Invectives as a Stylistic Device in Martin Luther’s Reformation Rhetoric

2.1 About the Papacy in Rome against the Renowned Romanist in Leipzig (1520)

In the process, which led to the imminent condemnation of Luther by the Roman Church, several writings came out accusing him of heresy and apostasy, as well as deviating from Roman truth. In 1520, Luther was also busy with numerous publications, including the so-called main writings of the Reformation.^[10] However, he always took time to react to individual attacks. When a Latin pamphlet by the Leipzig Franciscan Augustin Alveldt appeared in April,^[11] the Wittenberg professor of theology did not find it necessary to say a word about it. He asked his student assistant Johann(es) Lonicer^[12] to write a reply. Now in this commission to a student who had just graduated – Lonicer earned his bachelor’s degree in liberal arts in 1519 –, a social and academic asymmetry becomes visible that can be seen as an affront. Luther did not perceive his Franciscan opponent as an equal. At the same time, a rebuttal to Alveldt by Bartholomäus Bernhardi also appeared.^[13] The latter was a licentiate in the theological faculty since 1518 and became rector of the University of Wittenberg the following year. With this, a renowned theologian now entered the scene. In the meantime, however, Alveldt had published a tract in German and dedicated it to the council and the citizens of Leipzig. That flabbergasted even staunch supporters of Rome. The controversy was carried out from the closed room of the university where scholars engage in disputes into the public square. This in turn provoked Luther to make a public reply in German. In it he tries to counter false accusations that may mislead and confuse the citizens of Leipzig. Right at the beginning of the introduction Luther states:

Something new has come on the scene again, after a great deal of rain these years and much growth in recent times. So far, many have touched me with insults and self-important lies, which have not exactly succeeded. Now the brave heroes stand out foremost, on the market square in Leipzig, who not only want to be looked at, but also assail everyone in a quarrel. You are very well armed, I have not encountered anything similar. They have their helmets on their feet, their swords on their heads, guilt and armor hanging on their backs, they hold the spears by the blade, and the whole suit of armor suits them very judgmentally, in the new manner.^[14]

The ironic-polemical introduction to his work above picks up on a few motifs that Luther was to use again and again in later writings, however, in modified forms. The means of dispute here is certainly a disparagement. However, it portrays Luther in elegant satire or caricature. He uses the image of soldier of Christ (miles Christianus) from the Bible (Rom 13:12; 1 Thess 5:8; Eph 6:13–17; 2 Cor 10:3–6; 2 Tim 2:3–4).^[15] It is, of course, replaced by a grotesque reversal of military or knightly armor. However, such argumentation is as curious and nonsensical as the behavior of Luther’s controversial theological opponents and is most powerful in conflict.^[16]

2.2 Reformation Educational Impulses (1524, 1530)

In his programmatic writings for a Protestant educational reform,^[17] Luther made unmistakably clear what he thinks of traditional church educational work, in contrast to contemporary, often humanist initiated reform considerations. For a variety of reasons, Luther rejected traditional scholastic learning, but did not mention his decisive theological argument, the perversion of the Gospels. Apparently, the Reformer thought that he had presented this argument in detail in earlier writings and therefore could dispense with it here. Even more, however, he criticized the ineffective, bloated and often absurd teaching system,^[18] which he knew from his own experience. For him, the church schools appeared as “donkey’s stables and the devil’s school”^[19] because they did not fulfill the educational mandate given by God, or had, instead, done the opposite. Their teachers, “child eaters and corrupters”^[20] fell under Jesus’s condemnation according to Matt 18:6–7. The defenders of the traditional education system still protested against language teaching and failed to see that they were in fact complicit in the decline of classical education.^[21] Luther sharply criticized the traditional teaching methods^[22] and the accumulation of useless and unhelpful books, namely books that interpret the Holy Scriptures.^[23]

Without question, this furious attack was also influenced by Luther’s own experience with the late medieval school and educational system.

In relation to the significance of invectives in the work of the Reformer discussed in this article, another peculiarity should be noted. In addition to the attacks on the devil’s work, which are often combined with scatological abnormalities, animal metaphors are increasingly used. They usually have pejorative connotations, emphasizing the creatures’ stupidity, sexual desire, and filthiness. In addition to “donkeys” and “pigs,” there are “goats”^[24] and other animals that Luther knew from contemporary court settings and from their colloquial use.

