Narrative of the Anabaptist Madness : the overthrow of Munster, the famous metropolis of Westphalia 9781283060394, 1283060396, 9786613060396, 6613060399, 9789047421153, 9047421159

Citation preview

Narrative of the Anabaptist Madness

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f1_i-iv.indd i

6/8/2007 11:13:20 AM

Studies in the History of Christian Traditions Founded by

Heiko A. Oberman† Edited by

Robert J. Bast Knoxville, Tennessee In cooperation with

Henry Chadwick, Cambridge Scott H. Hendrix, Princeton, New Jersey Paul C.H. Lim, Nashville, Tennessee Eric Saak, Indianapolis, Indiana Brian Tierney, Ithaca, New York Arjo Vanderjagt, Groningen John Van Engen, Notre Dame, Indiana

VOLUME 132

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f1_i-iv.indd ii

6/8/2007 11:13:20 AM

Narrative of the Anabaptist Madness The Overthrow of Münster, the Famous Metropolis of Westphalia

By

Hermann von Kerssenbrock Translated with Introduction and Notes by Christopher S. Mackay

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2007

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f1_i-iv.indd iii

6/8/2007 11:13:20 AM

Cover illustration: this bird’s-eye view of the city was published in commemoration of the treaty that was signed in the council hall of Münster in 1648 to end the Thirty Years’ War, and it gives a good idea of the city’s massive defensive works (Stadt-archiv, Münster, Germany). Brill has made all reasonable efforts to trace all right holders to any copyrighted material used in this work. In cases where these efforts have not been successful the publisher welcomes communications from copyright holders, so that the appropriate acknowledgements can be made in future editions, and to settle other permission matters. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

ISSN: 1573-5664 ISBN: 978 90 04 15721 7 Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f1_i-iv.indd iv

6/8/2007 11:13:21 AM

Kellie meae optimae conuigi de me bene merenti, quae textui recognoscendo maximas contulerit operas

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f1_v-xiii.indd v

6/7/2007 4:33:18 PM

CONTENTS List of Illustrations ...................................................................... Acknowledgements ..................................................................... Note on the Text and Notes ......................................................

ix xi xiii

General Introduction .................................................................. Bibliography ................................................................................

1 65

Herman of Kerssenbrock, Historical Narrative of the Anabaptist Madness .................................................................................... Title Page ....................................................................................

79 80

Introduction ................................................................................ 1. States are Overthrown by God because of their Sins ...... 2. Beginnings of the City of Münster ................................... 3. Location of the City and Nature of the People ............... 4. Fortifications of the City ................................................... 5. Descriptions of the City’s Churches ................................. 6. Public and Private Places and Buildings of the City, its Amenities, and a Few of its Customs .......................... 7. Dual Jurisdiction in the City ............................................. 8. Division of the City’s Inhabitants into Estates ................. 9. Omens and Prodigies that Foretold Uproars in Westphalia and the Destruction of the City of Münster .............................................................................. The The The The The The The The The The

Events Events Events Events Events Events Events Events Events Events

of of of of of of of of of of

81 85 87 92 97 104 139 154 158 174

1524–1525 .......................................................... 1526 .................................................................... 1527 .................................................................... 1531 .................................................................... 1532 .................................................................... 1533 .................................................................... 1534 .................................................................... 1535 .................................................................... 1536 .................................................................... 1538–1553 ..........................................................

185 203 205 212 225 379 467 648 713 730

Index ...........................................................................................

761

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f1_v-xiii.indd vii

6/7/2007 4:33:18 PM

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1. 2.

Bird’s-eye view of the city of Münster .......................... Copperplate engraving of Heinrich Aldergraver’s portrait of John of Leiden ............................................. 3. Copperplate engraving of Heinrich Aldergraver’s portrait of Bernard Knipperdolling ............................... 4a.–b. Obverse and reverse of thaler issued by the Anabaptists ...................................................................... 5a.–b. Obverse and reverse of half thaler issued by the Anabaptists ...................................................................... 6. Schematic illustration of the siege of Münster ............. 7. Woodcut showing artillery assault on Münster .............. 8. Iron tongs used in executions ......................................... 9. Iron cages in which the bodies were exposed ...............

67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f1_v-xiii.indd ix

6/7/2007 4:33:19 PM

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My thanks to Annette Gresing and Bernd Thier of the Stadtmuseum of Münster, Anke Wollenweber of the Stadtarchiv of Münster, and Peter Ilisch of the Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschicht and to their respective institutions for their assistance in providing me with the illustrations for this book. I would also like to thank Robert Bast for suggesting improvements to the general introduction. And finally I have to say that this translation could not have been possible without the help that my wife Kelly MacFarlane provided in various ways, most notably in the yeoman work she did proofreading. Maximas ago gratias!

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f1_v-xiii.indd xi

6/7/2007 4:33:19 PM

NOTE ON THE TEXT AND NOTES In the margin of the translation are numbers indicating the pagination of Detmer’s edition. If the line opposite the number contains the sign “|”, then that marks the start of the page. (Since the Latin word order sometimes distributes words rather differently than English, at times a sentence extends over the page break, and a few words may appear on the wrong side of the divide.) If the number appears at the start of a paragraph without the sign, then the page begins with that paragraph. In my introduction and the notes, a reference that ends with the letter “D” (for “Detmer”; e.g. “105D”) refers to this marginal numeration. Much of the discussion of other contemporary sources comes from the extensive German notes in Detmer’s editio princeps of the Latin text, and anyone interested in further information on such matters should consult Detmer (1899–1900).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f1_v-xiii.indd xiii

6/7/2007 4:33:19 PM

GENERAL INTRODUCTION Undoubtedly, one of the most lurid events of the Reformation was the takeover in 1534 of the city of Münster by a variety of Anabaptists who proceeded to institute polygamy and a form of collective ownership of property and to elect a Dutch tailor as their king. The city had been subject to Lutheran attacks on the traditional Catholic ecclesiastical establishment since the mid 1520s, and by the start of the 1530s the preacher Bernard Rothman came to accept increasingly radical interpretations of religious reform that went far beyond anything that Luther would have approved. In 1532, the previous prince-bishop, who had both ecclesiastical and temporal powers, died, and was replaced by Francis of Waldeck. Just at this time, when the city council was inclined to assert its determination to reform the city’s religious practices, a wave of religious enthusiasm inspired by the ideas of Melchior Hofman was spreading in the northeastern corner of the Holy Roman Empire (Hofman combined Anabaptist belief with a millenarian conviction that the end of the world was at hand). By February 1533, the city council had extorted from the new prince-bishop an agreement that guaranteed the city virtual autonomy in its religious decisions, but the infl uence of the Anabaptists came to be felt. A three-way struggle then ensued in the city between the traditional-minded Catholics, who opposed any reform, the Lutherans, who wished to institute a comparatively limited reform, and the Anabaptists, who had much more wide-ranging reforms in mind, and eventually the arrival of radical preachers from outside strengthened the hand of the radicals. In the new municipal elections of February 1534, the radicals under the leadership of the Dutch prophet John Matthisson took control of the city council, and at the end of the month expelled from the city anyone who refused to be rebaptized. The prince-bishop then undertook to besiege the city to compel its obedience, and when Matthisson fell in battle in April, his place as inspired leader was taken by the Dutch tailor John Bockelson of Leiden. During the initial months of the Anabaptist regime, various radical measures were taken, such as the iconoclastic destruction of religious art, the institution of communal ownership of property and of polygamy, and the replacement of government by the city council with a “council of elders.” An attempt to take the city by siege in May

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 1

6/6/2007 2:38:10 PM

2

general introduction

failed through fl awed execution, and when a second full-scale assault was driven back on August 28, John was crowned as the head of the New Jerusalem that was to lead the battle against the Antichrist in the Last Days (he was assisted in his position by Bernard Knipperdolling, a member of the city’s old ruling class who had radical inclinations). Attempts to spark sympathetic revolutions elsewhere and to enlist support from outside the city failed, however, and after the siege was tightened so that no supplies could get into the city, starvation took root in Münster. The new kingdom was then ended when refuges from the city suggested a plan of attack that resulted in the capture of the city in June 1535. Francis was now properly installed in his position as prince-bishop, and the city’s privileges were curtailed. John, Knipperdolling and another associate were then executed in the following January. Such in broad strokes were the events that Herman of Kerssenbrock set out to relate. For differing reasons, the Melchiorite Anabaptists of Münster have been the unloved and unwanted foster children of the Reformation. Catholics could point to them as a clear example of the religious and political excesses which they predicted would be the result of the rejection of the traditional unity of Church and state that preceded the Reformation. To rebut these accusations, mainline (i.e., magisterial) Protestants were equally ready to disown Anabaptists in general and the Melchiorites in particular. For some decades, the Anabaptists have been studied in a much more sympathetic light both by scholars who belong to modern forms of Christianity that are derived from non-Melchiorite strains of Anabaptism and by secular historians without such religious preconceptions. Nonetheless, there remains a strong tendency in modern scholarship to speak of the Melchiorites as being in some way not really “legitimate” Anabaptists.1

1 See, for example, the interesting shift in thought in Stayer (2002). On p. 223 of the main text (which repeats verbatim the first edition of 1976), he fl atly states that “The line from Hofman to Obbe and Menno [i.e., the line to pacifist forms of Dutch Anabaptism] is the legitimate one; that from Hofman through Jan Matthijs, Jan of Leyden and Jan van Battenberg is a bastard line.” (Melchior Hofman is the man who inspired the men who took over Münster; see later in the introduction.) In a passage in the “Refl ections and Retractions” section of the second edition of 2002 (pp. xxv–xxviii), Stayer disowns this characterization as “overly quotable, and overwritten” on the basis of an analysis of Deppermann in which the latter discusses the various trains of thought in Hofman’s thought regarding secular authority and the implementation of the imminent End of Days. Stayer concludes from this that it is not a question of “legitimate” or “illegitimate” succession but of ambiguity in Hofman’s message,

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 2

6/6/2007 2:38:10 PM

general introduction

3

The major contemporary history of the Anabaptist kingdom of Münster is the massive Latin history written by the schoolmaster Herman of Kerssenbrock, a work that is disparaged more than read by modern scholars. Kerssenbrock had lived in Münster as a boy at the time of the kingdom, but he wrote the work some three decades later, and in any case since he was a committed Catholic, his work can hardly be called unbiased. As a work of historiography, it has many failings of overall interpretation and specific detail. Nonetheless, it provides much information not otherwise preserved and is valuable in its own right as a contemporary’s reaction to such astonishing events. Furthermore, since its views have had a strong infl uence on previous scholarship (first in its initial transmission in manuscript format and then via an inaccurate German translation made in 1771), it is worthwhile for students of the period to be able to read the work in its entirety. The following introduction is meant to lay out the religious context of these events, to explain some of the political and cultural aspects of early sixteenthcentury history that may confuse the modern reader, and to give a short account of Kerssenbrock’s life and his historiographical methods. There will be no attempt here to examine how Kerssenbrock’s account deviates from modern ideas of what took place in Münster (though some attention is given to such issues in the notes to the text), as this task would itself constitute a full discussion of the events.2

then launches into an extended discussion of the nature of Dutch Anabaptism and the relationship to it of the leaders of the movement in Münster. It is remarkable that Stayer conceives of this sort of relationship as comparable to the arguments in Marxist thought as to who is the “legitimate” heir of Marx (xxvii). This sort of analysis is fundamentally an engaged and partisan one of sorting out who is “right” and “wrong” rather than a neutral historical investigation of the development of the lines of thought of various thinkers during the heady days of the early Reformation. Naturally, the attempt to distance oneself from the events in Münster is all the greater on the part of the many writers about Anabaptism who have a direct involvement in modern forms of Anabaptism. 2 Karl-Heinz Kirchhoff has produced a number of important studies on the course of events; see especially Kirchhoff (1962a) and the collection of essays in Kirchhoff (1988).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 3

6/6/2007 2:38:10 PM

4

general introduction 1) Religious Background

a) Lutheran Background In October 1517, the Augustinian friar and professor of theology Martin Luther unwittingly launched what came to be known as the Protestant Reformation by circulating his famous ninety-five theses. The immediate issue was a comparatively minor one, but it had extremely serious implications for the logical underpinnings of the universal church of the Middle Ages (the ancestor of the modern Roman Catholic Church).3 Luther rejected the institution of indulgences, whereby Christians could acquire (generally through purchase, though the theory of indulgences denied this) release from the torments of purgatory, where the souls of sinners who nonetheless were not worthy of eternal damnation were subjected to a temporary sentence of affl iction before being purified and admitted to heaven. Luther’s major objection was the idea that a human was incapable of redeeming himself from his sins through his own actions, and instead had to rely exclusively on his “faith” that Jesus had redeemed him through his death by crucifixion. Rejection of the idea that the Church could secure the soul’s release from purgatory logically led to a broader denial of the medieval church’s general claim that there were meritorious acts that earned the believer “credit” in heaven. Control of these works rested with the Church, which in effect served as an intermediary between God and the believer. Furthermore, a large number of the institutions by which the Church acted in effect as God’s representative on earth (e.g., auricular confession and purgatory) had no explicit justification in the writings of the Bible, especially the New Testament. These institutions had grown up in various ways during the preceding millennium and a half of Christian life, but the theoretical underpinning that justified them is the Catholic idea that Jesus had delegated the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter and that as the first bishop of Rome Peter had passed on this power (“the power of the keys”) to his successors (as “the vicars of Christ”), who in turn imbued the Church with the right to institute and validate non-Biblical practices. In more concrete terms, it was held that the long-standing institutions of the Church went back in direct tradition

3 The medieval church was the institutional descendant of the state-sponsored church established in Late Antiquity by the Christian Roman emperors of the fourth century.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 4

6/6/2007 2:38:11 PM

general introduction

5

to the teachings and practices of the early Church as established in the aftermath of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, and thereby received justification through the acts and deeds of both Jesus himself and of his apostles. Luther appears to have believed (rather naively) that all he had to do was demonstrate the correctness of his rejection of indulgences on the basis of scriptural passages, and then the pope and the Church hierarchy would recognize the error of their ways and abandon the practice. Not surprisingly, this did not happen. And it could not happen, because to do so would lead to the logical necessity of dismantling the entire edifice of what was taken at the time to be the traditional practice of the universal church. As pressure was applied to make Luther recant, the opposite effect resulted. He drew the logical conclusions from his own thought, which turned his rejection of indulgences into a thoroughgoing repudiation of papal authority. This culminated in his refusal to recant before the Diet of Worms in 1521. In the normal course of events, Luther should have been burned alive as an unrepentant heretic. A number of chance circumstances prevented this result. The Czech critic of the Church Jan Hus had been invited to speak before the Council of Constance in 1415, but the safe conduct granted by the Holy Roman emperor had been disgracefully broken and he was burned. Though specious excuses had been made to justify this act of perfidy, the emperor Charles V was fully aware of the outrage that would result from a repetition. Furthermore, Charles’ political position in Germany was comparatively weak, and Luther enjoyed the protection of Frederick III, the electoral duke of Saxony. This protection allowed Luther to disseminate his views in a way that had not been feasible for Hus or any other earlier critic of the Church: through the printing press. The movable-type printing press was invented around 1450, and the new technology spread swiftly. A large number of the earliest works printed were thoroughly orthodox, but it turned out that the printing press was probably the strongest weapon in the arsenal of the Church’s opponents. In the lead up to the Diet of Worms, Luther published three works (Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, Babylonian Captivity of the Church, and The Freedom of a Christian), which spread his views throughout Germany. Conceivably, the death of Luther in the early 1520s might have halted the attack on the traditional Church, but his ideas would have lived on in published form. In any case, Luther lived for two more decades securely in Saxony, and oversaw the establishment

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 5

6/6/2007 2:38:11 PM

6

general introduction

of a new church (the Evangelical or “Lutheran” Church) on the basis of his ideas. He would find, however, that some were willing to extend his ideas much further than he was. There were two major premises for Luther’s attack on the traditional Church. The first was the idea that salvation depended solely upon faith in the redemptive power of the crucifixion. In Luther’s view of human nature, the individual was incapable of achieving salvation through his own efforts, and the good works promoted by the Church were useless in terms of salvation (in Luther’s eyes, it was presumptuous to believe that inherently sinful humans could force omnipotent God to do anything, which was how he viewed the traditional idea that good works could “earn” salvation, as if this were being bargained for with God). The notion that faith alone provides salvation is known as “solafideism” (“faith-alone-ism” in Latin). The second fundamental premise in Luther’s thought was the idea of “Scripture alone” (sola scriptura), that is, that the only guarantee of the validity of a religious practice was its attestation in the Scriptures, especially the New Testament.4 To further the propagation of the “evangelical” message (i.e., the Gospel or evangelium in Latin), Luther in 1522 published the New Testament in his German translation. Now, his followers could read the “Good News” in the vernacular without technical knowledge of the Latin of the Vulgate Bible, which had previously been the form used by the Church. As it turned out, once people were able to read the text themselves, they would sometimes come to conclusions of their own that were quite different from Luther’s. b) Radical Ideas of Reform Go Beyond Luther’s Intentions Luther’s ideas about solafideism were in themselves extremely radical, entailing as they did the rejection of traditional ideas about good works and the entire papal hierarchy. The abandonment of clerical celibacy and the abolition of monastic institutions were other aspects of Luther’s thought that scandalized the traditionally minded. But once Luther had worked out the implications inherent in his rejection of indulgences, he proved to be rather conservative in his acceptance of various medieval dogmas and practices that seemed to confl ict with his injunction to 4 This idea goes back to Erasmus’ injunction of returning ad fontes (“to the sources”), though Luther’s application of the proposition was rather different from Erasmus’.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 6

6/6/2007 2:38:11 PM

general introduction

7

follow “sola scriptura.” He rejected iconoclasm (the seemingly biblical destruction of religious images, especially those of the saints and the Virgin Mary, whose worship was taken by the radically minded to be idolatry), and in 1522 he had been forced to return from the seclusion in which he was writing in order to use his personal authority to suppress an outbreak of iconoclasm in Wittenberg. A leader of this outburst was a university colleague of Luther’s, Andreas of Karlstadt, who was eager to push Luther’s ideas farther than Luther was. We will come across Karlstadt’s infl uence on Anabaptism. Of the seven sacraments of the traditional Church, Luther ultimately accepted only two, the eucharist and baptism, but even here he interpreted these in a traditional fashion. He accepted a real physical presence of the blood and body of Christ in the wine and bread of the eucharist. The more radically minded took Christ’s statement that the wine and bread were his blood and body to be a mere symbol and interpreted the eucharist as a commemoration of Christ’s self-sacrifice for humanity rather than a physical transformation of the wine and bread. As for baptism, Luther again accepted the traditional practice of infant baptism. All of these differences became reasons for Luther’s more radical followers to reject him because of his continued adherence to practices that in their opinion were merely holdovers from the non-Biblical fabrications of the medieval Church, while Luther himself castigated and repudiated those who disagreed with him on these issues. One of the most important doctrines under dispute concerned the nature of baptism. Luther advocated the traditional position that infants should be baptized soon after birth. Some of his followers, however, interpreted the Gospels as showing that baptism was the act of a knowing adult, who thereby renounced his previous sinful life, something of which an infant was literally incapable. The arguments against infant baptism are so firmly (and in strict logic compellingly) based in the clear statements of the Gospels that it is hard to see what could have led Luther (and Zwingli and Calvin) to defend the practice just as vigorously as a Catholic would. The very implausibility of the logical arguments used to support infant baptism serves to show that this was no mere example of a personal attachment to traditional practice. Rather, the issue of infant baptism involved the most serious implications for the entire relationship between Church and state, a matter that was of the greatest concern in the attempt of the magisterial reformers to set up an institutional framework for their new understanding of the Church.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 7

6/6/2007 2:38:11 PM

8

general introduction

c) Relationship between Church and State, and Magisterial Protestantism In medieval ecclesiastical thought, Church and state were the intertwined institutions of God’s governance on earth: the Church determined the correct interpretation of God’s ordinance for human behavior and the secular state implemented this. Luther at first simply believed that once he convinced the traditional Church of the errors of its ways, a reform would be implemented from within and all would be well. It took some years to disabuse him of this notion, but he eventually came to see that his reforms could be implemented only “from above” by princes who had allied themselves with his religious movement.5 This implicit alliance of secular and religious power came to be cemented by the tempestuous events of 1524–1525, which are known as the Peasants’ War. Already in 1522–1523, some Imperial knights along the Rhine had attempted to overthrow the electoral archbishop of Trier in the name of Lutheran hostility to the established authority. Next, it was the turn of peasants in central Germany, whose own economic grievances were commingled with demands for religious reform.6 Luther reacted to this attempt to turn his religious views against governmental authority with shrill denunciation, particularly as some of his radical religious opponents such as Thomas Müntzer lent their support to the revolt. Eventually, Luther came to establish a new religious hierarchy in territories controlled by princes who espoused adherence to his doctrine. The reformer Ulrich Zwingli, who in many ways differed from Luther, set up his own form of state-sponsored reformed religion in Zürich.7 Protestant churches that were established in cooperation with the secular authority and under its auspices are known as “magisterial” (from a false etymology with the Latin magistratus or “ruler”). This commingling of ecclesiastical and secular authority had important implications for the nature of the church. For just as in the medieval conception, there had to be an equivalence between the broader society governed by the state and the church as a whole. This in turn meant that every citizen of the state, regardless of his own virtue, necessarily belonged to the new reformed church. And the formal symbol to signify 5 For Luther’s role in the establishment of territorial churches, see Holborn (1959) 183–91. 6 For a discussion of the interpretation of the Peasants’ War and of Luther’s responsibility for it and attitude towards it, see Blickle (1981). 7 For Zwingli’s reforms and his disagreements with Luther, see MacCulloch (2003) 144–152.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 8

6/6/2007 2:38:11 PM

general introduction

9

that each member of society was likewise a member of the universal (if local) church was his baptism soon after birth. In rebutting the arguments against infant baptism, Luther made a passing remark that infant baptism took the place in the new covenant (i.e., Christianity) of the circumcision in the old covenant established between Abraham and God. Luther did not make much of this comment, but Zwingli seized upon it as a justification of the old practice, which after all was hard to justify in terms of the New Testament. d) Anabaptism All baptisms recorded in the New Testament involved adults. The Gospel of Mark describes John the Baptist as proclaiming “a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (1:4), and Jesus himself states, “Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16).8 It is hard to see how an infant could believe, and even if one is inclined to disjoin the notions of belief and baptism in the second passage (contrary to the surface sense of the passage), an infant can hardly repent.9 Thus, in the 1520s the doctrine arose that baptism is a rite that should be undergone by an adult in full knowledge of the tenets of the faith, and the term for this sort of baptism is “believer’s baptism.” In the context of the sixteenth century, when everyone who adopted the rite would perforce have previously received traditional baptism as infants, such believer’s baptism would be a second baptism or rebaptism, and the term Anabaptist (from the Greek for “rebaptizer”) arose to characterize them. Naturally, since the radicals rejected the validity of the initial infant baptism, there could be no rebaptism for them, and the term is in origin one of hostility. Nonetheless, the term is useful to describe those who adhered to the doctrine of believer’s baptism, especially as in the absence of “Anabaptism” there is no common term to define this (rather variegated) strain of Protestantism. Ulrich Zwingli was a priest in Zürich, and in the years 1522–1523 he oversaw the establishment of a territorial reformed church under the

Of course, the absence of any text after Mark 16:9 in the manuscript Sinaiticus (also called Aleph), the best witness to the ancient text of the New Testament, shows that this verse is a later addition to the text. No one in the sixteenth century knew this, and the English here is simply a translation of Luther’s rendering of the text. 9 The traditional explanation of the remark about the remission of sins in connection with baptism is that this refers to original sin. Even if one grants this theoretical possibility, the specification of repentance ought to exclude this explanation. 8

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 9

6/6/2007 2:38:11 PM

10

general introduction

auspices of the local city council. In a number of ways (e.g., hostility to religious art and symbolic interpretation of the eucharist) he was more radical than Luther. But like Luther, Zwingli voluntarily recognized the power of the city council (which happened to be on his side) to decide in matters of doctrinal dispute.10 Again like Luther, Zwingli also felt it necessary to uphold the practice of infant baptism.11 There was increasing tension between him and various followers who advocated more radical reforms (for example in the practice of the mass). After an official disputation on the sacraments in 1523, in which Zwingli was declared the winner by the council, a number of the radicals began to conceive of the notion of founding an independent church of believers. The radicals continued to harass Zwingli, and also to counsel parents against the baptism of their infants. By late 1524, the council called for another disputation, and in January 1525, Zwingli again was ruled to have met the objections of his detractors, and an official decree was passed stating that all infants had to be baptized within eight days under penalty of expulsion. A secret meeting was then held in which Conrad Grebel baptized George Blaurock, and they in turn baptized an assembly of about fifteen men. This was the formal birth of Anabaptism, though it arose from a number of strains of previous thought. The subsequent bloody history of Anabaptism as a whole is not relevant for present purposes. Considered a threat to society as a whole by both Catholic and Protestant authorities, the Anabaptists suffered greatly from official persecution, even as they gained adherents across a broad expanse of territory stretching from present-day Switzerland through southern Germany into Austria. This movement was spread by a number of charismatic proselytizers of the radical conception of Christianity. The movement was never organized into a unitary hierarchically arranged institution, and indeed its very tenets logically prevented such a development. Instead, a number of strains arose and infl uenced each other. To some extent, the one thing these movements held in common was the practice of believer’s baptism, which in turn symbolized the attempt to set up a community of “true” Christians that was separate from the broader society.

10 For a discussion of Zwingli’s views on the relationship of church and state, see Stephens (1992) 123–137. 11 For a sympathetic discussion of Zwingli’s views on the matter (including his dispute with the Anabaptists), see Stephens (1992) 85–93.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 10

6/6/2007 2:38:11 PM

general introduction

11

The attempt to establish a pure “city of God” in this impure world goes back to the beginnings of Christianity. When Christianity was a persecuted religion of a small minority, it must have taken a firm faith to join and adhere to the new religion in the face of the dire consequences of martyrdom, but as Christianity began to spread across the Roman world, especially after the adoption of the new religion by the Emperor Constantine, there would have been people who were Christians by birth, their ancestors having converted generations before. Christianity was no longer a religion composed mostly of enthusiastic new converts. Instead, it encompassed large amounts of society, and many nominal Christians went about leading their normal secular lives without too much overt thought for the doctrines and dictates of Christianity. The solution to the “secularization” of Christian society was the withdrawal from society of ascetics who practiced a solitary devotion to God. Such individual hermits came to gather together in separate communities dedicated to the worship of God. This monastic movement began in the Greek East in the late third century, and spread rapidly in the Latin West in the later fourth and fifth centuries. In effect, monasticism refl ects an attempt to lead a purely religious life in the midst of the corruptions of the secular world by withdrawing from the secular world.12 The Anabaptist world view leads to a similar rejection of the world at large and to a withdrawal into a separate world devoted to God, but with the difference that whereas the (theoretically) celibate monastery posed no threat to society as a whole (and in fact was supposed to set it an example of saintly living), the Anabaptist community was a fully fl edged society of married couples who rejected the wickedness of the world around them and by virtue of their believer’s baptism set themselves apart from their unredeemed neighbors. In effect, there was a confl ict between two Biblical passages. In Romans 13:1, Paul asserts that the secular state is ordained by God, and the Christian subject owes obedience to it. In Acts 5:29, on the other hand, Peter and the other apostles state, in reply to the Sanhedrin’s complaint that they have ignored its prohibition against their teaching, that it is necessary to obey God before man. In effect, the view of the Catholics and of the magisterial Protestants globally recognized the claims of the Christian state to loyalty, while the Anabaptists rejected the state’s pretensions

12 Of course, there were inherent problems in the concept of leading an ascetic life in a richly endowed institution, but that is not relevant to the issue at hand.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 11

6/6/2007 2:38:12 PM

12

general introduction

if these confl icted with their interpretation of the Word of God. It is little wonder that those authorities, both Catholic and Protestant, who conceived of a civil society that was coterminous with the established religious community took such violent exception to the exclusivist and separatist claims of the Anabaptists. And it was not simply the rejection of infant baptism (known by the rather ungainly term of antipedobaptism) that distinguished the Anabaptists from their neighbors. As already stated, there was no uniformity of doctrine among them, but on the basis of their literalist reading of Biblical injunctions, the views that were subscribed to by assorted Anabaptists and that brought them into confl ict with the secular authorities were the refusal to pay taxes, to swear oaths, or to perform military service (because of the injunction against killing). As it turned out, these pacifistic tendencies were by no means dominant among the Melchiorite Anabaptists of Münster.13 e) Melchior Hofman In his attack on the traditional church’s monopoly of access to God, Luther had criticized the traditional order of the priesthood that was formally separate from the full body of believers. He argued that every Christian was in effect a priest, though only those who had been called upon by the community or authority to exercise this function in a formal manner were proper priests. While a number of radical religious leaders were, like Luther, renegade Catholic priests (Zwingli, Hübmaier, Menno Simons), others had no formal religious training before embarking on the propagation of the new faith as they saw it. One such man was Melchior Hofman, whose brand of Anabaptism was to be the ultimate inspiration for the remarkable turn of affairs in Münster.14 Born in around 1495 in Swäbisch Hall in southwestern Germany, Hofman was a furrier by trade, and he eventually wound up in Livonia on the Baltic in 1522. Already an adherent of Luther’s, he got himself into trouble as a preacher in assorted German towns along the eastern Baltic (at one point his preaching resulted in an iconoclastic 13 Kirchhoff (1988) 33–46 argues that the Anabaptists in Münster were pacifist prior to the arrival of the Melchiorites. For a discussion of the Melchiorites in the context of Anabaptist thought on the use of force, see Stayer (2002) 205–280 with the “retraction” of xxv–xxvii. 14 For a full analysis of Hofman’s views (though a chronologically confusing biography), see Deppermann (1987).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 12

6/6/2007 2:38:12 PM

general introduction

13

riot), and by 1526 he held a position as preacher in Stockholm. In 1527, his preaching yet again caused rioting, and he had to fl ee. He took up residence in the Baltic port city of Lübeck, but once the municipal authorities became aware of the radical nature of his preaching, they too sent him packing. He then sought to establish himself in Denmark, where the king was attempting a reformation. Hofman soon became embroiled in doctrinal disputes with the Lutheran preachers, and he traveled to Wittenberg to receive a letter of commendation from Luther. Hofman had already gained Luther’s approval before (back in 1525) by concealing their doctrinal differences, and now Luther repudiated him. What separated Hofman from Luther was not only his iconoclasm and allegorical interpretation of the eucharist but his apocalyptic eschatology. Already in a work of 1526 Hofman predicted that the cataclysmic war between the chosen of God and the godless that is foretold in the Book of Apocalypse would take place seven years later in 1533.15 The only element lacking for the program that would cause such turmoil in Münster was Anabaptism. A disputation was set up in the duchy of Schleswig (controlled by the Danish king) in 1529 to “test” Hofman’s views, but it was clearly intended to provide an authoritative venue in which to reject those views. In April, Hofman was ordered to recant or leave, and he was duly banished. He moved to East Frisia, which was in religious foment under the infl uence of Zwinglian ideas, and there he collaborated with Karlstadt, Luther’s erstwhile colleague who was now his radical opponent.16 Once more, Hofman ran into trouble with the Lutherans, and in June he moved to the city of Strasburg, one of the great centers of Reformation thought. In Strasburg, Hofman at first was welcomed, but he soon earned the enmity of local Zwinglian religious leaders just as he had that of Luther, as Hofman’s doctrine had become even more radical. He saw himself as the prophet of God, and added to his apocalyptic views a conviction of the validity of believer’s baptism. (Exactly when or under what circumstances this happened is unknown; perhaps Karlstadt had recently infl uenced him.) Swiss Anabaptists had arrived in the city back in 1526, and although Wolfgang Capito had a certain amount

15 The figure of seven years was apparently reached by adding the forty-two months assigned to the two witnesses in Apocalypse 11:3 to the similar figure given to the Beast in 13:5. 16 For a discussion of Karlstadt’s infl uence on Hofman (plus an extensive treatment of Hofman in his own right), see Pater (1984) 173–253.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 13

6/6/2007 2:38:12 PM

14

general introduction

of sympathy for them, the other leaders of reform in Strasburg were implacably opposed to them. After being rejected by the religious authorities, Hofman consorted with the so-called “Strasburg prophets,” a group of lower class individuals who claimed to receive visions from God. Hofman was completely convinced of these prophecies, and even published a book about them. Despite the city’s rejection of him, however, Hofman officially declared that Strasburg would be the “New Jerusalem” mentioned in the Book of Apocalypse, and would be the center of resistance against the godless in the impending cataclysm that would mark the end of the world in 1533. In April 1530, Hofman rashly petitioned the Strasburg city council to grant the Anabaptists a church, and was duly expelled. By the next month he was back in East Frisia, where he now began to spread the doctrine of Anabaptism. He acquired several hundred followers in this area, which was riven with strife between Lutherans, Sacramentarians and Catholics, but he was first forced to withdraw from Emden, the main city, in May, and he had to leave the entire territory in the fall. His subsequent movements are somewhat obscure (apart from a visit to Strasburg in December 1531) until his final arrival in Strasburg in 1533, but he seems to be have been successful in spreading his apocalyptic beliefs in the Low Countries and Frisia. In the Low Countries, the Sacramentarian movement, which rejected the actual presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the eucharist, was widespread, and was tolerated by the local magistrates, who were reluctant to uphold the repressive orders of the central government (the regency was held in the name of the absent Emperor Charles V by his aunt Margaret and then by his sister Mary after Margaret’s death in November 1530).17 Hofman’s doctrines were propagated in Sacramentarian circles, and it was the prohibited practice of adult baptism that attracted the attention of the (reluctant) local authorities. A change in Hofman’s policy on baptism was brought about by the actions of one of his followers. John Voelkerts had been baptized by him in Emden, and began to act as Hofman’s emissary in Amsterdam.

