?sici=002822
. vol. 358.” New Literary History: New Historicisms. no. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville: Abingdon Press. Schwiebert. 1950).” in Fecal Matters in Early Modern Literature and Art: Studies in Scatology. 580. Ibid. Trench. Luther and Lutherdom: From Original Sources.
Ibid. Martin Luther: An Introduction to His Life and Work.M.
Ibid. E. 61.
Ibid. Luigi Cappadelta. “Holy and Unholy Shit: The Pragmatic Context of Scatological Curses in Early German Reformation Satire. Luther. 85-86. 2004).. 116. 229. 1978). Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
18 19 17 16 15
Ibid. Life is Like a Chicken Coop Ladder: A Study of German National Character through Folklore (Detroit: Wayne State University Press. 2008).
Joseph Schmidt with Mary Simon. OH: Torch.org/2/items/luthergris03grisuoft/luthergris03grisuoft_djvu. “Psychiatry and History: An Examination of Erikson’s ‘Young Man Luther’.. Raymond Volz (Somerset. 3 (Spring. 1. ed.” in Psychohistory and Religion. E.. Alan Dundes. <http://ia360633. Lamond (London: Kegan Paul. us.G. Luther and His Times: The Reformation from a New Perspective (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing.
Hartmann Grisar..archive.jstor. 54-55. 232-233. 1917). UK: Ashgate Publishing. Trubner & Co. 330. ed. pt. tran. 59-60. New Histories. 139-144. 1986). tran..txt> (accessed March 14. <http://links. 1990): 639. Bainton. 1989). 234.. Bainton. Roger A. “Urban Elites in Search of a Culture: The Brussels Snow Festival of 1511. 60-62. 1977). 1. 9. 330-334. Johnson (Philadelphia: Fortress Press.. Robert C. Roland H. Herman Pleij.
270. 107. Luther: Man between God and the Devil. Oswald (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 2002).. 2008). 1 (1996): 8. 443. 84. UK: Manchester University Press. no. 1989).ezproxy.. Ibid.CO%3B2-N> (accessed February 25. “Teufelsdreck. Luther. ed. “’Patri-arse’: Revolution as Anality in the Scatological Caricatures of the Reformation and the French Revolution. Indiana: Indiana University Press.45
6087%28199021%2921%3A3%3C629%3AUEISOA%3E2.html> (accessed February 19.
Luther. vol. For the Sake of Simple Folk. 109. 23. “Teufelsdreck. 198. 1. 48. 13. 448-450. Oberman..
34 35 36 37
Ibid. Hilton C. 635-636. Hélène Iswolsky (Bloomington. 213. 2008). 449. tran. Oberman. 1984).edu. 269. vol.
Martin Luther. Ibid. Ibid.1 gandelman. Frazel (Manchester. Helmut T. 48.jhu.umuc. Mikhail Bakhtin. Elizabeth Vandiver and Thomas D.
Heiko A. Luther's Works.” in Luther’s Lives: Two Contemporary Accounts of Martin Luther.
30 31 32 33
Oberman. Rabelais and His World.
Claude Gandelman.. 305. Jaroslav Pelikan. 30.
. 1963). Martin Luther from the Year of the Lord 1517 to the Year 1546 Related Chronologically to All Posterity.edu/journals/american_imago/v053/53. Oberman. tran.
Ibid.. Ibid. Lehmann. <http://muse.0.” 435.” 442. Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart (New York: Image. 31. 129. 18-21. 108. trans. “The Deeds and Writings of Dr.” American Imago 53..
26 27 28 29 25
Scribner. Luther's Works.
[1536?].. in Scribner. Oswald (Philadelphia: Fortress Press..” Sixteenth Century Journal 23. Luther's Works. 40. Kurt Stadtwald. Warriors. Oswald (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. in Kurt Stadtwald. 45. 43.” Sixteenth Century Journal 23. vol. For the Sake of Simple Folk. Jaroslav Pelikan.jstor. Lehmann. ed. Jaroslav Pelikan. Hilton C. Luther's Works. Hans Holbein the Younger. 130. ed. 4 (Winter 1992): 756. 2008). 237.46
Cochlaeus. in Scribner.CO%3B2-1> (accessed February 22. Luther as German Hercules. Martin Luther. 1545. Peasants. vol. Oswald (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Ibid.0. For the Sake of Simple Folk.” 246. 50.” 756. 235. 62-63. Luther's Works. 1523. 1975). 129. in Keith Moxey.0. no. 239. 1989). and Wives: Popular Imagery in the Reformation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 108. Martin Luther. Martin Luther. “Pope Alexander III's Humiliation of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa As An Episode in Sixteenth-Century German History.
