1. R. W. Scribner, For the Sake of Simple Folk: Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation (Cambridge, 1981), 14-36.

2. Ibid., 17-19.

3. ACTA ET RES GESTAE, D. MARTINI LVTHERi, in Comitijs Principu * Vuormaciae, Anno M.D.XXI . (Strasbourg: Johann Schott, 1521).

4. Handlung so mit doctor Martin Luther Vff dem Key b erlichen Reichs tag zu * Worms ergangen ist, vom anfang zum * end, vff das kürtzest begriffen (Strasbourg: Johann Schott, 1522).

5. In 1521 and 1522 a number of other authors entered the fray, either to criticize the traditional faith or to support Luther or in many cases to do both. By Miriam Chrisman's count there were thirty-two such polemical writings in 1521 and twenty-five polemics in 1522. Of these, twenty were by Luther—he continued to dominate the press—but only nine by Ulrich von Hutten. Effectively half the output—another twenty-eight treatises—were published by other authors. (For tables see Miriam U. Chrisman, Lay Culture, Learned Culture: Books and Social Change in Strasbourg, 1480-1599 [New Haven, 1982], 156-158). These figures are approximate—dating pamphlets is an uncertain undertaking—but the rough proportions likely reflect the actual publication pattern of these years. It is within this growing literature of criticism of the traditional church and support for Luther that we begin to see the variety in the ways in which people understood Luther and his message. Of course, not all of this literature is relevant to our concerns; some devote their whole treatise to an attack on the papacy and on traditional practices with hardly a mention of Luther. But at least thirteen of these treatises (by ten or eleven different authors) explicitly deal with Luther and his message and can therefore further our understanding of his image in the popular press of his day. With few exceptions these publications deal largely with Luther's treatises through 1520 and neither mention explicitly nor engage with Luther's

treatises of 1521 and 1522. In other words, even as Luther flooded the market with new works, the other publicists appearing in the Strasbourg press in 1521 and 1522 were still assimilating and reacting to his earlier writings.

6. Joachim Vadian, Karsthans (Strasbourg: Prü b , 1521); Clemen 4:83.

7. Ain schoner * dialogus Und gesprech zwischen aim Pfarrer und aim Schulthay b , betreffend allen übel Stand der gaystlichen. Und bo b * handlung der weltlichen. Alles mit geytzigkayt belanden. etc. (Strasbourg: M. Schürer Erben, 1521). See DS 1:396-399. References to the "pious Luther" are found on pages DS 1:407, 459, and 469-470.

8. Clemen 4:90-91.

9. DS 1:469-470.

10. Uerkündungs Brieff der hochberüempte * Uniuersitet Erdfürt, zu * schütz schirm vn * handhabung des Christliche * gots diener vn * lerers. D. Martin Luthers. Durch Wolffgang Ru b en * verteütschet (Strasbourg: J. Prü b , 1521); Tü 1258/3223.

11. Uerkündungs Brieff der Uniuersitet , i(v).

12. Uerkündungs Brieff der Uniuersitet , ii, ii(v), iii.

13. The text is as follows:

Die worheit ligt am tag fürwor
Würt nit zerspaltet vmb ein hor.
Ist Luther den ein ketzer ye
Wer schreyb dann recht vff erden hye?
Ist dan die gschrifft falsch, vngerecht
So bstot wol irer feynd gebrecht. [ = Lärm, Geschrei]
Die schrifft ist aber wor, stat * , vest
Durch Christum selbs schon *  überglest, [ = glänzend gemacht]
So [ = Dagegen] lugen seind all menschen tand
On schrifft, vom teüfel har *  gesandt.
Schrifft, schrifft, schreyt Luther über lut
Vnd stellt ir zu *  kopff, hals vnd hut.
Wilt Luther stillen [ = zum Schweigen bringen?] fur *  jn geschrifft
Sunst ist dein leeren eytel gifft.

Von der Christformigen * , rechtgegrundten leer Doctoris Martini Luthers, ein überu b schon * kunstlich Lyed, sampt seiner neben nb legung (Strasbourg: unknown, ca. 1522) Clemen 3:342.

14. Clemen 4:85-86.

15. Clemen 4:110.

16. DS 1:445.

17. Ein hübsch christenliche vnd gotliche * erinnerung vnd warnung, so Kayserlicher Maiestat vo * eynem iren Kayserlichen Maiestat armen Reüterlyn, vnd underthenigem diener beschicht (Strasbourg: Prü b , 1522); Kück, 5.