17 For the Sacramentarian setting in the Low Countries, see Houston (2000) 528–535. The term “Sacramentarian” is in origin a hostile one used by Luther to denigrate the more radical reformers who refused to accept his comparatively conservative views about the Eucharist. It is nonetheless a convenient one (and it is hard to see what to use in its place); for the origin and modern usage of the word, see Williams (2000) 85, 95–96.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 14

6/6/2007 2:38:12 PM

general introduction

15

(Among the first to be baptized by him was Bartholomew Boekbinder, who would later spread the good word to Münster.) Despite the authorities’ tolerant attitude, Voelkerts wished a martyr’s death, and even though he was all but invited to escape when first arrested, he not only refused to do so but even revealed the names of those whom he had baptized. Eventually, nine others were arrested, and on December 5, 1531, they were beheaded in The Hague. This news shocked Hofman, who thought it pointless to court a martyr’s death unnecessarily, and ordered a halt to adult baptism until the end of 1533.18 For the next year, the temporary succession (Stillstand or “standstill”) of adult baptism brought a virtual halt to the execution of the Melchiorites (as Hofman’s followers may be termed), so that it is hard to track the exact spread of the sect in this period, but it would seem that its message of impending doom proved attractive to Sacramentarians. In March 1533, Hofman returned from his peregrinations (most recently in East Frisia) to Strasburg, the city that he was sure would be the salvation of mankind in the Last Days. The city council, which had recently been taking a turn towards Lutheranism, was not at all pleased with his faith in it, and when he was accused in May of plotting rebellion, it ordered his arrest. (Hofman welcomed this as part of the apocalyptic Last Days, as he had been predicting since 1526 that a great council would imprison one of the two witnesses mentioned in Apocalypse 11; as it turned out, this was himself.) When he was brought to trial before the city’s synod in June, this charge was dropped, and it was his views on various technical theological points for which he was tried. Since there was no proof of any plot to rebel, there was no cause to execute him, yet he had large numbers of followers, and his unshakable faith in his prophesy of the world’s demise made him dangerous. He would remain in close and isolated detention until his death (under obscure circumstances, apparently in 1543). f ) Melchiorite Unrest and Excitement in the Low Countries As the end of 1533 approached, and the time predicted for the dreaded events prophesied in Apocalypse came ever nearer, the prohibition

18 Since Hofman predicted that the apocalyptic end of the world would take place in 1533, the rebaptism could wait until then. In any case, he justified his action by analogy with the two-year suspension of the rebuilding of the Great Temple in Jerusalem that is recorded in Ezra 4:24.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 15

6/6/2007 2:38:12 PM

16

general introduction

against believer’s baptism began to chafe among the Melchiorites of the Low Countries.19 The reason for this was that it was thought that such “real” baptism was the equivalent of the seal that distinguished the pious from the godless in Apocalypse (7:3 and 9:4), and the man who took advantage of this discontent to replace the imprisoned Hofman as the direct leader of the Melchiorites was John Matthisson (or Matthys).20 A baker by trade, Matthisson had long been involved in the Sacramentarian movement, and he had been sentenced to having his tongue pierced in 1528 for such views. He now proclaimed that he was Enoch, the second of the two “witnesses” mentioned in Apocalypse 11 as the leaders of the godly in the Last Days; Hofman continued to be considered the new Elijah, but previously the role of Enoch had been bestowed upon Cornelius Polderman, another of Hofman’s followers.21 On All Saints’ Day (November 1), Matthisson lifted the prohibition against adult baptism, and the same day he met and baptized John Bockelson of Leiden, who eventually succeeded Matthisson as the Anabaptist leader in Münster and would be crowned its king. (Matthisson also decided to abandon his previous wife, and take as his new “spiritual” wife the beautiful young Diewer, whom John of Leiden would in turn marry upon Matthisson’s death in battle.) Matthisson sent emissaries (including John) to various Melchiorite communities in the Low Countries in order to assert his authority, which became generally accepted once he managed to overawe the Melchiorites of Amsterdam, who included some of Hofman’s earlier adherents, such as Bartholomew Boekbinder and William de Cuiper. At year’s end, with his leadership now generally recognized, Matthisson sent off further emissaries, who were not only to proclaim the resumption of adult baptism but to bid the faithful to assemble, as they would constitute the 144,000 pious people who would oppose the Antichrist according to Apocalypse 7:4 and 14:1. Boekbinder and de Cuiper were first sent to Leeuwarden, and after delivering their message there, they continued to Münster,

19 For a general discussion of the Melchiorite ferment in the Low Countries, see Krahn (1968) 80–135 (with 135–164 on the events in Münster from the perspective of the Low Countries). 20 For Matthisson’s usurpation of authority among the Melchiorites, see Deppermann (1987) 333–339. 21 Strictly speaking, the two witnesses are not named in Apocalypse, but in popular medieval eschatology these two were identified as the Old Testament figures Enoch and Elijah: for the sixteenth century in general, see Petersen (1993); for the broader context in medieval eschatology, see Cohn (1973) 145.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 16

6/6/2007 2:38:12 PM

general introduction

17

where on January 5, 1534, they baptized Bernard Rothman and the other radical preachers, who were dominant in the city and would soon take it over. Eight days later, another pair of Matthisson’s emissaries, John of Leiden and Gerard de Cuiper, appeared in Münster, and in early February Matthisson himself arrived. These Melchiorites would take advantage of the religious discord within Münster to set up that city (rather than Strasburg) as the New Jerusalem that would witness the final confl agration predicted in Apocalypse. This is the point at which the Anabaptist and the specifically Melchiorite background to the events in Münster, of which Kerssenbrock was generally unaware (he never even mentions Hofman), converge with his narrative, and it is best to leave him to narrate the subsequent course of events. g) Disputed “Legitimacy” of the Münster Radicals as Followers of Hofman There is much talk in modern scholarly discussion of whether the men who seized control of Münster were the “legitimate” heirs of Melchior Hofman. The very question is prejudicial, in that it implies that Hofman had some sort of copyright on his ideas, and those who “infringed” this control through misinterpretation are inherently wrong and misguided. It is preferable to consider the question from the point of view of the internal logic of ideas. The men in Münster seem to have genuinely believed that the Last Days would begin in 1533, just as told in the Book of Apocalypse. Both Hofman and Matthisson shared this belief, but differed on the stance which they, as the prophets who would lead the pious in the coming confl ict, should adopt towards this confl ict. Hofman took a rather more passive attitude and thought that God should be left to implement the confl ict without human intervention.22 Matthisson, on the other hand, decided that it was necessary to prepare the faithful to take an active role in the events foretold for them. If words like “delusional” are to be used of Matthisson, Bockelson, Knipperdolling and other leaders of the radicals in Münster (and this judgmental tone is still frequently used of them), then it should be pointed out that they were no more deluded than Hofman. They simply acted upon their

22 Or at least without the intervention of the godly. The Turks, who at this time were marauding victoriously in southeastern Europe and had threatened to capture Vienna as recently as 1529, would play the role of Gog and Magog (Apocalypse 20:8).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 17

6/6/2007 2:38:12 PM

18

general introduction

beliefs, whereas Hofman waited for them to take place of their own accord while he languished in his prison cell.23 h) Radical Views of the Münster Melchiorites This is not the place for a full discussion of the theological and other religious views of the Münster radicals, but a few short words about some particularly noteworthy aspects of their beliefs would not be out of order.24 1) Lord’s Supper. Given the Sacramentarian background of so many of the radicals from the Low Countries, it is not surprising that they rejected the traditional belief in transubstantiation (as well as Luther’s modified consubstantiation), which saw a real transformation of the eucharist bread and wine into Christ’s fl esh and blood. 2) Christology. The nature of the relationship between Christ as the son of God and God himself, a concept that caused much dispute in antiquity but was generally uncontroversial during the Middle Ages, became a matter of great dispute at the time of the Reformation. The notion that had been accepted as orthodox since antiquity held that the three “persons” of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) were seen as manifestations of a single God, and this threefold conception of God is called the Trinity. A different line of thought in antiquity known as Monophysitism held that the divine nature of Christ supplanted the humanity of the fetus of Jesus that was conceived in Mary, and Hofman adhered to a similar idea that arose in the 1520s (he famously compared the birth of Christ through Mary to the passage of water 23 The attempt of the radicals to bring about through their own efforts the events that they expected to happen on the basis of their understanding of scripture is in some ways reminiscent of the way in which Lenin “anticipated” the communist revolution. Marx had predicted that the condition of the working classes would grow steadily worse, and that the proletarian revolution would take place in the most industrially advanced countries. By the end of the nineteenth century, it was clear that the first prediction was simply false, and the loyalty of the working classes to their national governments at the outbreak of the First World War demonstrated the fallacy of the second. Instead of waiting for the coming revolution to take place in the predicted manner (which it seemed it would not), Lenin decided to seize power on behalf of the working class through his putatively enlightened party of conspirators, and then to use the compulsive powers of the state institutions which the party had seized to destroy all opposition and to bring about the utopian future that was supposed to result from the revolution, even if the revolution needed a “kick start.” Ultimately, the Bolshevik Revolution was no more successful than the one in Münster; it simply took longer to fail. 24 For a general discussion of the policies of the Münster regime, see Klötzer (1992).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 18

6/6/2007 2:38:13 PM

general introduction

19

through a pipe). In his final days after his capture, John Bockelson of Leiden (the erstwhile king of the Anabaptist kingdom) showed himself willing to recant a number of his views, but he balked at the notion that God was born of a human. One interesting side effect of the emphasis on the divinity of Christ is that to some extent he was in turn assimilated to God the Father. A notable aspect of the Münster radicals’ conception of God is their constant invocation of “The Father,” which for them meant the vengeful and jealous God of the Old Testament. 3) “Inspirationalism.”25 A particularly noticeable trait of Hofman’s doctrine was his belief in divine inspiration. (As already noted, he went so far as to publish the prophetic dreams of some of his followers, and it was such a dream that led him to return to Strasburg and court arrest there.) Such divinely inspired prophets were not uncommon among the more radically minded (e.g., the “Zwickau prophets” whose visions threatened the social order back in 1522). While the established Church of the Middle Ages did what it could to suppress or at least check such spontaneous revelations from people who were not in holy orders, it is not surprising that in their careful reading of the Bible some reformers were led by Acts 2:1–21 to think that God would again speak directly to the common man. It is noteworthy that Acts 2:38 connects (seemingly adult) baptism for the remission of sins with the reception of “the gift of the Holy Spirit.” The radicals of Münster would not infrequently invoke this spirit. 4) Adherence to Biblical authority/hostility to the past. The Münster radicals often refer to the Reformation notion that Biblical precedent was necessary for any ecclesiastical practice to be considered valid (they often profess to be willing to admit error if this can be demonstrated through citation of the Bible), and concomitantly reject any practices that cannot be validated in this way. The latter brings with it the notion that any “papist” practices from the past which do not pass muster by the standard of the New Testament are mere “human accretions” that are to be eradicated. One form of this eradication is the destruction of the cathedral library, another the destruction of the paraphernalia for traditional service. Towards the end of their control of the city, the radicals even undertook the task of destroying the city’s churches.

25 This notion could perhaps be more properly called “spiritualism,” but the term would bring with it unwanted and irrelevant associations.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 19

6/6/2007 2:38:13 PM

20

general introduction

5) Iconoclasm. A very specific form of rejection of the traditional forms of worship is the destruction of the religious art that adorned the churches. Of course, a prohibition against the worship of images is one of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:3–4; Deuteronomy 5:8), and in both the Old Testament and in the works of the early Church Fathers idolatry was associated with the worship of false gods. Hence, hostility to traditional religious art was a prominent feature of the early rejection of the Church of Rome. Karlstadt had disagreed with Luther over the issue, and Hofman was forced to leave first Dorpat in Livonia and then Stockholm after his preaching resulted in iconoclastic rioting. 6) Apocalypticism.26 The events of Münster are incomprehensible without a clear understanding that the main driving force behind the radical leaders was the belief that the events portrayed in the Book of Apocalypse were about to come to pass and that they would play a prominent role as the 144,000 who would do battle with the forces of the Antichrist.27 Hence, a careful reading of that book is a good preliminary to reading Kerssenbrock. In the early books of the Old Testament, God seems to promise the Israelites that if they worship him properly, he will assure them of success as a people in the secular world (the locus classicus is Deuteronomy 28). The course of history, as the Israelites were dominated and conquered by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians and Greeks, seemed to suggest that God was not fulfilling his end of the bargain, and to deal with the unsettling implications, two solutions were found. First, the fault was ascribed to the sinfulness of the Israelites, and if they reformed, God would restore his favor. Second, the prophets, who claimed to be speaking for God, came forth with various visions and dreams in which they described (often in rather obscure “mystical” language) the ultimate humiliation of the Lord’s (and the Israelites’) enemies and the triumph of his chosen people. The one text from 26 One may also term the ideas associated with the Last Days portrayed in the Apocalypse as “millenarianism” and “chiliasm,” but this terminology is not entirely apposite for the situation in Münster. The two terms are based respectively on Latin and Greek expressions for “one thousand years,” and refer to the thousand-year rule of Christ that is to follow the first defeat of Satan and at the end of which Satan will be finally defeated and the Last Judgment will take place. Though presumably the radicals in Münster saw themselves as preparing the way for Christ’s second coming, the emphasis was naturally on the battles against the godless that will precede his arrival, and the term “Apocalypticism” seems to describe this aspect better. 27 For a quick overview of the Münsterites’ apocalyptic views and the origins of these in the ideas of Hofman, see Kirchhoff (1985) 20–24.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 20

6/6/2007 2:38:13 PM

general introduction

21

early Christianity written in this tradition that made it into the canon of the New Testament is the Book of Apocalypse, whose author calls himself John. This author was identified in antiquity with the Gospel writer John, though the identification was disputed even then and is unlikely to be correct.28 In any case, the bizarre imagery of the book, with all its beasts and swords and its gripping (if unreal) picture of a final war between the forces of good and evil, had a strong affect on the mystically inclined throughout the Middle Ages.29 The vision in the Book of Apocalypse of the struggle between the pious and the wicked could be associated with various statements of Jesus’ in the Gospels which express hostility towards the wealthy (e.g., Matthew 19:23–24, Mark 10:23–25, Luke 18:24–25) and indicate an eventual inversion of the social order when people will be judged according to their religious merits (Matthew 19:30, Mark 10:31, Luke 13:30). Though the Book of Apocalypse stands on its own as a Christian work, its imagery calls to mind works of the Old Testament which either inspired the Apocalypse or were written under the inspiration of the same models, and the radicals informed their interpretation of the Apocalypse with such texts as Daniel 7, Ezekiel 9, and 2 Esdras 4. These violent images of a relentless and savage God (the Father) who protects his chosen people against their (and his) far more numerous (and wicked) foes had recently inspired Thomas Müntzer in his support of peasant attacks on the social order back in the Peasants’ War, and the same spirit infused the radicals of Münster (though the peculiarities of the situation in Münster would allow their escapades to last a bit longer than Müntzer’s). 7) Mimicry of the Bible. As good reformers who wished to return the Church to the pristine state of the Apostolic Age, the radicals naturally

28 In the earliest form of Christianity, some “Christians” still felt themselves to be close to the Jewish tradition, and this strain of Christianity is represented by both the Gospel of Matthew and the Apocalypse. Other Greek-speaking Christians distanced themselves from the Jewish background to Jesus and were receptive to Greek culture, notable examples of this being the Gospels of Luke (this tendency is also noticeable in Acts) and John. The obscure allegory of the Apocalypse is hardly compatible with the infl uence of Greek philosophical thought in the Gospel of John, which sets it apart from the other three canonical gospels. 29 The classic treatment is Cohn (1973). (This work is really a sociological study of the cultural settings that favored millenarian ideas and behavior, but he must perforce discuss the development of millenarian thought.) The Apocalypse did not appeal to more rationally inclined religious thinkers such as Erasmus and Luther (though their dislike of the work was based on rather different reasons: see Backus [2000] 3–11).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 21

6/6/2007 2:38:13 PM

22

general introduction

found much inspiration in the New Testament. To some extent, this is a variant on section 4 about accepting as valid only those practices that could be justified in the text of the Bible. In this case, however, the point is not to vet current practice against the apparent usage of the Bible, but to attempt to recreate the state of affairs that were thought to be laid out in the text. As already noted, Acts 4 seemed to validate direct inspiration of men through the Holy Spirit. Verses 32–37 were taken to mean that the followers of Christ should share their goods communally, and the radicals’ undertaking to confiscate the property of the faithful in Münster was one of the more shocking events to sixteenth-century (and later) sensibilities.30 Inspiration based on the New Testament was not out of the ordinary at a time when the cry of ad fontes led to various efforts to recapture the spirit of the Primitive Church (however interpreted). What is rather distinctive in the thought of the Münster radicals is the extent to which their emphasis on the Apocalypse caused them to dwell upon the Old Testament. This is perfectly understandable given that the Apocalypse overtly harkens back to the Old Testament by referring to the pious 144,000 as being raised from the twelve tribes of Israel (7:4–8) and describes the city that will descend from heaven after the final triumph over the godless as the “New Jerusalem” (21:2). As already noted, the Apocalypse is written after the model of various prophetic visions from the Old Testament, a circumstance that contributed to a natural inclination to interpret the events predicted by Apocalypse in terms of the story told of the Israelites in the Old Testament. The radicals seem to have taken the association of the pious in Apocalypse with the Israelites and their assumption that they were themselves the pious to its logical conclusion by conceiving of themselves as the modern embodiment of the Israelites. While it might be reasonable enough for Christians to view themselves as being comparable to the ancient Israelites by virtue of the fact that both are portrayed as having a special bond with God, the radicals took the comparison quite literally. One woman attempted to recreate the biblical story in which

30 And the fallacious notion that this religiously inspired attempt to establish a community without personal wealth was a precursor of modern communism led to much scholarly misinterpretation in East Germany (similar strains in the thought of Müntzer were handled in the same vein). For a treatment of the theoretical underpinning of the policy of communal property in Münster, see Stayer (1991) 123–138.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 22

6/6/2007 2:38:13 PM

general introduction

23

Judith saved a besieged Jewish town through the crafty murder of the enemy commander by sneaking out of besieged Münster in order to give the prince-bishop a poisoned garment (605–607D).31 King John also conceived of himself as a new King David and divided the defenders of the city into the “twelve tribes” (773D with notes). The cathedral yard was named Mt. Zion (cf. Apocalypse 14:1). The sign of the covenant that distinguished the 144,000 was equated with believer’s baptism. There was one more element of biblical imitation which undoubtedly went the furthest in branding the radicals as unredeemed perverts in contemporary thought, and this was polygamy.32 The introduction of the practice may have been motivated by the circumstance that there were far more women than men in the besieged city, and in contemporary thought a woman needed a man to look after her. In any case, the radicals justified it by the example of the Old Testament patriarchs (619D).33 2) Historical Background In Kerssenbrock’s narrative, the religious views of the radicals are comparatively unimportant (except to the extent that such issues are discussed in the diplomatic correspondence that forms a large part of Kerssenbrock’s story). His story concentrates on the political and military developments that led to the Anabaptist takeover in Münster and ultimately destroyed their rule. The following is meant as a short introduction to various aspects of this situation.

31 Citations ending with “D” refer to the marginal numbers in the translation (see the “Note on the text and notes,” p. xiii. 32 Kerssenbrock routinely portrays John of Leiden as a libertine satyr, as if the institution were a fraud concocted to satisfy his lust. 33 The potential peril of applying Old Testament precedents to contemporary usage had been pointed out a half millennium earlier by the English ecclesiastic Aelfric in his preface to a translation of part of the Book of Genesis that he made at the request of an important layman: “Now it seems to me, my friend, that this work is very dangerous for me or for any man to undertake, since I fear that if some foolish man reads this book or hears it read, he will think that he may live now under the New Law just as the Elder Fathers lived then in the period before the Old Law (i.e., the Pentateuch) was established or just men lived under Moses’ Law (another name for the Pentateuch).”

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 23

6/6/2007 2:38:13 PM

24

general introduction

a) Geography It is necessary to erase the borders of the modern (nation) states of the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, and Germany. All of these territories were regions within the Holy Roman Empire, and while the circumstances that would eventually lead to the establishment of these entities as autonomous states already existed at the time of the events in Münster, this was certainly not the situation at the time. First, all of these were basically areas in which Germanic dialectics were spoken.34 The low-lying territory along the North Sea and (very roughly speaking) to the west of the rivers Rhine and Ems may be neutrally described as the Low Countries.35 This region achieved some sort of conceptual unity through the acquisition in the fifteenth century of control over various counties and duchies in the area by the dukes of Burgundy (a branch of the French royal family). In 1477, the rash Duke Charles the Bold was killed in battle, leaving his many territories to his daughter Mary. Most of the Burgundian territory in what is now eastern France was lost, but Mary’s husband Maximilian, the son and heir of the Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III, retained control of the Burgundian holdings in the Low Countries. Though these territories remained distinct, there had been attempts to impose centralized oversight of the various territories under the rule of the dukes of Burgundy, and this inchoate unity was strengthened when the area remained loyal to Mary (the representatives would meet in a joint assembly known as the States General). In 1515, Maximilian’s grandson Charles (soon to become the Holy Roman Emperor) entered his majority in the Low Countries. Upon Charles’ abdication in 1555, his Low Country territories passed to his son Philip II of Spain, and the effects of the Reformation would lead to a revolt in the north, where a Calvinist republic was established in 1588. The south meanwhile remained under Habsburg control (first Spanish and then Austrian) until 1794. After the vicissitudes that attended the French Revolution and the Napoleonic hegemony, the old Habsburg

34 With the exception of French-speaking Wallonia at the south of Flanders (in modern Belgium). 35 This is basically an English version of the French term pays bas. “Netherlands” is the English equivalent of the Dutch “Nederlands,” which has become restricted in application to the Dutch Republic. The fact that the name of the province of Holland (only the most prominent of the provinces that constituted the new republic) was adopted in English as a popular designation of the Dutch Republic shows that there had not previously existed any self-evident term for the area.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 24

6/6/2007 2:38:14 PM

general introduction

25

territories were united under the king of the Netherlands in 1815, but in 1830 Belgium was established as a separate (Catholic) kingdom, and the grand duchy of Luxemburg was split between the two countries (a personal union with the royal house of the Netherlands ended in 1890 and the grand duchy acquired its own dynasty). Thus, the historical accident of Habsburg control of the area led to the establishment of a separate identity for the region. If not for this, the German speaking areas could today simply be regions of the German state without a distinct literary language of their own. The term “German language” causes much misunderstanding. The group of the ancient West Germanic languages consisted of a number of related dialects in central and northern Europe. Eventually, a form of southern (“High”) German became the accepted literary language of all Germany, and all the other varieties became socially inferior dialects, which are now mostly in the lamentable process of dying out. In the early sixteenth century, High German was beginning to gain its predominant position—this was the dialect of eastern central Germany, and had already begun to gain wide currency elsewhere in Germanspeaking territory, when Luther’s use of it for his infl uential Biblical translations and for his other writings gave it additional prestige in the Protestant north—but there was still a lively literary form of northern German known as Low German (Plattdeutsch), which was spoken (and written) all along the North Sea and the Baltic from the area of the northern Low Countries as far to the east as the German towns of Livonia, where Melchior Hofman began to preach. (Already at this time, written Low German began to adopt High German forms, and by the middle of the seventeenth century it had been supplanted by High German as the language of the educated elite.) One of the dialects of this area was Westphalian, the form of German used in the Münsterland. The modern Dutch language is the descendant of Old Low Franconian (Franconian is the name for the dialects of central Germany). Seemingly, this Franconian dialect intruded to the northwest into the Low Countries, and displaced Frisian (a variety of Low German). Thus, while Dutch had a slightly different origin from the Low German dialect of Westphalia, the Low Franconian language adopted certain characteristics of Low German, and in any case, unlike the other Franconian dialects, it did not participate in the so-called second (or High) German consonant shift, which is the primary distinction between the Low and the High German dialects. Thus, while there were certainly perceptible differences between the Westphalian dialect

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 25

6/6/2007 2:38:14 PM

26

general introduction

of Münster and the language of the Low Countries directly to the east, these were comparatively minor, and it is anachronistic to think that the present-day border between Germany and the Netherlands had any significance in the early sixteenth century. To people of the time, there would have been no thought of any inherent difference between the residents of the Münsterland and those of Holland or other Low Country regions where Anabaptist sentiments spread.36 The future histories of the Netherlands and Belgium lay far in the future, and the notion of the Dutch language as an independent language would have been meaningless.37 This is not to say that the Low Countries did not have certain peculiarities of their own. They were culturally far more subject to French infl uence, and the Sacramentarian tendencies of the 1520s that have already been remarked upon were to some extent at least the result of various pietistic movements that were characteristic of the fifteenth century. Nonetheless, in the early sixteenth century, the various territories that constituted the Habsburg possessions in the Low Countries were simply another part of the Empire, and this very similarity would contribute to the ease with which the Melchiorite movement of the Low Countries was so readily received in neighboring Münster. b) Decentralized Political Authority in the Holy Roman Empire The events of Münster played themselves out against the background of the political decentralization of the Holy Roman Empire. In the budding nation states of England and France and in the kingdoms of the Spanish peninsula, the monarchy had certainly suffered setbacks along the way, but the central authority had established its control over the

36 Note that Kerssenbrock seems to imply (122D) that Holland is a province of Germany. 37 Of course, the eventual development of Dutch as a national language of education and literature has led to the designation of its late medieval ancestor as “Middle Dutch” rather than “Middle Low Franconian.” If the Habsburg association had not led to the distinctive and independent development of the Low Countries, “Low Franconian” would simply be one more “dialect” of German that was being driven into extinction by High German. (Note that the English term “Dutch” is simply a deformation of deutsch, the German word for “German,” and in the Netherlands the language is known rather neutrally as “Nederlandisch.”) Naturally, none of this talk of what would have happened if the Low Countries had not gone their own way should be taken as in any way a disparagement of the present-day countries or their sometimes complicated linguistic situations. The point is that the present independent status of these regions should not be read into the early sixteenth century.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 26

6/6/2007 2:38:14 PM

general introduction

27

anarchic forces of local feudal territories. In Germany, the prolonged struggle of the house of Hohenstaufen against the papacy had resulted not simply in the destruction of the dynasty but also in the collapse of central control over the vast number of territories—large and small, hereditary and ecclesiastical—into which the Empire was divided. These local authorities assumed responsibility for such government as was exercised, and the emperor had no direct control except to the extent that he himself was a territorial magnate (Charles V held the most expansive collection of territories within the Empire).38 While the emperor could issue edicts on his own and preside over the Imperial diet (assembly of the princes and cities who were directly subordinate to him) and pass laws through it, he had no ability to enforce such laws without the cooperation of the local powers. It was this situation that first granted Luther protection with the electoral duke of Saxony, then led to the establishment of various forms of reformed religion in the local territories. It also contributed to the unique circumstances that allowed the Melchiorite takeover of Münster. In any case, at the very time when the central monarchies of England, France and the Spanish peninsula were finalizing their suppression of independent feudal powers, the religious strife of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries would thwart all efforts to establish a central imperial authority and see the powers of the early modern state fall into the hands of the local powers. Because the various local authorities carried out functions that would be associated with “sovereignty” in modern terms, they engaged in “diplomacy” with each other, and at times met in local assemblies to deal with common affairs and to work out their differences. Kerssenbrock’s history is filled with this sort of correspondence between various cities and princes, and with the meetings that were held in order to aid the prince-bishop in his war against Münster.39 c) Ecclesiastical Princes One of the peculiarities of Germany was the large number of large territories that were controlled by prelates of the traditional Church. 38 In addition to the original Habsburg lands in the southwest, he was duke of Austria (which was governed by his brother Ferdinand), and from his Burgundian inheritance he received Franche-Comté to the west of modern Switzerland, and the various duchies and counties of the Low Countries. 39 For a discussion of the impact of the events in Münster on neighboring territories, see Haude (2000).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 27

6/6/2007 2:38:14 PM

28

general introduction

In the distant past, the emperors had exercised power through bishops and other prelates appointed by them, and this practice had led to the prolonged Investiture Confl ict in which the emperors opposed the papal claim to the exclusive right to bestow episcopal positions. The emperors had long since lost control of episcopal appointments, and in the case of Münster, the chapter of the cathedral had the right to appoint the new bishop, who then had to secure confirmation from the pope (at a high price, which had to be paid by his temporal subjects). The cathedral chapter (canons, who were known in German as the Domherren or “cathedral lords” but whom Kerssenbrock refers to as dominici domini or the “Lord’s Lords”) was controlled by members of the local nobility, and they would elect someone of the highest noble rank as the bishop, who was entitled “prince-bishop” by virtue of his control over both secular and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Thus, not only was the central ecclesiastical administration controlled by noblemen, but the prince-bishop himself did not even have to be a priest (Francis of Waldeck did not get around to being consecrated as a priest until 1543, eleven years after his election by the cathedral chapter). d) Governmental “Authority” There is much talk in documents quoted by Kerssenbrock of what he translates as the “magistrate” (magistratus), which is his Latin term for the German “Obrigkeit” (Oberkeit). The German term is an abstraction meaning “superiority” and signifies the person or persons who in traditional medieval political thought have “authority” over their “subjects” (whether in ecclesiastical or secular matters). The Latin term shares with the German original the peculiarity that it can refer to this position in the abstract (“magistracy”) and to the individual who exercises this power (“governor” or “ruler”). The traditional term in English used to render this notion in religious contexts is “magistrate,” but since this has elective connotations, the term would cause confusion when used of the prince-bishop (particularly when the elective officials of the city council of Münster are so frequently referred to). “Authority” gives some sense of the German term, but as an abstract term for the persons exercising such authority, it is usually in the plural, which again would cause confusion in reference to the prince-bishop. “Government” is the term used in the translation when the term seemingly signifies the position without specific reference to an individual exercising it. In the latter situation, “governor” would seem the logical translation,

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 28

6/6/2007 2:38:14 PM

general introduction

29

but unfortunately this term would be inappropriate for the members of the city council. Hence, it has been necessary to resort to two different translations: “ruler” when it seems clear that the prince-bishop is meant, and “member of the government” when the powers of the city council are intended. e) Ecclesiastical Politics under Charles V Charles V became emperor in 1517, and as the position of emperor had been created in 800 by Charlemagne to carry on the powers of the later Roman emperors, who among other things were obligated to maintain the orthodoxy of the Christian world, he took his duties to uphold the traditional Church and its practices very seriously.40 The wave of popularity that swept across Germany when Luther challenged the authority of the pope was due not simply to the immediate issue but was a refl ection of a century of German discontent about papal interference in the Church in Germany (and about the funds that fl owed from Germany to Rome).41 Various circumstances prevented Charles from dealing directly with Luther himself, but the result of Luther’s appearance at the Diet of Worms in 1521 was that Luther was placed under Imperial ban as a heretic, and an edict was issued that prohibited the further dissemination of his views. Because of the protection extended to Luther by the elector of Saxony, the ban had no effect (apart from obstructing Luther’s ability to travel), and the edict did little to thwart the spread of reforming ideas. Charles himself left Germany in 1521 to secure his tenuous hold on his Spanish crowns and then to engage in a prolonged war against the king of France, and he apparently did not realize the extent to which reformist religious thought was taking root in Germany and undermining the old Church. He wished to convene an ecumenical council of the Church to deal with the admitted faults in the Church while at the same time maintaining its unity. Like his predecessors since the end of the Great Schism in 1417, Pope Clement VII was completely opposed to the convocation of such a council as a threat

For a convenient treatment of Charles’ religious policy, see Blockmans (2002). For a short introduction on the broad range of secular issues that contributed to the widespread popularity of Luther’s basically religious disputes with Rome and for a collection of contemporary texts illustrating the discontent caused by these issues, see Strauss (1971). 40 41

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 29

6/6/2007 2:38:14 PM

30

general introduction

to papal supremacy (the theory of conciliarism held that councils were superior to the pope). Eventually, in 1526 a new diet was convened in Speyer, where it was decided that in anticipation of such a council the various member states of the Empire should behave in such a way as they could justify before God and the emperor. In effect, the attempt to enforce the edict of 1521 against religious innovation was abandoned, since leaving control over the course of religious reform to the local administrations ensured that certain authorities would institute reforms that would be unacceptable to the traditional Church. And so it happened. In 1526, Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who would be a mainstay of Protestant leadership for years and would figure prominently in the disputes between the city of Münster and its prince-bishop, instituted a reform like that of electoral Saxony, and in the late 1520s many cities in southern Germany and princely states in the north followed suit, and further reformations took place in the early 1530s. When Charles had set out for Spain, he left his brother Ferdinand to act as his regent in Germany (Ferdinand also received direct control over Hapsburg possessions in southern Germany and Austria). A devout Catholic like his brother, Ferdinand was determined to stamp out opposition to the traditional Church, and in 1529, before Charles’ return, he convened a new diet at Speyer. Here he demanded that in light of the recent rapprochement of the emperor and the pope and as a means of facilitating the convocation of an ecumenical council, all religious innovation was to be halted, and any bishops whose authority had been undermined by the recent reforms were to be restored to their traditional standing.42 The Catholic majority in the diet duly passed an appropriate law, but five princes and the delegations of fourteen cities “protested” that the unanimous resolution passed at Speyer in 1526 could not be repealed by a mere majority, and that they were therefore not bound by the new law. This was the origin of the term “Protestant,” but any chance of unity on the part of state-supported reformers disappeared in 1529, when a meeting between Luther and Zwingli that had been arranged in Marburg by Landgrave Philip reached agreement on most points but broke down when Luther absolutely refused any compromise on the issue of the Lord’s Supper. (Regardless, neither Lutherans nor Zwinglians would have tolerated Anabaptists.)