The Pope’s Threat. Helmut T. Peasants.jstor. 101-126. and Wives: Popular Imagery in the Reformation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Helmut T. vol.. 68-69. “Pope Alexander III's Humiliation of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa As An Episode in Sixteenth-Century German History. Lehmann. Martin Luther. Helmut T. ed.
. 1968). Hans Schäuffelein. <http://links. no. <http://links. Keith Moxey. Warriors. Lehmann. Martin Luther.” 117. Hilton C. 4 (Winter 1992): 755-768. Cochlaeus. Ibid.d. 106. 2008).CO%3B2-1> (accessed February 22.org/sici?sici= 0361-0160%28199224%2923%3A4%3C755%3APAIHOE%3E2.. 1962). Diaper Washer. 32-35.
49 50 51 52 53 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41
Ibid. Hilton C. Luther as Winesack. 33. “The Deeds and Writings of Dr. n. 1989).org/sici?sici= 0361-0160%28199224%2923%3A4%3C755%3APAIHOE%3E2. Stadtwald. “The Deeds and Writings of Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan. “Pope Alexander III’s Humiliation of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa.
Luther and His Times. 1520. Luther. in Scribner. 233-234. UK: Manchester University Press.. Hilton C. 1967). Martin Luther. “History of the Life and Acts of the Most Reverend Dr. Lehmann. 2008).
Sebald Beham. 1883). Large Peasant Holiday. <http://books. in Oberman. 1535. Luther's Works. 16. 90-91. “The Deeds and Writings of Dr. trans.
64 65 66 63
Oberman. Luther. Luther's Works.” 63-64.
Schwiebert.” in Luther’s Lives: Two Contemporary Accounts of Martin Luther.com/books?id=K01hTuVHZgoC&dq=koestlin+life+of+luther&sour ce=gbs_other_versions_sidebar_s&cad=7> (accessed April 8. Young Man Luther. Peasants. Ibid. Wiesner-Hanks..
Philip Melanchthon. 85. 233. 59. ed. in Moxey. frontispiece. and Wives. of True Theology..
55 56 57 58
Cochlaeus. Jaroslav Pelikan.
68 69 70
.” 119. Karant-Nunn and Merry E. 79. Luther and His Times. and eds. Ibid. 68. For the Sake of Simple Folk. 66. 2003).
Lucas Cranach the Elder. 1529. 458. vol. 54. Martin Luther. “The Deeds and Writings of Dr. 573. trans. Erikson.47
Susan C. 37. 30-31. Thomas D. 48. 53-54. Martin Luther. Luther. 316. Oswald (Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Cochlaeus. 224-227. Ibid. Martin Luther. Luther on Women: A Sourcebook (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Martin Luther. Warriors. Frazel (Manchester.
Julius Köstlin.. vol. Dr. 576. Seven-Headed Luther. Helmut T. 2002).
117.google. 135-136. Life of Luther (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 4.
” 442-443. Tischreden. Lyndal Roper (Leiden. vol. Oswald (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. no. Hilton C. Amen. For the Sake of Simple Folk.
Hans Sebald Beham. ed. n.
Martin Luther.org/sici?sici=03610160%28199322%2924%3A2%3C301%3APFAPET%3E2.” in Anticlericalism in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. 1958). in Scribner.
. Lehmann. Warriors. R. Weimar.
Cochlaeus.” It can be translated equally as the more famous translation in the text above. ed. Du Machst Es Gar zu Grob. Scribner. 650. For the Sake of Simple Folk. 2000). Young Man Luther. “Paper Festivals and Popular Entertainment: the Kermis Woodcuts of Sebald Beham in Reformation Nuremberg. 1537.
76 77 78 75 74
Scribner. 32.jstor.” 118-119.” 68. Religion and Culture in Germany: 1400-1800.
Moxey. 2008). Philip M. and Wives. vol. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. 5 (1919. 1993. 113. “The Counter-Reformation Impact on Anticlerical Propaganda. and Heiko Oberman (Leiden. Alison Stewart. Germany: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger. 2001). ed. Peasants. Erikson.
