[38] “Vita Lutheri,” p. 5 (see above, p. 10, n. 3.).
[39] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 71.
[40] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 364; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 660.
[41] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” p. 19, 100.
[42] Ibid.
[43] To Hier. Weller (July?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 160.
[44] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 240; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 574.
[45] “Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 295, on Hieronymus Weller.
[46] To Hier. Weller, see p. 19, n. 4.
[47] See below, volume vi., cap. xxxvii., where these questions are treated more fully.
[48] The reference in Dungersheim, “Dadelung,” p. 14 (see above, p. 4, n. 3) has been discussed by N. Paulus in the “Histor. Jahrbuch,” 1903, p. 73.
[49] See volume iii., chapter xvii., 6.
[50] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, pp. 28-94.
[51] Ibid., pp. 2-14.
[52] Ibid., p. 12.
[53] “Audivi crebrius, nunquam satis pacifice vixisse eum.” So Cochlæus (see above, p. 17, n. 2) in 1524.
[54] J. Oldecop, “Chronik,” ed. K. Euling, 1891, p. 17.
[55] Dungersheim, “Wore Widerlegung des falschen Buchleins M. Lutheri von beyder Gestald des hochwürdigsten Sacraments” (see above, p. 4, n. 3), p. 31´.
[56] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 77.
[57] Ericeus, “Sylvula sententiarum,” p. 142. Cp. J. K. Seidemann, “Luthers älteste Vorlesungen über die Psalmen,” 1, Dresden, 1876, p. xvii. “Ego adolescens audivi doctos viros et bonos grammaticos,” etc.
[58] In the tract “Rationis Latomianæ confutatio,” “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 400; Weim. ed., 8, p. 45.
[59] The above description of Luther’s life in the monastery, starting from the strange circumstances of his entrance, has intentionally been left incomplete. Below, in volume vi., chapter xxxvii., the whole development of his character and disposition as it appears more clearly in the course of his history, and at the same time his own later views and his manner of depicting his life in religion, are reverted to in detail.
[60] “Erzeigung der Falschheit,” p. 6.
[61] “Dadelung des Bekenntnus,” p. 15´, 16.
[62] “A venatione Luteriana Ægocerotis assertio,” s.l.e.a.E, 5´.
[63] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 30, p. 372: “Although I have been a great, grievous, shameful sinner and have wasted and spent my youth damnably,” yet his greatest sins were that he had been a monk and had said Mass.
[64] “Commentaria,” etc., p. 1. “Acer ingenio et ad contradicendum audax et vehemens.”
[65] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 96 f.
[66] For the date and cause, see N. Paulus in the “Histor. Jahrbuch,” 1891, 68 f., 314 f.; 1901, 110 ff.; 1903, 72 ff. Also “Histor.-polit. Blätter,” 142, 1908, 738-52. The year 1510-11, as against that given by Köstlin-Kawerau, viz. 1511-12, is now accepted by Kroker in his edition of the “Tischreden der Mathesischen Sammlung,” p. 417, and by Kawerau in his “Lutherkalender,” 1910.
[67] “Werke,” Erl. ed. 62, p. 438. “Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, 165; “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 4, 687.
[68] “Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 169, and n. 33.
[69] “Werke,” Erl. ed. 40, p. 284.
[70] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 99 f.
[71] “Luthers Romfahrt,” p. 79.
[72] Georgius Mylius, “In Epistolam divi Pauli ad Romanos,” etc., Ienæ, 1595. “Præfatio,” fol. 2´. Cp. Theod. Elze, “Luthers Reise nach Rom,” Berlin, 1899, pp. 3, 45, 80.
[73] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 749 f.
[74] On his own account Paul was only a boy of eleven when he heard this statement from his father; it is therefore very doubtful whether he understood and remembered it correctly. Luther would surely have returned to the subject more frequently had it really played so great a part in his development, especially as he speaks so often of his journey to Rome. O. Scheel in his recent thesis on the development of Luther down to the time of the conclusion of the lectures on the Epistle to the Romans (“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch, Nr. 100, Jubiläumsschrift,” 1910, pp. 61-230), quite correctly says: “It is possible that his son, knowing of what importance Romans i. 17 had become for Luther, may at a later date have combined these words with the Roman incident.” In any