42 For a summary of the wrangling about religion in the diets of 1529–1532, see Holborn (1959) 208–219.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 30

6/6/2007 2:38:15 PM

general introduction

31

By the late 1520s, Charles V, who had brought his war against France to an end, turned his attention back to Germany. On the one hand, he wished to have his brother accepted as German King, now that he had himself been officially crowned as Holy Roman Emperor by the pope in 1529, and he also needed assistance against the Turks, who had resumed their depredations in Austria in the same year (they had overwhelmed the kingdom of Hungary at Mohács in 1526, and that crown now fell to Ferdinand). On the other hand, Charles was determined to thwart the astonishing spread of heresy in Germany by reaching an agreement on reform in a narrow sense and thereby restoring the unity of the traditional Church. To achieve his ends, yet another diet was convened in Augsburg in 1530, with the emperor himself in attendance. Melanchthon appeared as Luther’s representative and submitted the “Confession of Augsburg,” which laid out twentyeight propositions to represent the Lutheran position. This confession was drawn up in such a way as to minimize the differences between the Lutherans and Catholics (while distinguishing the former from Zwinglians and Anabaptists), but even so it was rejected as unacceptable by Charles’ Catholic theologians, who issued a “Confutation.” Charles then called upon the Protestants to return to the Catholic fold, and threatened to act against them if they refused. The Protestant princes left, and with two exceptions the Protestant cities refused to acquiesce. The final “recess” (concluding resolution) of the diet then returned to the uncompromising position of the edict of Worms of 1521, banning all innovation of any variety, demanding a restoration of confiscated ecclesiastical property, and instituting censorship. The Protestants had until April 15, 1531 to comply. In response, the six Protestant princes and ten such cities (soon joined by four more) formed a defensive alliance known as the Schmalkaldic league. There was some friction between the Lutheran adherents and the Zwinglian cities of the south, but the alliance would bring unity to the Protestant side in their confl icts with the emperor and his various Catholic allies over the next fifteen years. Zwingli’s death in battle in 1531 weakened the infl uence of his adherents, and in 1532 John of Wieck tried unsuccessfully to persuade Münster to join the league as a Lutheran city. At the next diet, which met in Nuremberg in 1532, the emperor was in dire need of help against the Turkish threat, so he was willing to make concessions to the Protestants. But instead of concessions on specific points, the Protestants wanted permanent protection against the

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 31

6/6/2007 2:38:15 PM

32

general introduction

provisions of the Diet of Augsburg of 1530, and now it was the turn of the Catholic members to object. The upshot was the “Nuremberg Stillstand (truce),” which suspended all litigation against the Protestant members who were present (plus the cities of Nuremberg and Ansbach) until an ecumenical council was convened or the next diet met. This was the prevailing legal situation when the strife between the city of Münster and its prince-bishop turned violent in 1533. f ) Warfare in the Empire One aspect of public life of sixteenth-century Germany that may seem puzzling is the right of the local ruler to raise troops on his own authority. By virtue of this authority, the prince-bishop of Münster would gather an army against the rebels in the city. The later fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries saw a swift development in military organization, as the spread of small firearms led to semi-professional infantry armies (in place of the knighthood and ad hoc feudal levies of the previous period). The extensive use of mercenaries began when the highly effective infantrymen of Switzerland began selling their services in the later fifteenth century; soon similar troops were raised in Germany, and these were known as Landsknechts (termed simply milites or “soldiers” by Kerssenbrock).43 The prince-bishop incurred huge expenses maintaining his army (the spiraling costs of military activity proved to be an ongoing headache for earlier modern rulers such as Charles V who wished to engage in prolonged campaigning), and he was soon forced to seek the financial support of neighboring princes, who thereby gained control over the operation against the city. g) Role of the City Councils in Establishing Reformed Churches The city of Münster as a corporate institution (i.e., the government elected by the citizens of the community known as “burghers”) played a prominent role in bringing about the situation that enabled the Melchiorites to take over the city, and this was the unintended consequence of the city council’s decision to follow the lead of other

43 The classic treatment of the independent officers who raised such troops on behalf of “sovereigns” who pay them for this service is Redlich (1964). For a handy (if dated) treatment of the Landsknechts in our period, see Oman (1937) 74–88.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 32

6/6/2007 2:38:15 PM

general introduction

33

cities in exercising their internal autonomy by setting up their own reformed religious establishments. The political decentralization of the Holy Roman Empire allowed a number of cities to play a crucial role in the establishment of non-Catholic religious practice by instituting reforms under the auspices of the local municipal government. Naturally, these city churches adhered to magisterial beliefs (mainly Lutheran, though also reformed). It was only the Imperial free cities (e.g., Augsburg, Nuremberg, Strasburg) that could act on their own without outside interference. A city that was subject to the jurisdiction of a lord, whether secular or temporal, could act only to the extent that the autonomy granted to it in the past permitted or that its prince allowed. The cities that arose in the later Middle Ages acquired rights to internal autonomy (known as liberties or privileges) that were generally won as a result of prolonged strife with their lords and guarded with jealous tenacity against later encroachment. At the time of the religious foment caused by Luther’s dispute with the Catholic hierarchy, there was much resentment against both ecclesiastical privilege, which often entailed the avoidance of municipal taxes and claims to revenue from the community, and the economic activities of monasteries, which were taken to be harmful to the well-being of the burghers. Not only did such feelings of resentment contribute to the popularity of Luther’s challenge to traditional religious practices, but these can clearly be seen to play a major role in the early attempts to institute church reform in Münster. Kerssenbrock does recognize the difference between the Lutherans and the radicals who eventually seized control of the city, but in light of his hostility towards the Lutherans and his tendency to view the efforts of the city council to institute a Lutheran reform as merely a precursor to the Anabaptist regime, he does not clearly distinguish the very different motives and aims of the Lutheran city council from the mid 1520s until the Anabaptist takeover on the one hand and those of the radicals on the other. In fact, the city council managed to win the prince-bishop’s acquiescence in its internal religious reforms with the settlement that was reached in February 1533, but, as Kerssenbrock gleefully notes (379D), the subsequent takeover of the city allowed the prince-bishop to repudiate the agreement by right of conquest. To some extent, the internal developments in Münster can be seen as a struggle between the Lutherans and the radicals, but Kerssenbrock does not really see things that way. In any case, the cause of reform became intimately connected with that of the privileges and autonomy of the city of Münster.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 33

6/6/2007 2:38:15 PM

34

general introduction

h) Role of the Guilds in Municipal Politics A very prominent role in the religious strife in Münster was played by the guilds (and Kerssenbrock’s honest portrayal of this role in his history would cause him much grief ). Though the medieval guilds bear some superficial resemblance to modern labor unions, the differing economic situation makes them fundamentally different.44 Whereas unions attempt to organize a labor force in opposition to the management of large-scale unitary economic concerns (whether major corporations or governmental institutions), the guilds’ main purpose was to organize all levels of a given economic profession within the framework of artisan production, with each guild including all the men engaged in a given city. At the top of the guild were the master craftsmen who had set themselves up as independent operators, and lower down were the journeymen and apprentices who had entered the trade and wished to become masters themselves. The guilds regulated the practice of the trade, and prevented outsiders from engaging in it. Since the guilds were corporate bodies that were meant to look after the interests of their members, it is not surprising that they came to play an important role in the public life of economically prominent cities. Given the fact that economic grievances formed an element in the objections to the established Church, the guilds were often enthusiastic supporters of reform. Not only were these grievances prominent in the earlier attempts at church reform in Münster, but concerns about such matters are still perceptible in the decrees of the Anabaptist regime. i) Estates of the Bishopric of Münster While the story of the Anabaptist radicals centers around the city of Münster, from the point of view of the prince-bishop it involved his entire diocese. The wealth and fortifications of the city allowed it to stand up to the prince-bishop in a way that was not feasible for the smaller towns, but the latter were affected by the religious turmoil of the times, and did show a certain inclination to reform (though this was suppressed without too much difficulty). In any case, the bishop in his capacity as secular ruler had to deal with the “estates” of the diocese, that is, with those entities who had traditional claims to direct interac-

44 For a general treatment of medieval guilds and their importance in municipal politics, see Nichols (1997) 203–257.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 34

6/6/2007 2:38:15 PM

general introduction

35

tion with their overlord—apart from the diocesan capital in Münster and the other recognized towns, the nobility of the diocese acted as a corporate body in relation to the prince-bishop—and these groups met as separate estates in the assemblies of the diocese. For the most part, the nobility (who had a vested interest in the traditional order through their control of the cathedral chapter) supported the prince-bishop in his efforts to bring the city to heel. 3) Kerssenbrock and his Historical Work a) Life of Kerssenbrock Herman of Kerssenbrock (Hermann von Kerssenbroch/Kerssenbrock) came from a minor noble family that can be traced back to the thirteenth century.45 His father Gerlach apparently had a certain aversion to marriage, in that he had two relationships of concubinage (i.e., the situation in which a man and woman permanently cohabited and acted as “spouses” without undergoing the ecclesiastical rite of marriage). Of the first concubine were born Herman and his brother Bernard, and of the second (Gerlach’s cook) two sons and three daughters (plus two legitimates daughters after Gerlach eventually married his concubine).46 Kerssenbrock’s date of birth is unknown. When relating his participation in the armed resistance to the Anabaptists in February 1534 he was still a boy (adhuc puer), but was old enough to follow his landlord into battle (though unfamiliarity with gunfire made him hide after an initial volley).47 Regardless of his apparently illegitimate birth, Kerssenbrock styles himself at the start of the Anabaptist history as a member of

45 The facts of Kerssenbrock’s life are laid out in Detmer (1899–1900) 1*–89* and 200*–264* (the asterisks are used in Detmer’s edition for the separate pagination of his introduction). 46 These familial relationships are laid out in a much later legal case, in which Henry and his brother intervened on behalf of their father’s later children (referred to as halfsiblings). Upon the death of Gerlach, his brothers dispossessed the children of their father’s estate (the males were barred from inheriting by virtue of their illegitimacy, and the females, whether legitimate or not, could not inherit in any case). Nothing is explicitly said of Henry and his brother’s legitimacy, but their lack of standing as heirs suggests that they must have born of an earlier concubine. (The upshot of the case was that the uncles were granted possession, and the sons by the second concubine had to settle for some monetary compensation.) 47 See 491–492D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 35

6/6/2007 2:38:16 PM

36

general introduction

the knighthood. Perhaps he was born around 1520, and throughout his life he remained a staunch Catholic.48 Nothing is known of Kerssenbrock’s boyhood. He was an eyewitness to certain events in Paderborn (a city to the east of Münster) in 1532 (118D); what he was doing there is not stated. By the next year, he was living in Münster (he reports his presence at a number of events involving the Anabaptists). As already noted, he is attested in Münster during the armed resistance to the Anabaptists, when he attended his “landlord” (hospes) Dr. John Wesseling. Why Kerssenbrock was residing with the good doctor is not stated, but apparently, his whole family was living with Wesseling. When the Anabaptist Henry Krechting moved to Münster in February, part of Wesseling’s residence was commandeered for him (510D), and by the time that the Anabaptists expelled those who refused to undergo believer’s baptism on February 28, 1534, Wesseling had already left for Herford and sent a letter advising his wife and “our family” to join him there (539D). What happened to Kerssenbrock in the next few years is unknown, but presumably he returned to the city after its capture by the prince-bishop and resumed his studies.49 In 1538, Kerssenbrock matriculated at the University of Cologne, and completed the requirements for a baccalaureate in the arts two

48 Detmar quotes a poem printed in a collection of elegies issued after July 5, 1585 as stating that Kerssenbrock “completed twice eight lustra plus two years” (annis cum binis supplevit lustra bis octo). The Latin term lustrum signified the five-year period between censuses in the Roman Republic, and thus became simply a designation for that period of time. By this reckoning, the poem would have put Kerssenbrock’s age at eightytwo (the use of “twice” to double a number is simply a metrically convenient way of expressing certain figures in Classical Latin poetry), which is clearly too high (he would then have been born in 1503 and thus about thirty-one in 1534, a year in which he later indicated that he was “still a boy”). Detmer (1899–1900) 4* n. 3 merely asserts that lustrum “can only signify a period of four years here.” This would conveniently reduce the number to sixty-six, which would put his date of birth in 1519 and make him fifteen in 1534. Unfortunately, wishes are not horses, and the significance of a term cannot be changed from its normal meaning for no other reason than convenience. Presumably, the poem is simply wrong. 49 Detmer (1899–1900) 5* takes it that Kerssenbrock moved to Münster for further education. In n. 1, he supports this idea by noting that Kerssenbrock refers to a friend in an anecdote as his “companion in studies” (meus contubernalis et in re literaria comilito, 503D), which presumably means no more than that they were friends at school, but the later reference to the presence of Kerssenbrock’s family in the Wesseling residence must mean that the Kerssenbrocks lived in Münster, and that Kerssenbrock’s presence in Paderborn the previous year was most likely not the result of any permanent residence there. Records from the University of Cologne concerning Kerssenbrock during the period 1538–1540 describe him as being “of Lemgo,” a town to the southeast of Münster.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 36

6/6/2007 2:38:16 PM

general introduction

37

years later. His activities over the next few years are unknown, but as he styles himself as a master of the arts and of the laws (i.e., civil and canon law) at the start of the Anabaptist history, he presumably acquired these honors at some university (seemingly not Cologne). In 1545, he was (again?) in Cologne when he dedicated a Latin poem about the Anabaptist events of Münster to the prince-bishop. He joined the new school founded in 1546 by the duke of Cleves-Jülich-Berg, but soon left (perhaps because of the school’s Lutheran affiliations) to join the faculty of the school at Hamm, where he served from 1548–1550. In 1550, he was appointed as the rector of the cathedral school at Münster (the school of St. Paul, which had been founded in 1500), and he held this post for the next quarter century. A surviving syllabus of the school’s program for all grades shows that while instruction concentrated mostly on acquiring Greek and Latin, there was a definite element of Catholic indoctrination. His interest in the religious element of pedagogy is indicated by the fact that when Bishop John III of Hoya was in the process of implementing the reforms instituted by the Council of Trent, he had Kerssenbrock draw up plans for the corresponding educational reforms (no details of these plans are known, and the death of the prince-bishop in 1574 caused the plans for reform to be dropped).50 Kerssenbrock’s dispute with the city council about his historical work (see below) caused him to move away from Münster in 1575, when he became rector of the cathedral school in Paderborn. There it was unclear whether the Catholic or the Protestant faction in the city would prevail, but by 1578 it was clear that the latter were becoming predominant. Given his staunch Catholicism and his efforts to uphold the Catholic faith in his educational program, it is not surprising that

50 As already noted, Charles V desired an ecumenical council to be called in order to quash religious strife and restore the unity of the Church. As it turned out, a council was eventually summoned to Trent in northern Italy, but its purpose was rather different from Charles’ intention. So far from bridging the gaps between Protestant and Catholic thought, the Council of Trent (1542–1564) rejected challenges to traditional dogma and practice and hardened the Catholic position, paving the way for the attempt to regain Protestant territory known as the Counter Reformation. As part of this effort to revitalize the traditional Church, a number of decisions were passed with the purpose of raising the admittedly unsatisfactory training of the secular clergy. Long after the recapture of Münster back in 1535, a considerable Lutheran tendency remained, and Bishop John III instituted a visitation (inspection) of the entire bishopric in the early 1570s. The proposed educational reforms were an element in the effort to implement the reforms laid out in the decisions of the Council of Trent. (It was not until the election of a new bishop in 1585 that this was finally brought about.)

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 37

6/6/2007 2:38:16 PM

38

general introduction

Kerssenbrock felt compelled to move on once more. His new position was as school rector (1578–1582) in the town of Werl. In 1582, he became the rector of the cathedral school in Osnabrück. This city had a strong Protestant element, so that even though the school was run by the Catholic cathedral, Kerssenbrock’s contract specifically provided that the pupils were free to follow Catholicism or the Augsburg (i.e., Lutheran) faith (they were to go to their parish church for worship during school hours). Presumably, Kerssenbrock was bored in the small town of Werl, and was willing, despite his strong commitment to the Catholic Church, to accept restrictions on the religious element of his educational program in order to work at a large establishment. He abided by these terms, and there were no Protestant complaints about the educational program of the school. He was still serving as rector when his health took a sudden turn for the worse, and he died on July 9, 1580. Kerssenbrock was married twice. By his first wife Katharina (last name not known), he had five sons who survived to adulthood. Katharina was dead by late 1573, and Kerssenbrock next married Elsebein Judefeld, who was a close relation of the Caspar Judefeld who played a significant role in the events of 1533 as a Lutheran burgher master. She had at least one son, and they both survived Kerssenbrock.51 b) Kerssenbrock’s Legal Troubles Arising from the Anabaptist History By the spring of 1573, Kerssenbrock had decided to publish his work.52 The city council had the legal obligation to approve the printing of books, but he approached a local printer about an edition of the work without the council’s authorization. When the council learned of this, they explicitly prohibited the printer from undertaking the job. It is not clear what Kerssenbrock’s motives were in this surreptitious procedure (perhaps he foresaw the sort of opposition to the work that eventually arose), but his actions certainly suggest a desire on his part to get the book published without allowing the council to vet it first. Once he was thwarted in Münster, he sent a copy to a printer in Cologne. When the council got wind of this, it called him in to ask if he had described the city’s defenses and referred to individuals by name. To satisfy the

For the details and evidence, see Huyskens (1904). The facts of the dispute about the work’s publication are laid out in great detail by Detmer (1899–1900) 90*–200*. 51 52

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 38

6/6/2007 2:38:16 PM

general introduction

39

council, he produced one third of a second copy of the work that he had kept in his own possession, and the council soon decided that it did not like what it saw and demanded that he halt the printing in Cologne and produce the manuscript which he had sent there. Now, in addition to the council’s objections, the patricians (hereditary municipal office holders) complained that he had insulted them by indicating that they did not belong to the bishopric’s knighthood (a point of contention), and the guilds accused him of having defamed them in his unfavorable characterization of their activities in his introduction. Kerssenbrock tried to conceal the Cologne copy by handing it over to Goswin of Raesfeld, a canon of the cathedral, but after prolonged and rancorous negotiations, he finally turned it over to the council in September. (First, however, a copy was transcribed and retained by the chapter.) The council had promised under surety to return it to him within a month, but kept the work for months, much to Kerssenbrock’s indignation (he threatened legal action). By the end of April 1574, the city’s syndic (legal advisor and spokesman) turned in a memorandum about the content of Kerssenbrock’s work, but the council continued to do nothing. In May, the complaints of the patricians and the guilds were repeated, and the council decided to seek outside legal advice to determine what courses of action were available, and delegated the matter to a commission. In September, Kerssenbrock again requested the return of his manuscripts, which the council had retained for a year, and was once more refused. He then secured from the chapter the loan of the copy that had been made of the Cologne manuscript in the summer of 1573, and surreptitiously began to have further transcriptions made. On October 31, the city council solicited the legal advice of two jurists of the legal faculty of the University of Marburg.53 On the basis of the information provided by the council, the jurists in their report of December 15 completely sided with the council in their criticisms of the work (which included those of the patricians and guilds), and rejected any suggestion that it was inappropriate for the council to act as judge in a matter concerning their own interests, on the grounds that the public good of the community was at stake. The jurists indicated 53 With the introduction of the complicated procedures of Roman law in Germany in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, it became common practice for local courts (often staffed by officials who lacked legal training) to refer doubtful issues to established legal authorities such as legal faculties at universities.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 39

6/6/2007 2:38:16 PM

40

general introduction

that Kerssenbrock should be compelled to produce any copies through the imposition of a heavy fine, and advised that to avoid the difficulties involved in his expected appeal, he should be arrested. The council happily paid the fee for this unbiased advice, and asked the jurists the further question of what exact steps the council would be justified in taking against Kerssenbrock.54 In return for a further fee, the jurists judiciously responded in January 1535 that since Kerssenbrock’s actions were tantamount to lèse-majesty (treason)—strictly speaking, as an official of the cathedral chapter, he should have been immune to the city’s jurisdiction in this regard—he should be beheaded.55 Armed with this daunting weapon, the council summoned Kerssenbrock on February 5, and demanded that he admit to nine points indicating defective passages in his work (this was the first time that the exact charges were laid before him, though he had repeatedly requested this information). He asked for a delay to allow himself to prepare his defense, and when this request was denied, he began to reply to the charges on the spot. With this, he was arrested and imprisoned. The same day, the syndic came to advise him of the possibility of execution, and Kerssenbrock gave way, agreeing to admit to his errors and to oblige himself to return all outstanding copies of the work. He was then released. The next day, he delivered some unfinished copies, and on February 7, he again appeared before the council and admitted to and retracted the following errors, which were laid out by the syndic: 1) Describing the fortifications of the city, including walls, ditches and bulwarks, with measurements,56 2) Revealing the council’s secrets, including its method of selection and the distribution and function of various offices,57 3) Derogating from the authority and jurisdiction of the city council in his account of the lower secular court in that he ascribed the whole court to the prince-bishop and designated the judges appointed by 54 The jurists had initially received ten thalers for their efforts, but in handing over their duly considered advice they asked for a further seventy on account of the wideranging nature of their deliberations. Naturally, there can be no question that in its decision to accede to these requests the city council was infl uenced by the favorable nature of the advice! 55 The new consultation cost another forty-five thalers. 56 See Chapter Four of Kerssenbrock’s Introduction. 57 See 106–107D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 40

6/6/2007 2:38:16 PM

general introduction

41

the city as assessors, though the truth was otherwise and the judges were designated as iudices civitatis (“city judges”), and the prince of the bishopric had long had a dispute with the council about this and the matter had nonetheless been passed down through long tradition,58 Similarly misrepresenting the appeals from the lower court to the council, as if these were a method of remitting the matter for consultation rather than proper appeals, and thereby confusing the order of instances,59 Attributing too much privilege to the cathedral chapter, the Monastery Across-the-River and the Bispinghof, thereby derogating from the authority and jurisdiction of the council, as if the monastery had its own privileges and a right of asylum, though this is undocumented, as if the power over all the property everywhere in Münster were subject to the control of the chapter of the cathedral and the Wordtgelt indicated that ownership of the real estate within the city belonged to the chapter, and as if the Bispinghof too possessed an immunity that exempted its owner from all civil impositions,60 Writing wickedly and at times inaccurately about the restitution of the city (i.e., the attempt to regain the city’s traditional privileges, which had in part been abrogated by the prince-bishop upon the city’s capture) and about the policy of the council at that time, and reporting that the council opposed the aldermen, the guild masters, and the common citizenry in the attempt to recover their liberty, which could readily cause disturbances in the future,61 Writing uncivilly and maliciously about the customs of the city, especially carnival, cookie baking, and the horseback procession, which could bring the city into disrepute among outsiders,62 Offending the government in other passages by describing the practice of the freigrave’s court and the presentation of livings and of ecclesiastical benefices, and slanderously naming indiscriminately certain families and clans that are still alive as factious, seditious

4)

5)

6)

7) 8)

58 59 60

61D.

See 93–95D, 106D. See 94D. For the asylum, see 55DK, for the Wordtgelt, see 12D, for the Bispinghof, see

61 For the dispute about the role of the guilds in the city’s constitution after the recapture by the bishop, see 900–947D. 62 For these customs, see 82–88D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 41

6/6/2007 2:38:16 PM

42

general introduction and criminal, though in fact they should not be held responsible for the Anabaptism if the facts were examined carefully.63

As soon as Kerssenbrock agreed to these terms, a spokesman for the patricians appeared and accused him of disparaging the patricians by treating them as a separate body from the knighthood.64 The council backed up these assertions and told Kerssenbrock that he had to leave any such assertions out of his work. Representatives of the guilds now attacked him for calling the Schohaus (guildhall) a “house of Satan” and for asserting that their opinions were sewed together so tightly that even the council could not untie them, which defamed the aldermen and guild masters, who had had no intention of starting a disturbance.65 Once again, the council upheld the criticisms lodged against Kerssenbrock, and he gave in but claimed that he had been speaking only of the period of Anabaptism. Once he agreed to revision and correction of the work as dictated by the council, the session was over. In April, the council once more demanded that he deliver copies of the work then in other people’s hands, but before the council could deal with his inability to carry out this impossible task (it postponed the matter a few times because of other business), Kerssenbrock left the city (for his new position as rector of the school in Paderborn). This is not the place for an extensive discussion of the substance of the complaints lodged against Kerssenbrock, but a few comments are in order.66

63 For the (to Kerssenbrock) offensive leniency of the court, see 107D, for the giving of ecclesiastical benefices to minors (even infants), see 108D. As for the charge of slandering some members of families as Anabaptists, the council never provided any concrete examples, but presumably the descendants of some of those involved in the events of 1533–34 claimed that while their ancestors may have been on the Lutheran side, they had not supported the Anabaptists, contrary to Kerssenbrock’s presentation of events (see below for his inclination to hold the Lutherans responsible for bringing about the situation that allowed the Anabaptist takeover). 64 See 10–109D. 65 See 77D. 66 Detmer (1899–1900) 137*–197* discusses the charges individually at length, examining their historical justification in instances of disputes regarding privileges and jurisdictional confl icts. For what it is worth, Detmer is clearly inclined to give Kerssenbrock the benefit of the doubt and to depreciate the concerns of the council.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 42

6/6/2007 2:38:17 PM

general introduction

43

1)

Kerssenbrock objected that the city council had in fact recently voted an engraver a sum of money as thanks for his copper engraving of the city, which shows the city’s defenses, and in any case claimed that he described the defenses in general terms. A perusal of the relevant section shows that he did in fact discuss the fortifications in some detail, and while it is unlikely that some enemy would have drawn up a plan of assault merely on the basis of his description, the very story of the capture of the city in 1535 shows how small pieces of information could be very helpful. The extent to which the safety of the city was still felt in the sixteenth century to depend upon its walls should not be underestimated. 2) The claim about the elections and the functions of the officials seems rather contrived. This information could hardly have been a secret. 3–4) The status of the city court was a longstanding bone of contention between the city and the prince-bishop, and while Kerssenbrock’s account is fairly neutral in its presentation of the facts, it could certainly be seen as supporting the prince-bishop’s position. 5) The ecclesiastical claims of exemption from municipal jurisdiction were a source of dispute throughout the later Middle Ages, and it is hardly surprising that the city council took offense at Kerssenbrock’s statements about such exemptions in Münster, even if his statements were mostly neutral description. 6) It is certainly true that the city council is portrayed as opposing the restoration of the guilds in the city of Münster in the attempts to revive the city’s autonomy after its capture by the prince-bishop in 1535, but in this section Kerssenbrock is following his anonymous source virtually verbatim (see below). This seems to be an instance of blaming the messenger for the message, the council wishing to hush up its previous opposition to the guilds. 7) In describing certain raucous local customs, Kerssenbrock exhibits a schoolmasterly disdain for the exuberance of youth, but once again, he hardly deserved censure if his description is accurate. 8) The council took as aspersions on its administration Kerssenbrock’s (rather mildly expressed or even merely implicit) complaints that the city court had shown itself to be disinclined to hang convicts, and that the city sometimes appointed minors to ecclesiastical benefices in its control. Again, it boils down to a question of whether Kerssenbrock was accurate, and there seems to be no

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 43

6/6/2007 2:38:17 PM

44

general introduction

reason to doubt him. As for the additional charge that with his blanket condemnations of families he accused of complicity in Anabaptism certain individuals who were in fact opposed to it, the lack of any details makes it impossible to evaluate this charge, but it sounds like another instance of people wishing to hush up what they would prefer not to hear. 9) The patricians had long attempted to associate themselves with the knighthood and to distinguish themselves from the rest of the burghers of Münster, and they felt very strongly about these claims. During the session of the council in which Kerssenbrock recanted his views, a representative of the patricians angrily stated that Kerssenbrock should thank the council for saving his life, because otherwise (presumably if the council were not present) Kerssenbrock would already have had his head split open. Once more, Kerssenbrock rather neutrally noted the patricians’ claims, which could be taken by partisans as implicitly rejecting them. 10) As Kerssenbrock pointed out, his remarks about the guilds’ obstreperous behavior towards the council and their responsibility for the Anabaptist takeover refer to that period of time specifically and should not be taken as aspersions on their present attitude. Just as the council did not wish to be reminded of its earlier opposition to the restoration of the guilds, so too did the guilds wish to forget their previous behavior. Overall, it would seem that Kerssenbrock’s offenses mainly consisted not of telling falsehoods but of saying things that various people did not wish to hear. The only really substantive charge was that of revealing secrets about the city’s defenses, but his account did not say much that would not have been obvious to a casual observer, and in one instance he passes over a detail on the grounds that it would be best not to reveal it (25D). Some of the accusations (such as the objection to his account of local customs) give the appearance of being contrived attempts to justify the council’s hostility. In any case, there is nothing in the account that deserves the threat of death. How then to explain the council’s persistent efforts to intimidate and silence Kerssenbrock? In the first place, modern sensibilities about artistic and personal freedom have no place. The council members would have felt themselves justified in suppressing a writing that placed them in a bad light, even if this was deserved. In addition, Kerssenbrock seems to have been an obstinate individual (he records several

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 44

6/6/2007 2:38:17 PM

general introduction

45

heated exchanges with council members), and the council may well have decided on principle that he should be brought to heel, especially since he had tried to have the book surreptitiously printed first without the council’s approval and then in violation of its prohibition, and had persistently avoided turning in copies of the work when ordered to do so. Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that important members of the patriciate and of the guilds had seats on the council, and no doubt vigorously expressed their opposition to Kerssenbrock’s work because they found his point of view regarding certain matters of interest to them uncongenial. Given that in addition some of his statements about various ecclesiastical privileges and jurisdiction within the city confl icted with the city’s claims, it is not surprising that the council as a whole came to view Kerssenbrock as an advocate of their ecclesiastical opponents (he was after all an employee of the cathedral chapter), and that they adopted a rather hostile stance towards him and eventually used the full coercive forces available to them in forcing him to bend to their will. In September 1575, the council of Münster decided to impose upon Kerssenbrock a very large fine (200 thalers, in part justified by the 125 previously spent by the council for its two legal consultations about his case) for his disobedience in initially trying to circumvent the city’s right to censure the work and in having the work copied in violation of the council’s explicit prohibition. For months, Kerssenbrock tried to get the council to rescind or at least moderate its decision (the cathedral chapter of Paderborn acted as his intercessor). These efforts were in vain, so in February 16, 1576 he finally paid the fine.67 The council may have thought that this seemingly complete victory on its part would put an end to this dispute, which had been dragging on for more than two and a half years. But no. For one thing, Kerssenbrock tried in vain later in 1576 and in early 1577 to secure the return of the manuscripts of his work that were still in the council’s possession. Furthermore, being embittered by what he took to be persecution at the hands of the council, he could not leave well (or bad) enough alone, and he composed an apology or “self-justification.” The original dedicatory letter to the work is dated February 6, 1576, but the content shows that he later revised it to

67 Kerssenbrock complained that in order to harm him further, the council valued a thaler at twenty-six shillings instead of the prevailing commercial rate of twenty-four.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 45

6/6/2007 2:38:17 PM

46

general introduction

take into account the events down to the spring of the next year. In this work, in which he went over the entire course of events at great length, he threw all restraint to the winds and savagely attacked both the council as a body and certain individuals by whom he felt hard done by in particular (e.g., the city’s syndic and Burgher Master Plonies). He began to circulate hand-written copies of this work, and by late 1577 or early 1578, the council was fully informed of what Kerssenbrock was up to, and undertook to seek legal redress.68 This took some time (more outside legal advice had to be gotten), so it was not until the fall of 1579 that the city was ready to proceed to court. By this time, Kerssenbrock was in Werl, so the council needed the authorization of the archbishop of Cologne (Werl was in his territory), which took further time to secure since there were men in the archbishop’s entourage who supported Kerssenbrock. Eventually, a trial was to take place in Arnsberg, but as a result of the infl uence of his supporters in the archbishop’s entourage, the president of the court (the count of Solms) suggested to the representatives of the city that given Kerssenbrock’s advanced age and the services which he had previously performed for the city, it might be best to avoid all the travails and complications involved in legal proceedings by settling the matter with an agreement whereby Kerssenbrock would undertake to destroy the copies of his apology in his hands and to seek to suppress any other copies. The representatives remitted this question to the city council, which eventually agreed with some ill grace to the proposed arbitration. On January 9, 1580, a legal transaction took place in Arnsberg to settle the matter formally. First, a delegation presented the council’s complaint, and then Kerssenbrock apologized for any offense he may have given, and bound himself under oath to acquire any copies of the defense that may be in other people’s possession and to say nothing detrimental to the council’s or to its members’ and employees’ authority or reputation, on the penalty that if he violated his oath, he would be treated as convicted (of the present accusation). With this, the council expressed its willingness not to proceed with its case. The council was thus able to assert that its position was vindicated, even if Kerssenbrock’s supporters prevented the council from exacting any punishment from him. The city council did not, however, relent in its hostility to him. Although it occasionally granted him permission to

68

The council also drew up a pamphlet giving its side of the dispute.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 46

6/6/2007 2:38:17 PM

general introduction

47

return to Münster for short stays, it continued to ban him on a regular basis from visiting the city. c) Kerssenbrock’s Writings Despite his constant work as an educator during adulthood, Kerssenbrock never composed a work on pedagogy. He did, however, have an affinity for historical writing.69 1) In the early 1540s he wrote a Latin poem in dactylic hexameter about the Anabaptist rebellion in Münster, and in 1545 he published it with a dedication to Bishop Francis of Waldeck.70 The work shows a craftsman-like proficiency at versification, but has little poetical merit. Its first book relates in 755 lines the events from the arrival of Rothman in the city until the expulsion of the opponents of Anabaptism on February 27, 1534, and the second book relates in 1131 lines the events until the capture of the city. The main source is Heinrich Dorp’s publication (see below), but Kerssenbrock left out his pro-Lutheran stance, and had to make good Dorp’s failure to describe the capture of the city with either Fabricius Bolandus’ poem or a common source now lost. He also added some details from his own personal experience. 2) In 1555, he wrote another poem celebrating the new prince-bishop upon his installation. It was to have been recited to him when he visited Münster to receive the town’s oath of allegiance. Other business thwarted this plan, but the poem was published under the title “Grieving Mimimgardford’s complaint.”71 Another composition in Latin (this time in elegiac couplets), this work portrays Münster as an

69 Detmer (1899–1900) 266*–282* and 449*–462* lays out the evidence for Kerssenbrock’s other works. 70 Belli Monasteriensis contra anabaptistica monstra gesti brevis atque succincta descriptio nunc primum et impressa et edita, autore Hermanno a Kerssenbrock (“A short and succinct description of the war waged in Münster against the Anabaptist monstrosities, now printed and released for the first time, by Herman of Kerssenbrock”). 71 Mymegardevordae lugentis querimonia, quae variis sese erumnis iactari queritur, sed opem et praesidium sperans ad reverendissimum atque amplissimum principem ac dominum D. Wilhelmum suum antistitem confugit eidemque divinum suscepti episcopatus honorem gratulatur, M. Her. a Kerssenbroch authore (“The complaint of grieving Mimimgardford, who complains that she is being buffeted by various hardships but in the hopes of aid and protection seeks refuge in the most reverend and esteemed lord Lord William, her bishop, and congratulates him on the divine honor of the bishopric entrusted to him, by Master Herman of Kerssenbrock”).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 47

6/6/2007 2:38:17 PM

48

3) 4)

5)

6)

general introduction affl icted widow who seeks comfort and succour for her dire situation from the new prince-bishop. The poem’s bleak picture of present difficulties is rather general and exaggerated, but Kerssenbrock does find time to lament the lack of respect given to schoolteachers like himself (a point on which he felt sufficiently strong to repeat the passage in his Anabaptist history: see 102D). Anabaptistici furoris Monasterium inclitam Westphaliae metropolim evertentis historica narratio (the present work). “Apology”.72 This is the work written by Kerssenbrock in anger at his treatment at the hands of the city council. Though Kerssenbrock did his best to retrieve all copies of this work in order to settle his dispute with the city council of Münster, several manuscripts are extant. Catalogus episcoporum Padibornensium eorumque acta, quatenus haberi potuerunt.73 This was an occasional piece written in 1578 in honor of the newly installed administrator of the church in Paderborn while Kerssenbrock headed the cathedral school there, and it was immediately published. Catalogus episcoporum Mymingardevordensium, nunc Monasteriensium, per M. Hermannum a Kerssenbroch, nunc scholae Padibornensis et collegii Salentiniani moderatorem, repurgatus.74 Completed in 1578 during Kerssenbrock’s sojourn in Paderborn, this work was meant to aid the cathedral chapter in Münster in upholding its privileges against the counterclaims of the city council. Not only does this show that the city council was not being capricious in objecting to statements in Kerssenbrock’s Anabaptist history that he seemed to take the chapter’s side against the city council, but it also illustrates how Kerssenbrock continued

72 Causarum captivitatis M. Hermanni a Kerssenbroch, scholae maioris D. Pauli Monasteriensis ad annos 25 moderatoris, succincta narratio cum earundem vera et solida confutatione, et quod senatus Monasteriensis magis tyrannum quam bonarum literarum Maecenatem in ea captivitate sese declaravit, ad universam totius Westphaliae nobilitatem et omnes pios lectores (“Short narrative of the reasons for the arrest of Master Herman of Kerssenbrock, director of the larger school of St. Paul in Münster for twenty-five years, together with a true and solid refutation of these reasons and (a demonstration) that with this arrest the city council of Münster showed itself to be a tyrant rather than a patron of the fine arts, (addressed) to the entire nobility of all Westphalia and to all pious readers”). 73 “List of the bishops of Paderborn and their deeds, to the extent that these can be recovered.” 74 “List of the bishops of Mimimgardford, now (called) Münster, revised by Master Herman of Kerssenbrock, now director of the school at Paderborn (the Salentinian College).”