Erhard Schoen. Dykema. Soergel. This is translated in this text as “I cannot do otherwise.0. 157.126. 83-84.).
The Pope is Adored as an Earthly God. 206. Illustration for a Prognostic. 202-226. Cochlaeus. Peter A. Luther's Works. Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers. “The Deeds and Writings of Dr. 67-100.CO%3B2-%23> (accessed February 20. D.d. 1993): 304. Luther on Women. “Urban Elites in Search of a Culture.. 222. in Scribner. Jaroslav Pelikan. Martin Luther. 1545.48
Martin Luther. repr.
Karant-Nunn and Wiesner-Hanks. in Pleij. <http://links. 2 (Summer. Martin Luther.
80 81 79
Oberman. For the Sake of Simple Folk.W. Helmut T. Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers. 82.” 640. “The Deeds and Writings of Dr. may God help me. here I stand.” Sixteenth Century Journal 24. “Teufelsdreck.
Ibid. Biblia (1534. 155. xvi. Helmut T. Hilton C. Oswald (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 152-153. Hilton C. 54. 154-165.
. ed. 251. Weimar. “Arms and the Theologian: Martin Luther’s Adversus Armatum Virum Cochlaeum.
90 91 92 93 94 89
Cochlaeus.edu/ehost/detail?vid= 1&hid=112&sid=ebc03f03-4236-4517-8ed7-d28f22dca38d%40sessionmgr108> (accessed March 4. Luther. Glasco. Luther's Works. Die Epistel Sanct Pauli An die Römer: I.ezproxy.
Oberman. 66. 66 (Fall 2004). Luther's Works. Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger. no. 8-14. 339. 2008). <http://web. 2006). vol.
Martin Luther. Cologne.. 34. tran.” 67. Germany: Taschen Verlag. Springer. Henry VIII and the Lutherans: A Study in AngloLutheran Relations from 1521-1547 (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing. Martin Luther. 16. Helmut T. vol. repr. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe.
96 97 95
Oberman. Lehmann. Lehmann. 131. 2002). vol. “The Seaman feels Him-self a Man. 2 (1913.com. Oswald (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1960). Tischreden. Life is Like a Chicken Coop Ladder. Jaroslav Pelikan.
101 102 100
Neelak Serawlook Tjernagel. 2000). 413. 373.
Martin Luther. Luther. 173. 155. 298. Christopher S. “The Deeds and Writings of Dr. Luther. 229. Luther. Mackay (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This translation comes from Oberman.” International Journal of the Classical Tradition 10. Germany: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger. tran.umuc. Ibid. Carl P. Springer.1 (Summer 2003): 47. repr.” International Labor and Working-Class History. Luther. Jaroslav Pelikan. Luther's Works. “Arms and the Theologian.
Jeffrey D.. D. Malleus Maleficarum. 150.” 47. ed.
Martin Luther.. Martin Luther. 337.E. 41. 24. 45. 1966).
107 108 109
The Papal Belvedere. 41.” 439. Luther's Works. in Scribner. Martin Luther. Luther.
Martin Luther. vol. For the Sake of Simple Folk. Cochlaeus.+vom+Teufel+gestiftet> (accessed April 11. 54. 281. Luther's Works. 344-345. D. <http://www.zeno. For the Sake of Simple Folk. Martin Luther. “Wider das Bapstum zu Rom vom Teuffel Gestifft. 335. Oberman. 1545. 41. 2000). 41. 335. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe.. Ibid.
110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118
Ibid. 1522.org/Literatur/M/Luther. vol.” Luther. 1545.
Martin Luther. “Urban Elites in Search of a Culture. Tischreden. 237. Weimar.. vol. Luther's Works. 2008). An Illustration From the Great Lutheran Fool. “Teufelsdreck. “Wider das Bapstum zu Rom vom Teuffel Gestifft.” in Zeno. repr. in Scribner. Luther. 280. Luther. vol. 6 (1921. For the Sake of Simple Folk. Luther. Germany: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger. 87.50
103 104 105 106
Pleij.. in Scribner. 84. 2. 41.
86. vol. Ibid. Ibid.
. 132. Birth and Origin of the Pope. Martin Luthers Werke. 216.” 118. D.org: Meine Bibliothek: Literatur. Luther's Works.” 635-636. “The Deeds and Writings of Dr. 334. Luther's Works. vol. 78.+ Martin/Traktate/Wider+das+Papsttum+zu+Rom. vol.
in Scribner. 1523..