2.3 Against Hans Worst (1542)^[25]

Already marked by several afflictions, not least by the affair surrounding the double marriage of Philip of Hesse,^[26] Martin Luther wrote a pamphlet in 1542 against Duke Heinrich von Braunschweig to Wolfenbüttel. He had attacked Johann Friedrich I of Saxony, the Elector of Saxony and one of the leaders of the Schmalkaldic League, in various pamphlets. In one of these pamphlets, the descendent of the noble Welf family claimed that Luther insulted his sovereign Johann Friedrich by calling him a “Hans Sausage” (Hans Worst). The Wittenberg theologian then accused Heinrich II of wanting to make himself known at his own expense by spreading lies. In addition, he spoke irreverently against the Elector of Saxony by insulting him as a heretic.^[27]

During his objection, Martin Luther himself scolded Heinrich eloquently and sometimes in hateful scatological language. At the same time, he developed a coherent system of the Reformation’s understanding of the Church. It essentially corresponded to its apostolic model,^[28] whereas the Roman Church had been covered up and made unseemly by all sorts of adaptations.^[29] The sharp polemic specifically targeted the “papists” and the long-deceased preacher of indulgences, Johann Tetzel (1460/65–1519). Luther used numerous passages from the Bible to convince opponents of the perfidiousness of their faith. Of course, he had little hope that anything would change here. For him the antagonism between the Protestant Church and the Church of Rome was insurmountable.

This is not least since the Roman Church had come under the influence of the devil through inappropriate adaptations. He ruled the corrupt Church from Rome and sought to solidify his influence through new laws and regulations. The representatives of the Curia were “of the devil” and contradicted everything that would befit the Church of Christ. In this context, however, it should be noted that this satanic affront must be distinguished from the general diagnosis that the Antichrist rules in Rome. The devil is according to Luther undoubtedly one of the Antichrist’s comrades-in-arms but must not be confused with him. Because the devil still has an important function within the framework of God’s saving acts: he is as a constant challenge and threat to Christians; nonetheless, he is there to punish these people and lead them back to God.^[30] Just as the devil is a tool in God’s plan of salvation, the Roman theologians he deceived also function as God’s appeal and rod.

Against the background of their theological interpretation in the Reformer’s writing, the insult undeniably associated with such characterizations receives a forgiving note: not only the devil, but also his followers still have the chance to be reconciled through God’s mercy and to be accepted back into the heavenly community of the redeemed. At the same time, it becomes apparent that the satanic emphasis does not only fulfill the purpose of an invective but is to be integrated into the broader horizon of Luther’s eschatological-apocalyptical thinking.

2.4 Against the Papacy in Rome Established by the Devil (1545)

Luther’s last pamphlet against the papacy and the Curia in Rome, which is difficult to outrival in its polemics, arose from a contemporary provocation. Pope Paul III (Farnese) reprimanded Emperor Charles V in a brief because he allegedly pursued a policy that was too pro-Protestant in the decree of the last diet in Speyer (1544).^[31] It seems that Luther wrote his treatise in one outpouring and without any restraint. The text can be roughly divided into three parts: after a prelude, in which Luther discusses the question of whether the pope has the right to convene or dismiss a council,^[32] there follows a treatise on the institution of the papacy.^[33] Second, there is the question of who is allowed to judge the pope,^[34] and third, there is the historiographical argument as to whether the Roman Empire was ultimately legitimized and justified by the pope.^[35] The sections are asymmetrical because they are of different lengths, and the structure is not immediately clear to the reader. Luther allowed himself to be guided too much by his aggressive prevailing mood. The curtailment of the sections may be because Luther’s anger had subsided and the cathartic effect in the completion of the pages emerged.

In regard of this writing, a detailed study by Markus Hundt is available,^[36] so that only a few examples from Luther’s rhetorical portfolio should be mentioned. Luther formulates the basic tenor of his argument in dialectical opposition:

Whoever wants to hear God speak, reads the Holy Bible. Whoever wants to hear the devil speak, reads the Pope’s decree and bulls.^[37]

The agonistic contrast between Holy Scripture, from which God speaks, and the decrees and bulls of the pope, in which Satan articulates himself, is striking. Here Luther used not only the diastatic opposition, which he had used as the ideal form of his theological expression (modus loquendi theologicus)^[38] since reading the anonymous treatise Eyn Deutsch Theologia. He also used a play on words: decree becomes dreck. The pure Word of God is opposed to the dreck of papal pronouncements. They are belittled, denigrated, discredited, and declared “totally filthy.”^[39] In addition to scatological motifs, Luther also purposefully used defamatory slurs from the animal kingdom:

Also, Charlemagne in Rome, in Frankfurt and in France, and his son Louis in Aachen, and more emperors held agreement. My dear, should such fine bishops and emperors have done such injustice and be damned because of the farts of the donkey in Rome (what else can he do more?) out of his own great head he calculates and out of his nasty belly he farts. It doesn’t belong to the emperor to set up a council, to appoint or name other people. O how is the rude ass so well off! It struggles after its guide, who puts a rod on a sack, so that his hindquarters would have to bend!^[40]

The stated argument that the right to convene a council does not lie exclusively with the pope is polemically exaggerated. Such a rule, if it had any strength and authority, would put the emperors who held such a council at fault. This is completely illogical and absurd. Such reasoning can only be interpreted as the enormous flatulence of an ass. The negative connotation of the metaphor^[41] is supplemented by the possible behavior towards a beast of burden,^[42] which is tamed and controlled by its user, punished, and humiliated.

Luther’s aggressive polemics were further intensified using religious motifs. He repeatedly emphasized the pope’s origin and relationship with the devil. This topos is used more than 145 times, for example when the pope is referred to as devil’s property,^[43] devil’s apostle and the devil’s desperate child,^[44] devil’s larva,^[45] devil’s breading ground of evil,^[46] devil’s spook,^[47] from their synagogue of Satan and the devil’s church,^[48] devil’s work and idolatry.^[49] Luther subsequently exposed the pope’s close relationship with the devil as blasphemous and profane.^[50]

The motif of religious insults is obviously supplemented by slurs from contemporary vernacular.^[51] The pope and his followers appear as “worst knaves, murderers, traitors, liars, and the right broth of evil for all the wickedest people on earth.”^[52] The pope himself acts as a “werewolf,” and as a “donkey” or “farting ass”; his followers are depicted as “mules.”^[53] Other motifs of this diatribe are “wretched Paul,”^[54] “Roman school for rouges,”^[55] the “rogue Paula”^[56] (a total of nine records), with “your German sows,”^[57] “rouges,”^[58] “greedy belly Paulus,”^[59] the “disgraceful liar,”^[60] “against the sow Dr Eck in Leipzig,”^[61] “mule,”^[62] today’s or “main rogue,”^[63] “lazy potbelly” and “rude Pope ass and the farting ass in Rome.”^[64] “Therefore, it is a sacrosanct Word: Petre, love me, feed my sheep. For they are dear shepherds, not like the cruel two-footed buffaloes and asses in Rome,”^[65] the “Pope and his mob.”^[66] Luther escalated the insults to a veritable “barrage of insults.” A total of twenty offensive phrases are asyndetically connected in this one sentence.

that, praise God, no good Christian conscience can otherwise believe that the Pope is or still can be today the vicegerent of God or Christ, but is now the accursed Church of every knave on the earth, a representative of the devil, an enemy of God, an adversary of Christ and destroyer of the Churches of Christ, teacher of all lying profanities and idolatries, an arch thief of Churches and Church robbers of the keys, of all good things, both of Churches and of earthly lords, a murderer of kings, and an inciter to all kinds of bloodshed, a lawbreaker above all lawbreakers [2 Thess 2:3] and all fornication, even which cannot be named, an antichrist, a man of sinners and a child of perdition, a real werewolf.^[67]

The frequent usage of the accusation of malice relates to numerous incriminating examples of actions by Luther’s opponents, who committed such actions with the knowledge of their depravity:

Because they didn’t either unknowingly or out of infirmity start the vexatious papacy. They knew very well that their predecessors St Gregory, Pelagius, Cornelius, Fabian, and many other holy bishops of the Roman Churches, had not practiced such rancor as reported above. They well knew that St Cyprian, Augustine, Hilary, Martin, Ambrose, Jerome, Dionysius, and many other holy bishops all over the world, had known nothing about a pope, nor had they been subject to the Roman church. They well knew that the four high councils, Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and many others in agreement, had never recognized such pontiffs. […] You knew it and still know it now […]. You still know it today well.^[68]

Unawareness or even ignorance from the Roman theologians and officials can hardly be cited to exonerate them. They acted badly in full awareness of what they are doing. Again and again, Luther took material examples from the Bible, from the Church, but above all from (Church) history to illustrate his accusations. He considered them self-evident. Therefore, they are not further expounded upon.