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 48

6/6/2007 2:38:17 PM

general introduction

49

to take an active interest in this dispute during the years when his confl ict with the city council dragged on even in his absence from the city. The work is preserved in a single manuscript that is mainly written by someone else but does contain a few passages written in Kerssenbrock’s own hand. 7) Catalogus episcoporum Monasteriensium carmine conscriptus authore Hermanno a Kerssenbroch.75 This poetical work, preserved in a later manuscript, devotes three elegiac couplets each to fifty-four bishops of Münster. None of this poetry appears in Kerssenbrock’s prose work on the same subject, so the poem was presumably composed after 1578. d) Composition of the Anabaptist History Kerssenbrock’s introductory poem is dated to 1564, so presumably he resolved to write a prose work on the Anabaptist events in that year.76 In his later apology, he notes that Bishop John of Hoya, who became prince-bishop in 1566, opened the episcopal archives to him. He also reports without any indication of date that the city council had made its archives available to him (perhaps back in 1564?). He particularly worked on his project when outbreaks of the plague forced the cathedral school to close. The original letter of dedication to the four estates of the city (later suppressed after his long dispute with the city council about the work) is dated January 4, 1573. In his account of the year 1532, Kerssenbrock notes (214D) that John Menneman served as alderman “for many years down to 1570” ( per multos annos ad annum domini 1570), and a seemingly tagged-on notice records that Menneman was elected to the city council in 1573 (the municipal elections took place on February 20 in that year). Presumably, Kerssenbrock originally wrote his notice about Menneman’s activities as alderman in 1570, then added in a reference to his recent election to the council when, at some date after February 20 in the spring of 1573, a clean copy of the text was being prepared for publication, an event which he already anticipated when he composed the original dedication on January 4. Kerssenbrock’s original intent had been not to have the work published but to leave the manuscript in the municipal archives. For one

75 “List of the bishops of Münster drawn up in a poem, by Herman of Kerssenbrock.” 76 Detmer (1899–1900) 282*–439* discusses Kerssenbrock’s methods in his work and the sources that he used.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 49

6/6/2007 2:38:18 PM

50

general introduction

thing, he knew that relatives of men whom he blamed for the ultimate course of events would object to any explicit mention of their activities, but he felt compelled by historical necessity to reveal the relevant names (see his disclaimer on 5–6D, where he goes out of his way to profess no intent to besmirch the relevant families; cf. his reluctance to name some of John of Leiden’s wives in 659D). He was impelled to compose and publish the work, however, by certain men whom he never names (3D). Given his pro-Catholic stance, his championing of the spirituality in any jurisdictional disputes with the city council, and the fact that he tried to hide the manuscript that had been sent to Cologne from the city council by entrusting it to the member of the cathedral chapter, which then insisted that he return the manuscript within one month once he got it back from the council, it is a reasonable conjecture that those who wished to see the work published were ecclesiastical supporters of a full restoration of Catholicism in Münster. Such men could argue that the horrors of Anabaptism were the logical result of any deviation from traditional religious practice, since it was the pro-Lutheran attitude of the city council that had undermined the prince-bishop’s authority and prepared the way for the Anabaptist takeover. Kerssenbrock states (3D) that he had three sources of information: his own personal experiences, published accounts written by others, and oral accounts from trustworthy participants. Since the description of the published accounts will take up far more space than the others, it will be treated last. Kerssenbrock identifies a certain number of striking anecdotes as events that he witnessed himself, and there are some other vivid pictures that may well go back to his personal experience, even if he does not explicitly designate them as such, for instance the adventure of Dr. Wesseling’s maid (488D) or the misadventure of the fat Scottish beggar (486D). Even if Kerssenbrock’s memory was perfect (and no doubt his recollection of events that had taken place three decades earlier was at times faulty), his perspective at the time would have been restricted. In the first place, since he was only a teenager, his understanding of events would have been comparatively limited. In any case, he speaks mainly of public events and had little sense of the background to what he saw. Finally, he was expelled along with the other opponents of the Anabaptists on February 27, 1534, and thus had no personal experience at all of the subsequent Anabaptist regime. There seems to have been little scope for the personal recollection of others. Some anecdotes cannot be traced to any written source (e.g., the

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 50

6/6/2007 2:38:18 PM

general introduction

51

death scene of the city’s syndic Wieck: 515–516D). Kerssenbrock is also happy to report malicious rumors that cast those whom he dislikes in a bad light (e.g., 161D on Rothman’s parents, 192D on Herman Bisping’s supposed forgery and counterfeiting). In the account of the capture of the city in particular, there are numerous details and episodes that can be traced to no written source, and these may well be refl ections of oral traditions to which Kerssenbrock had access. Far and away the largest proportion of the work can be ascribed to written sources. These can be divided into two categories. The first consists of documents, that is, official correspondence and the records of official transactions such as the summations of decisions that were drawn up at the end of meetings and assemblies. One of the major contributions of Kerssenbrock’s work to the study of the Anabaptist incident in Münster is its preservation of a large number of such documents that do not otherwise survive. Comparison with the original documents in instances where the latter survive shows that Kerssenbrock is an accurate translator. He never consciously misrepresents what he does translate, though sometimes he is not full in his description of documents that he paraphrases rather than translates, and occasionally in his direct translations he adds in a short phrase to make the sense clearer or to elaborate on it. The other category of written sources consists of historical works or contemporary broadsheets (i.e., short printed narratives of an ephemeral nature that were issued soon after events, and acted like modern newspapers as a means of disseminating information about important current events). As already noted, Kerssenbrock had access to both the city’s and the prince-bishop’s archives, but since the former had suffered damage during the Anabaptist regime, the latter were his main source for the period before the city’s takeover. Thus, he had full access to the prince-bishop’s correspondence, which provided him both with letters sent to him and ones sent by him. For the period down to the agreement entered into by the prince-bishop and the city council in February 1533, Kerssenbrock had no written narrative that he could follow, and here he was left to his own limited abilities as a narrator. The result was a rather unsatisfying attempt to stitch together a story by adding anecdotes and episodes taken from various sources to the long series of documents that he reproduces. In this portion of his work in particular, Kerssenbrock’s lack of historical analysis is shown by his inability to digest information and to make an interpretation of events out of it. Instead, he simply preserves large amounts of documents as

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 51

6/6/2007 2:38:18 PM

52

general introduction

if this alone discharged the historian’s duty to his readers. When, in the subsequent period of events, he begins to have earlier historical works to give him a sense of narrative, his reliance on documents lessens, though he continues to make use of large numbers of them to supplement his account (and in the process preserves a number of important documents relating to both the conduct of the war outside the city and the Anabaptist regime within it). One somewhat surprising element in this later use of the episcopal archive is Kerssenbrock’s comparative neglect of the prince-bishop’s dealings with his princely neighbors in his efforts to secure their support for the continuing war effort as the prince-bishop increasingly found himself unable to bear the burdens of maintaining the besieging force through his own resources. Presumably, Kerssenbrock felt that he had enough to narrate merely in relating the events around the city, and decided to restrict his account of the prince-bishop’s diplomacy. Another aspect of his reliance on archives is the greatly divergent emphasis on Bernard Rothman. Whereas in the period down to the agreement between the prince-bishop and the city council, disputes involving Rothman and his position in the city played a prominent role in the archival material, Rothman is practically unmentioned in the later correspondence and virtually disappears from the narrative, despite the fact that he continued to play a prominent role in the city until the day of its capture by the prince-bishop. Kerssenbrock makes little or no effort to discuss the significance of the documents, and simply cites the letters and the replies in chronological order. A notable example of his lack of historical acumen is given by his use of the many confessions of Anabaptists that he found in the archives. At one point (733–736D), he quotes two such confessions (from refugees from the city) at length verbatim, but only for the narrow purpose of illustrating conditions in the city. When it came to the numerous confessions of senior Anabaptists, however, (not just those of the captured “apostles” dispatched from the city in October 1534, but those made by John of Leiden, Bernard Knipperdolling and others after the city’s fall), he did little more than extract bits of information about their earlier lives. In particular, he made no use of the elaborate information provided in them about the establishment and the practices of the Anabaptist regime. Perhaps, in this he simply felt that the self-justifications of men whom he took to be lecherous tricksters and charlatans of the worst sort were worthy of no credence and should best be ignored. On the other hand, he nowhere else exhibits much ability to formulate a historical interpretation of the course of events,

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 52

6/6/2007 2:38:18 PM

general introduction

53

so it is not surprising that in this instance too he shows no interest in trying to turn the information provided to him by the confessions into some sort of coherent analysis. When Kerssenbrock made use of other works, it was his constant policy not to name them, but when he did follow earlier accounts, he would do so verbatim, which makes it easy to determine such sources when they survive. His preferred literary account was Henricus Dorpius (Henry Dorp) of Münster’s Wahrhafftigen Historie (“Accurate history”), which had also been the main source for Kerssenbrock’s earlier poem on the Anabaptist events.77 Kerssenbrock supplemented Dorp’s account with excerpts from other sources. One of these is the Tumultuum Anabaptistarum liber unus (“Single book on the uproars of the Anabaptists”) of Lambert Hortensius (1500/01–1574), though this was not used extensively. More use was made of the Latin poem Motus Monasteriensis (“Disturbance in Münster”) of John Bolandus, which had also been used to supplement Dorp in Kerssenbrock’s youthful poem. It is particularly noteworthy that Kerssenbrock has no knowledge of the Summarische Ertzelungk und Bericht (“Summary narrative and report”), an account of the affairs in the city that was written by a burgher named Henry Gresbeck.78 In addition to these broad accounts, Kerssenbrock used sources of more limited scope. Specific accounts of the affairs of the city’s cloisters provided some details relating to ecclesiastical events. It would seem that in the period from November 1533 until February 11, 1534, he had access to some source that recorded events on a day-to-day basis, as is indicated by the very specific chronological anchoring of his narrative. As already noted, he did make use of Anabaptist confessions, though not in a very systematic way. It would seem, however, that he did make extensive use of some sort of memorandum drawn up by Herman Ramers, who fl ed the city in June 1534 to inform the prince-bishop 77 The work was published in Wittenberg in 1536. Stupperich (1958/59) and Kirchhoff (1962b) both argue that Dorp was really a pseudonym (he apparently is unaware of things that a man from Münster ought to have known) and that the author was in fact Anthony Corvinus, the Lutheran pastor who interviewed John of Leiden after the city’s capture (see below in text). 78 Gresbeck escaped from the city immediately before its fall, and as his account is the only one written by an eyewitness or by someone who had been within the city, it provides a valuable check on Kerssenbrock’s accuracy, though the rather disordered and clumsy nature of Gresbeck’s account, which more or less provides only narrative without any explanation, makes it often difficult to follow without consultation of Kerssenbrock.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 53

6/6/2007 2:38:18 PM

54

general introduction

of a plot to assassinate him and gained the prince-bishop’s pardon as a result (609–610D). At any rate, a manuscript in the state archives in Münster, a contemporary broadsheet, and excerpts in the Chronicle of the Bishops of Münster contain statements that appear verbatim in Kerssenbrock, and the Chronicle overtly attributes the statements to Ramers. Since none of these sources can serve as the source for the others (none gives a complete account), it would seem that they all go back to a more extensive confession of Ramers that does not survive, and this was an important basis for Kerssenbrock’s account of the events in the city until Ramers’ fl ight. Kerssenbrock supplemented this information about affairs within the city with a few contemporary broadsheets. The fullness of his account of the events in Warendorf suggests that he had access to some sort of local chronicle that does not survive (contrast his comparative silence about Coesfeld). For the diplomacy of Landgrave Philip of Hesse with the city in early 1535, Kerssenbrock made some use of the published Acta of Anthony Corvinus,79 and for the princebishop’s interactions with the emperor and the imperial diet, he made use of John Sleidan’s diplomatic history.80 These sources account for most of Kerssenbrock’s information for the period from the expulsion of the “godless” in February 1534 down to the city’s capture. For the capture itself and the immediate aftermath, he continued to rely on his usual literary sources (which he follows in ascribing the plan for the capture to Hans of Langenstraten alone, to the exclusion of any role for Henry Gresbeck; see 825–827D with notes), but he adds large numbers of details and episodes that have no known source. For the last days and execution of John of Leiden and his two associates, Kerssenbrock relied on Anthony Corvinus’ published account, but supplemented it with a contemporary broadsheet (but even so he adds details that are otherwise unattested). Kerssenbrock’s account of the prolonged struggle of the city to regain its previous privileges after the capture is a virtually verbatim reproduction of an anonymous tract on this subject that was published in 1562.81 Ironically, one of the city 79 Acta, Handlungen, Legation und schriffte, so durch . . . Herrn Philipsen, Landgraven zu Hessen, etc., in der Münsterschen sache geschehen (“Acts, negotiations, embassies and writings, which were made by Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, in the Münster matter”), which was published in 1536. 80 De statu religionis et reipublicae sub Carolo Quinto (“The condition of religion and of the state under Charles V”). 81 Eine korte antekunge, was sick binnen Münster nach veraverunge der stadt uit der wedderdoper gewalt in der ersten und lesten restution (sic) hefft begeven und togedragen (“A short indication

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 54

6/6/2007 2:38:18 PM

general introduction

55

council’s complaints about Kerssenbrock’s account concerned the presentation of the council’s opposition to the full restitution of the guilds, but this picture was taken over entirely from the anonymous source. Kerssenbrock also adds in some details from Dietrich Lilie’s continuation of Ertwin Ertman’s chronicle of the bishops of Osnabrück.82 (There is some similarity between Kerssenbrock’s account and Lilie’s for earlier events, but seemingly these are to be attributed to the use of common sources.) e) Kerssenbrock’s Historical Method Kerssenbrock’s aims were rather circumscribed. Although he extended his account temporally to include the earlier events that gave the Anabaptists the opportunity to seize control of the city and the endeavors to recover the city’s privileges after its capture, it was only when he dealt with the period of Anabaptist control that he made much effort to try to weave together a coherent picture from the various literary sources available and to supplement this picture with archival material. For the most part, in the earlier narrative about the attempts to make the city Lutheran, he relies overwhelmingly on poorly digested documents and gives little in the way of analytical framework, while for the later events he simply follows one main source. Even in terms of the events that do draw his attention, his emphasis is firmly focused on the city of Münster itself, and he makes little attempt to place them in a broader context (as noted above, he tends to shortchange, and at times misrepresent, the prince-bishop’s efforts to enlist the support of surrounding communities). In effect, he conceived of himself as a local historian (note how he lovingly relates antiquarian details of the city’s earlier history and its physical fabric and institutions in his introduction), who was narrating (in great detail) an important event in local history; hence, the broader circumstances and implications of the events in Münster were not within his remit. Kerssenbrock wrote as a committed Catholic, and as such he felt nothing but revulsion at the Anabaptist movement and did nothing to conceal the contempt in which he held its leaders in Münster, whom

of what took place and occurred in Münster after the city was recaptured from Anabaptist control”). 82 Beschrivinge sampt den handlingen der hoichwerdigen bisschopen van Osnabrugge (“Description and activities of the most worthy bishops of Osnabrück”).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 55

6/6/2007 2:38:18 PM

56

general introduction

he considered to be self-serving frauds. Apart from the uniform rejection which believer’s baptism in general met with from all adherents of established state-sponsored churches (that is, from Lutherans and supporters of Zwingli, no less than from Catholics), the institution of polygamy by the besieged radicals was enough to ensure that the Anabaptists of Münster would be treated harshly by all contemporary writers. Not surprisingly, Kerssenbrock makes no effort to understand the origin or development of Anabaptist doctrine, which he conceived of as having been devised by Satan himself (113–114D, 442D), though he does preserve the occasional reference to such doctrines in the documents that he reproduces.83 Kerssenbrock’s hostility extends to the Lutherans, since he ascribes the blame for the Anabaptist takeover of the city to the earlier efforts of the city council and guilds to establish Lutheran religious practice in the city. At the start of his introduction, he indicates that among his purposes in writing the work was to praise Bishop Francis for extirpating heresy and to warn the ecclesiastical and secular authorities of the dangers of not doing their duty to stamp out such threats to the established order (4D). It is clear that in his mind it was just as much Lutheranism as Anabaptism that was to be eradicated. He refers to the “earlier disturbances” (i.e., the efforts to establish Lutheranism) as a sort of Trojan horse from which emerged the Anabaptist confl agration (6D), and later makes his distaste for Lutheran reform clear, blaming it for disturbances both in Münster and in many other cities (114D). He uses the striking image of comparing the Lutheran movement to some sort of beast that conceived the monstrous spawn of Anabaptism in its womb and reared it on the milk of lechery (334D), and even goes so far as to thank God for allowing the subsequent Anabaptist disaster to come about in order to put the prince-bishop in a position to repudiate the agreement between him and the city council whereby the city was basically made Lutheran (379D, where he again states that Anabaptism was given birth to by Lutheranism). This last passage makes it reasonably clear that while Kerssenbrock was no doubt repelled by the Anabaptist episode of his youth, he was more directly animated

83 He notes in connection with Rothman’s Restitution, which he cites without going into any details of its contents, that it was better to suppress this along with other books printed at the time in Münster than to allow their pernicious doctrine to be disseminated (758D). Note also his failure even to paraphrase the content of the important debate between radicals and conservatives before the council in August, 1533 (424–425D).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 56

6/6/2007 2:38:18 PM

general introduction

57

by hostility towards Lutheranism, which still found many adherents in Münster at the time when Kerssenbrock was writing his work. His general distaste for Lutheranism is shown by numerous ironic references to “evangelical liberty,” which could be taken (by Protestants) to mean “Lutheran liberation (from papist tyranny),” but is meant by him to signify “the impudent licentiousness caused by Luther.”84 Not surprisingly, Kerssenbrock has no sympathy for those opposed to the traditional Church, and exhibits no sense of what animated them. He merely characterizes them as those who condemned the notion of “good works” (more or less the converse of the concept of salvation by faith alone) and rejected ecclesiastical ceremonies (126D; also 116–117D), and upholds the claims of the traditional Church without any further elaboration. This partisan interpretation of religious developments leaves him with little analytical framework. He attributes the rejection of traditional practices to self-indulgent turpitude and greed (334D). He also conceives of the innovation in religion as a sort of disease that was foretold by God through various omens (115D, 117D), but he has two explanations of what motivated God to allow these calamities. On the one hand, such misfortunes seem to be the result of some sort of natural tendency, which can be averted only if God is propitiated through prayer and averts what would otherwise take place, seemingly of its own accord (119D). Kerssenbrock has a general sense that the calamity of 1534/35 was God’s punishment for the city’s sins (6K), but he does not have a clearly defined causality. In one of the most elaborate explanatory passages (112–113D), he argues that the fault responsible for the misfortunes was wealth: the prosperity of the city made the ecclesiastics lazy (a sin which manifested itself in their failure to take vigorous action against the incipient heretical disturbances of the 1520s), and the laity greedy and defiant of authority (both ecclesiastical and secular).85 In a later passage characterizing those who advocated religious reform (334–335D), he lays much more emphasis on the supposed greed of the reformers than on their religious motives.

84 Note how on 334D he associates those who reject “good works” with the idea of thinking that anything was permissible. Presumably, here he connects Luther’s stance with the licentiousness that he thought characteristic of the Anabaptists of Münster. 85 The language used of the reformers’ greed on 334D seems to be based on platitudes in ancient Roman literature, but the notion of the corrupting power of wealth was hardly a novel conception in Christian thought.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 57

6/6/2007 2:38:19 PM

58

general introduction

On the other hand, however, Kerssenbrock seems to give a different explanation. First, he lays out (14–15D) a sort of geographical determination of character that is based on the astrological infl uences of the heavenly bodies that dominate the area (he shows himself to be a strong believer in the attenuated theory of astrology that saw the heavenly bodies as giving an “impulse” towards certain behavior that could nonetheless be counteracted by the human will).86 The resulting natural disposition of the Westphalians was towards a character that was straightforward and honest, if uncultivated and prone to contentiousness (16D). This pristine character is then said to have been corrupted through the malign infl uence of foreigners and through the locals’ hankering after novelty (17D). Kerssenbrock at first seems to be speaking of fashions in clothing, but it then becomes clear (18D) that he has in mind the adoption of outside religious practices, seeming to imply that non-Catholic reforms were taken on in place of the respectable traditions of the past in the same way that frivolous new forms of attire were picked up from abroad. There is no explanation of how this interpretation whereby religious reform is presented as a capricious innovation adopted for novelty’s sake relates to the conception that the urge to reform was born of greed. Presumably, Kerssenbrock had no clearly thought-out explanation of the exact causalities, since in his mind the innovations were simply wicked deviations from the proper rites and beliefs passed on by the past, and he did not go any further than attributing this unfortunate behavior (and the resulting debacle) to the corruption of wealth and the perverse frivolity that he considered inherent to the Westphalians as a whole. f ) Later Fate of the Anabaptist History The two copies of the Anabaptist history that Kerssenbrock turned over to the city council (i.e., the copy that was intended to serve as the clean copy for the printer and the copy that he retained) were never in fact returned to him.87 There is a note in the minutes of the city council from

At first sight, such a conception would seem odd in a convinced Catholic, but the general (rather than compelling) infl uence of the heavenly bodies was widely recognized in late medieval scholastic thought (and the clear modern distinction between astrology and astronomy did not exist). For a general treatment of medieval and early modern astrology, see Tester (1987) 98–243. 87 Detmer (1899–1900) 439*–448* discusses the manuscripts and translations of the work. 86

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 58

6/6/2007 2:38:19 PM

general introduction

59

1581 that suggests that the work should be corrected and published, but nothing came of this, and though the two copies of his work are duly noted as present in the relevant archive, they have disappeared. The copy that was made for the cathedral chapter in the summer of 1573 has likewise not survived, but it served as the basis for a number of copies that were made during the period of Kerssenbrock’s dispute with the city council. As part of his various agreements with the council, he was obligated to turn over all copies of the work, and while he did so with the copies that he himself had had transcribed, he constantly maintained that the obligation was impossible to fulfill because there were copies that had not been made by him and over which he had no control (for instance, in October 1574, he told the council that he had seen two nicely bound copies at a bookbinder’s). In later years, interest in the remarkable events in Münster endured, and as Kerssenbrock’s work, which was known to be the most elaborate account, remained unprinted, the work continued to be transcribed into the eighteenth century, and large numbers of manuscript copies survive. The manuscript used for Detmer’s edition is distinctive for the explicit indication of its origin. The title page of this copy, which is preserved in the Pauline Library in Münster, states that it was the property of Nicholas Steinlagen, the prior and vicar of the cathedral, and is dated to 1574. Thus, this manuscript was almost certainly copied directly from the copy that was made from the Cologne manuscript that Kerssenbrock had deposited with Goswin of Raesfeld (i.e., it was two steps removed from Kerssenbrock’s clean text). The manuscript is 672 pages (i.e., folio sides) long, and was carefully written by a single hand. A number of translations were made into German, and one was published in 1771. This work is anonymous, which is just as well, since it is incomplete, inaccurate and unreliable (it was reprinted without corrections in 1886 and 1929).88 g) Assessment of the Historical Worth of Kerssenbrock’s Account It should be clear that from a modern perspective, Kerssenbrock has many failings as a historian. He has no sense of historical development, and his analysis of events is deeply infl uenced by his partisanship on behalf of the Catholic Church. As a glance at the notes indicates,

88

Geschichte der Wiedertäufer in Münster zu Westfalen.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 59

6/6/2007 2:38:19 PM

60

general introduction

he is often subject to chronological inaccuracy, and he at times omits crucial information. As a result both of his traditional understanding of historically important information and of the nature of the sources available to him, his account concentrates on “high politics,” that is, the behavior and interactions of official bodies and warfare. He has no understanding of what one might broadly call “social history,” that is, the way in which common individuals perceived events and participated in them. Indeed, for the most part, he speaks vaguely of an amorphous “mob” (multitudo) of Anabaptists, and has no interest in their attitudes or actions (except to the extent that an anecdote of some individual is worthy of note). Nonetheless, his work remains important on several levels. First, as has been noted, the work is crammed full of large numbers of documents, some of which are not otherwise preserved, and even when they are, these are often not very accessible. Though such documents are for the most part limited to the official declarations of the actors, nonetheless, such statements allow the parties involved to “speak for themselves.” Second, his is the most extensive contemporary account and continues to be a major source for the astounding events in Münster. While one need hardly take Kerssenbrock’s word for anything, he was a well-informed reporter of events that had happened within his lifetime and made a great impression on contemporaries. He may well not always relate events as a modern historian would prefer, but his account is worthy of consideration. Third, his account has been at the basis of much of later historiographical tradition about the Anabaptist incidents of Münster. But not only did those whose interpretations rested on his work often not have direct access to his thoughts, but much of the opprobrium that is now generally cast upon him is likewise not based on direct consultation of his work. Now, it should be easier to assess Kerssenbrock’s strengths and weaknesses. Obviously, one should no more rely unquestioningly on Kerssenbrock than the accounts of Thucydides or Tacitus would be taken at face value in a modern work on ancient history. But it is only through a direct and full consideration of the work as a whole that one can assess the author’s methods and intentions, and thereby determine the validity of his version of events. Finally, Kerssenbrock’s work has value in its own right as a document of one man’s interpretation of events around him. The work is indicative of the views of a committed Catholic on the eve of his Church’s efforts to reclaim the lands that had renounced their allegiance to papal authority.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 60

6/6/2007 2:38:20 PM

general introduction

61

In reading Kerssenbrock’s account, two questions should always be borne in mind. First, what really happened and how well does Kerssenbrock’s presentation of events fit with that reality? Second, why did he choose to present the matter as he does? So long as one bears both of these questions in mind, his account is both fascinating and informative. 4) Note on the Translation of Names In the early sixteenth century, the development of fixed last names had not yet been completed, and people could be known according to three system. First, the last name could consist of a patronymic. This could take two forms. The person could be known as the “son” (or “daughter”) of the father’s given name, e.g., Bockelson (i.e., “son of Bockel”) as the last name of John of Leiden. Such a name could also be given as an abbreviated genitival form with the word “son” understood, so that the same man could also be called Bockels.89 I have decided to use the former version (which gives Matthisson instead of Matthys or Matthis for the first Melchiorite leader in Münster). Second, a person could also be indicated by his geographic origin, so that John Bockelson could also be called John of Leiden. If this is indicated with the Latin prepositions a or de, it is easy enough to render it with “of.” (If the Germanic form had the definite article, e.g., von der Tann, I have rather reluctantly omitted it.) As for the practice of indicating present residence with the preposition to (High German zu), often modified by the contracted definite article, I have left these alone in their Low German form due to the absence of a satisfactory correspondence in English. On the few occasions where Kerssenbrock seems to refl ect the German usage of mentioning in the case of certain high-born individuals both his family’s original place of origin and the individual’s actual residence (the preposition von indicates the former and zu the latter), I have used the preposition “of ” for the first and “from” for the second. Third and finally, a person could be known by the name of his profession. While my practice leads to the occasional difficulty,

89 English has a large number of such forms, such as Williams, Edwards, Andrews, Peters (though they are probably not understood as such, and in any case, they do not vary by generation).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 61

6/6/2007 2:38:20 PM

62

general introduction

it is consistent and straightforward, and should cause no difficulty of identification. The linguistic variety in the origins of the characters in this story makes it hard to avoid some doubtful forms. English works about these events often give a miscellany of English, Dutch and High German forms (e.g., John, Jan, and Johann, or Bernard, Bernt and Bernhard; the list could easily be multiplied), and it seemed best to pick a fixed system of rendering the names and to stick to it, even at the cost of the occasional infelicity. To make the dramatis personae seem less alien I have decided to give them the English version of their first names. Last names, on the other hand, have been more or less regularized to give a reasonable rendering of the form used by Kerssenbrock.90 Since most of the locations referred to by Kerssenbrock are now given on maps in the High German form, this seemed preferable to the Low German forms used by Kerssenbrock (unless there is a standard English version, like Cologne). This procedure led to some uncertainty over the town generally known in English by the French form “Liege” (called “Leodinum” in Kerssenbrock’s Latin). According to the map, the Dutch form “Luik” should be used, but since other towns have their High German form, I reluctantly settled on the German “Lüttich.” As for the major reformation center in Alsace, the slightly Anglicized “Strasburg” seemed preferably to the anachronistic French version “Strasbourg.” Finally, a brief mention of the adjective “evangelical.” In German, this term eventually becomes a synonym for “Lutheran,” and at times Kerssenbrock clearly means it in this sense. But the word is literally merely the adjective derived from the Latin word for “Gospel,” and thus signifies whatever is associated with the Gospels. In the Reformation context, it refers to the attempt to return to the usages of the Gospels, in contradistinction to the rejected practices of the medieval Church (the sense which gives rise to the meaning “Lutheran”). Sometimes, Kerssenbrock uses the term in this broader sense (especially when translating texts composed by Anabaptists). In a number of instances, 90 Kerssenbrock sometimes wavers between Low and High German phonology in his inconsistent and at times ambiguous rendering of German names into Latin, and I have striven to pick a form that conveys the way the name was probably pronounced. At the least, the same person’s name should always appear in the same form. To lessen the feeling of foreignness, I have written the common ending “man” in the English manner with a single “n” (and this practice is continued for consistency’s sake in this introduction, even with names like Rothman that are generally written the German way in other works).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 62

6/6/2007 2:38:20 PM

general introduction

63

however, it is not entirely clear which sense is meant (and conceivably the second is intended with overtones of the first). The problem arises from English orthography, which would demand capitalization in the first usage but not the second. The instances when it is not entirely clear which sense is meant have induced me to avoid prejudicing the interpretation by eschewing capitalization in all cases, even when it is clear that the meaning “Lutheran” is intended. The reader may decide for himself when the word should be capitalized.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 63

6/6/2007 2:38:20 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY Backus, Irena, Reformation Readings of the Apocalypse: Geneva, Zurich, and Wittenberg (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). Behringer, Wolfgang, Shaman of Oberstdorst: Chonrad Stoeckhlin and the Phantoms of the Night, trans. by H.C. Erik Midelfort (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1998). Blickle, Peter, The Revolution of 1525: The German Peasants’ War from a New Perspective (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981). Blockmans, Wim, Emperor Charles V: 1500–1558 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). Cohn, Norman, Pursuit of the Millennium, rev. ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973). ——, Europe’s Inner Demons: The Demonization of Christians in Medieval Christendom, rev. ed. (London: Pimlico, 1993). Deppermann, Klaus, Melchior Hoffman, trans. by Malcolm Wren, ed. by Benjamin Drewery (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clarke, 1987). Detmer, H. Hermanni a Kerssenbroch, Anabaptistici Furoris Monasterium Inclitam Westphaliae Metropolim Evertentis Historica Narratio, two vols. (Münster: Druck und Verlag der Theissing’schen Buchhandlung, 1899–1900). Hamilton, Alastair, The Apocryphal Apocalypse: The Reception of the Second Book of Esdras (4 Ezra) from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999). Haude, Sigrun, In the Shadow of “Savage Wolves”: Anabaptist Münster and the German Reformation during the 1530s (Boston, Leiden and Cologne: Humanities Press, Inc., 2000). Holborn, Hajo, A History of Modern Germany: The Reformation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959). Huyskens, Viktor, “Elsebein Judefeld, des Rektors Hermann von Kerssenbroch zweite Gemahlin,” Zeitschrift für vaterländische Geschichte und Altertumskunde 62 (1904) 246–247. Kirchhoff, Karl-Heinz, “Die Belagerung und Eroberung der Täfergemeinde zu Münster 1534/35. Militärische Maßnahmen und politische Verhandlungen des Fürstbischops Fran von Waldeck,” Westfälische Zeitschrift 112 (1962a) 77–170. ——, “Wer war Henricius Dorpius Monasteriensis? Ein Nachtrag” Jahrbuch des Vereins für Westfälische Kirchengeschichte 53/54 (1962b) 173–179. ——, “Die Endzeiterwartung der Täufergemeinde zu Münster 1534/35” Jahrbuch des Vereins für Westfälische Kirchengeschichte 78 (1985) 19–42. ——, Forschungen zur Geschichte von Stadt und Stift Münster: Ausgewählte Aufsätze und Schriftenverzeichnis, ed. Franz Petri et al. (Warendorf: Fahlbusch & Co., 1988). Klötzer, Ralf, Die Täuferherrschaft von Münster: Stadtreformation und Welterneuerung (Münster: Aschendorff, 1992). Krahn, Cornelius, Dutch Anabaptism: Origin, Spread, Life and Thought (1450–1600) (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1968). MacCulloch, Diarmaid, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided, 1490–1700 (London: Allen Lane, 2003). Nichols, David, The Later Medieval City: 1300–1500 (London and New York: Longman, 1997). Oman, Charles, A History of the Art of War in the Sixteenth Century (New York: E.P. Dutton and Company, 1937). Pater, Calvin Augustine, Karlstadt as the Father of the Baptist Movements: The Emergence of Lay Protestantism (Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press, 1984).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 65