. 127-129. repr.” 442-443. 159-161. in Scribner.
Martin Luther. Ibid.htm> (accessed April 10. 129.
134 135 133 132
Oberman.. Luther's Works. 128.51
122 123 124 125 126
Satire on Johann Cochlaeus.net/Leo10/l10exdom. Glasco. Leo X. 85.
The Monk Calf before Pope Adrian. For the Sake of Simple Folk. “The Deeds and Writings of Dr. vol. Ibid.. Exsurge Domine.” 168-169. 11. in Scribner. “The Deeds and Writings of Dr. 129. “The Seaman feels Him-self a Man. Germany: Taschen Verlag. Lehmann. 1976). Oswald (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 98.. Cochlaeus. ed. Cologne. in Papal Encyclicals Online <http://www.papalencyclicals. tran. For the Sake of Simple Folk. 169. Martin Luther.d. 84-85. Biblia (1534. Jaroslav Pelikan. 2008). n.
127 128 129 130 131
Ibid.. 135-136. Die Offenbarung XVII.” 51-52. Martin Luther. 127-131.” 169. and Hilton C. Ibid.. “Teufelsdreck. 1523. Helmut T. Martin Luther. Cochlaeus. 2002). The Papal Ass. For the Sake of Simple Folk.
Lamond. and eds. Julius. 2008). 1977. Wiesner-Hanks. trans. 1984. Translated by Elizabeth Vandiver and Thomas D. Hartmann. 1978. Detroit: Wayne State University Press July 1989. Roger A.edu/journals/ american_imago/v053/53. Erikson. 1883. Glasco.archive. 1958.txt> (accessed March 14.com/books?id=K01hTuVHZgoC&dq=koestlin+life+of+luth
.umuc. Trubner & Co.html> (accessed February 19. <http://books.. 1 (Spring 1996): 7-24. London: Faber and Faber. Trench. Mikhail. Edited by Luigi Cappadelta.edu. “The Deeds and Writings of Dr. Martin Luther from the Year of the Lord 1517 to the Year 1546 Related Chronologically to All Posterity. Gandelman. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Dundes. Rabelais and His World. Ohio: Torch Press.org/2/items/luthergris03grisuoft/luthergris03grisuoft_ djvu. A Portrait of German Culture Through Folklore. London: Kegan Paul. 2004): 40-56. Manchester. Roland H. Translated by E. Luther and Lutherdom: From Original Sources. 1917. Susan C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2008).M. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. ------. Bloomington. Alan. ed. Jeffrey D. 19-56.” International Labor and Working-Class History 66 (Fall. Somerset. 2003.us.ezproxy. Translated by Hélène Iswolsky. Life Is Like a Chicken Coop Ladder.google. <http://muse.” In Luther’s Lives: Two Contemporary Accounts of Martin Luther. Johannes. “‘Patri-arse’: Revolution as Anality in the Scatological Caricatures of the Reformation and the French Revolution. Karant-Nunn. Frazel. “The Seaman feels Him-self a Man. Bakhtin.jhu. 2002. Cochlaeus. no. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Vol. 3. Young Man Luther: A Study in Psychoanalysis and History. <http://ia360633. Grisar.1gandelman. Johnson. Köstlin. Claude. Heinrich. UK: Manchester University Press. Erik H. Luther on Women: A Sourcebook.” In Psychohistory and Religion. Denifle. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Indiana: Indiana University Press.52 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bainton.” American Imago 53. “Psychiatry and History: An Examination of Erikson’s ‘Young Man Luther’. Luther. Life of Luther. Translated by Raymund Volz. 1913. and Merry E.