18. Hüpsch argument red fragen vnd antwurt Dreyer personen Nemlichen ains Curtisanen aines Edelmans vn * aines Burgers Nit allain kürtzweylig Sunder vast nutzlich zu lesen vnd zu * heren Alles D.M.L. leer betreffent . (Strasbourg: Reinhart Beck, 1522); Ho 3922.

19. For example, Hüpsch Aij(v), B(v)-Bij, Bij(v)-Biij, Cij(v)-Ciij, Ciij(v)-Civ.

20. Hüpsch Civ.

21. Wider Doctor Murnars falsch erdycht Lyed: von dem vndergang christlichs Glaubens. Bruoder Michael Styfels von Esszlingen v b leg vnnd Christliche glo b darüber . (Strasbourg: Prü b , 1522), Eiij(v), Ciij(v).

22. Stifel, Wider Doctor Murnars falsch erdycht Lyed , Dij(v).

23. Kück, 3.

24. Ableynung des vermeinlichen unglimpffs so dem Andechtigen Hochgelerten vnd Cristenlichen vatter Doctor Martin Luther Augustiner orders. u(sw) von vielen zugelegt * , jn dem das er vnsern vatter den Babst ein Vicari des Teüfels vnd Antecrists u(sw) genant hat . (Strasbourg: Prü b , 1522); Tü 1889/4824; Kück, 18-31.

25. Kück, 26.

26. Zü lob dem Luther vnd eeren der gantzen Christenhait . The verse on the title page reads "Wolt * yemant wissen wie der hie b | Der disen spruch au b gon liess | Das hat gethon Laux Gemigger student | Au b vrsach, dz man des Luthers bucher * hat verprent" (Laube 1:548). The Hohenemser (Ho 4329) is identified as a Nuremberg printing done in 1522. Laube gives an uncertain date of 1521, printed in Augsburg by Erhard Öglin Erben. Chrisman dates the work to 1520 and has identified two editions printed in Strasbourg. From the internal evidence, the treatise was written earliest by the end of November 1520 and latest by March 1521. The 1520 dating is probably too early. Laube identifies two Strasbourg editions and one Augsburg edition (Laube 1:555).

27. Laube 1:548.

28. Passion D. Martins Luthers, oder seyn leydung durch Marcellum beschriben (Strasbourg: Prü b , 1521), a3; Ho 3908; Tü 1566/4061.

29. Brüder Michael Stifel Augustiner von Esszlingen. Von der Christförmigen, rechtgegründten leer Doctoris Martini Luthers, ein uberuss schön kunstlich Lyed, sampt seiner neben vsslegung (Strasbourg, 1522). Reprinted twice, once shortly after 1522 and the second time before 1525. See Chrisman, Bibliography P.3.9.7; Clemen 3, no. 7.

30. Clemen 3:282.

31. Clemen 3:283.

32. Clemen 3:286.

33. For example, Marcellus, a2(v)-a3.

34. Hüpsch , Ai(v)-Aii.

35. Hüpsch , Cij(v)-Ciij; cf. Hüpsch , Aiij(v).

36. Hüpsch , Aiij(v), Civ-Civ(v).

37. Clemen 3:282.

38. Scribner, For the Sake of Simple Folk , 21.

39. Clemen 3:283.

40. Even for those who did not, at least at this point, accept Luther's characterization of the papacy as the Antichrist, his opposition to the papacy was often welcomed and elicited a feeling of solidarity in a common struggle to reform the church of serious abuses. For example, our moderate, the anonymous author of A Pleasant Argument simply mentioned that Luther believed that the pope was a bishop like any other bishop ( Hüpsch , Aii(v)). Yet the anonymous author strongly supported Luther's scripturally based reforms.

The author of A Good Coarse Dialogue had one of his characters point out that, although Luther attacked the pope for abuses, he did not say that there should be no pope or papal assistants, so long as the pope did not introduce a new faith or allow heresy to grow. Yet this comment was placed within a long attack on the practice of indulgences [ Ain gutter * grober dyalogus Teüsch, zwyschen zwayen guten * gesellen, mit namen Hans Schopfer * , Peter Schabehut * , bayd von Basel die auh nit nottiger * gschafft * sunst au b zu * richten habent angericht vo * eim wirt . (Strasbourg: Beck, 1521); Ho 3904, Biij].