6/6/2007 2:38:21 PM

66

general introduction

Petersen, Rodney, Preaching in the Last Days: The Theme of the “Two Witnesses” in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). Redlich, Fritz, The German Military Enterpriser and his Work Force: A Study in European Economic and Social History (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1964). Strauss, Gerald, Manifestations of Discontent on the Eve of the Reformation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971). Stayer, James M., The German Peasants’ War and Anabaptist Community of Goods (Montreal & Kingston, London and Buffalo: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1991). ——, Anabaptists and the Sword, new ed. including “Refl ections and Retractions” 1976 (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002). Stephens, W.P., Zwingli: An Introduction to his Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992). Stupperich, Robert, “Wer war Henricius Dorpius Monasteriensis? Eine Untersuchung über den Verfasser der ‘Warhafftigen Historie, wie das Evangelium zu Münster angefangen und danach, durch die Widderteuffer verstöret, widder aufgehöret hat. Wittenberg 1536’,” Jahrbuch des Vereins für Westfälische Kirchengeschichte 51/52 (1958/59) 150–160. Tester, S.J., A History of Western Astrology (Woodbridge and Wolfeboro: The Boydell Press, 1987). Williams, George Huntston, The Radical Reformation, third edition (Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, vol. 15, 2000).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 66

6/6/2007 2:38:21 PM

general introduction

67

Fig. 1. This bird’s-eye view of the city was published in commemoration of the treaty that was signed in the council hall of Münster in 1648 to end the Thirty Years’ War, and it gives a good idea of the city’s massive defensive works. Important locations are marked with the following symbols: A) Cathedral of St. Paul; B) College of St. Paul (the Old Church); C) parish church of St. James; D) parish church of the Virgin Mary Across-the-River; E) parish church of St. Ludger; F) parish church of St. Martin; G) parish church of St. Lambert; H) parish church of St. Giles (Aegidius); I) parish church of St. Servatius; K) house of the Brothers of the Fountain; L) Church of St. George (Teutonic Order); M) Church of St. Nicholas; N) Church of St. Michael; O) Church of St. Margaret; P) Church of St. Catherine (Franciscan); R) Church of St. John (Hospitalers); S) College of the Minorites; X) Nitzing’s Convent; Y) Rosenthal Convent; Z) Hofrugging’s Convent; AA) Reine Convent; BB) Hospital of St. Mary Magdalene; CC) marketplace; DD) Council Hall; EE) public cellar; FF) Gate of the Virgin Mary; GG) Jews’ Field Gate; HH) Cross Gate; II) New Bridge Gate; KK) Gate of the Savior/Horst Gate; LL) Gate of St. Maurice; MM) Gate of St. Servatius; NN) Gate of St. Ludger; OO) Gate of St. Giles. (Stadt-archiv, Münster, Germany) Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 67

6/6/2007 2:38:21 PM

68

general introduction

Fig. 2. This not unsympathetic portrait of John of Leiden was made by Heinrich Aldergraver in 1536 after John’s execution. It is the source of numerous later portraits. (StadtMuseum, Münster, Germany; photo: Tomasz Samek)

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 68

6/6/2007 2:38:22 PM

general introduction

69

Fig. 3. This portrait of Bernard Knipperdolling was made by Heinrich Aldergraver as a companion to the previous portrait of John of Leiden. (Stadt- Museum, Münster, Germany; photo: Tomasz Samek)

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 69

6/6/2007 2:38:22 PM

70

general introduction

Figs. 4a.–b. Obverse and reverse of a thaler minted in May–August, 1534 by the Anabaptists in Münster to entice soldiers of the besieging army to defect; cf. 533D. Obverse inscription: (rim) WE NICHT GEBARE IS UIT DEM WATER VN GEIST; (inner field) DAT WORT IS FLEISCH GEWORDEN VN WANET VNDER VNS 1534. Reverse inscription: (rim) MACH NICHT IN GAEN IN DAT RIKE GOIDES; (inner circle) EIN HER EIN GELOVE EIN DOEPS; (inner field) THO MVNSTER. The language is a confusion of High and Low German forms. The rim inscriptions (starting on the obverse and continuing on the reverse) give a rendition of John 3:5 (“Whoever is not born of water and spirit may not enter into God’s kingdom”), but while the corresponding inscription on the companion half thaler (next illustration) mimics Luther’s translation, for some reason the translation of this coin gives an independent translation of the text that diverges from Luther’s phraseology. The legend in the inner field on the obverse gives a version of John 1:14 (in place of the Luther’s “The word became fl esh and dwelt in us,” the tenses on the coin give the phrase more immediacy: “The word has become fl esh and resides in us.”). Like the half thaler, the inner circle on the reverse gives the slogan “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” The inner field then gives the location of mintage (“at Münster”). (Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte, Münster, Germany)

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 70

6/6/2007 2:38:23 PM

general introduction

71

Figs. 5a.–b. Obverse and reverse of a half thaler minted in May–August, 1534 by the Anabaptists in Münster to entice soldiers of the besieging army to defect; cf. 533D. The layout of the legends on this coin is comparable to that of the thaler, with a rim legend and an inner field on one side and two circular legends and an inner field on the other, except that while on the thaler the rim legend begins on the side with one the single line of text around the rim, on this coin the rim legend begins on the side with two circular lines of text. Obverse inscription: (rim) ET SI DAT IMADT VPT NIE GEBARE WERDE; (inner circle) EIN HER EI GELO EIN DOEP; (inner field) THO MVNSTER 1534. Reverse inscription: (rim) SO MACH HE GADES RIKE NICHT SCHEI; (inner field) DAT WORT IS FLEIS GWORDE VN WA VN VNS. The rim legend (starting on the obverse and continuing on the reverse) gives a Low German rendition of Luther’s translation of John 3:3 (“Es sei denn, daß jemand von neuem geboren werde, so kann er Gottes Reich nicht sehen”/“Unless someone is born anew, he cannot see God’s kingdom”). The inner circular legend on the obverse says “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” The inner field of the obverse gives the place and date of minting (“In Münster, 1534”), while the reverse field gives a version of John 1:14 (in place of the traditional “The word became fl esh and dwelt in us,” the tenses on the coin give the phrase more immediacy: “The word has become fl esh and resides in us.”) (Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte, Münster, Germany)

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 71

6/6/2007 2:38:25 PM

Fig. 6. Contemporary woodcut of the siege of Münster by the Nuremberg artist Erhard Schoen. Although Schoen was not an eyewitness, and the rolling countryside seems to indicate that Schoen was not personally familiar with the location, a number of details in this schematic overview of the siege (e.g., the burning of windmills and the executions being carried out in the cathedral square) show that he had detailed knowledge of events that took place during the siege. In this regard it is perhaps noteworthy that the portrayal of the besieging forces and the activities outside of the town is far more detailed than the rather cursory representation of the town. (Stadt- Museum, Münster, Germany; photo: Tomasz Samek)

72

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 72

general introduction

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

6/6/2007 2:38:28 PM

Fig. 7. This scene of artillery being fired at the city comes from a series of woodcuts produced in 1535 by the Nuremberg artist Erhard Schoen. Note the wickerwork mantelets used to shield the besiegers. (Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte, Münster, Germany)

general introduction

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 73

73

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

6/6/2007 2:38:29 PM

74

general introduction

Fig. 8. Kerssenbrock reports (629D) that the tongs used to torture John of Leiden, Knipperdolling and Krechting were preserved on columns of the city hall. Later written reports also mention them, but there is no drawing preserved of them before about 1800. There is no reason to think that the instruments in this photograph are not the actual ones used in 1536. The gruesome practice of tearing the fl esh of the condemned with blacksmith’s tongs that had been heated to the point of glowing in a brazier was a common element in early modern executions (the number of tears was actually specified in the verdict of condemnation). (Stadt- Museum, Münster, Germany; photo: Tomasz Samek)

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 74

6/6/2007 2:38:29 PM

general introduction

75

Fig. 9. These replicas of the cages which were hung from the tower of the Church of St. Lambert in 1536 to expose the bodies of John of Leiden, Knipperdolling and Krechting (see 629D) were made privately in 1888 on the basis of the originals, which by that point were falling apart as a result of long exposure to the elements. While it was a not uncommon practice to expose the bodies of the executed, it was unheard-of to keep the bodies permanently displayed and to leave the cages of exposure as a permanent memorial to the infamy of the executed even after the bodies had disappeared. Other replicas of the cages were made in 1898 to replace the decayed originals, and these can still be seen hanging from St. Lambert’s. (Stadt- Museum, Münster, Germany; photo: Tomasz Samek)

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 75

6/6/2007 2:38:30 PM

general introduction

Map 1

76

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 76

6/6/2007 2:38:31 PM

general introduction DUCHY OF LORDSHIP OLDENOF WILDESBURG HAUSEN WildeshausCloppenburg en

LOWER BISHOPRIC

BISHOPRIC

OF MÜNSTER

EMSLAN D

Coervorden

Ems

DIEPHOLT

COUNTY OF

Fürstenau

LINGEN

BISHOPRIC OF UPPER COUNTY COUNTY OF LINGEN

Rheine Bevergern

TECKLENBURG

Coesfeld

Herford

Telgte

Havixbeck Darup

Dülmen

Ahlen

ppe

Li

OF

VEST

Werne

RECKLINGHAUSEN

CLEVES

IMP. FREE CITY DORTMUND

Bottrup

Dortmund

COUNTY OF

COUNTY OF LIMBERG

MARK

Map 2

Scale

English miles

10

OF

Ems

Paderborn

Lippe

BISHOPRIC OF PADERBORN

Büderich Ru

hr

Arnsburg

OF WESTPHALIA

MÜNSTER AND NEIGHBORING STATES 20

OF LIPPE

COUNTY

Lip

Soest

OF BERG

Kilometers 10

PRINCIPALITY

pe

Beckum

Hamm

DUCHY

Ruhr

DUCHY

LORDSHIP OF RHEDA

RIETBERG

Drensteinfurt

Lemgo

Bielefeld

ms

Werse

Raesfeld DUCHY

Sassenberg E

Münster Warendorf Hiltrup Wolbeck Sendenhorst Senden

OF MÜNSTER

Minden

COUNTY OF RAVENSBERG

Altenberge

Billerbeck

Lübbecke

Iburg

Schöneflieth

Aa

Stadtlohn Büren

STEINFURT

er Wes

OF MINDEN

Osnabrück

Burgsteinfurt Schöppingen OF Nordwalde Greven

Horstmar

BISHOPRIC

OSNABRÜCK

OF

Ems

COUNTY

BISHOPRIC

OF HOYA

COUNTY OF

Bentheim Gildehaus

UPPER Ahaus

COUNTY

LOWER

BENTHEIM

Borken

Vechta

Meppen

COUNTY OF

OF UTRECHT

77

30 20

Key to names STATES Cities* Rivers Exeption: Emsland (region)

PRINCIPALITY

N W

E

OF WALDECK Waldeck

S

Map 2

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f2_1-77.indd 77

6/6/2007 2:38:31 PM

Historical Narrative of the Anabaptist Madness, which overturned Münster, the famous Metropolis of Westphalia by Herman of Kerssenbrock, master of arts and laws, schoolmaster of the Church of St. Paul Master Herman of Kerssenbrock to the Reader: The baneful wars of the grim rebaptized I once composed as a boy in a boy’s poem; Now these and also their cause in prose I relate more broadly, but still with rude art. The king of Westphalia and the savage wars in true Order I sing with Westphalian honesty. The sad narrative crawls on the ground, but the true deeds of the madness it describes with the historian’s good faith. 1564 a.d.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f3_78-84.indd 79

6/6/2007 2:38:47 PM

80

herman kerssenbrock The King of the Anabaptists on himself when hanging in an iron cage by the tower of St. Lambert’s I once bore the loft sceptre of the rebaptized. Now a bitter tower holds me aloft. Having refused to nourish my subjects with blackbread, Now with my own fl esh I nourish the wild birds. With murder I seized the throne and with sexual acts unspeakable, I was not a basileus but a basilisk. Omnipotent Father, please forgive my sins, Lest the Infernal Beast devour me! Forgive my sin and remove my heinous crimes, Lest your creature should reach the threshold of Hell.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f3_78-84.indd 80

6/6/2007 2:38:47 PM

herman kerssenbrock

81

Herman of Kerssenbrock, Master of the Arts and of the Laws, Knight, greets the honest readers at whose instigation this narrative has been undertaken. Very learned men have completed careful and accurate accounts, both in prose and in poetry and in Latin and in German, of the Anabaptist madness that befell Münster, the famous chief city of all of ancient Saxony (that is, Westphalia) and affl icted it with a most grievous disaster. Nonetheless, since these writers omitted very many facts relevant to the origin and development of this madness, either because they were unaware of the events that had happened or considered them old wives’ tales, I thought that if I narrated in chronological order many events not yet published that relate to this uprising, I would perform for you a service that you would appreciate, since you have encouraged me to write of this. While for the most part I saw these crimes committed in the city during my boyhood, I received some information from writings published here and there, and I received other information from participants of whose account I harbored no suspicions. My purpose is not the arrogant pursuit of vain repute and splendid acclaim, since I have never been desirous of a little piece of fl eeting glory, | and even if this were my greatest wish, I do not have the means of acquiring it. No, I have many purposes, the first being to serve my homeland and posterity by preventing future generations from completely forgetting the most glorious deeds of the most reverend prince and lord, Lord Francis, the true head of the Church in Münster, the scion of the ancient and high-born family of the counts of Waldeck, when he suppressed and eradicated the very foul and cruel heresy that threw not only Westphalia but virtually the entire Holy Roman Empire into turmoil. (As a boy I wrote a boyish poem on the topic of this same history, imperfectly told, in praise of this excellent prince.) It is also my purpose that once the savagery and turpitude of the Anabaptist madness is revealed and made public, all good men will reject and shun it—we avoid an evil only when we know it as such—and that both civil and ecclesiastical governments will gaze upon the wretched face of these Anabaptist affairs and evaluate accurately what sort of disaster the commonweal suffers as a result of their neglect of duty. For after learning from the example of this distasteful uprising they will be able to move more expeditiously against future outbreaks, so that they may either completely scatter or stamp out and extinguish the embers of any evil at its birth. This will make sure that the embers will not

3

4

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f3_78-84.indd 81

6/6/2007 2:38:47 PM

82

5

herman kerssenbrock

be revived through the addition of kindling and result in the destruction of all good men, and eventually blaze up into a horrible fire that even the entire Empire could not put out. My final purpose is to offer more learned men the opportunity to compose works on these events to greater profit and in a more polished style. Many things written by me would seem to a more prudent posterity to be groundless, contrived and fictional, not a serious tale but a comedy performed by costumed actors on a stage as is the custom in the public performances of comedies and tragedies, were it not the case that in our age there still live very many witnesses to these events who had both seen them and been present, to their great detriment. | It is right for very great authority and trust to be granted to their testimonies, which agree with each other in every regard. The witnesses are good citizens and natives of the city of Münster, who preferred to suffer exile, some voluntarily, some by force, with the loss of all their goods rather than involve themselves in the Anabaptist madness. In addition, the truth of my account is attested to by the city’s new fortifications, by the sacking of the churches, by the pulling down of the spires onto the churches, by the plundering of all goods, public and private, by the various monuments to the Anabaptist madness scattered throughout the city, and by the well-grounded traces of it that can still be visited today. From all this information it is easy to grasp the savagery of the madness and the great extent of the chaos. Accordingly, whoever reads this account of mine should do so with the conviction that whatever seems made up, groundless, clumsy, stupid, ridiculous and implausible is nonetheless totally true. For it is not possible to think up anything too horrible, too impious and too laughable for that lecherous actor king not to have dared to try it. Finally, this madness of the Anabaptists and the concomitant overthrow of the city of Münster cannot be described accurately by passing over and suppressing the names of those responsible, since by doing so the reliability of the events would not merely be rendered suspect in the eyes of many but would even be weakened and undermined. Accordingly, if, in order for the narrative to acquire greater credibility, the faults of certain individuals who deviated from the virtue of their ancestors are described by name, the pious reader should know that it is hardly the purpose of these details to insult the entire family. For what is said of the bad people does not harm the good ones unless they implicate themselves with the bad by defending their evil deeds. Furthermore,

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f3_78-84.indd 82

6/6/2007 2:38:48 PM

herman kerssenbrock

83

there is virtually no family line in which no faulty individuals are found. For just as a tree or vine that is otherwise good nonetheless sometimes generates, through the fault of a root or branch, useless and excessive sprouts and twigs that are regularly cut off to prevent them from overwhelming the better-born branches, | so too are certain people who abandon the integrity of their stock through degeneracy sometimes cut off. Therefore, it is not right to ascribe the latter to the family, just as it is not right to ascribe the former to the tree. Accordingly, good men should not grow angry at me if mention is made in this historical narrative of abortive and faulty branches of their family. To learn the method of my undertaking, the well-disposed reader should know that I will first, in a few introductory chapters, write of the disturbances1 preceding the rebaptism from which the fl ames of Anabaptism and the overthrow of the city of Münster emerged as if from the Trojan horse; next, the dissensions that blazed up in the city after the acceptance of the re-baptizing, the cruelty with which the good people were expelled from the city by the rebaptized, the way in which the city was besieged, stormed, captured and plundered, and the deeds of the Anabaptists in the city in the interim; and finally the way in which the privileges that had been lost through criminal acts were restored. It is certainly not with a splendid panoply of words thought up to rouse and captivate the reader’s emotions that I will describe all these matters, but with a lowly style that slithers along the ground. For it is appropriate (to use the words of Polybius)2 for a writer of history not to stir up human emotions or strive after a method designed for this purpose, but to report the words and deeds of men on a reliable basis. Hence, histories should be read not so much for the purity of their Latin diction as for the importance of the events and the vicissitudes of empires, and the reasons for this. For anyone who would listen to the mass for the sake of the noise created by the priest’s words and neglect their sense would be acting back-to-front. The reader would likewise be

6

1 I.e., the efforts to set up a Lutheran reform in Münster, which is here conceived of as being responsible for allowing the Anabaptist takeover. Note that in his use of the image of the Lutheran reform movement as a Trojan horse, K. implicitly suggests that the complicity of the Lutheran faction in later events was conscious. 2 Greek historian of the second century b.c. He was famous for his theoretical discussions of proper historiographical method, and criticized predecessors who strayed from the truth for emotive purposes (see Polybius, 2.56).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f3_78-84.indd 83

6/6/2007 2:38:48 PM

84

herman kerssenbrock

stupid, and the writer very stupid, if he paid so much attention to the words that he neglected the true understanding of the events. Farewell, honest readers, and think that I have to some extent satisfied your importunate requests.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f3_78-84.indd 84

6/6/2007 2:38:48 PM

CHAPTER ONE

STATES ARE OVERTHROWN BY GOD BECAUSE OF THEIR SINS

7

In order for the pious reader to understand the nature and greatness of the state that was first undermined by religious discord and other monstrous crimes, and then altogether destroyed by the surreptitious entry of the Anabaptist plague, I thought it worth my while to point out first how the city started, and then how it came to fl ourish more than the other cities of Westphalia. For a comparison of its greatness and superiority with the lowly start of the disaster will easily show that it was not by human planning but by the action of God on account of crimes and outrageous sins that so outstanding a city was overturned. For just as God protects and saves states that are excellently established in terms of religion, justice and the other virtues, so too does He on the other hand scatter and overturn those that are tainted with impiety, arrogance, ambition, riotous living, greed, and other crimes. This is how Greece, when she began a fight to the death about views concerning religion, fell first into horrible errors, then into impiety, and finally into loathsome suicide when she turned her weapons (to use the words of Justin) from foreign guts to her own.1 This is how the face of the Roman state was changed by the lechery of Sextus Tarquinius alone.2 This is how this same city was ruined amidst its glory by the arrogance, ambition and riotous living of its other leaders and nobles.3 This is how

1 An author of the Roman Imperial period, Justin wrote a historical summary. The passage cited (3.2.1) comes from a section on the period of ancient Greek history leading up to the Peloponnesian War. The conception there derives from Thucydides’ famous analysis of the division of the cities states of the Greek world in the mid fifth century b.c. between the two hegemonic powers of Sparta (leading the oligarchic states) and Athens (leading the democratic ones). The chronological position here (before the discussion of the establishment of the Roman Republic, which is traditionally dated to 509 b.c.) suggests that this period is what K. has in mind, but what this has to do with a dispute about religion ( fides or “faith” in the Latin) is by no means clear. 2 The Roman historical tradition held that the ancient kingdom had been overthrown and replaced with the Republic as the result of a noblemen’s conspiracy that was formed after Sex. Tarquinius, son of the last king, raped the wife of Collatinus. 3 This refers to the fall of the Roman Republic. The sense here seems reminiscent of the presentation of the city council’s role in the downfall of Münster.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 85

6/7/2007 4:33:55 PM

86

chapter one

Carthage, the most splendid city of Africa, brought destruction upon itself through arrogance, ambition and the zealous pursuit of rivalry.4 This is how the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah provoked God’s outrage through their riotous living and lechery and were burned up by Him with fl ames of pitch and sulfur. This is how Troy, how Babylon, how Nineveh and other such magnificent states cast themselves headlong into ruination through their crimes. It is quite clear from these events that no great and fl ourishing state (like the city of Münster) is thrown into chaos and overturned by God without cause. Hence, a presentation is necessary of how this city of ours started and fl ourished for some time, since on this basis it will be easy to perceive the grievous nature of its downfall.

4 Carthage was destroyed by the Romans in 146 b.c. at the end of a prolonged struggle.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 86

6/7/2007 4:33:55 PM

CHAPTER TWO

BEGINNINGS OF THE CITY OF MÜNSTER Münster, like most everything, started from a crude and small beginning, but gradually grew into a fl ourishing city and state. The story starts in the year a.d. 568, when Justin II, the nephew of Justinian by his sister, ruled the Roman Empire. The Winili, who later were called Langobards in a Latinized German name, either because of their jutting thick beards or rather because of their long axes, were neighbors of the Saxons, and grew to be so numerous within the confines of their own territory that there was not enough land to provide sustenance for such a large population. Accordingly, when necessity suggested the appropriateness of seeking a larger and more fertile land, they first prepared everything for an expedition and invited a large band of the ancient Saxons (that is, Westphalians) along to increase the strength of their army, and then under the leadership of Albwin they invaded that part of Italy which lies between the Alps and the Apennines. By their habit as barbarians hostile to the true faith, they profaned all shrines, plundered what they had profaned, and seized the profaned property as if they had acquired it by fully legal title, expelling some of the real owners and killing others. They abolished the worship of God, and in place of it substituted foul idolatry, ordering that divine honors be made to a goat’s head that they set up. Many Italians were moved by love of the present life to supplicate it with tilted heads facedown as they passed by, wishing to avoid being killed by the Langobards if they despised the newly established religion. About four hundred people, however, preferred death to tainting the purity of their faith by such foul idolatry, being fearfully tortured and then executed by the Langobards for this reason. The Langobards exercised their insufferable tyranny in Italy for some years. They seized Treviso, Vicenza and Verona by storm, and among other famous cities which they razed to the ground was Milan, where they killed about 30,000 inhabitants. | Thus, the Langobards subdued virtually all of Transpadane Gaul, which is even now named Lombardy (from Langobardy) after them. They affl icted Italy with various misfortunes for a period of 204 years from the time of their first king, Albwin, until that of Desiderius, the last king, and his

8

9

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 87

6/7/2007 4:33:55 PM

88

10

chapter two

unconditional surrender. But in a.d. 776 the renowned Charlemagne smashed and crushed their tyranny and violent savagery. In the year 568, as I said, the Saxons followed the Langobards’ army, serving for fourteen years. After successfully performing such deeds during these years, they returned home from this war richer. Now they were no longer Saxons, but in order to distinguish themselves from the Langobards, they changed their name to that of the race living across the Weser, preferring to be called Westphalians, partly from the quarter of the land where the sun sets,1 and partly from their symbols. For as their symbol the whole race sports a young white horse, which in their ancestral tongue they call “ein fall ” (“a foal”). We used to see an image of it wrought of white stone placed long ago for some special reason on a column supporting the choir vault from the outside (the Anabaptists knocked it down). Up to the present day, the archbishops of Cologne keep this foal among their insignia along with the title of “Duke of Westphalia” (if the fates should consent, I will follow up this matter more fully in a description of Westphalia).2 After that, the whole population | between the Rhine and the Weser kept the designation “Westphalia,” being fond of the new name. Two years after the return of the Saxons from Italy, the leaders and nobles of the race began in the year 584 to build a new town in the area between the Rhine and the Weser, calling it Mediolanum (Milan) after the name of the Italian city conquered by them so that they might thereby hand down to posterity the memory of their brave achievements in Italy.3 The nobler races of Westphalia inhabited the city, and they fortified it with a surrounding wall and ditch for protection against the assault of brigands and plunderers. For while other crimes had stiff penalties and were very severely punished among this race even before the adoption of Christianity, no one was faulted for plundering. It brought no disgrace so long as it was practiced outside of one’s own

This explanation interprets “Westfalen” (The German form of “Westphalia”) as meaning “fall (of the sun) in the West.” 2 There is no indication that K. ever did write such a work. 3 The erroneous notion that Münster was named “Mediolanum” back in 584 can be attributed to the chronographer Valentine Müntzer, whom K. cites as his source about the foundation of the city in his later Catalogue of the Bishops of Münster (the story is also found in the cartographer Sebastian Münster). 1

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 88

6/7/2007 4:33:56 PM

beginnings of the city of münster

89

territory, and for this reason it lacked any penalty or punishment; they allowed this either to train the youth or to thwart sloth.4 The town kept this name for some years, but in the end it gave up the old name and came to be called Mimimgardford, a word I find written for the first time in the year 696 in Chapter 15 of St. Marcellinus5 in the time of Willibrord, the merciful first archbishop of Utrecht. | I have not yet discovered the reason for the change, but if one may resort to guessing, it appears that this designation consists of three elements. “Milan” is the name of Mediolanum in the Italian vernacular, “gard” the Vandal and Langobard name for “fortress,” and “ford” is the German term for “crossing,” so Mimimgardford is the crossing at the Milanese fortress, since the river Aa fl ows by on one side (the west), and over this river there was a crossing to the town (fortress). When a city was in some way taking shape as a result of the scattering of inhabitants around it, Milan ceased to be designated as a town and began to be called the Milanese fortress. No one should be surprised that in the first element the letter “l” was changed to “m” and “a” to “i,” and that in place of “Milan” the barbarous country folk, being ignorant of the Italian language, pronounced it “Mimim, since we perceive that countless words have been, over the course of time, corrupted in this way or in an even more monstrous one. The final, native elements, on the other hand, were maintained uncorrupted. Next, in the year 772, when Charlemagne received a public decree at the assembly of leading men at Worms to force the Westphalians and Saxons to embrace Christianity, Mimimgardford too was conquered and began to obey his rule. In order to strengthen the religion, which had first been introduced by St. Swibert, he erected in this town a famous monastery of regulars and canons and an episcopal see, which he endowed with various privileges and immunities. He put St. Ludger, a man of outstanding piety and a monk of the order of St. Benedict (as Witte attests,6 all his successors down to Herman I adhered to this rule), in charge of it. Ludger was appointed on the understanding that by preaching the Gospel he would soften this people who were

11

This sentence is a modified version of Caesar, Gallic War 6.23.6, which likewise explains why brigandry was permitted among the ancient Gauls. 5 I.e., in Marcellinus’ Life of St. Swibert. 6 A Benedictine monk of Liesborn, Bernhard Witte (ca. 1465–ca. 1533) wrote a work on Westphalian history entitled Historia antiquae occidentalis Saxoniae seu Westphaliae (“History of ancient western Saxony or Westphalia”), which was published in Münster in 1778. 4

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 89

6/7/2007 4:33:56 PM

90 12

13

chapter two

still uncivilized and their stone hearts which were not yet converted, and win over many as a profit for Christ. | This holy man, who was the first bishop, was not remiss in his efforts but performed the task assigned to him with great profit. As the Christian faith and the zeal for piety grew, so too did the honor, and especially the reverence, shown to God’s servants, and so too did their wealth. For whether at the urging of simplicity or of religion and piety, the inhabitants of that town voluntarily dedicated to God not just all their own buildings in town but also all their pastures, fields and manors outside the town when they died without children, or at the request of the servants of God they sold these to them at a tolerable price (it was considered sinful for anything to be denied to the servants of God), or consecrated themselves and their property to the Order. Thus, in a short time control over the entire town and over all the surrounding properties was placed under the legal power and discretion of the canons. Since the vows to this monastery and its resources were growing, many people were induced both by the piety of the canons and by the advantages of the town to move their residence there, having first, however, received permission to build on the Lords’7 land. Hence, the houses of many citizens are bound by servitude down to the present day.8 For every year the citizens purchase the right to dwell by paying to the lord canons a certain fixed land rental called “wordtgelt” (“ground money”), thereby attesting that the land (plot) for their buildings belongs by right of ownership and possession to the canons.9 Many people thronged into the city, and being scattered around it and placing their residences outside it, they made a fairly splendid suburban area. Eventually, after the number of inhabitants had increased and they acquired the right of being burghers, this area was surrounded by a wall and other fortifications. Accordingly, the fame of the monastery, which was adorned with pious men (canons), endowed with various gifts, privileges and resources, and made lustrous through the great sanctity of its prior, soon established the prosperity of the town and state. | This is the reason why this famous monastery gradually overshadowed the This is K.’s term for the canons (see 95D). “Servitude” is a term of Roman law (though traditional Germanic law is meant here), signifying that a piece of land had certain permanent obligations attached it that the landowner owed to someone else. 9 K.’s interpretation of this payment (quitrent) as betokening the canons’ control of the city was one of the points which drew upon K. the city council’s ire and which he was eventually forced to retract (see General Introduction 3b). 7 8

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 90

6/7/2007 4:33:56 PM

beginnings of the city of münster

91

name “Mimimgardford,” and both cities (the one in the center and the surrounding one) came to be called Monasterium (Münster), the specifying appellation turning into the proper name. Therefore, the name was given to this city not (as some believe) from the convent of noble nuns situated across the river10 but from the convent of noblemen that is a monastery of pious men, since the monastery was superior in rank, splendor and age, which is the usual grounds for giving a name. For we read that the monastery was founded by Charlemagne, the most Christian emperor, whose feast day is still celebrated in the basilica on July 27, while the convent was founded by Herman I, the fourteenth bishop of the Church in Münster. Furthermore, the list of bishops refers to St. Ludger, the first bishop of this Church, and all his successors down to the tenth (Dodo) as bishops of Mimimgardford, and then for a while it calls the next successors the bishops of Mimimgardford or of Münster without distinction, and for this reason it can be established without dispute that this city was not named after the convent of nuns, which was established by the fourteenth bishop. Therefore, the remaining conclusion is, as I too would believe, that the city took its name from the principal and more noble monastery of men. It would not, however, be my wish in stating this to lessen the authority of others, and I leave the matter undecided for each person’s consideration and opinion. This is what I thought should be said about the town’s humble beginning.