According to Luther, the hypertrophic-exclusive appeal to Christ’s founding word and authority is a contradictio in adiecto:

Here either Christ must be a liar who has not kept his word, or the Pope must be a desperate, lecherous villain who accuses our Lord of such lies.^[69]

The one-sided claim of the authority of the Son of God means that his word is turned into its opposite and thus he is branded a liar. Luther found this malicious and blasphemous. Who is the pope, that he can make God a liar?

This lead to a carnivalesque disorder.^[70] However, it is not just limited to a foolish role-playing game, but rather a performance of sexual identity that confuses the divine order of creation. Next to the scatological motifs typical of the time^[71] is sexual denigration a popular topos of heretics and the heretical catalogs.^[72] Misleading teaching follows from sexual disorder – but the reverse is also possible:

The imperial law says a lot about the furioso, about nonsensical, mad people, how they should be kept. How much more urgent it is that the Pope and Cardinal and the whole Roman See were put in sticks, chains, prisons, who have not become mad in a common way, but so deeply and ghoulishly rant, although now men, they now want to become women, and no knowledge of the time, when the mood will arrive. At the same time, we Christians should believe that such raging and furious Roman hermaphrodites have the Holy Spirit and may be the supreme healers, masters and teachers of Christendom.^[73]

However, the folly of Rome Luther found repeatedly to excel by the indocility and stupidity of the curial representatives:

I know that our children, or catechumens, that is, those who know the catechism, are more learned than the Pope, Cardinal, and the entire Roman See, along with all their followers. For no need to worry about that ass of a Pope with his Roman school boys who wouldn’t understand one out of the ten commandments, not even a plea in the Lord’s Prayer, nor an article in faith, or how baptism and sacraments are to be understood and used, how a Christian should live, what good works are, God grant that he can repeat the ten commandments (the brain likes to keep still) one after the other, like our children of four or five years old can.^[74]

The supposed erudition of the Roman theologians is nullified in the face of the simple knowledge of schoolchildren. Even elementary knowledge is foreign to the Roman theologians. The juxtaposition reveals all the madness of Rome, which confuses the natural order, apparently. The fools have the authority, and children prove to be the real keepers of proper rationality.

Luther supplemented his invective rhetoric with all sorts of threatening scenarios and fantasies of violence. For example, when he declared the authorities who do not defend themselves against papal dominance to be complicit in the decline of the Church.^[75] Elsewhere he fashioned his criticism in curse words:

Someone would gladly swear that they were killed by lightning and thunder, hellish fire burnt, pestilence, French disease, St Vitus’ dance, St Anthony’s fire, leprosy, carbuncle and all plagues.^[76]

The compilation covers a large part of the curses in the language at that time, which often contain a religious connotation. Saint Vitus and Saint Anthony are commonly invoked for help in illnesses such as epilepsy (formerly called St Vitus’ dance) and ergotism (St Anthony’s fire). The “French” denotes syphilis, carbuncles mean purulent ulcers, and the plagues refer to the plagues in the book of Exodus 7–11, among other things. Elsewhere they are modeled after the biblical woes of Jesus (Luke 6:24–26 in conjunction with Matt 26:24).^[77] In this context, Luther also chose the image of a desecration of the papal coat of arms, which he intends to soil with human excrement and then destroy.^[78] Indeed, Luther was not unfamiliar with the idea of violently combating the pope.^[79] Parts of these scenarios are impressively illustrated by woodcuts.^[80]

Luther never tired of citing passages from the Bible that can be used in his criticism of the pope and the Roman Church.^[81] The appeal to the authority of Scripture is a legitimate means which the medieval Church must also recognize. That is why Luther exerted time and energy in several places to identify the right form of scriptural interpretation in the examples of Matt 16:18–19 and John 21:15–17.^[82] In the overarching context regarding the question about the formation of denominational education, this section is of the greatest importance. In fact, Reformation theology clearly differed from the requirements of Rome in the material expositions of Church teaching, a different procedure of interpreting Scripture is fundamental, as Luther demonstrated as early as 1520 in the foreword to his affirmation of the 95 theses.^[83] These passages also end with the “old Luther” and again scatological outbursts, as well as the reputation-diminishing comparisons out of the animal world:

If I now ask here: What did all the other apostles lead to grazing, especially S. Paul? Then the massive fart of the Pope’s ass may say that they possibly herded rats, mice and lice, or when all goes well, sows, just to make sure that only the Pope’s ass is shepherd, and all other Apostles remain shepherds of pigs.^[84]

The instruction of Jesus to “graze the sheep” is recorded, caricatured, and corrupted. It culminates in Luther’s identification of the papacy with the Antichrist as early as 1519:

You may read 2 Thessalonians 2 yourself and see what Saint Paul means when he says: the Anti-Christ sits in the temple of God, that is, in the Church of Christ, as if he were Christ and God himself, as his hypocrites blaspheme, and say the Pope is not a pure human being, but a mixture between God and man, just as our Christ alone is. And what a sinful man he is as you can easily understand this from the previous passages, since he is not only a sinner in himself, but with sins, false worship, blasphemy, unbelief and lies, the world, especially the temple of God, the churches, full, full made, so that a child is also doomed, that is, he himself goes to the blaze and eternal damnation with untimely souls he has led.^[85]

In the last phase of his life, Luther gave up the earlier practiced differentiation between pope and papacy. In his polemic he first abridges the statements of the apostle Paul from 2 Thessalonians 2 on the material obfuscation of the doctrine. The earlier view that the papacy systematically prevents proper interpretation of Scripture is echoed in the next passage and adds to the evidence that curial behavior fulfills Paul’s prediction word for word.

Here you must hear the master and shepherd of all sheep and understand the text correctly. Because it depends on a good interpreter, they say, as you heard above [p. 274], the rock is called the Pope, then the builder is called to be obedient, binders are called emperors, kings, and catch all the world. You must not learn Latin, Greek, Hebrew in the most holy father’s decrees, but learn and understand the new Roman language, just as lady Paula Tertius, up there, interprets the words “free, Christian, German” for the emperor and the empire in his Roman language. So now the Roman opinion is: Go (that is, you Peter go alone) into all the world (that is, to Rome) and preach (that is, appoint a Pope who is God and Lord) of all creatures (that is, who has power over bishop, emperor and kings, over heaven and earth, c. Omnes), Whoever believes (that is, who is obedient to the Pope) and is baptized (kisses the Pope’s feet), will be saved (remains undamaged), Whoever does not believe (is not obedient) is condemned (is a heretic).^[86]

This interpretation of Scripture is obscured by the curial interpretation. Luther opposed this with his own official authority.^[87] However, he also drew on other authorities, such as those of the so-called “Church fathers”^[88] or even secular authorities.^[89]

The insult by way of characterizing papacy as the Antichrist^[90] needs no further rhetorical dress or form. It is a theological invective par excellence. Luther saw the biblical text as the template for his interpretation of church reality. No rhetorical device could make the affront stronger than Luther’s direct identification of biblical statements considering ecclesiastical reality.

In addition to the forms of Luther’s polemical and aggressive rhetoric already mentioned, there is also a high degree of polarization and emphasis on “you” and “we.” This differentiative criterion is intended to work out the group cohesion – the identity – of Luther’s followers in relation to that of the curial representatives of the papacy, who have been stylized as the enemy. They are vilified by means of devaluation and caricaturing disparagement. Conversely, by reversing the rhetorical devices mentioned above, Luther could also carve out the quality and legitimacy of his own group.^[91]

In summarizing the findings of the meticulous investigation into Luther’s polemic Wider das Papsttum zu Rom vom Teufel gestiftet from 1545, Markus Hundt characterizes it as “a prime example of linguistic aggression in the Early Modern Period.”^[92] Martin Luther impressively demonstrated here his mastery of the aggressive, offending and disparaging as well as stylizing, praising and lauding rhetoric. In terms of content, the polemics of this late writing offers hardly any new arguments or perspectives. However, the excessiveness of his invectives reached a dramatic climax.

3.1 Invective Language Creates Difference and Distance

Using numerous reputation-damaging and insulting metaphors from the animal kingdom in connection with scatological terminology, Luther clearly and positionally distinguished himself from his opponents and presumed opponents. Through the association with the devil, the Antichrist and other apocalyptic beings, the distance between “I/we” and “you/they” was constructed and expanded. The logic and verifiability of these allegations were of little importance. The insults had primacy and served to discriminate against people who were considered opponents.