Exsurge Domine.0.org/sici?sici=03610160%28198823%2919%3A3%3C435%3ATEASIT%3E2. Oberman. 2008). Lehmann. no. Melanchthon.papalencyclicals. 2008). 3 (Spring 1990): 629-647. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Frazel. and Others 21. Weimar. Papal Encyclicals Online. ------. 1958-1976. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tischreden. “History of the Life and Acts of the Most Reverend Dr. Luther. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1912-1921.org/sici?sici=00286087%28199021%2921%3A3%3C629%3AUEISOA%3E2. 2 vols. ------. <http://www. <http://links. New Historicisms. 2008). Schultz.htm> (accessed April 10. Herman. UK: Manchester University Press. Reprint. 14-39. “Urban Elites in Search of a Culture: The Brussels Snow Festival of 1511.+Martin/Traktate/ Wider+das+Papsttum+zu+Rom. Translated by Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. D.53 er&source=gbs_other_versions_sidebar_s&cad=7> (accessed April 8. <http://www. Heiko A. 1534. Translated by Thomas D. Mackay. Luther’s Works. 2002. Martin Luther: An Introduction to His Life and Work. 2008).0. Cologne. tran.
. <http://links. Bernhard. Leo X. Reprint. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 2006. Translated by Christopher S. Martin.zeno. Malleus Maleficarum.” New Literary History.” In Luther’s Lives: Two Contemporary Accounts of Martin Luther. no. 3 (Autumn 1988): 435-450. 1986.jstor. Heinrich and Jacob Sprenger. Kramer.net/ Leo10/l10exdom. Martin Luther. 2000. Dr of True Theology. 6 vols. Biblia. and Wives: Popular Imagery in the Reformation. New Histories. Translated by Robert C. Manchester. ------. Pleij.CO%3B2-P> (accessed February 6. 2008).” Sixteenth Century Journal 19. 1989. Germany: Taschen Verlag. Moxey. Lohse.CO%3B2-N> (accessed February 20. 2002. ------.+vom+Teufel+gestiftet> (accessed April 11. 1989. Keith. Peasants.jstor.org/Literatur/M/Luther. “Wider das Bapstum zu Rom vom Teuffel Gestifft.org: Meine Bibliothek: Literatur. “Teufelsdreck: Eschatology and Scatology in the ‘Old’ Luther. New York: Image. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Luther: Man between God and the Devil. Warriors. Philip. 55 vols. Germany: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger. Zeno.
In Keith Moxey. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing.CO%3B2-%23> (accessed February 20. Peasants. 1993. Edited by Peter A. Edited by Jeff Persels and Russell Ganim.54
Schäuffelein. Springer. 109-117.1 (Summer 2003): 38-53.” In Fecal Matters in Early Modern Literature and Art: Studies in Scatology. 1994. 1989. Stewart. 639-653. Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers.umuc. Alison. Kurt.” Sixteenth Century Journal 23.ezproxy. [1536?]. “Pope Alexander III's Humiliation of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa As An Episode in Sixteenth-Century German History. <http://links. Henry VIII and the Lutherans: A Study in Anglo-Lutheran Relations from 1521-1547. 2001. Leiden.jstor. <http://web.com. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.W. Luther and His Times: The Reformation from a New Perspective. 4 (Winter 1992): 755-768. UK: Ashgate Publishing. “The Counter-Reformation Impact on Anticlerical Propaganda. “Holy and Unholy Shit: The Pragmatic Context of Scatological Curses in Early German Reformation Satire. Leiden. E.org/sici?sici=03610160%28199322%2924%3A2%3C301%3APFAPET%3E2.edu/ehost/detail?vid= 1&hid=112&sid=ebc03f03-4236-4517-8ed7-d28f22dca38d%40sessionmgr108> (accessed March 4.E. Warriors. For the Sake of Simple Folk: Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation. 1950.0. Religion and Culture in Germany: 1400-1800. 2004. no. Schwiebert.G. Hans.CO%3B2-1> (accessed February 22. Edited by Lyndal Roper. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing.ebscohost. Tjernagel. “Arms and the Theologian: Martin Luther’s Adversus Armatum Virum Cochlaeum. Carl P.” Sixteenth Century Journal 24.org/sici?sici=03610160%28199224%2923%3A4%3C755%3APAIHOE%3E2. New York: Oxford University Press. Diaper Washer. Schmidt. ------. Stadtwald. no. 1965. no. 2 (Summer. R. and Heiko Oberman. Soergel.0. and Wives: Popular Imagery in the Reformation.” International Journal of the Classical Tradition 10. Philip M. Dykema.
. Neelak Serawlook. Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers. 2008). 1993): 301-350. <http://links. Joseph with Mary Simon.” In Anticlericalism in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. 108.jstor. Scribner. 2008). 2008). Aldershot. “Paper Festivals and Popular Entertainment: the Kermis Woodcuts of Sebald Beham in Reformation Nuremberg.