10

I.e., the Convent Across-the-River (see 48–57D).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 91

6/7/2007 4:33:56 PM

CHAPTER THREE

14

LOCATION OF THE CITY AND NATURE OF THE PEOPLE If one examines the surface of the earth, the Saxon Milan or Mimimgardford (now Münster) was built in just about the center of Old Saxony, which is now Westphalia, between the Rhine and Weser and not far from the Aa, in a place that is level all around and green with very pleasant pastures. For this reason it is properly considered the leading city of Westphalia. Outside the city there are also very pleasant gardens planted with various kinds of shrubs and plants, and the citizens go out to these gardens and enjoy themselves there, washing away every sort of mental distress and grief with good wine and beer. In these gardens, there also grows such a plentiful supply of cabbages, turnips, roots and other such produce that you would think that the inhabitants would live on this alone if the great number of pigs did not consume a large part of it. If we take a look at the face of the sky, the city is placed in the temperate zone mixed of heat and cold, between the tropic of cancer and the arctic circle, or, to speak more expansively and exactly, between the last star to the south in the tail of Ursa Major (called Bononatz by the Arabs)1 and the middle star to the north in the same constellation. Its zenith (to use astronomical terminology) or vertical point is the rather dim little star that forms a triangle with those more noticeable or brighter stars. Every day, this star traverses the vertical point of the city, but on April 19 at the eleventh hour of the night, when the last decury of Sagittarius encompasses the horizon in the east, as Gemini is setting and Aries holds the corner of the earth, it looks directly down on the city in a perpendicular manner. For this reason it is justly called the city’s zenith or vertical star. The latitude (elevation of the pole) is measured at 52 degrees, 14 minutes, and from this it is easy to agree under what part of the sky the city is located. It is not difficult, if we learn the nature of the sky and of the heavenly bodies to which the city is subject, to determine the nature of the 1 The normal form in Western languages of the Arabic name for this star (technically, star eta of Ursa Major) is Benetnash.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 92

6/7/2007 4:33:56 PM

location of the city and nature of the people

93

location and of the people living in it. For by their motion, light and infl uence, the sky and the stars act upon our composite bodies, as the natural philosophers2 insist, | in some way impelling them, with the secret powers that they produce, to produce similar works. It is not, therefore, ridiculous that as even Ptolemy3 attests, the nature of men should be especially dependent upon the various aspects of the sky and the qualities of locations. For it is impossible for behavior not to follow the temperament and mixture in bodies.4 We have no doubt that Cyrus, the king of the Persians, also noted this. After the Persians had decided to abandon their mountainous, rough and unpleasant region and to move to a softer and more pleasing one, Cyrus did not allow this, saying that the habits and traits of plants and men also resemble their location.5 In this way you would find regions that provide their inhabitants and visitors with inducements not merely to virtues but also to many faults. For this is how the delights of Campania broke Hannibal, who was undefeated in battle, and gave the Romans the opportunity to defeat him.6 Hence, it is clear that the qualities of locations have a great force and energy, and when these are poured into bodies that use them, they affect them in the same way. The legal commentator Baldus7 also claims, on Digest chapter “On the aedilician

15

2 “Natural philosophy” is the aspect of ancient and medieval philosophy that examined the natural world. Gradually separating from philosophy during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this study would eventually turn into the discipline that we know as “science.” 3 Ptolemy of Alexandria was a second-century Greek astronomer whose Almagest (to give it the Arabic title by which it was later known) was the standard treatise on astronomy during the Late Middle Ages. 4 Late medieval medical thought held that the body consisted of a mixture (temperament) based on the relative amounts of the four basic elements (earth, air, fire, water), and according to astrological theory, the different heavenly bodies exerted varying infl uences (which literally “fl owed down”) upon these elements, and thus upon the temperament. 5 This story comes from a climactic anecdote in Herodotus’ History (9.122) in which Cyrus states that soft lands breed soft men, and that the same land cannot produce both pleasant crops and hard men. 6 The Carthaginian general Hannibal infl icted a number of crushing defeats on the Romans during the Second Punic War (218–202 b.c.). After his victory at Cannae in 216, the Romans refused to meet him in open battle in Italy, where he remained for more than a decade. Campania was the rich area to the south of Rome, and some in antiquity attributed his failure to achieve another great victory after Cannae to the enervating infl uence of his long stay in Campania. 7 Petrus Baldus de Ubaldis (1327–1406), an infl uential Italian jurist who among other works wrote a commentary on the Digest (a massive ancient collection of excerpts from the works of Roman jurists).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 93

6/7/2007 4:33:56 PM

94

16

chapter three

edict,” law “Quod si nolit,” section “Qui mancipia,” that people’s traits are improved or worsened as a result of the disposition of the air or of the location.8 Accordingly, since this city of ours is subject to the constellation Aquarius and to Saturn as its lord, and since it has been built not in the middle of the temperate zone but virtually at its end near the arctic circle, it by no means enjoys a uniform moderating of heat and cold in either direction, and is more affected by the cold of the nearby arctic circle and the infl uence of those stars.9 Therefore, the inhabitants of this location, living as they do under a colder part of the sky, are mostly tall in stature, and have wild and uncouth habits. Hence it is that in many a place they call a crude person who deviates step-by-step from civilized behavior a Westphalian, as if the infl uence of the stars and the nature of the location have impressed upon this race of men a certain crudeness which they cannot escape. | They are more sensible than stupid (though they despise the liberal arts),10 and are strong and fit for enduring any hard work you please. They are, however, bad at tolerating thirst and hunger and are more ravening than other races, though they are content with a simple fare that is by no means extravagant. They have a pale complexion and hair that is not curly but long and fl owing. They are not clever or tricky, but straightforward, serious, and steadfast. Once they have adopted an opinion, they would not rashly change it were it not for Saturn’s working of greed, suspicion, deception, faithlessness, obstinacy, envy, and strife in them. All these characteristics are not suddenly increased by Saturn. Rather, because of his fairly slow movement he increases them gradually by dripping them down from above. Eventually, their minds are infl amed on both sides, and if not a resort to arms, then certainly manifest divisiveness, and after that strife among the nobles and the heads of the state, bursts forth. By this the commons too are tainted, and become involved in the same evil, and in the end it is only with difficulty that this contention can be lulled, to the great detriment of the inhabitants and commons. We find by experience that this evil has been instilled in the location by nature. For history attests that from

8 The relevant passage in the Digest (21.1.31.21) discusses the seller’s obligation to reveal a slave’s ethnic origin. 9 Here “arctic” is not used of the extreme north, as in modern usage, but signifies the northern regions in general (from “actos,” the Greek for bear, which is also the name in Latin for the Big and Little Dippers or ursa major and minor). 10 Presumably, this statement refl ects the attitude of a disgruntled educator.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 94

6/7/2007 4:33:56 PM

location of the city and nature of the people

95

the very beginning of the city right down to the present day there have never been eighteen continuous years of steady peace without it being disturbed or cut short by new disturbances. From these qualities there fl ow many others which I find it more appropriate to shift to the general description of Westphalia.11 Do not, however, imagine that the people of Münster are so imbued with and constantly devoted to these habits that they cannot adopt others.12 The nature of the location does offer up these and other characteristics to them, but | this “disposition”13 of nature is sometimes changed. This is why you could see some who are short, some dark-complexioned, some weak and unwarlike, some calm and hostile to unpolished crudeness, some clever, some fickle and unreliable, some extravagant in their dinner service. These people changed their residence and moved here from elsewhere, or intermingled with foreign stocks through marriage, or shed their in-born crudeness through living with other races for a long time, or, after bringing here what they learned while abroad, imitate these customs like apes and pass them on to their children. Hence, the townsmen have been so transformed and made so soft and effeminate through following a more dainty way of life that there seems to be just about nothing in the state that savors of and refl ects the renowned humbleness and crude simplicity of the ancient days. Sometimes, however, there is a return to native character. Small wonder, too. You can drive off nature with a stick, but it always rushes back.14 Hence, the people of Münster use partly their own customs and partly those of other, foreign races, and this dissimilarity in habits has begotten a disparity in attire. For some follow the Spanish, some the Italians, some the Turks, some the Mongols, some the Poles, some the English, some the Brabantines, some the Brunswickers, who are always responsible for novel clothing in Germany. Few people now refl ect in the humbleness of their attire the renowned simplicity of the ancient days. What is the cause? We despise our own things and exalt those

17

I.e., to his envisioned work on the subject (see 9D). In this paragraph, K. shifts away from the immediately preceding discussion of astrology and returns to the earlier notion of geographical determination of character. Here, K. seems to imagine that the pristine simplicity of honesty of the locals was negatively affected through the corrupting infl uence of foreigners, but according to him the native goodness of Westphalians will reassert itself (presumably as indicated through the reestablishment of traditional Catholic religious practice in Münster). 13 The Greek term διάφεσις is used. 14 A slight modification of Horace, Epistles 1.10.24. 11 12

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 95

6/7/2007 4:33:56 PM

96

18

chapter three

of others. While local things stink, exotic and foreign things have a delightful smell. While we cast off things produced here, we hanker after imported ones. While we shun old things, we embrace new ones. Things that are now new in our eyes readily become dated. Hence it is that we always pant after new things without ever being content with what we have. In fact, if God, who favors all men equally and wishes none to perish, had not now in His great mercy sent to us from elsewhere learned, eminent and well-spoken gentlemen who are steadfast in the business of the faith, in order that they should restrain those eager for novelty and protect the ancestral religion through the aid of God, a period of five or even two years would hardly pass without horrible strife and new disturbance.15 For through such men as His tools, God Almighty | preserves states in the recognition of the truth and in the best condition. It is these men by whom this people, with its inclination to certain faults and thirst for new disturbances, is attracted to the loving pursuit of virtue and tranquility. It is they who teach men to avoid what is base and to copy what is respectable. It is they who retain the citizens in their duty. It is they who change or avert the infl uences of the stars. It is they, finally, who rule the stars. Accordingly, press on industriously with your calling, you most honorable gentlemen, and toil without shirking or fl agging in the vineyard of the Lord! Upon you the state rests as on columns. It is so strengthened by your teaching and examples that it will never be shaken by new disturbances here in the world, but will stand firm like the Marpesian cliff 16 against all the waves of heretics.17 Let these statements about the location of our city and habits of the inhabitants suffice.

15 It is not clear who exactly these pious foreigners are. Perhaps K. has in mind the efforts of the Jesuits to bolster the Catholic establishment and to encourage the attempt to restore Protestant areas to allegiance to Rome. 16 A reference to Aeneid 6.471. 17 Now how in this paragraph K. begins with a specific complaint about the adoption of foreign attire (with a parochial swipe at the Brunswickers), generalizes this into a disparagement of preferring novelty to tradition, and finally converts the topic to the adoption of foreign religious practice (i.e., Protestant reforms) in place of Catholic tradition. Implicitly, the Protestant religious developments were in K.’s view of no more significance than the wearing of fl ashy fashions from abroad (and should be cast off as quickly).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 96

6/7/2007 4:33:56 PM

CHAPTER FOUR

FORTIFICATIONS OF THE CITY If cities deserve praise by virtue of their outer fortification, then this city will be pre-eminent and distinguished not only among those in Westphalia but also among those in many regions.1 For it is heavily fortified with gates, ditches, ramparts, walls, towers, and other bulwarks made both of stone and earth and of wood. It would certainly have a circular shape if could extend to the north-northwest. Its diameter is 1610 short paces (steps), that is, 4002 1/2 feet. From this it is easy, since the periphery or circumference of any circle is three times the diameter plus one seventh of it, to calculate that the circuit of the walls measures 5031 5/7 feet.2 It has ten gates named after the saints to whom most of the churches are dedicated. Hence, it can be inferred without obscurity | that the churches are much older than the gates. Accordingly, I would imagine that since they gave their names to the gates, most churches were already built before the city was surrounded with walls and gates.3 We enter through these gates not in a straight line but in a diagonal path with much to-ing and fro-ing, and the example of many other cities shows that this was brought about through careful planning in order to prevent frequent blows made by artillery from opening up a straight path into the city for the enemy. Instead, the great momentum of the shots was to be slackened when they smashed into the obstruction furnished by rampart or wall. In the direction of sunrise on the equinox, the direction from which the constellations first begin to shine, and the winds from the southsoutheast and east stirred up torpor in the air with their gusts, there is a gate that it is called Maurice’s since it faces the prominent college

19

1 This entire chapter was the initial cause of the city council’s disquiet about K.’s work, and it continued to take a prominent place among the passages to which the council took exception. The council objected to K.’s detailed description of the city’s defenses that even included measurements, and given the importance of the walls to the city’s safety, it is easy to see how those who were anxious about such matters would have taken this account amiss (see General Introduction 3b). 2 The schoolmaster cannot resist adding in an edifying lesson in arithmetic! 3 Logically, this circumstance demonstrates only that the names of the gates were more recent than the dedications of the churches.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 97

6/7/2007 4:33:57 PM

98

20

chapter four

dedicated to St. Maurice that is located outside the city. From this gate there goes a road that is higher than the public one and is paved at the expense of the college. Protected on one side by garden walls and shaded on the other by leafy willows, it extends all the way to St. Maurice’s cemetery. With a wondrous sort of delight it receives travelers already worn out and directs them to the city after making them forget their weariness. This entrance to the city has two bulwarks raised up out of earth on the right side. While the lower bulwark protects the ditch and rampart extending to the Horst Gate, the neighboring one, because of its height, protects not only the gate itself and the other fortifications to the city’s left but also the fields all around. Within the stockade on the right side is the chapel dedicated to St. Antony, where a certain number of paupers are fed. Full provision is also made for their heavenly nourishment, and on every holy day the mass is celebrated for them by the priests. The parish of St. Maurice is responsible for the administration of the sacraments. For we read that by the authority and at the expense of Louis, the thirty-fifth bishop of Münster, the chapter of St. Maurice built and founded this chapel along with the cemetery and alms-house in their parish in the year 1368, on the understanding that the city council had the right | to appoint the parish priest for the chapel and that the men of St. Maurice’s would authorize such appointments.4 In the direction of sunrise in winter, at the time when the southeast wind also blows, there is a very great bulwark that juts out in a circular shape. Starting with a stone foundation at its root, it rises up to a height of almost ten feet above the water, and on top of it is placed a tall mound of earth that has low bastions attached to it on both sides, rather like breasts. The construction of these bastions, which are situated back from the water, is such that to a great distance on both sides they can protect the ramparts and ditches against enemy assault with projectiles. Through the middle of this mound there is a path to the gate that is named Servatius’ after St. Servatius, whose church is near the wall. Outside this gate is a mill that grinds grain by being driven by the gusting of the wind and for this reason they call it a windmill.5

4 In 1531–1532, there would be much wrangling about the prince’s desire to have the radical preacher Bernard Rothman removed from the position of preacher at St. Maurice’s. 5 The point of this circumlocution is that Classical Latin had no word for “windmill” (such mills were a medieval invention).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 98

6/7/2007 4:33:57 PM

fortifications of the city

99

There is a fairly long interval from this gate to Ludger’s Gate, and in just about the middle of this distance can be seen a bend or jutting corner in the course of the rampart and ditch. For this reason, a certain underground fortification has been built there in the palisade, so that it can protect the ditches in both directions (towards both Ludger’s Gate and Servatius’ Gate). Ludger’s Gate, named after the nearby church of St. Ludger, is exposed to the south and has a very broad and strong fortification. Its base and foundations are quite large and made of the hardest stones, while its upper part above the circuit is rather narrow, being built in a circular shape out of bricks and filled with earth on the inside. Under the cover of this vast work there is a road by which the city is reached. | Between the city’s ramparts and ditches is the house of the archers, in which they feast after their practice sessions and celebrate holidays. To the left of this gate there is a rather low bastion raised up out of stones that can protect most of the rampart and ditch with arrows and catapults in the direction of Giles’ Gate. Outside of this gate can be seen two windmills and a fairly large field in which the citizens keep their timbers for construction. From the Horst Gate to this one the ground level of the city is pretty much fl at, but from here on it can be perceived that it gradually becomes lower and more inclined. For this reason, the ditch between Ludger’s Gate and this one is blocked with a stone barrier that separates the upper water from the lower, preventing them from fl owing together. Otherwise, no water would stay in the upper part of the ditch, since it would all fl ow downhill by the force of nature. Giles’ Gate faces south-southeast, and it takes its name from the church dedicated to St. Giles, as does a whole lane. On the right side of this gate there is a bastion raised up out of earth, and outside of the gate there are seven mills driven by wind. Before the siege there was also a gate towards the winter sunset in the southwest, which was named Bischoping Gate after an ancient line of noblemen. It is now torn down and in its place has been erected a massive, strongly fortified structure, so that the enemy could secure no access to the city from this direction even if the townsmen were all asleep. At its base the wall protects its defenders by extending too far for any gunshot to reach them. From here a few barriers are built across the ditches. For at this point the ground level of the city rises up and becomes more sloping.

21

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 99

6/7/2007 4:33:57 PM

100 22

chapter four

In the direction of the sunset on the equinox, the gate named after the church of the Holy Virgin Mary receives the gentle west wind. This gate is surrounded by a huge mass of earth placed on a stone foundation, and a road passes through the middle of it to the gate. This fortification is so tall that if necessary it could also easily protect the other palisades and ditches in either direction against any shots. Here there are, to the left above the water in the ditches, fortifications made of strong timber and resting on beams, being full of loopholes on all sides. They call these fortifications “swallow cages,” and from them the surfaces of the ditches can be protected by the efforts of a few townsmen from being attacked or assaulted by the enemy. In this same ditch there is a barrier (obstacle) that blocks the downward fl ow of the water and hinders its loss. In the direction of the sunset in summer, the Jewish Gate faces the northwest wind. It is named after the Jews’ Field, a place that they once occupied in which they placed their abodes. This is demonstrated well enough even now by the heads of Jews made of Badenberg marble that are placed there. The Jews were bleeding the Christians dry with their greedy usury, as they cleverly cheated them with their business deals, carried off everything for themselves, and in their customary way they left no stone unturned in their destruction of the Christians, their only aim being to pile up their own possessions.6 For this reason, they were driven into exile, and both their synagogue and their houses were pulled down. Their tombs and stone inscriptions were relocated to the New Bridge Gate, where they are placed both in the wall on the right hand side and on the other side within the city, in the place above the water where there is a privy for public use; they can still be seen on stones jutting out from the wall. This gate has stone towers attached to it like sores on either side for the defense and protection of the ramparts and ditches. The gate also has other very strong barricades on whose stone bases are placed massive structures of earth. In this place the roughness of the ground means that there is no need

The vehemence of this unmotivated tirade against the Jews shows that K. shared the virulently anti-Semitic views that were common in late medieval and early modern Germany, and the nonchalance with which he expresses himself indicates that K. expected his assertions to be uncontroversial in the opinion of his anticipated audience. The sharpness of these comments, which is out of keeping with the normally restrained tone adopted by K., seem to refl ect a hostility that is even stronger than the antipathy which he felt about the Anabaptists. 6

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 100

6/7/2007 4:33:57 PM

fortifications of the city

101

for obstacles to hold back the water in the higher sections. From this tower can be seen four mills for grinding grain. The Cross Gate, which is struck by the snowy gust of the northwest wind, looks at a strong bastion on its right. On the stone base of this bastion is placed a great mound of earth, to which a fort of unexpected design is attached. Here there are also some water barriers across the ends of the ditch. If the force of the water along the gate were not checked to an amazing height, we would see some sloping ditches completely bereft of water. This gate retains to this day the name “Cross” that was bestowed on it in ancient times. For the following custom concerning a large wooden cross on top of the church had been received by our ancestors, and was handed down to posterity. This cross was a gift from Frederick, the twenty-second bishop, and onto it was fixed a bronze image of the crucified Christ that was covered with silver plates and supported by the relics of saints on the inside. The cross was kept hanging by an iron chain above the intervening space that separates the choir from the rest of the church (this area is commonly called the “Apostles’ crossing”). The custom was that on the feast of Pentecost, the cross would be attended by two chanters, and carried through the individual houses of the citizens. Neighbors would take it in exultation from neighbors, as if they shared in the sufferings represented by the cross, and readily and joyfully desired their neighbors to be relieved of every affl iction. This was certainly a great incitement and spur to mutual affection. When this was finished, the cross was put back on the Friday directly preceding the feast of the Nativity of John. For on that day it was handed over to the butchers, who would bring it with some specific songs to the Cross Gate at about the third hour of the night after the celebration of a mass in the Church of the Holy Virgin. Having brought it there, they put it on a cart, making use of the services of the beadles. Then it was passed on from one peasant’s cart to another at fixed intervals, being transported for a few miles. In certain places, a sermon was given for the benefit of the accompanying crowd. In the end, after it had been carried around in this way, they return it to the Cross Gate, where in the customary way they washed off with wine the dust that had stuck to the Cross during the journey, and gave it back to the butchers, who brought it to the church, singing in dissonant, confused voices. | There the cleric received it and put it back in its place. If the chain by which it would be dragged back up creaked several times, it was superstitiously thought to foretell that there would be fertility.

23

24

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 101

6/7/2007 4:33:57 PM

102

25

chapter four

In the direction of the northern pole, where the north wind assails the walls with shivering from the cold, there is a gate that takes its name from the New Bridge that was first built there. It now has bastions to the right of the butchers. Here the Aa, which fl ows through the town and takes off every sort of filth, departs under the bridge. In this place, the river grazes the walls, which are protected by a piled up rampart, for a distance of some feet outside the city. The river departs from the walls by the citadel, which is exceedingly strongly fortified by the thickness of the walls and is located outside all the walls of the city. This citadel is thought to protect not only the gate but also the part of the city that extends to the Horst Gate. In the direction of the north wind is the Horst Gate, named after the word “horst,” which in our language means an “inclined field suitable for pasturage or sowing.” The gate has on the left a very large forecourt that is surrounded from top to bottom with a stone wall and stuffed with earth on the inside. To the left of this court is the lower citadel, from which an enemy can be warded off in the direction of Maurice’s Gate. Outside of this gate there were two windmills before the siege, but now there is only one. The whole city is surrounded by twin ditches, which are fairly broad and deep. While the first ditch abuts on the open fields and gardens, the second one, which is dug out on the other side of a rampart, is equipped in various locations with assorted barriers, barricades, defensive works, and swallows’ cages, so that it would allow no enemy, however violent, to pass. In between the two ditches there is a rampart made of earth dug up from both ditches. This rampart is fairly thick and steep and has a sheer face. | It encloses the second (inner) ditch with a continuous circuit, and is crowned on its ridge and high point with a wooden stockade that has teeth on top. A little bit lower down, not very far from the water, a thicket of dense, bristling briers and intertwined brambles goes around, and not only can this not be penetrated but it is not even possible to see through it. These two defenses will easily check the ascent of those who have already crossed the ditch. The rampart also has within it very many shelters, hidden passageways and concealed tunnels from which the enemy can be attacked on all sides with guns and pikes, but it is better to pass over these matters in silence than to make them public knowledge. Next there is a double wall whose circuit is broken only at the gates. These walls surround another rampart, which is set between and supported by them on either side. One wall is close to the second ditch.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 102

6/7/2007 4:33:57 PM

fortifications of the city

103

Being exceedingly strong and tall and distinguished by its bastions and loopholes, in which the night watches are kept, this is the real wall of the city. Since there is a very long interval between Servatius’ Gate and Ludger’s, two towers are added to the wall between those gates. One tower is named after Nitzing, a nearby convent of nuns, and it terrifies prisoners with just its name.7 The other, which lacks its own name, is made famous by the residence of the hangman. There are also two towers between the Cross Gate and the New Bridge Gate. One is called the “Bogey Man’s Tower” because of spectres seen there at night and the fear of ghosts. It is said that the other used to be the gate of the count of Tecklenburg, and that through it he had access to the city at his own discretion. They say that he sold this right to the city council during a banquet. In this interval there is also a little tower in which gunpowder is ground. The other wall is lower and encloses a sloping rampart that is surrounded by a fairly roomy open area throughout the city. I pass over many things in this account: the secret hidden passageways out of the city through | the ramparts and ditches; the multiple doors at each gate that are equipped with a zigzagging course; the swinging doors at the first doorway, which we call gateways; the supply of every kind of armor and weapon, which is so plentiful that not only are there enough for all the defensive works of the city but in their placement along the entire circuit of the rampart hardly one foot’s space is unoccupied (and in addition, you could see larger guns mounted on wheels placed, if need be, across the marketplace and certain lanes). I also pass over the very pleasing and delightful aspect of the area between the ramparts and ditches, which virtually surpasses Thessalian Tempe.8 So much for our terse glance at the circuit and fortifications of the city. Now we will enter the city to describe the churches.

26

7 I.e., as is often the case with medieval and early modern towns in Germany, the prison for detaining suspects was located in one of the towers in the city walls. 8 A rural area of Greece much celebrated in ancient poetry for its idyllic beauty.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 103

6/7/2007 4:33:57 PM

CHAPTER FIVE

DESCRIPTIONS OF THE CITY’S CHURCHES

27

In just about the center of the city there is a gentle hill with a roomy fl at surface. In the past, after the Saxons returned from the Italian Milan, they surrounded this fl at area with a few fortifications and filled the inner area with private buildings. This area took on the shape of a city and it was first called Mediolanum (Milan) and then Mimimgardford, and finally it, along with the surrounding urban area, took the name Monasterium (Münster), as was stated in Chapter Two. The diameter of its surface area amounts to 390 steps (shorter paces), and its circumference to almost 1226. When a violent dispute arose between Count Derek of Winzenburg, who was the eighteenth bishop of the Church of Münster, and the Lord’s Lords, the latter conspired unanimously against the bishop with the nobles of the diocese, who are called vassals, and with the citizens of the outlying city. The Lords claimed that the bishop was not in charge of them, and expelled him from the diocese. As the leader of the just cause and in reliance on his friends, the bishop took refuge with Duke Lothar | of Saxony across the Weser, who was later distinguished with the imperial crown.1 Being aided both by the power of this prince and of the counts of Winzenburg and by the protection of arms, he attacked Münster with an armed force on May 7, 1097, and plundered everything. He burned both private and public buildings as well as the churches (apart from the chapel dedicated to St. Ludger across the water), hurling into the city burning arrows and javelins that gave off fire, and he razed to the ground the walls that surrounded this open area, which is now called the Lords’ Field. But the noble lords and the citizens, who now became suppliants, he restored to favor, forgetting all indignities done to him, and he returned the privileges which he had taken away, and added new ones to boot. Lothar, however, took off with him those responsible for the insurrection, and eventually released them after fining them heavily.

1

Lothar was Holy Roman Emperor in 1125–1137.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 104

6/7/2007 4:33:57 PM

descriptions of the city’s churches

105

After being thrown down in this way, these walls were restored by Borchard of Holte, the nineteenth bishop. He raised them higher, so that they would be safer against the attacks of the count of Arnsberg and the lords of Meinhoevel, who were constant enemies of the Church of Münster, and kept on attacking it. He also repaired the burnt down church and the city gates through which there is access to this field at the cardinal points of the compass. At the eastern gate he placed a church to the Archangel Michael and at the western one a chapel dedicated to St. George (its tower is now named after a mirror2). Above the northern gate, the pastor of the church of St. Nicholas lives in a dwelling that was built there, and to the south there is an exit over an arch girded with stones on both sides. All these gates are now open without ever being closed. For the inhabitants | of this field are satisfied if they are surrounded by the fortifications of the outlying city and are protected by the common watches of the citizens, and for this reason they allow their walls to collapse and decay over the passage of time though intentional neglect. Along the inner side of these walls, the prince built a very large palace, which is distinguished with his insignia, and the Lord’s Lords built magnificent halls and residences that are very appropriate for their duties. There were very pleasant gardens sown with various trees and very nice smelling vines and plants, and these they enclosed by raising up a different set of walls from the earlier ones in a continuous circuit. They shared out the dwellings among themselves, so that each had his own home, but the separate dwellings were divided up with a priority given to age. They each had their own gate, on which they hung the heads and feet of beasts taken by hunting or shooting, and the common people measured their splendor on this basis. Living in a circle, they trespassed on the open area at the edge of the town, and abandoned in every direction the wide, open area in the center. In this open area can be seen the splendor of a most august and illustrious church. It was truly a basilica, being built in the shape of a double cross out of smoothed stones and extending to a length of 360 feet and a width of 103. The arms of the cross spread out to a fair distance, and are roofed with lead plates from which the rainwater is taken by gutters and drained off. Above the choir there rises up from the roof a tall and graceful spire held up by columns. It is so tall that

2

28

“Spiegelturm.”

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 105

6/7/2007 4:33:57 PM

106

29

30

chapter five

it gives a vista in all directions and displays a bell hanging in it that marks off the hours with hammer blows. This tower is, like the others, distinguished by a gilded globe, a cross, and a weathercock. Attached to this basilica on the southern side towards the choir is an edifice consisting of a very magnificent and very tall column, the right side of which is decorated with an image of St. Walpurgis and the left with one of St. Gertrude that is awe-inspiring. Above them are placed images that are wondrously sculpted of Badenberg marble and painted in a lifelike way with various colors, showing the angelic annunciation, the nativity of the Lord, the offering of the Magi, and the passion and burial of Christ. At the top there used to be a stone statue that was knocked down by the Anabaptists. Now it has been restored in bronze and portrays Christ in his triumphal resurrection. Weighing 106 pounds apart from the iron by which it is attached, it gives no little increase to the church’s majesty, and in its hand there is a rotating symbol made of iron that is gilded and shows the direction of the wind. On the outside there are also very tall columns and various arches and pinnacles around the church. On these there used to be various monuments, but the Anabaptists knocked them down, and these have not yet been repaired. Among the ones on top of the choir were a likeness of St. Walpurgis, the image of a white foal (the symbol of Westphalia), and countless statues of Solomon, Sampson and other pious men. In the same direction (the west) there is also a building attached to the church not far from the towers. The common people call it “Paradise,” and it is famous for the noise of legal cases. Above its threshold can be seen statues of the First Parents3 that portray the violation of God’s command under the tree of life, and they are represented with such skill and accuracy in local marble that you would think them alive. On the columns of this building statues | of St. Ludger, the Archangel Michael, St. George, and Charlemagne were arrayed at intervals. To the west are two stone towers of pretty much the same height. These were built by Herman of Katzenellenbogen, the twenty-fifth bishop of the Church of Münster, and on them were placed two lofty, lead-covered steeples that used to adorn the city before the Anabaptist uproar. One resounds high up with a multitude of bells by which it summons the priests and congregation to divine services both by night

3

I.e., Adam and Eve.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 106

6/7/2007 4:33:58 PM

descriptions of the city’s churches

107

and by day, while the other one, which lacks bells, provides a home for jackdaws and crows on its roof. At the bottom, the vaulting sometimes resounds with the ringing of a large number of coins, since this is the location of the common treasury for the whole diocese. In between the towers there is a place, enclosed partly with walls and partly with doors and wooden fences, where the prince restores military benefices to the nobles after interposing an oath. This place has been described by Master Henry Rupe, the procurator of the bishop’s consistory, who stands out for erudition and judgment among all the procurators of this court, in a learned and elegant poem that he published4 in praise of the election and installation of Lord William as the bishop of the Church of Münster: There is a place, where the sun descends to the western axis, And where the two towers stand like masses of stone. In the midst of these a new wooden frame with iron Is clad, where the double door opens a path. This structure has five wooden columns And new stones provide new fl ooring. Here a straight seat, worthy of your rule of the place, Is set, adorned with its decoration. Here the assembly of nobles, famed for its old-time ways, Is kept with customary rites that are theirs.

31

To the north, a square-shaped colonnade enclosed with a colored balustrade surrounds a path paved with stone. From here there is a little garden sown with fragrant plants and shrubs. It is very pleasant and is surrounded by a wooden fence and then a green thicket of brambles. In these locations (both on the path and in the colonnade), the Lord’s Lords have their burials with glorious epitaphs. Here, in addition to many other monuments of famous men, there remains that of Rudolph Langen, who was a very important and learned man in the eyes of all the learned, and brought this college a great addition to its prestige.5 Famous, while Langen lived in our world, as Protector of the learned and salvation of the poor, Then, when the envious fates took such a jewel away, He brought grief to the learned and hunger to the poor.