Nevertheless, the obvious, evident and plausible invective choice in language is not without finesse. On the one hand, through the frequent and repeated use of invective terms, Luther cemented the caricatured pictorial image of his opponents. He characterized them as “pigs,” “sows,” “donkeys” or “goats.” They are in league with the devil and are not always aware of this connection. Through the stereotypical, asyndetic accumulation of invective characterization, these can then, as the argument progresses, replace the proper name or a more detailed and specific description of the antagonistic position. So, the expression of the “sowtheologians”^[93] needed no further specification in the sense of incriminated scholastic theology. Its close ties to the foundations of Aristotelian philosophy are condemned across the board and in a comprehensive manner. The fact that Luther himself not infrequently borrowed from the scholastic method and that an intensive reception of Aristotle can be proven in his writings^[94] is no longer significant. The asyndetic juxtaposition of invective increases the rhetorical weight and can replace actual argumentation in individual cases. They increase the pathos of the way of speaking or writing. At the same time, the variety of terms used gave the listener or reader the opportunity to identify with Luther and his argument. However, there was also the aspect of being repelled and marginalized by it. Of course, in Luther’s style of speaking, this proved to be collateral damage. He wanted to demarcate, sometimes also to exclude, but this is done to forge into a reliable group those who are favourable towards him in the audience and keep them on the “right” side.

Invectives sometimes led to truncation, caricature, and falsification of the position attacked. They therefore did not contribute to the end of the dispute, but to a polarization and challenge in positioning. In this way they prolonged the agonal disputes. The technique of printing allowed the mass distribution of the positioning and thus also the formation of factions among the people who read and received the writings.

3.2 Invective Language and Group Identity

As already mentioned, the invective characterization of other, foreign, or conflicting positions and their representatives contributes to the fact that not only Luther’s argument can be grasped in positional unambiguousness. In addition, such language promoted adherence to Luther’s position and his arguments – often also their expression – to be adopted. Admittedly, emotive partisanship more and more frequently outweighed actual argumentative agreement. Invectives against scholastic theology, the Roman Church and its priests, the pope and the curia led by him, and the numerous inner-Protestant opponents and dissenters seemed to bring about ultimate clarity and unambiguousness. It is not possible to explain at this point why invectives developed their effect more influentially and sustainably.^[95] In any case, the emotional charge of the language with invective surpasses the cognitive comprehension of what is said or written and releases a wealth of associations that defy rational semantics. They determine to a large extent the reception of the statement and its further communicative processing.

It is noteworthy that the positive declaration of group identity, such as that of the followers of Martin Luther, predominated. In many cases, invective characterizations of opposing positions are eschewed. In the field of controversial literature, however, this attitude is gaining in importance. Specific language formations such as the “sawtheologen,” “Römlingen” (pejorative term used in reference to John 10:12 for a certain and irresponsible employee), “priests” (term for a secular or religious clergyman, which in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries increasingly became a term of abuse for members of the profession who were negligent or non-compliant with their duties) or “plate bearers”^[96] (alluding to the tonsure of ecclesiastical religious) served to impose or recreate group identity. This resulted in creative new formations as well as semantic transformations of already existing linguistic tropes and metaphors. Belonging to the group became manifested in a common, but rarely convincingly homogeneous language culture.

At this point, it would again be the task of psycholinguistics and psychosemantics to analyze the higher cohesiveness of negatively connoted catchphrases and keywords as well as the associated emotionalization of the respective group. For the sake of brevity this must be omitted here.

Insofar as invective language releases a high degree of emotions and emotionally charged associations, it facilitates individual positioning and tends to level differences or make them unrecognizable due to its shortened and caricatured language. While the theologians of the Reformation were unanimous in their criticism of scholastic theology and their authoritative justification of certain practices of piety, opinions differed soon after 1520 on the implementation of the Reformation position and the acts of faith associated with it.^[97] Luther’s assertion of the philological pre-eminence of the evangelical (i.e. his) interpretation of the Gospel was not a prerequisite shared by all Protestant groups. The question of the correct interpretation rather lead to confusing differentiations in the Reformation movement. Invective language patterns were used again for this inner-Protestant development. They, too, transformed traditional terminology and imagery from the late Middle Ages. For them, however, a Lutheran invective became characteristic: Luther described the growing number of dissenters, dissidents, and nonconformists as fanatics (“Schwärmer”). He derived this metaphor from bees and other insects flying around, from which no order can be discerned.^[98] The Wittenberg theologian characterized the thoughts and arguments of his opponents just as untidy and confused.