41. See note 24 above.

42. Kück, 18.

43. Kück, 20.

44. Kück, 4-5.

45. Marcellus, a2(v).

46. Clemen 4:94-95.

47. DS 1:418-419.

48. DS 1:441. In the pamphlet's closing list of thirty articles adopted by "Noble Helferich, Knight Heintz, and Karsthans and all their adherents," article five called the pope the "Endchrist," the Antichrist of the Endtimes, and article six labeled the "cardinals, protonotories, officials, bishops, auditors, and others at Rome" the "devil's apostles" (DS 1:443).

49. See chapter 3.

50. Clemen 4:108-109.

51. DS 1:446.

52. See, for example, Karsthans, New Karsthans , Stifel's Against Murnar's . . . Song .

53. Uerkündungs Brieff der Uniuersitet , i(v).

54. Uerkündungs Brieff der Uniuersitet , ii-iii.

55. Ain gutter * grober dyalogus Teütsch , Aiv(v).

56. DS 1:469-470.

57. Ain gutter * grober dyalogus Teütsch , Aiv(v).

58. Ain gutter * grober dyalogus Teütsch , Aiij(v).

59. DS 1:459.

60. Uerkündungs Brieff der Uniuersitet , iij(v). Eck and the bull of excommunication are also severely criticized by the author of Ain schoner * dialogus , DS 1:468-469.

61. Laube 1:548-557.

62. Clemen 4:89.

63. Clemen 4:90-91.

64. Clemen 3:289.

65. DS 1:468.

66. Clemen 4:83.

67. Kück, 26.

68. Kück, 26-27.

69. Hüpsch , Aii(v).

70. Hüpsch , Aiv(v).

71. Murner's name is deliberately misspelled to pun on the word for clown [ Narr ].

72. Wider Doctor Murnars falsch erdycht Lyed: von dem vndergang Christliche glaubens. Bruoder Michael Stifels von Esszlingen v b leg vnnd Christliche glo b darüber (Strasbourg, 1522).

73. Wider Doctor Murnars falsch erdycht Lyed , F(v).

74. Clemen 4:76.

75. Marcellus, a4-a4(v).

76. Clemen 4:91.

77. DS 1:417.

78. Hüpsch , Aij(v)-Aiij.

79. Another distinctive teaching, dealt with by only a few of the pamphleteers is Luther's view of the sacraments. A Pleasant Argument explains that Luther taught that the Mass was a testament (B-B(v)), that there was a purgatory and masses did help souls (Biv(v)-C), and that there were no more than three sacraments (Eij). Stifel, in Wider Doctor Murnars falsch erdycht Lyed , informed its readers that Luther taught that the Mass was an admonition and a certain sign to all believers of the remission of all sins. It was not a sacrifice that we offer but rather a pledge that we should receive (Bij-Bij(v)). As with the case of the priesthood of all baptized Christians, some of the characterization in A Pleasant Argument would likely have been disputed by Luther himself.

80. Clemen 4:116-117.

81. Hüpsch , Bij.

82. Hüpsch , Bij-Bii(v).

83. Hüpsch , Bij(v)-Biij.

84. Although I interpret the evidence somewhat differently, I am indebted to Gottfried Blochwitz, "Die antirömischen deutschen Flugschriften der frühen Reformationszeit (bis 1522) in ihrer religiös-sittlichen Eigenart," ARG 27 (1930):145-254, for alerting me to this division.

85. Chrisman P1.1.3.

86. StA 2:265; WA 7:21. For a translation from the Latin version, see LW 31:344.

87. StA 2:273; WA 7:24-25. For a translation from the Latin version, see LW 31:349.

88. StA 2:271.

89. StA 2:271, 273.

90. DS 1:415.

91. DS 1:425.

92. DS 1:433-434.

93. DS 1:429.

94. DS 1:427.

95. DS 1:419.

96. For example, DS 1:436.

97. DS 1:423-424.

98. DS 1:445.

99. DS 1:446.

100. Laube 1:552-553.

101. Kück, 19-20.

102. Kück, 28.

103. Kück, 22.

104. Clemen 3:49.

105. Clemen 3:340.

106. Clemen 3:316.

107. Hüpsch , Biij(v)-Biv.

108. Hüpsch , Biv.

109. Hüpsch , Biv.

110. Hüpsch , Biv-Biv(v).

111. Hans-Joachim Köhler, "The Flugschriften and their Importance in Religious Debate: A Quantitative Approach," in Paola Zambelli, ed., `Astrologi hallucinati': Stars and the End of the World in Luther's Time (New York, 1986), 159.

112. Ibid., 161.

113. It is worth noting that Luther's Catholic critics did not overlook this theme!