4 5

The poem was published in 1555 for the installation of William II of Ketteler. Langen died in 1519.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 107

6/7/2007 4:33:58 PM

108

32

33

chapter five

There also remains the epitaph to the deacon Roger Smising, who had such infl uence with everyone because of his learning, experience and authority that they did not hesitate to call him the father of his homeland,6 on the grounds that by his sage advice he put out part of the blaze of Anabaptism.7 At his funeral not only did the people of the whole diocese seem to grieve but so did the domestic animals, churches and paving stones. Here I pass over other memorials to pious men, since it would take a long time to describe them all. The vicars have mostly taken over for their burials the inside of the little garden, which is completely surrounded with thickets and brambles. In the colonnade towards the east there are three chapels, each equipped with one altar and fairly substantial revenues. | The largest and most elegant of these was dedicated in the past to St. Clement and now to the Holy Virgin, and in it the choristers celebrate the mass for the dead starting from the hour of six in the morning. The second (middle-sized) chapel is dedicated to St. Anne, the mother of Mary, while the third (smallest) one, which also lacks windows, is dedicated to St. Elizabeth. In the middle of the colonnade an image inscribed on white stone portrays Christ on the Cross with the thieves hanging on either side of him, and admonishes the passers-by to piety. Lest I should seem to have passed over the origin of the Old Church, I have decided that a few words need to be said about this. Most people ascribe its foundation to Charlemagne, but those people are suffering from the gravest delusions. For in the year 696, when Frisia, Holland, and the surrounding areas had abandoned idolatry, learned of Christ, and become quite strong in the true faith, Swibert, the joint bishop or suffragan of St. Willibrord, the first bishop of Utrecht, took some learned and pious men (Williric, Gerard, Derek, and Boso) and set off for ancient Saxony (modern Westphalia) to preach Christ to those crude men whose hearts were worse than stone-like. Here and there | in that land, he began to spread the Gospel successfully with his eloquence and miracles, and then, at the approach of winter, he came to Mimimgardford (modern Münster), where he very bitterly and to the point of astonishment inveighed against the idols among savage men because they despised the true creator and worshipped empty creations. He softened the hearts of the people to such an extent that

6 7

Pater patriae, an honorific born by Roman emperors. Smising died in 1548.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 108

6/7/2007 4:33:58 PM

descriptions of the city’s churches

109

they abandoned their obstinacy, and competed with one another in uniting around the words of life, which they earnestly embraced. He also confirmed his doctrine by performing a few miracles. For a certain wealthy woman whose name is not recorded was severely toiling from convulsions and the paralysis of her limbs. She succumbed to such an extent that none of her limbs could perform their functions, so she spent a great deal of money on doctors and surgeons—in vain. Perceiving no help from them and hearing of the presence of such a pious man, who was preaching of an unusual god, she was now confident of relief and asked to be taken to meet and see Swibert in person. There this holy man immediately restored her to her prior health and to the use of her limbs before an assembly of the entire people, using not the drugs of doctors or the plasters of surgeons but only the saving name of the crucified Jesus Christ and the sign of the Cross. In returning home, she was aided by assistance not of porters but of Jesus Christ, and she glorified God. Being a wealthy woman, she wished to gratify her doctor, and upon Swibert’s advice she built at her own expense beside her house a church in which the glory of Jesus Christ, in whose name she had regained her bodily health, should be propagated among the pagan nations and the newly-converted Christians would invoke His holy name and receive the sacraments. This church was not unreasonably dedicated to St. Paul, since it was on the day of Paul’s conversion8 that this noble patroness felt the benefit to her body and soul when she was at the same time converted to the faith and received salvation. Such reasoning would lead me to believe that the old Lord’s Church was built by a noble patroness and dedicated to St. Paul before Charlemagne’s expedition against Saxony, and that after the conquest of Westphalia it rested upon pious men who had been convened in a single monastery and college to support the new religion like firm columns. Since piety was increasing there greatly through the succession of good men, the church seemed too meagre | to suffice for the great multitude that was rushing to join the Christian faith every day, and therefore they hurriedly finished the structure for a new church, eagerly tearing down the incomplete old one. We read that Dodo, the tenth bishop of Münster, incurred some expense and difficulty in transferring the canons of the Old Church along with their properties and revenues. After the Frisians in particular had brought

8

34

January 25.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 109

6/7/2007 4:33:58 PM

110

35

chapter five

very rich gifts, and the other races in the surrounding area had been kindled with love for the new religion, the canons became so wealthy that they could barely understand the nature of the change which they had undergone and the abundance of their suddenly piled up riches. In those days piety begat wealth, but in the present day, now that this wealth has grown up, it is trampling upon its mother. Since they were awash in opulent resources, the church that had been dedicated by Dodo, burned by Derek of Winzenburg, and repaired by Borchard of Holte, was to a large extent torn down and then rebuilt in grander fashion at great expense, as can now be seen, because large numbers of people visited it on a regular basis from the surrounding population.9 Accordingly, Count Derek of Isenburg, the seventeenth bishop of Münster, summoned workmen and a very knowledgeable architect, transported stone blocks and bought lime, timber and the other things necessary for construction, and in the year a.d. 1225 set down the first stone while reciting the words of a fixed formula, | and ordained that that day should be celebrated as a festival. Approximately thirty-six years intervened from that day until the consecration,10 which was performed by Gerard of Mark, the thirty-first bishop, who himself presented to the new church two large bells dedicated by him. After Dodo effected this transfer of the brothers (canons), the old church was so stripped of divine worship, so divested of its revenues and income through their transfer, and so denuded of its decorations, that nothing seemed to be left apart from the walls. This abandonment and desolation lasted until the time of Borchard, the nineteenth bishop, who thought that the worship of God should not be lessened but increased, and therefore this good prince restored twelve prebends11 to the old church. One of them was to provide for the canons present, and is called “Bishop Borchard’s prebend.” His main intent was that since the prebends of the brothers, who performed most of the work and lacked any other support or maintenance, were meagre, they should at least get more recompense and consolation in connection with their work. This act of Borchard was confirmed with sealed letters not only

9 Actually, Borchard preceded Derek as bishop, and the cathedral was burned three times, in 1071, 1121 and 1197. 10 Here K. follows the Chronicle of the Bishops of Münster, whose dating implies a dedication in 1261, but documentary evidence shows that it took place in 1265. 11 A prebend was the portion of the cathedral’s income that was given to each member of its chapter.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 110

6/7/2007 4:33:58 PM

descriptions of the city’s churches

111

by his immediate successors but also by Herman I, the twenty-fifth bishop, in 1184, as well as by Derek, | the twenty-seventh. At that time (Borchard’s), there first began to be two colleges, which differed in function and location. One was that of the Old Church, the other that of the New Church, and they have lasted down to our days in a continuous succession of pious men, though with much differentiation. For the one allows only men of a military order or of undiluted nobility into its assembly, and for a while they were also called the Brothers of St. Walpurgis. For it is said that this church is dedicated not only to St. Paul but also to St. Walpurgis as if under the protection of a co-patron saint, as is reasonably well indicated by the statue to her that used to stand towards the east on the roof at the top of the choir but was thrown down by the Anabaptists. The other college, however, admits anyone, provided they are freeborn, and as a distinction most people called them the Brothers of St. Paul. The former college grew not only in wealth and power but also in the number of noble canons, while the latter one seems to have seen no great increase in either numbers or wealth, though they do have sufficient resources for a respectable life in comparison with their duties. The canons of the Old Church have a deacon (and the second-rank clergy a chaplain) who is chosen from their own college, and they also have a provost, who is always chosen from the college of the New Church and receives a large part of the income. But no one should imagine that the church which is now called the Old Church is the one that the famous matron built at her own expense at the suggestion of St. Swibert! For that church was in the location where the colonnade and cemetery of the canons now are. Consequently, between the ancient church and the New Church there was a small area for the burial of priests, and since this area seemed insufficiently large for all the dead bodies, since the Old Church blocks the windows of the larger one, and since the excessive closeness made the Lords disturb each other when singing rather loudly, especially on festival days, it was thought a good idea to have the Old Church relocated. Hence, by Florentius, the thirty-eighth bishop, they were granted ownership of the Bishop’s Chapel with the consent of Harting, its rector, and to it they transferred everything once the Old Church was demolished, attending to their pious duties there to the present day. They shifted the Bishop’s Altar (and its revenues), which is dedicated to St. Andrew, from there to the north side of the cathedral. To facilitate the move, the chapter of the cathedral also added to the

36

37

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 111

6/7/2007 4:33:58 PM

112

38

chapter five

Old Church an open area with some buildings located alongside the Bishop’s Chapel (this area was in the past owned through inheritance by Gertrud of Stoyfener). Hence, with the removal of the oldest church, the greater basilica began to be more illustrious and the cemetery of the priests to be larger, and from then on the extreme closeness of the churches no longer caused the singing to become confused. That time was also the first to see the construction of a very splendid colonnade. It was in the year 1377 that the bishop’s authorization and endowment were conceded and that the two colleges entered into their contractual agreement. Apart from the highest altar and the one in the chapel, there are now five altars in this church and ten vicars who tend to them. There is an organ that plays many notes at once, and it is praised with the following verses, which are inscribed on the wall: This work wrought in sweetly beaming finery— How it sounds when played by a learned hand! Not the dying swan, nor the nightingale with its chirp, Pours so varied a song from its sweet mouth!

The canons of the Old Church do not have their own bells, it being sufficient for them if they are summoned for their duties by the same bells as the priests in the cathedral are. Every Sunday they take part in what are called the solemn processions of the canons of the greater church. On the feast of the nine chaplains and the other widely frequented holy days, they enter the cathedral and take the seats of the Lord’s Lords, and just like them they are assigned to singing in the choir and receive along with them the sums of money that are called “presences.” Each college (both old and new) has one school master and one cantor, who presents to the assemblies of each college candidates for induction as canons, and attests to their worthiness to join (the induction of novices does not normally take place without such presentation by the cantors). But no one has ever been allowed to hold ecclesiastical benefices in both colleges. When the canons of the Old Church are ill, they take the sacraments in the cathedral. On this basis, some people validate the assertion that there are not two churches but in legal terms only one, even if there is disagreement as to the number and location. There are also other decorations all over the outside of the cathedral, but in circumspection I pass over them. Now I will enter the cathedral to describe its inner adornment. The first thing to strike one’s attention is the fl oor, which is paved with cut

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 112

6/7/2007 4:33:58 PM

descriptions of the city’s churches

113

and polished stones with plumb-line accuracy, and gives the viewer’s eye the impression of being perfectly level and smooth. On the fl oor are placed the tombs of three bishops, namely, Henry of Schwarzenberg, Conrad of Rietberg, and Duke Eric of Saxony, and on Eric’s sarcophagus, which is made not of domestic but foreign black marble, are carved the insignia of the great-hearted prince. | In addition to the walls, a double row of columns down the middle holds up the vaults, which rest upon them on both sides, and keeps them from collapsing. This row creates a triple series of painted vaults (the ones in the center are higher and the fl anking ones are lower). Next, the function of providing light is performed by four rows of windows. In the past there were stained-glass windows that gave the appearance of gems because of the many colors put into the glass when it was formed by heating. These windows were made by the princes at great expense and presented by them as gifts, but have now been knocked out by the Anabaptists. Twenty-three altars dedicated to various saints can be seen, and these are endowed with large annual incomes and adorned with excellent painted screens and sculptures. In addition, there is the one in the chapel, as well as another that is under the other tower in the chapel dedicated to St. Catherine, where aspirants to church functions are examined. This is awe-inspiring, since St. Catherine was considered the patron of the liberal arts by the ancients.12 On the other side there is a heated chamber to which in winter the priests retire in turns to dispel the cold. There they sit around a movable iron brazier that gleams with hot coals and engage in various conversations, now about sacred matters, now about secular ones, now about matters of no consequence. | There is also a second hearth, larger than the first, which is kept alight in winter by the beadle, who throws on coals, for the benefit of the indigents clothed in rags. The place in between the two towers and over which the altar is set is virtually enclosed on both sides with wooden benches. They call this the old choir because this is the place where the choir of the Lords was in the ancient church of Dodo. This is the site of the baptismal font to which, by ancient right maintained since its consecration, the first-born son of every parish throughout the city is brought for baptism and

39

40

12 The fourth-century martyr Catherine of Alexandria was reputed to be a philosopher, and for this reason was considered the patron saint of students and philosophers.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 113

6/7/2007 4:33:58 PM

114

41

42

chapter five

serves no other use. From this it is obvious that this church possesses a loftier status compared to the others. Though the expanse of the church is great, a dais made of local marble was raised up next to a column and covered with a wooden roof carved with great skill, so that when the priest gives forth his voice, it is not immediately received by the vaults to be diffused and dissipated there, but is bent downwards to strike the ears of the listeners directly. In front of the choir there are two paintings, one portraying the mother of God and the other St. John the Baptist, who points to the Lamb of God. These were painted by Brother Franco of Zütphen with such skill that they compelled astonishment in all the best painters. During the siege these paintings had holes cut in them by the Anabaptists | to make toilets. Two organs with divergent but harmonious sound were built at great expense, but they were destroyed at the time of the Anabaptist madness and only one has been rebuilt. Around the wall of the choir, the prophesies of the Sibyls along with pictures of them were arranged with wondrous skill one after the other at fixed intervals. In sum, the whole church was full of sculptures arranged here and there on the walls and columns, but these are nowhere to be seen, having been broken and smashed to pieces by the Anabaptist madness.13 The chapter house, to which the Lords customarily retire to deliberate on more important affairs, faces north. Its inner walls are covered with cut and planed timber, on which can be seen skillful engravings of insignia of nobility and arms that were passed down to the Lords by their ancestors. In obedience to you its backdoor yields in whichever direction you choose to turn.14 The library on the upper fl oor to the right is not very well stocked, since it only has a few authors through the gift of Master Herman of Busch, a man of noble birth, who is undoubtedly very learned, a poet laureate and deacon of Lord Roger Smising. The old, very well stocked library | was destroyed by fire on September 7, 1527. It surpassed all the libraries of Westphalia in the nobility of its authors and the age of its books, and was an irrecoverable treasure. It is said that in it were

For the destruction of the decorations of the cathedral, see 522–523D. The sense of this is not clear to me. Perhaps he means that the door opens both inwards and outwards. 13 14

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 114

6/7/2007 4:33:58 PM

descriptions of the city’s churches

115

preserved manuscripts of many authors written by themselves in books made of bark.15 I think that I should not pass over the clock that was carefully built with great invention, and in the time before the Anabaptist madness brought no little increase in the majesty of the church and its college. We discover that with no less skill has it been repaired through the diligent efforts of the astronomers Master Derek Zwifel (a burgher) and Doctor John of Aachen (a monk) as well as Nicholas Windemaker (a blacksmith). On the clock there is not merely a hand that moves so as to divide the hours into their minutes. Not only is the very swift motion of the primum mobile 16 portrayed driving the lower spheres, but so are the particular motions of the individual planets through the signs of the zodiac and their own gradients, the rising and setting of the sun through the zodiac, and the waxing and waning of the moon, and various other things that I circumspectly pass over for the sake of brevity. Above the hand, images of the three Magi come out. Attended by their servants, they offer gifts to the Newborn King as the star leads the way high above, and the boy, who is held in the arms of His mother, Mary, receives the gifts with a sort of good-natured nod. This is accompanied by clinging bells that play a hymn. All of this is driven by the skillful construction of the clock. Lower down, a little wheel goes around slowly on which the inscribed names of all the months, days and feast days can be read through a grating. In the center of this is fixed a picture of St. Paul that always points to the present day. On the other | side are two statues, one of a woman and the other of a man. The man puts a horn to his mouth and blows into it. Once he has done so, he sticks it in front of the woman’s face as if in jest, but as if irked at the joke, she raises a hammer that she holds in her left hand and makes ready to strike the horn in front of her face with an energetic blow. But when the man pulls the horn back as she strikes at it, she is thwarted by him and hits the bell that hangs in the middle instead of the horn. In this way the hours are counted by repeats strikes. At the same moment, a bronze rope pulls the heavy hammer of the upper bell and causes it to

43

15 In the primitive days before the invention of paper, bark served as a cheap material to write on (parchment was expensive and papyrus was unavailable for most of the Middle Ages). 16 The primum mobile (“first movable thing”) was the outer sphere that drove the spheres of the planets below (and in the medieval Christian conception of astronomy it was God who moved the primum mobile).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 115

6/7/2007 4:33:59 PM

116

44

chapter five

give a rather loud ring. So that the excellence of skill will not escape men in their ignorance, this clock is at present under the careful and accurate control of Master John Wilkinghof, an excellent astronomer and most diligent professor of the liberal arts. To the east, one rises up to the choir from the general fl oor level over a few steps between the columns, and the choir is separated from the rest of the church on all sides by a stone railing and some twisted and polished little columns. A noteworthy structure made with keen ingenuity between two columns of the church faces west and is held up by columns and arches. Lower down, it reveals two entrances to the choir, while higher up, above the vaults, it is paved with smoothed stone and is surrounded on both sides with a barrier fence, so that it can contain a fair number of people without any fear of them falling. On just about the upper rim of this structure by the church, images of the twelve Apostles carefully made of local marble by a craftsman’s ready hand on a delicate lathe detain the eyes of beholders for some time. | For this reason it is commonly called the Apostles’ crossing. In the middle of it is suspended an image of the crucifix. The other side by the choir is supported and decorated with many figures that are carved with equal skill and have little columns interspersed. Two spirals are attached to this structure on either side along the columns of the church, and the covering over these spirals, which surround the steps, is made of the same marble, being circular like a crown. Consummate skill polished this covering and adorned it with little towers and pinnacles, so that it seems, if not to surpass, then at least to equal the workmanship of any goldsmith. In short, the splendor and elegance of this structure are such that by its artistry any artisan would be compelled to dumbfounded astonishment. The priest customarily recites the Gospel on the top of this structure. In this choir, the ordering of the singing clerics in three ranks is most suitably marked off with benches and pulpits. The top row is decorated here and there with hanging tapestries, and in it the Lord’s Lords have their place, each at a level corresponding to his dignity. The next row contains the vicars, and among them the choirmaster conducts the singers by waving a knotted stick. The lowest row holds the twenty-four singers (who are called chamber men) and boys summoned from the school to sing. In the four corners of the choir, statues of the Evangelists holding books of the Gospel in their hands seem to hold up the columns. Then there are two other columns holding up the vaults of the choir, and St. Paul on the right-hand column and St. Peter on the

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 116

6/7/2007 4:33:59 PM

descriptions of the city’s churches

117

left-hand one trample Simon Magus under foot to give warning that no blemish of simony should be let into this assembly of Lords.17 On the other side of the choir there juts out a container for the Lord’s body,18 which is carved with various pinnacles like a little tower. From the choir of singing priests there is an ascent over a few steps to the high altar, which before the re-baptizing was outstandingly adorned with gold, silver and gems. | Around it can be seen images raised a little from the fl oor level that portray certain Fathers of the Old Testament making sacrifice. Abel offers a lamb with the words:

45

From the fl ock may this rich gift of first fruits Be carried high up to You from the altar by the sacred fl ame.

Cain offers stalks with the words: A handful cut down from the field with a scythe I bring forward, and I will not donate to the altar rich ears of grain.

Melchizedek offers bread and wine, and Aaron incense: We sacrifice mystical things: bread, wine and pious incense.

A bit higher up above these statues along the outside of the high altar, images decked out with gold, silver and other colors stand at fixed intervals, and these portray the choir of angels and carry in their hands wax candles placed on candelabra. On the vault of the choir a picture of the Trinity and representations of other saints and the shapes of stars gleam forth in an impressive way across a blue background. Here I pass over the countless lamps around both choir and altar; the great brightness of the candelabra; the large size of the crosses; the strong fragrance of the censors; the purity of white vestments; the brilliant shining of the gold and silver vessels; and the other decorations of various kinds that greatly infl ame the congregation with love of the awesome mysteries. I also pass over the very fetching delightfulness of the Lords’ Field, which easily surpasses all other locations in the city. For this field is made very pleasing not only by the magnificent edifice of the basilica but also by the outstanding palaces of the Lords, which have been raised up on all sides at great expense.

17 Simon Magus was well-known in the Middle Ages for being a magician, but here he symbolizes “simony,” the (theoretically) illegal practice of buying ecclesiastical benefices. 18 I.e., the eucharist host.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 117

6/7/2007 4:33:59 PM

118

46

47

chapter five

I pass over the fl ourishing lindens and oaks; the very expansive vista; the grass that grows everywhere; the frequent visits of people taking strolls and engaging in conversations, and the large variety of sights. All these things greatly increase the delightfulness of the field. But if I were inclined to describe all these things, I would certainly make the reader sick and tired. In addition to the cathedral, there are three churches located in that field which I cannot pass over. One of them is in sight of the Paradise. It is built with great skill out of local marble, and has a splendid spire. This is a parish church dedicated to St. James. Since it is for the benefit of the servants of the Lords, who live all around in the field, it lacks a baptismal font. (There would be no use for it, since everyone leads a life of celibacy in that place, and no married couples or any childbirths are allowed there.) There are two cemeteries, one receiving the funerals of the servants of the Lords, and the other the burials of the cathedral singers. On the lane to the south, we enter the other chapel, which Odinga, a noble lady of the Büren family, once dedicated to St. Margaret at her own expense in a garden that she cultivated by hereditary right, and endowed with revenue. At her death, she transferred her ownership to the chapter as a mark of piety, with the restriction that the income of the church benefices founded by her should always remain in the possession of the inhabitant of the house. The third church is to the north and is dedicated to St. Nicholas. It rests on smoothed columns, and apart from the stone spire that rises from the roof, it is adorned with a few altars, marble statues and stained-glass windows. Next, there is a building nearby that is 126 feet in length. That its cellar was once a repository for wine, beer and other kinds of drink, and that on the next fl oor there was a feasting hall for the Lords, in which they enjoyed a common meal at a common table, is reasonably well demonstrated both by the name “refectory” and by records of the distant past. This building has now been converted to three uses. The basement and first fl oor are occupied by the public schools for youth. The middle fl oor is occupied by the cathedral singers and is divided into rooms which they call chambers, and for this reason the singers are called “chamber priests” (Camerpapen in the vernacular). The top fl oor underneath the roof serves as the Lords’ granary. Since the small size of this house does not allow it to contain all the singers, they also inhabit a neighboring house (directly next door, in fact).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 118

6/7/2007 4:33:59 PM

descriptions of the city’s churches

119

The singers number twenty-four in total and have their own college. They have their own deacon, their own laws and regulations on how to live, their own cook and butler (they call him “provider”), and their own steward, who also sells beer to the public, earning a profit for himself and his colleagues. They share a common table and heated room. When about to enter the choir, they wear an attire that practically reaches their ankles, clad sometimes in linen stoles and sometimes in woolen hoods hanging down in the back, and follow the practice of other priests. It is their duty to devote themselves to chanting hymns both by night and by day, and for this reason they receive as a reward the daily necessities apart from drink. Neglect of the prayers at matins is punished by loss of breakfast. Only those who excel in both voice and knowledge of singing and who make a vow of celibacy are admitted to this college. If any of them becomes a father, he is fined with the cost of one banquet, though he has the privilege of sending to the pregnant woman the first steinful of the penal beer. With this expense he redeems his good name and absolves himself of every blemish of the prior sin, unless he taints himself with lawful marriage | contrary to the custom of the college, in which case such people exclude themselves from the college. The older members receive preference in seating and in dignity. For their education, the younger members are turned over to the study of literature in the public school, and for this reason the schoolmaster is paid twelve gold pieces every year for tuition. They are bound by no specific religious vow from which they cannot release themselves if so inclined. For when they lay down their office, they also lay down the obligation to keep the oath, and once freed of it, they are restored to their original liberty and can get married (age permitting). But to make sure that I do not, in the midst of my efforts to be brief, exceed the plan which I have undertaken, and incur the readers’ disgust with an unrefined mass of dull words, I will laconically complete the description that I have decided to write about the churches. After the Lords’ Church, we first come upon a magnificent church with a convent of noble nuns. This church, which is dedicated to the Virgin Mother of God, surpasses the rest by dating back to ancient days, having been built across the river Aa by Herman I, the fourteenth bishop of Münster. In the past, when the faith was first growing, it was called the Marienthal, since it was dedicated to the Virgin Mary and is located in a rather sloping region of the city (a valley). After the bishop had finished the construction of the church and convent at his own expense and endowed it with many fine manors for the support of the

48

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 119

6/7/2007 4:33:59 PM

120

49

50

chapter five

nuns, he finally adorned the buildings by establishing a convent of nuns from the higher nobility, appointing his own sister as the abbess. Then on December 29, a.d. 1041, in the presence of the reigning emperor, Henry III, the high altar was dedicated in honor of the Holy Cross and the Virgin Mary by Archbishop Herman of Cologne, with the assistance of Archbishop Alebrand of Bremen and Bishop Bruno of Minden. | The southern altar was dedicated to St. John the Baptist and All Saints by Archbishop Bardo of Mainz in the presence of Switger of Bamberg, who was later elected pope,19 and of Bishop Detmar of Hildesheim. Bishop Hunfried of Magdeburg, with the assistance of Carro and of Alveric, the bishops respectively of Zeitz and of Osnabrück, dedicated the northern altar to St. John the Evangelist. The western altar was consecrated under the auspices of Sts. Peter and Paul by Bishop Herman of Münster, the founder and builder of this convent, in the presence and with the assistance of Nithard and Rudolph, the bishops respectively of Lüttich and of Schleswig. Amid this well-attended dedication in the presence of the bishops, Emperor Henry, who was himself present, was moved by pious zeal to grant a wealthy manor to the nuns for their upkeep. After the completion of these arrangements, the convent remained intact for some while following the dedication, and the nuns spent thirty years in devotion to the worship of God and to the singing of hymns. At the end of this period, in the year 1071, an interruption of the successful course of the vows which they had undertaken led to a temporary obstruction and suspension, when the outbreak of a fire in April reduced the entire structure of the convent and church to nothing but a mass of stones. But within fourteen years virtually everything had been repaired with greater elegance, so that on January 11 of the year 1085, when Henry IV was ruling the Holy Roman Empire, the western part of the convent was re-dedicated by Erpo, the bishop of the diocese. On March 25 of the same year, the altar in | the chapel called Jerusalem, which had been ruined by fire, was also dedicated by this same Erpo. I could imagine that this chapel preceded the Lords’ Church in age. For we read that before the time of Charlemagne, St. Swibert along with certain pious men who were priests not only taught here in Münster and in neighboring areas but also with his eloquence and the

19

As Clement II in 1046.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 120

6/7/2007 4:33:59 PM

descriptions of the city’s churches

121

performing of miracles converted many people, so that they embraced the faith, and that he consecrated a certain number of churches (as things went back then), in which the Christians gathered in their zeal to strengthen their piety. Accordingly, I have no doubt that this chapel too was built before Charlemagne’s campaign against Westphalia. It was also dedicated by St. Ludger, the founding bishop of Münster, who was brought here from Bilderbeck after his death, and rested for thirty days in the chapel without smell, with blood pouring from his nose at the arrival of his brother Hildegrin.20 Hence, this chapel, which also used to be adorned with many relics, has been called not Jerusalem but St. Ludger’s chapel down to the present day. The church itself and the altars were reconsecrated in the year 1086 on December 29, while the chapels were graciously consecrated by Erpo in the year 1087, the southern one on January 24, the northern one in the year 1088 on February 1, as was the choir of the nuns on August 16 of the same year. | A few years later, this building was burned to ashes along with the other churches and private buildings, when Derek of Winzenburg, the eighteenth bishop, threw torches into the city. Borchard of Holte, the nineteenth bishop, was busily engaged in repairing the burned houses of this convent but did not finish the job. Cut short by death, he left the completion to his successor, Egbert. After Egbert had finished everything sumptuously, he recalled the nuns, who, in the time since the fire, had been wandering here and there among their friends and relatives, but since they had for some time learned to pursue a rather licentious and dissolute life among their own people, many greatly resisted the bishop’s summons. Having grown used to freedom, they shrank from imprisonment. Nonetheless, when he fulminated against the rebels with the dire threat of ecclesiastical sanctions, he eventually achieved his desire, though with great difficulty. He therefore constrained those who had returned with a tighter form of custody. In the year 1340, during the days of Louis of Hesse, the thirty-fifth bishop, the church and its tower were rebuilt in a much grander and more magnificent manner than before, at the expense of the entire diocese, which had by now increased in population and wealth. The church and altars adopted a new appearance, which they have retained to the present day. The nuns of this convent are no less noble than

51

20 Absence of physical corruption of the remains was a frequent feature in the medieval conception of sainthood.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 121

6/7/2007 4:33:59 PM

122

52

53

chapter five

are the Lord’s Lords of the cathedral. Those who belong to the lower nobility are refused entry, and accordingly the daughters of the burghers and patricians of the city are never allowed into this order. They make a vow of perpetual virginity to God, and devote themselves to singing hymns of praise in honor of God. | They have the right to choose their abbess, but in the past they had chosen her not from the noblewomen of their own order but from elsewhere (the more prestigious bloodline of counts). At that time, the nuns did not share a common fare, as they do now, but lived privately in their own cells on meals brought from the mistress’ (the abbess’) kitchen. Since this circumstance in some way provided the opportunity to live in too licentious a way, John of Bavaria, the forty-fourth bishop, resolved to change it and to impose a stricter rule for living. Accordingly, in the year 1460, he did not confirm as abbess the daughter of the count of Werthen, who had been chosen by free election in the traditional way, and refused to lend his authorization to the election. In her place, Richmoda of Horst, who had been summoned from the Convent of the Maccabees21 in Cologne and was brought over at great expense to the nuns of the Convent Across-theRiver, was appointed as a substitute by the authority and command of the bishop. At that time, the looseness of the earlier way of living was to some extent changed through the imposition of tighter reins and thereby restrained, the practice of eating at a single table being introduced. Upon the death of this abbess in the year 1461, they chose from within their own convent (as had not been the normal procedure previously) Ida of Hoevel, and John of Bavaria granted his episcopal authorization to this election. But when she too had breathed her last, the nuns clung to their old ways and were driven by the ardent wish to recover their old liberty, relapsing into their ancient custom of choosing the abbess from the bloodline of counts. Their aim in their persistence was to shake off and remove the yoke of reformation and the restraint of a stricter way of life.22 Not long after the election, however, she too died, and in the meanwhile the resignation23 of John of Bavaria, who preferred the archbishopric of Magdeburg to the Church of Münster, had resulted in administration of the diocese devolving upon interim officials called “commissioners,” who | are normally kept in charge until A Benedictine foundation that already existed in the late twelfth century. Here “reformation” obviously has the narrow sense of internal reform (which in the medieval context usually signifies the restoration of stricter monastic discipline). 23 In 1466. 21 22

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 122

6/7/2007 4:33:59 PM

descriptions of the city’s churches

123

the new election (or postulation)24 and its confirmation by the pope. These commissioners were then authorized by the elected nobleman, Prince Henry of Schwarzenberg, who was no less eager for the reformation of the nuns than John of Bavaria had been, to summon an abbess from the Convent of St. Giles and install her against the wishes of the nuns of the Convent Across-the-River. At the same time, they decided by their own authority that while any nuns who refused the yoke of the more restricted way of life and preferred to leave should receive twenty fl orins every year by way of support, those who wished to remain could try out the regimen of the life which they had now undertaken for an entire year after the fashion of novices, and if, at the end of that year, they judged themselves to be too weak to embrace that kind of life and to persevere in it, they were free to leave without any blemish of disgrace. But after this matter had dragged on for some years in no clear direction, it was finally decided to put a definitive end to it. So in the year 1483, they were, on the day of St. Boniface,25 reformed, enclosed, and forced to make a profession of the Rule of St. Benedict by Henry of Schwarzenberg, the forty-fifth bishop of the Church of Münster. Thus, this good prince completed what others had several times attempted in vain. This mode of living in the Convent Across-the-River would have lasted down to the present day through the continuous succession of moral and chaste abbesses, had not the intervention of the Anabaptist madness briefl y interrupted it. Although the majesty of the church had often been greatly reduced through damage caused by frequent fires, nonetheless, as if cleansed by the new misfortune of fire, the old church rose up again to be more impressive. In the end, it was built in its present form, which is not only remarkable but magnificent, both inside and out. | It is roofed with lead tiles, and its painted vaults are supported by very tall columns. Both the choir of nuns on the west and that of Lords on the east are resonant and are decorated with the images of various saints. The organ, which plays with a multi-note harmony of sounds, marks off the singing of the nuns with such a sweet intervention that you would assert with Pythagoras that you were hearing the concordant symphony not of humans and instruments made by human ingenuity but of the

54

24 A “postulation” was a request to recognize the election of someone not eligible for the position (for instance, because he was underage or already in possession of another bishopric). 25 June 5 (but the bishop’s document is dated to St. Dorothy’s day, i.e., February 6).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 123

6/7/2007 4:33:59 PM

124

55

chapter five

heavenly spheres.26 There is a very tall tower that is built with polished stone both inside and out, its one room being closed with fairly strong wooden doors. On both sides, spirals extend from the lowest foundation to the top of the base, where the edge is protected by very many pinnacles and little towers built with learned skill, so that people who go around it are protected from accidentally falling. Next, a lead-covered steeple of amazing height seemed to pierce the very clouds. In the past, before it was torn down by the Anabaptist madness, this steeple would, to a distance of eight Westphalian miles (which are quite long),27 cause viewers’ eyes to wonder at it, even though it is placed in a valley. For there is no taller, more splendid or sturdier tower in the whole city. To this convent is attached the parish of the neighbors who live around it on all sides, which has gradually increased to its present large size and population. Not only the people contained within the city’s walls but also a very large number of peasants living here and there on the outside within the territory of the abbess belong to this parish. The abbess’s authority is so great that she has her own rights and privileges not only outside of the city but also within it.28 | For she has an asylum (place of immunity) confirmed by imperial charter and long usage: whoever seeks refuge at it, even if guilty of a capital crime, cannot be taken away from there against his will by a member of the government, but for a year and a day, if he has not run off in the interim, he is by custom fed with meals from the convent. In the early period of the convent’s foundation, its right was easily acquired from the emperor, who was living at Dortmund, to show favor to the burghers and to increase the city’s size. This arrangement was entrenched by many instances of its use and has been brought down from the days of our ancestors to our own. To preside over the Word of God she has the archdeacon of the parish (called the dean) along with two chaplains, who are fed with meals provided by her at her own expense. Before the Anabaptist madness, she also had her own tribunal, which had been built at the convent’s expense alongside the 26 The “music of the spheres” refers to the idea that the distances between the heavenly spheres were governed by “perfect” ratios equivalent to those thought to underlie harmonic music (a notion that can be traced back to Plato, who attributes it to the numerology of the Pythagoreans). 27 A “common German mile” was much larger than the corresponding English unit, equaling 4.6 of the latter (and 7.42 kilometers). 28 This assertion of the abbess’s rights was one of the passages in K.’s work to which the city council took exception.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 124

6/7/2007 4:34:00 PM

descriptions of the city’s churches

125

church cemetery to the east, and on account of it the abbess receives nine gold pieces every year from the city council down to the present day. In this court, the same judge as presides in the public forum would handle on Mondays and Fridays the cases, both criminal and civil, of the inhabitants of this parish alone, and no one was allowed to take any of the parishioners to any other tribunal against his will. Those who were arrested there for capital crimes could not be held in any prison but that of this parish. For they would be taken to the Gate of the Holy Virgin or to the Jewish Gate, and there they would be subjected to questioning under torture,29 and then would suffer the public censure of this court in the presence of the councilmen, who would stand all around. The place of execution for those sentenced to death was the Tuckesburg, | a prominent open area outside of the Gate of the Blessed Virgin. Shaped like a circle, this area is covered all over with willows and is very pleasant in the center, where grass and fl owers grow. Those condemned to execution by the gibbet or to some other variety of death pay the penalty for the crime which they have committed, not far from the brick kiln. This parish also had its own market on the other side of the cemetery to the west, and there, apart from merchandise of every kind, the pledges taken as surety by the authority of this court are also smashed30 in the same way as in the public court. This is also the location of the stake of disgrace, to which those who are besmirched with lesser crimes are attached and thereby marked with infamy.31 The parish also has the privilege that it allows no funeral, however large, even that of the prince himself, to be taken elsewhere if it pertains to the parish, and instead the funeral is brought to either the church, if permission has been granted, or to the common cemetery. Hence, when not only the Brothers of the Fountain but also the superintendent of the alms-house of St. Mary Magdalene, which is located in the parish between the two bridges, demanded to be allowed to inter their dead within their own burial ground and to have their own church, there arose between them and the abbess of the Convent Across-the-River very bitter disputes, which were eventually appealed to the Roman

56

This was the normal mode of criminal investigation at the time. I.e., if forfeited. 31 “Infamy” is a technical term for someone whose reputation is officially stained and is thereby barred from various public activities (like giving testimony). 29 30

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 125

6/7/2007 4:34:00 PM

126

57

58

chapter five

curia by legal quibblers who were well fattened by both sides.32 After the case had dragged on there without any sure outcome and was draining the treasury of each party with its vast expenses, the Brothers of the Fountain finally emerged victorious through the decision of the pope. When news of this victory was brought more quickly | to the abbess than to the brothers, the nuns employed the clever stratagem of sending good men who intervened to bring about peace and arranged the permanent settlement of the dispute, which the brothers believed to be still pending in a case of doubtful outcome, on the condition that in return for the right of private burial and their own church they would offer the abbess a gift every year. The superintendent of the alms-house, on the other hand, refused to give in, hoping that he would achieve his desire through cleverness, and so in the name of the alms-house he sent a supplication to Pope Gregory in the very midst of the case. The pope, being a circumspect man, issued a rescript to Ludolph, the twenty-eighth bishop of Münster, in the following words. “Bishop Gregory, servant of the servants of God, sends greetings and apostolic blessings to our venerable brother, Bishop Ludolph of Münster. Our beloved sons, the master and brothers of the hospital of St. Mary Magdalene, have requested of us in humble supplication that for the work of the brothers and the guests living in the hospital, we should deign to grant them permission to have their own chaplain in a chapel of their own, who is to present them with the sacraments of the Church, as well as their own cemetery. It therefore being our wish to delegate this matter to you, who are the diocesan of the area, by apostolic letter, we order you, our brother, to grant their requests if you think it appropriate, without prejudice to anyone else’s rights.” Seeing that these requests could not be granted without harming someone else’s rights, the bishop was fearful on behalf of the alms-house, and so he intervened in the case along with the cathedral chapter and the city council. They intervened to bring about peace and arranged that the alms-house should receive both its own administration of the sacraments and a private burial for their dead in the year 1240 under Innocent V. | There was also once a dispute about property between