3.3 Invective Language Creates, Criticizes and Changes Social Orders

Through invective forms of language, likewise, differentiations become virulent, as well as the clarification of previous positions due to progressive demarcation. In particular, the blanket accusation of enthusiasm forces a number of followers of the Protestant Reformation to sharpen their profiles. For example, opinions differ on the question of the power of the Holy Spirit in the interpretation of Scripture and the norms of action derived from it. While Luther insists that the Holy Spirit never says anything other than what was revealed in Scripture, as God’s living Word, various groups of so-called “spiritualists” emphasize the spirit’s power of revelation that goes beyond these narrow limits.^[99]

Insofar as invective language is often destructive and primarily criticizes the unjust actions of people characterized as dissidents arising from the disorder of mind, there was the phenomenon of adopting the language coined by thought leaders like Luther and others. In addition, however, there was also an effort to achieve a clear positioning through courses of action.^[100]

Hereby we touch on the question of determining the relationship between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Theology as a (scholarly) reflection on one’s own practice of faith usually arose – and arises – where this practice is contested, restricted, or inhibited. Consequently, the theoretical justification and argumentative defense of certain pious practices often only take place in a second step and mostly when the actions are criticized by others.^[101]

Invective language shortened the process of argumentative penetration of obstacles to action and their elimination. The pious action coagulated into the expression of a positional statement. The focus was no longer on the question of biblical justification or a reflected theological analysis of action, but rather the need for clear and, as such, unquestionable action.^[102] It was promoted by the invective forms of speech, insofar as nobody liked to be drawn into a group of “pigs,” “goats” or “donkeys” or to be completely discredited as “the devils.” Not infrequently, theological reflection in a form effective in the media, such as sermons or pamphlets, only fulfilled the task of bringing about the desired form of action in the sense of group-specific homogeneity. Intention, motivation, and justification took a back seat – and with them theological reflection. This shortened a possible evangelical plurality to an agonistic unity, the theological foundation of which not only receded into the background but was often completely repressed.

Not least, the fact that social and cultural norms of action had grown historically and owed their existence to a specific genesis that should not be accepted or rejected uncritically and anachronistically, was condensed into norm decisions in the Protestant Church ordinances, which the people of a community perceive as without alternative, authoritative and statutorily applied. A critical, theological reflection on religious action was no longer possible. The decision of the sovereign Church regent had to be taken over. Since then, an intensive debate arose as to whether one can escape the regulations of the respective Church ordinances or whether detailed regulations on religious tolerance within narrow limits are possible. A legal regulation of religiously motivated migration^[103] or also a toleration of alternative religious practice^[104] only slowly became possible in the seventeenth and then in the eighteenth century. However, the debates also made clear that the normative decision-making basis for practical questions no longer lay in the field of theology, but was determined and referenced by law and its own rationality.^[105]

On the fringes of these developments, one can see how invective language was used to orientate action and to mobilize group-specific interaction. However, standardizing texts are usually free of invective. Rather, it is mediating, media-reproduced statements that initially provoked or then subsequently popularized the norm-finding process. Only some parts of these processes took place in public, with the term “public” denoting a much-discussed field of historiography in the Early Modern Period.^[106] In any case, however, one will have to state that the current (partial) public appreciated invective language and possibly even provoked it. Conversely, the author used invectives in a targeted manner to stoke emotions, prepare actions as reactions, and in one way or another made themselves common with their audience or readers. What role invectivity of language had on these processes still needs to be clarified. Invectives belonged to the language of the rhetorical genus deliberativum especially when emotional reactions had to be provoked. These reactions included the whole range of group formation processes up to the concrete implementation of action orientation in violent acts such as iconoclasm,^[107] the dissolution of monasteries, the secularization of Church property^[108] and much more.

For Luther, however, it can be said that he fundamentally rejected violent, subversive, and order-threatening actions. Despite all the aggressiveness that characterized his texts, he was deeply convinced of the traditional order as a divine foundation. In particular, he denounced the Roman Church for its innovations, as a result of which the good and wholesome order of God was changed and endangered. From 1522 this became the decisive argument in Luther’s fight against the fanatics (“Schwärmer”). The rejection of violent acts against public order then increasingly determined his arguments against the peasants in 1525 and all groups in which he recognized devilish activity or taking sides with the Antichrist.^[109]

3.4 Invective Language as an Expression of Authoritative Rule

In the use of invective speech, Luther became not wrongly accused of immoderation. He presented his position as the only true. His interpretation of Scripture derived directly from the Gospels. His intolerance and increasing reluctance to argue with his opponents earned him the title of “Pope(s) of Wittenberg” from Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt.^[110] In his later years after 1530 and the diet of Augsburg Luther’s harsh attitude towards his opponents grew stronger and stronger. This can be related to the intensification of his interpretation of reality in the light of apocalyptic writings of the Bible and a progredient corporal weakness.^[111] The aforementioned reduction of invective characterizations led to an expanded leveling of the planes of argumentation and a heightened expectational pressure on himself, but also on his followers, which caused him to publish a lot. The personal development of a serious illness began in his mid-thirties and coupled with a gloomy interpretation of world and reality made the Wittenberg theologian appear one-sided, aggressive, and hurtful. The reference to the bruteness of the time, which can easily be determined from the writings and statements of his opponents, did not change anything.

In the numerous debates about the legitimacy of the Reformation, its design and institutionalization, as well as the demarcation from Reformists, dissidents and deviants, the focus was on theological truth. This will be discussed in more detail below. First, however, these discourses are also to be interpreted as negotiations of power. Luther had been under ban since 1521 and was therefore no longer operational outside the borders of Electoral Saxony. However, he took part in many theological disputes and often voted for or against a certain position, not infrequently at the request of his followers, which he did not always do out of genuine conviction. He was dependent on the information that was brought to him. The narrowing of his scope of action and the insight that the Reformation became a concern of the secular authorities, which paid little heed to its theological justification, left him in a state of resentment and his rejection held of everything that he considered harmful to the Church of Jesus Christ, became immoderate. However, his strong identification with his office as “Prophet of the Germans”^[112] and “Reformer”^[113] makes it difficult to distinguish between his personal concern and his theological concerns.

That discourses usually imply the negotiation of power is as banal as it is well-known.^[114] However, the debate between followers of Michel Foucault and Jürgen Habermas also shows that the more precise definition of power in discourses is anything but consensual.^[115] Since Luther and many of his followers and successors were always concerned with the only and unalterable answer to the question of truth, it is impossible for those involved in the discourse to take a somewhat neutral position. This leads to problems in the hermeneutic reflection of the phenomenon to be dealt with here. An investigation of the controversial, theological “invectivity” in the age of confessional system competition can only be undertaken if the question of truth is considered. One does not have to accept the answer from the opponents of the sixteenth century. However, this makes access and understanding of the agony of the forms of argumentation more difficult. In addition, these are basic religious assumptions that continue to apply in a wide variety of contemporary institutions. It is certainly possible to collect the invectives of the theological authors of the sixteenth century and to organize them in a systematic way to interpret them.^[116]

3.5 On the Theological Justification of Invective Speech

In an article, David Bagchi attempted to interpret Luther’s scatological failures theologically.^[117] Based on an investigation of Luther’s letters of spiritual counsel and several Table Talks he observed how this scatology relates to the key themes in Reformation theology. In the further course of his investigation, he sees Luther’s convictions in his doctrine of creation, his reflections on the Incarnation and finally his understanding of justification as fundamental for the use of his scatological and invective language. Bagchi places himself in the succession of previous research with reference to Gordon Rupp^[118] and Heiko A. Oberman,^[119] whereby he expands their theses with a view to the pastoral aspect.^[120] In this context, scatological language becomes a metaphor for one’s attachment to sin. It served the drastic interpretation of Scripture as law. On the other hand, Luther pointed to the Gospels as promise of acceptance of the sinner. Just as Oberman interprets Luther as being in tension between God and devil, Bagchi believes that this agonistic distance can also be understood in the categories of law and Gospels and made comprehensible in other paradoxical word pairs such as “coram Deo – coram hominibus.”^[121] Luther’s scatological use of words accentuated the perspective of the law in a powerful and gloomy way, which then makes the evangelical word of promise appear all the brighter. From a tropological perspective, mankind’s tension between God and the devil expanded into a description of mankind as sinful and righteous at the same time.^[122]

The use of invective speech was thus theologically contained, but not explained in a drastic manner. Luther’s sensitivity in the context of pastoral statements, which was admirable in many respects, stood in stark contrast to the merciless determination of his hamartiology. One is tempted to interpret this agony as a tension between Gospels and law, sin and grace. It seems appropriate to measure Luther’s statements critically against the standard he set for a biblically based one that ascribes the mercy and love of God. In particular, the writings of the late Luther do not meet this standard and have therefore to be criticized.

As a consequence, one might wonder what is the point of this section in Luther’s reasoning. Should it arouse the sinner’s remorse?^[123] Is he supposed to “drown the old Adam” as stated in the Pauline metaphor?^[124] One of the peculiarities of Luther’s pastoral texts is that they can hardly be interpreted without reference to the concrete situation in which he expresses himself and in which the challenge of the questioner is articulated. This requires a renewed review of all of Luther’s pastoral texts and in particular his letters.^[125] While the satanic origin of the appeal is usually widely considered, there is hardly any reference to the invective speech and its theological justification that is repeatedly associated with it. Corresponding lemmas are missing in the registers of the relevant standard works.