32 It would seem that the original dispute between the convent and the alms-house of Mary Magdalene was settled in 1241, whereas the brothers were established in the city only in 1400. The brothers then entered into a second dispute with the convent regarding the alms-house.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 126

6/7/2007 4:34:00 PM

descriptions of the city’s churches

127

this alms-house and the Convent of St. Giles at the time when Uda held the reins of that convent. By whom this alms-house was founded and who was primarily responsible for this is not entirely clear, but it would be my belief that it is more ancient than the Convent Across-the-River, since in the period before Herman I, who founded the convent, Siegfried, the thirteenth bishop, bestowed certain properties on the alms-house in the year 1022, though I have no doubt that the chapel of the alms-house was built much later. There was once both an alms-house for foreigners and an infirmary, that is, a place in which sick foreign paupers were fed. Now, on the other hand, there is an alms-house for old folks, that is, a shelter in which the indigent old people of both sexes who are burghers are looked after and fed (these days no one is accepted in it who is not a poor person who has held burgher rights for some years). This alms-house has seen a very great increase in its wealth and privileges through the munificence and favor of both nobles and commoners on the one hand and successive bishops on the other. For (to pass over the other bishops) in the year 1186 Herman II, the twenty-second bishop of Münster, in addition to endowing it with other manors, made all its properties located between the two stone bridges free from any burdens or exactions imposed by the city. He ordained that all those who died in the alms-house could not give away their possessions by will but should leave them there to increase its revenues, and also issued a prohibition | stating that no one, whether he be superintendent, inhabitant of a monastery or monk in general, or else a cleric, should keep a concubine, lest what ought to serve as a solace for necessity should turn into the licentiousness of impermissible pleasure. From this it is clearly shown that the bishops used to have jurisdiction over this alms-house, which had already been turned over to the city council by 1330, on the understanding that it would now be called the hospital of the city of Münster and that the council alone would possess the power both to accept the indigent and to appoint and remove the pastor and the superintendent (manager). They call the two members of the council who are in charge of this the “providers.”33 It is their role to examine how the manager has carried out his duties every year, and to ensure on behalf of the indigent that everything is run respectably in a way giving glory to God and relief to the poor, and that the house itself

33

59

For further discussion of these “providers,” see 107D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 127

6/7/2007 4:34:00 PM

128

60

chapter five

suffers no harm. In the year 1330, the city council decreed that no more than ten individuals be accepted into this alms-house unless this should represent a useful situation from which some benefit could accrue to the house. Providers from the city council were given to this alms-house after 1305, while prior to this time it received overseers from among the burghers. Hence, the title was changed along with the status of the appointee. There are also three male monasteries, and these I will describe briefl y, not because they surpass the other churches in age but because they too are included within the boundary of this parish. For I think that I will act more rightly if I proceed with them one after the other in a fixed order than if I ignore any order and mix them all up, randomly wandering back and forth. Chief among them in dignity is the one that is dedicated to St. George and contains men of knightly rank. These men are called Teutonic Lords, either because they prefer the German language to all others or because they are chief among the German knighthood | and protect the Christian faith in Germany.34 Because they themselves do not know or do not wish to know their origin in this city, I have toiled in vain in the attempt to track this down. In any case, their order was founded in 1216 under Gregory IX. It is not without reason that they go forth in a white cloak with a black cross on it, being endowed with very great wealth. For when the religion suffers a lapse and the Cross of Christ is overwhelmed and blackened with the stain of heretics, they are rightly obligated to bring it immediate assistance in arms and to defend it against, and deliver it from the onslaught of heretics. Among them there are also priests of lesser rank, who struggle against the enemies of Christ not as knights with external weapons but with constant prayers. These priests, who are assigned to the divine offices, are left at home. The purpose of this arrangement is that when the Church is in danger, the Teutonic order may succour it with both sets of weapons. The Knights occupy a very large and pleasant spot, residing along both banks of the river Aa. They possess splendid buildings, and retain the right to fish in that river for a great distance from the city. On the two banks, they have two mills (one for grain, one for oil), which constrict the river in such a way as to allow

34 The order of the “Teutonic Knights of St. Mary’s Hospital of Jerusalem” was originally founded in 1198 for the protection of the Holy Land, but soon turned to the conquest and forcible conversion of the Slavs in the Baltic area.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 128

6/7/2007 4:34:00 PM

descriptions of the city’s churches

129

them to operate. For it is only from the day of St. Michael35 to the feast day of Easter that they have the right to use the mills, it being taken away from them during the summertime for the public good, to avoid the retention of water behind the mill dams, | which would harm the pastures outside the city. They have a fairly large church, which has moderate decorations both inside and out, possessing various other images in addition to a statue of St. George the dragon slayer. Nearby, there is another area of immunity, which is called the Bischopinghof.36 Whoever inhabits this place is free of all burdens imposed by the city. For the Bischoping family and its successors do not allow the jurisdiction of the city council to extend to it. The widow of John Kerckering, a matron descended from the Bischopings (the family after which the place is thought to have been named), now possesses jurisdiction over this place by hereditary right. The second monastery in this parish is that of the Brothers of the Fountain. It was founded under Pope Martin V by the venerable Lord Henry of Ahaus, who was vicar of the Lords’ Church. | Being very devoted to piety and honorable pursuits, he readily attracted similar men with his singular saintliness and grave demeanor. Those whom he had attracted he invited in a friendly way to share a common life, and in the end arranged things so that they would frugally enjoy the property which they had contributed to a common fund, and would instead devote themselves to divine service at their appointed time. To forestall any wicked idleness, time not spent in pious functions is used in gaining the necessities through the practice of physical labor. Furthermore, since they are bound by no personal vow, they are very much distinguished from the brothers who profess the Third Rule of St. Francis.37 Accordingly, they prefer to be called canons rather than monks. At first, they lived in a small house in the Chicken’s Field (“Bei den Honekampe”), but they quickly became richer, and in a more spacious

61

62

September 29. K.’s discussion of this immunity was another point on which the city council thought that K. had impugned its authority (see General Introduction 3b). 37 In founding his new order, Francis of Assisi divided it into three suborders. The first consisted of religious under monastic vows (the fratres minores), the second of consecrated maidens (called clarissae or “Poor Clares” after St. Clair, a follower of St. Francis who asked to be allowed to adopt his practices and persuaded other women to join her), and the third of members of the laity (“tertiaries”), who bound themselves to various forms of devotion without the strict obligations of proper monks. For this last category, Francis composed a “third rule” to govern their behavior and duties in 1221. 35

36

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 129

6/7/2007 4:34:00 PM

130

63

chapter five

location near the open ground behind the walls they placed a very large house and a splendid church (on its altars can be seen painted screens that surpass the hand of Apelles).38 They moved here after giving up the earlier location. They have a very well stocked library, but before the Anabaptist madness it was even better stocked. This order is subdivided by offices. The man who runs the whole college in both temporal and spiritual matters is called “father” as a mark of honor and respect. They have the right to appoint him by election, and, after the appointment, to remove him from office if he does not satisfactorily fulfill the office he has taken up. The man who manages the necessities for the kitchen and for the whole house they call the “manager,” and the man who is in charge of work duties they call the “record keeper.” This man distributes the jobs to individuals, and to the college’s profit he receives from employers the fees paid for the jobs. In particular, services are sold to those who devote themselves to writing or to the preparation and thinning of animal skins suitable for writing on or for use as book covers (such skins are called parchment) or to bookbinding.39 Soon after Ahaus founded his college, he noted the lack of papal authorization, and realized that as a result of its absence the college would not long remain intact and at peace. Accordingly, he went to Rome to ask for privileges from Eugenius IV, who was at that time in charge of the Papal See.40 But the mendicant orders of the Franciscans and Dominicans intervened, thinking it detrimental to the Christian faith to approve just any little assemblies that had been rashly formed and to introduce into the Church of God new and unheard-of ways of living. Gerson, however, earnestly took up the cause of the brothers with the pope and gained not only his desire but even more.41 The founder therefore returned to his people in joy, and filled out the years of his righteous old age in tranquility. Thus, the house which was begun in this way, finished in this way, and finally endowed with privileges in

38 A Greek painter who worked in the later fourth century b.c. He was reputed to be the best painter of antiquity in Classical literature, and K. was no doubt familiar with him from his readings in Latin. 39 These very activities would represent a notable element in the complaints lodged against the spirituality during the early (Lutheran) period of religious unrest in Münster in the 1520s. 40 Ahaus did not in fact go personally to Rome. 41 John Gerson (1363–1429) was a famous French theologian who was very infl uential in ecclesiastical politics.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 130

6/7/2007 4:34:00 PM

descriptions of the city’s churches

131

this way, has remained unharmed down to the present day, contrary to the expectation of many. The third monastery in this parish is that of the Knights of St. John. Located along the open ground behind the city walls, it has not only a very large orchard of various fruit trees and a very well equipped garden of fragrant plants, but also well-watered pastures, fish ponds, and bowers that have been erected to improve the delightfulness of the location with human skill aiding nature, and that always remain green in summer. In these bowers, | while birds of every variety chirp away with a varied harmony and bees fl it among the fl owers in search of honeydew, adding in the low rumbles of their very charming buzzing, the eyes and ears of men receive a great deal of pleasure. If the place were surrounded by a sloping grove that broke the gusts of the winds and with their green boughs held back the cold or if it enjoyed the presence of beautiful Eve and the tree of life, through whose favor the blush of youth would be maintained in man without any harm from old age, then you would certainly say that here was the city’s Tempe or Paradise. They reside in a splendid house, and their church, which is dedicated to St. John and is fairly impressive, holds up on its roof a spire notable for its two bells. We read that their order was founded in the year 1308 in order that they should attack the enemies of Christ’s Cross and name, and strengthen the fortifications entrusted to them with such defenses that the Turk, that most savage and dangerous enemy of Christendom, should be kept from their borders. It is thus not without reason that they wear white crosses on their black cloaks. Rather, they are to be reminded of the task undertaken by them, which is the reason for the wealth in which they abound. We gather that they have always fought stoutly, apart from their infl icting the blemish of disgrace on Christians when they were overwhelmed by the disaster at Rhodes. But they did expiate the disgrace committed through the surrender at Rhodes with the famous defense of Malta, which was more than heroic and cost them dearly. This very grand victory redeemed all their previous dishonor.42

63

This history of the Order of St. John is rather misleading. Its tenth-century origins go back to men dedicated to a Benedictine hospice in Jerusalem, but the proper origin is dated to 1113, when Pope Paschal II took the order under his protection because of its good services to the crusaders now in possession of the Holy Land (for this reason, members were also known as “Hospitalers”). Upon the loss of the last Christian foothold there in 1291, the order first migrated to Cyprus, but in about 1308 they occupied the island of Rhodes off the coast of Asia Minor. What is uncharitably referred to here as 42

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 131

6/7/2007 4:34:01 PM

132

65

chapter five

In the olden days, this monastery was called “Up den Berge”43 after the rise on which the chapel is built, and this is how the whole Mountain Lane44 got its name. | To prevent any ignorance of the monastery’s origin, a few words should be said about its foundation. Within the walls of the city of Münster, the college of the Knights of St. John in Steinfurt45 owned, by the open ground behind the walls, a spot that is naturally very pleasant but swampy on one side, as well as some little houses or huts that were built in a row and covered over with a single, continuous roof, and when the brothers were laying the foundations of a new chapel in 1311, they supplicated Louis, the scion of the very noble house of Hesse and the thirty-fifth bishop of Münster, with the request that they be allowed to build a chapel in that place. This magnificent prince and pious descendant of St. Elizabeth not only agreed to such a holy wish, but immediately added many privileges of his own accord in order to enhance the worship of God. His urging also encouraged many rich men to complete the construction with their munificence. The church was thus built, and some priests were summoned from Steinfurt and established in this place to perform the worship of God, a house, at first humble enough, being set up for their residence. After such a felicitous start, this undertaking also had a successful development through the protection of good men, but the intervention of a seven-year war delayed a happy outcome for a time. For although the chapter, which alone had the right to choose the prince, had chosen Walram of Moers in the year 1450, the burghers and their adherents wished Eric of Hoya to be bishop, and so the whole diocese was wrenched apart, everything being thrown into chaos and set ablaze with factionalism, discord, plunder, fl ames, theft, and murder. The disastrous misfortunes with which the Knights of St. John in Steinfurt were affl icted by the burghers of Münster during this uproar were incredibly great even though they were not involved. For a “disgrace” is the knights’ forcible eviction from that island in 1522, when the Ottoman sultan Suleiman the Magnificent undertook a massive assault on the island, and the knights put up such a stout defense that he allowed them to withdraw under terms rather than wiping them out. In 1530, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V gave the knights the island of Malta, where they successfully withstood an even greater attack at the hands of Suleiman in 1565. 43 “On the Hill.” 44 I.e., Bergstrasse. 45 The county of Steinfurt was located to the north-northwest of Münster and was completely surrounded by the territory of the bishopric. Its capital city was Burgsteinfurt.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 132

6/7/2007 4:34:01 PM

descriptions of the city’s churches

133

without making any distinctions, the burghers threw torches on their roofs, devastated their fields, sacked their manors, | drove off their herds, stripped their oaks, and plundered everything after the fashion of invaders. Hence, Lord Bernard Schedelich, the bailiff of the Order of St. John throughout Westphalia and the commander of the house in Steinfurt, was greatly angered, and in the name of the entire order he brought suit against the city because of the losses infl icted on it. But some men of knightly rank intervened to bring about peace, and in the year 1471, on the Vigil of St. Margaret the Virgin,46 the case, which had been dragging on for some years through the greed of the ravening legal quibblers contending on either side, was settled, and the previous goodwill was restored, through the agreement that the College of St. John On-the-Hill that was located within the walls of Münster, as well as some adjoining huts, would, by the authority of the city council and of all the guilds in the city, be forever free from burdens and taxes imposed by the city, and that in addition two neighboring houses with gardens on this side of the open ground behind the walls would be bought at the council’s expense and added to the Knights’ property. Finally, according to the terms of the agreement, they also received 60,000 bricks for the fortification of the new building. For this reason, the old structure immediately gave way to a new one. Then, in 1472, this same Lord Bernard Schedelich noticed that the college was making the small sum of a few marks from the fact that some prostitutes were earning a profit in those huts by indecently giving anyone access to their bodies, and he drove them out, denying access to their immodesty. He turned the brothel into a women’s alms-house, and made good the loss of a few marks’ income with his own money in order to avoid the objections of his colleagues. He thereby immortalized his own name with the glory of eternal remembrance among posterity. Since the Christian population was growing, the churches, too, began to increase in number, being endowed through the munificent generosity of pious people. At the expense of the peasants, a chapel dedicated to St. Lambert was erected for the faith of the monks who were living here and there, | but a few years later it was made much grander at the expense of the patricians and other burghers, the first structure being torn down. The peasants, however, reserved the nicer parts of the church for themselves as the founders of the first church and have

46

66

67

July 19.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 133

6/7/2007 4:34:01 PM

134

68

chapter five

handed it down to their descendants through continuous possession, so that even today they seem to own it. This church, which is located in just about the center of the city between the public marketplace and the fish market, is now very splendid, gleaming with such fine adornment, both inside and out, that the craftsmanship is said to surpass the materials for the most part. We read that the first stone of the enlarged choir was laid in the year 1375 on the day of Mary Magdalene.47 The tower had originally been raised to a moderate height by the parishioners, but Cornelius N.,48 the undertaker of the parish, is said to have increased it to its present height at his own expense. This tower does not have a steeple made of wood like the other towers, but on top of the stone base has been placed a circular structure made of wood in the shape of a basket or hamper and covered in lead, so that on all sides it provides a broad edge and roomy circuit for the city’s watchmen as they go on their rounds. A double row of iron rods that surrounds the perimeter provides the guards with additional protection against falling. On this tower, watches are kept at the council’s expense both day and night. When horsemen approach from a distance during daylight, the guards receive them with the blowing of a horn to advise the guards at the gate to be more alert in their protection of the city. Every hour they play a song on a fl ute into the city in every direction, so that it can be surmised that they are on duty. They also not only mark off the hours of the night by blowing their horn, but also report nighttime commotions and fires with the fearsome ringing of a bell | that was cast with singular care, so that when it is struck, it instills the entire city with terrified trembling, and makes all the males rush to the alarm and the women wail at home. At the sound of the bell, it is found that men of all classes and guilds immediately attend to the duty to which they have been appointed. Some are assigned to the marketplace, where the two chief members of the government also reside, for putting out fires. Some rush in arms to the ramparts, some to the fortifications, some to the gates. Each person keeps watch at his duty station, whether the disturbance is caused by the enemy or by a sudden confl agration. At the sound of the bell, even the clergy hurriedly occupy the Lords’ Field in arms, and they stand ready for whichever

July 22. Apparently, Cornelius’ last name was unknown to K. (“N.” for Nomen is the abbreviation used in sample Latin documents for a name that was to be filled in.) 47 48

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 134

6/7/2007 4:34:01 PM

descriptions of the city’s churches

135

part of the city a civilian magistrate may summon them to defend or for whatever job he orders them to undertake. The same bell in that tower is wrung by city servants to give warning that wrongdoers are being produced in the criminal court. The bell summons the councilmen to their chamber for deliberations, and the night watchmen to the keeping of their turn at guard duty, forbidding to others the use of the public lanes at night unless they sport a fl ame on their brim. The protection of the fire makes it safer for them to walk at night through the wards of the city, and the chief of the watchmen, whom they call the “master of force” (“Gewaltherr”), arrests those found without such fire, either putting them in jail or asking them the reason for their strolling about at night. The two colleges of canons and their churches (one dedicated to St. Ludger, the founding bishop of Münster, and the other to St. Martin the bishop of Tours) were originally founded by Herman, the scion of the ancient and noble Katzenellenbogen family who was the twentyfifth bishop of the Church of Münster. He strengthened them with his own wealth, | and put in charge canons who were also outstanding in their piety and learning and who were able in their days to acquire wealth with less toil than the present canons can maintain the wealth which they have inherited. Like most everything, each college started from a small beginning to reach its very grand honors and resources. Each has its provost (chosen from the main clergy) and each has its deacon and schoolmaster, which they call the “scholaster.” Each has prebends that vary in revenue, but the daily stipends, which they call “presences,” they distribute in equal portions among those present. In each college, the priests of lower rank and dignity are content with their income and devote themselves to church functions. These priests are called “vicars,” and they share not so much the revenues as the burdens with the canons. We gather that in the one college there were twelve positions as canon from the start, while in the other there were five. The number of the latter, however, grew through the munificence of successive bishops and of other pious men, so that now the larger prebends number not five but seventeen, to which two lesser ones called “Kinderproven”49 have been added, the bishop claiming their revenues for his own benefit. Whenever those possessing one of the greater positions as canon die in an ordinary month, the lesser ones are promoted to the

49

69

“Child prebends.”

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 135

6/7/2007 4:34:01 PM

136

70

71

chapter five

greater ones, and the prince always substitutes replacements in their places. The former college has always been superior in age, and the latter in the importance of its canons. The fabric of each church is fairly magnificent both inside and out, the choir for the chanting clergy being separated from the congregation of the laity by a stone barricade. The shape of their towers is not the same. For the tower of St. Ludger’s | greatly deviates from the common shape, being crowned on top with many pinnacles made of highly worked stone, and its roof, which is made out of copper plates, is hemmed in fairly low down within its base by surrounding walls, so that it escapes our notice. Nonetheless, the rainwater is received from the roof in gutters on all sides, and pours out as if from the center of the tower. The tower of St. Martin’s, on the other hand, is no different from the usual shape of other towers, and has on top of a square stone base a very tall steeple sheathed in copper. In the year 1217, when by the authority of Otto I, the son of the Bentheim family who was the twenty-sixth bishop, the two churches were increased and confirmed by episcopal sanction, parishes of burghers were added to each, and the deacons of each college administer the parishes just as the parish priests do. In this parish of St. Martin, along the banks of the Aa, there stands a very grand monastery of the Minorites, which is equipped with a complex of palaces. It also has a splendid church decorated through the munificence of the pious, in which men distinguished both for learning and piety devote themselves both day and night to the chanting of hymns of praise for the glory of God Almighty, and spend just as much energy on instructing the congregation. It is said that nuns lived in this place many years ago, and I would believe this to be true, since there still exist certain traces of this circumstance that are not, I think, misleading. Since the manors, fields, pastures and the other sources of income that these nuns lived on were in Coesfeld, while the Minorites within the walls of that town cultivated nothing apart from their poverty, it was decided that they would exchange the locations of their residence, to the benefit of both sides of the transaction. | For being close to their manors was useful for the wealthy little nuns, and the large number of wealthy people in the very populous city was useful for the indigent monks. Therefore, the nuns moved from Münster to Coesfeld, and the monks from Coesfeld to Münster. The Franciscans, therefore, have an entire convent of monks here. As for the other orders of monks that are called “mendicant” because they support themselves through begging, such as the Augustinians, the Carmelites

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 136

6/7/2007 4:34:01 PM

descriptions of the city’s churches

137

and the Dominicans (Preaching Brothers), these orders lodge individual monks in private dwellings in various locations in the city (such monks are called “terminaries”). The parish church dedicated to St. Giles the Abbot has provided for its pastor out of its own income since its foundation, but when a convent of the order of St. Benedict consisting partly of noble and partly of low-born nuns experienced a great increase in its wealth and was added to the parish, the abbess transferred to herself the income for the pastor and the governance of the whole parish, so that she would look after both, and turned the pastor into her own provost. The nuns of this convent, who had run loose for some time in a loose way of life, were restrained with stricter controls in 1468, when their confessor was changed from the one in Marienfeld to the one in Liesborn. The church is quite fine given its size, and its spire, which is attached next to the choir, rises to a moderate height. Towards the sunrise in winter, the direction from which the east wind also blows, there is a parish church with a spire near the open ground behind the walls. Dedicated to St. Servatius (once the bishop of Tongeren), it is certainly small in comparison with the others, but fairly large given the number of parishes. Nearby there is a convent of nuns who take the vow of St. Augustine. It was in 1401 that these nuns first began to reside in the parish of St. Ludger in a certain house called “Nitzing”, and in 1404 some nuns adhering to the same monastic vow were added from the convent in the city of Schuttorp. About fifteen years later, they moved from their earlier residence to the one they now hold in the Parish of St. Servatius, taking along with them the name of the earlier place. Now having increased resources, they built a church that is resplendent on the inside with such carefully executed lustre and refinement that you could hardly find another church more refined in the whole city, and it would cause anyone to marvel at it. The daughters of both noble and common families are admitted to this convent. I gather that the first abbess, whom they call “mother,” was Adelheid of Keppell. Since mention is made of it several times in connection with the Anabaptist madness, I should also not pass over in silence the college of St. Maurice, which, though outside the city, is within sight of it, being only about 93 paces away. It was founded in a very pleasant location by Frederick, the brother of the marquis of Meissen and sixteenth bishop of the city of Münster, who dedicated it to St. Maurice, the very brave general in the service of Christ. He endowed it with no small amount

72

73

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 137

6/7/2007 4:34:01 PM

138

74

75

chapter five

of wealth, and placed in charge of it men, both noble and low-born, who were devoted to the pursuit of piety and true religion (they are called “canons”), his sole aim in this being to expedite the business of the faith. He ordained that for the protection of his college there should always be a provost chosen from among the main clergy, who would keep two-thirds of certain revenues for himself, and leave the other third to be divided evenly among the others. Houses for both the vicars and canons were built very conveniently around the church and cemetery, and they are protected by a surrounding ditch, | which is not very deep but full of fish. On the west, the church’s magnificent main building ends with a lofty tower that resounds with many bronze bells, and with its massive structure protects the church from being harmed by the weather. The choir, on the other hand, is surrounded on both sides by two rather low little towers that lack bells. We read that Borchard, the nineteenth bishop of the Church of Münster, built the colonnade and the palace for the provost. The parish of the peasants who live in scattered settlements around it has been given to this college. I have gone on with this description of the churches, which, while certainly meagre, is nonetheless accurate, in order for the fair reader to learn that the madness of a few months destroyed the very costly labors of a great many years.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 138

6/7/2007 4:34:01 PM

CHAPTER SIX

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PLACES AND BUILDINGS OF THE CITY, ITS AMENITIES, AND A FEW OF ITS CUSTOMS In order for posterity to understand that in this city of ours we have a plentiful supply of everything that pertains either to obligatory needs or to a well-adorned and delightful way of life, I have decided to add this chapter to the preceding ones, partly treating the things that are necessities in a civil society and partly those that are not necessities but from which the majesty and grandness of our state can be surmised. To begin with, in the city there are four marketplaces, that is, public places for buying and selling.1 The common and general marketplace, in which merchandise of every variety is set out for sale, is located between the cemetery of St. Lambert to the north and the steps of disgrace to the south,2 and is enclosed on both the west and east sides by very large buildings. On it towards the east is the council hall (or burghers’ house), located in a row with other houses on both sides. | Held up by smoothed columns, it is prominent because of its various statues of saints, and rises to a summit of uncommon height. On top of its pinnacles can be seen images of winged angels hewn of local marble. In the basement, the council’s wines are sold. This hall contains various rooms for the council members, the foremost among them being the one in which the entire council normally convenes for public business on Mondays and Fridays (they call it the council chamber).3 The building also has differing underground prison cells that vary according to the rank of the criminals. On the north side is the weighing hall (“hall of the scale” or Waagehaus), in which everything can be weighed as a benefit for the city. An alley intervenes to provide access to the council’s stable and its registry (called the Scriverei in German), and separate cells for defendants are also concealed under this registry. At

76

1 The seemingly pointless explanation is necessitated by the ambiguity of forum (translated here as “marketplace”), which could also be taken to mean “court.” 2 These steps of disgrace are presumably to be identified with the location for exhibiting criminals mentioned at the end of this paragraph. 3 The council’s meeting room is famous as the site for the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia, which brought an end to the Thirty Years’ War in 1648.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 139

6/7/2007 4:34:01 PM

140

77

chapter six

one end of the marketplace to the south, there is a house that juts out in front of the rest of the row, and is conspicuous for its solitary little tower, and while those who are to be marked for some crime which they have committed are kept in the lowest room of this house, there is a place higher up where scoundrels condemned to lashing or branding are first restrained by the hangman in iron shackles and presented for public viewing before being punished with fl ogging or the cutting off of an ear or being marked with a sign burned onto them with a cautering iron. On the other side of the cemetery of St. Lambert, the grain market lies to the west and the fish market to the north. | In the latter is the common hall of all the city’s guilds, in which according to the circumstances sometimes everyone and sometimes only the aldermen and the guilds masters meet to deliberate for the common good. Here the views of the common people are so firmly stitched together with hempen ropes that the council cannot unravel them, and for this reason this hall is justly but ominously called the “schowhaus,” which means “sewing hall,” or the “viewing hall” from the word for “look at” (“schauen”), because the low-born burghers are wont to hold meetings here to carry out public affairs, and when they depart from there in a long row after ending their deliberations, they are looked at by the throng that rushes up.4 It may be called the council hall of the workers. This synagogue of Satan was more or less always annoying to the city council.5 For it gave rise to every civil disturbance, first introducing various novelties in religion, and finally begetting the monstrosity of Anabaptism, which it reared for the destruction of all good men. In addition to this common hall, each of the prominent guilds has a hall of its own which they acquired for deliberating and for feasting. The fourth marketplace is in the Parish Across-the-River, and in the past offered goods of every kind for sale just like the common marketplace. In addition, there are two meat markets that during their times of operation are supplied with various cuts of fresh meat. One is in the general marketplace, and in its cellar both domestic and imported

4 The building was called schohus in Low German, a word of uncertain derivation. K.’s short (negative) assessment here of the guilds’ role in contributing to the Anabaptist takeover led the guilds to object to K.’s work (see General Introduction 3b). 5 “Synagogue of Satan” was a term for “conventicles,” that is, illegal gatherings of heretics, which Satan himself was thought to preside over in the orthodox conception.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 140

6/7/2007 4:34:01 PM

public and private places and buildings of the city

141

beer was provided at the council’s expense for its own benefit, but now a very splendid hall has been built by the council for this purpose at great expense. | The other meat market is in the grain market, and its upper fl oor is used by the city council as a granary to see to the needs of the public. The more populous parishes have their own infirmaries to which those infected with the plague or some other contagious disease are brought. Their infirmaries are administered by men chosen for this purpose, since it has been found in practice that in the midst of such dregs of humanity it is an excellent and wholesome procedure for those who are infected to be removed from contact with the healthy. This prevents the spread of the illness through contagion, and prevents the poorer people, who are bereft of the aid of friends, from being altogether abandoned and fading away through thirst and hunger as a result of lack of human assistance. There are also two lime kilns along the walls in different parts of the city, one having been built for the use of the city council alone and the other for that of the burghers. The alms-houses number fifteen, some for men, some for women, some for both. There is one strangers’ alms-house, which, as the story has it, was built on Horst Lane by the council and accepts both male and female foreigners who are bereft of help and means. There are two alms-houses for men, one in St. Ludger’s parish and the other in the Parish Across-the-River, both named after their capacity of twelve inhabitants. One provides for the assistants of the Lord’s Lords who are decrepit with old age or disease, and the other does so for their serfs in the countryside who are reduced to penury. There are eight alms-houses for women. Of these, four are in the Parish of St. Martin: Wessede’s, generously founded by the widow of Meinburg of Wessede in the year 1302; Busch’s, by William of Busch; Wieck’s, by Gertrud of Wieck; Ae’s, by the brothers John and Henry tor Ae, who were tanners. In the Parish Across-the-River there are two: the Pruessen house donated by the widow of John Pruessen, | and the house along the cemetery of St. John, which once was a public brothel but was converted for the very respectable benefit of poor womenfolk by Bernard Schedelich, the commander of the house at Steinfurt. Finally, there are two in the Parish of St. Ludger, one built by the widow Swenthoevel and the other by the widow of Eberhard Bischoping. There are four alms-houses for both men and women. Three of these are in the Parish Across-the-River. The first was built by the noble Wieck family, and the second one, which is located by the open area behind the walls near

78

79

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 141

6/7/2007 4:34:01 PM

142

80

chapter six

the tower named after ghosts (the “Buddenturm”), was built and endowed at the expense of a respectable citizen of Büderich6 in the year 1542 for the benefit of twelve men and twelve women who are struggling under an old age of poverty, and it is now maintained by the abbess of the Convent Across-the-River and the servants of the Jews’ Field Parish. The third one, which is between the bridges, and the fourth one, which is by the Gate of St. Maurice, were mentioned above in the description of the city. In addition to all these, there is a shelter for lepers outside the city, which has a very well endowed position as pastor that is in the council’s gift. In addition to the weekly market days every Wednesday and Saturday, there are six markets days. Three of these are visited by throngs of people outside the city by the Gates of St. Ludger and the Jews’ Field on the feast days of St. George, St. Laurence, and St. Clement,7 and three within the city in the Lords’ Field and the public marketplace. The latter take place at the time of the two synods, that is, on the Monday in spring after the Sunday “Laetare,”8 the Monday in fall after the feast of Gereon,9 and on the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul,10 and since ancient times these market days have been so endowed with privileges, liberties | and immunities, and so accepted in practice, that everyone is granted full and inviolate permission to come here to engage in buying and selling. Whoever breaks the public peace at this time and in wounding someone sheds the least amount of blood is punished with execution. The dedication of the cathedral, which is celebrated on the day of St. Jerome,11 enjoys the same privileges. These liberties are posted on a public sign attached to one of the cathedral’s towers so that no one may excuse his transgression on the grounds of ignorance. What is the point of describing at length the greatness of the cleanliness and beauty of the public lanes and private houses when Münster leads all the cities of Westphalia in both these and other adornments?

6 The phrase is civis Butepagiis, which seems to imply a Latinized town name Butepagus. The first element is clearly Germanic, but the Latin pagus means “country district,” which is seemingly a translation of some German element. No town (with a name like Butenfeld) readily lends itself, but perhaps Büderich to the southwest of Münster is meant. 7 April 23, August 10, November 23. 8 The fourth Sunday in Lent. 9 October 10. 10 June 29. 11 September 30 (for the dedication, see 34D).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 142

6/7/2007 4:34:02 PM

public and private places and buildings of the city

143

All the buildings abut one another, and are drawn up in rows so that none protrude in front of the others. Some are magnificent because of the resources of their inhabitants, and are carefully constructed with great skill, gleaming just like churches, both inside and out, with various statues and outlines carved from Badenberg marble. There is a quarry on Mount Badenberg, two miles from the city, and blocks of the noblest stone are carved out of it.12 When smoothed by plane, this stone takes on any shape, needing no more effort in the working than does real marble, and once it has taken a shape, it keeps it. For experience shows that it suffers no damage from the weather, and for this reason most buildings in the city endure. Some humbler buildings are constructed out of wood on account of the lesser resources of their owners, and are enclosed with walls formed of clay or brick (such houses are mostly seen outside the circuit of the walls). All the buildings, however, are roofed with bricks or terra cotta tiles, either mortar or bundles of straw being inserted between them to keep out the depredations of rainwater. The city also receives no little adornment from the impressive unbroken row of houses that extends along the marketplace, and surrounds just about half of the Lords’ Field. | Resting upon vaults and columns spaced at the right intervals, it is held up in such a way that a public path is left underneath it at times. Those who live in these vaulted houses are mostly merchants, and their wives and daughters are commonly called “vault matrons” and “vault maidens” after those vaults, as if they are thought to surpass other women in beauty and good character, since they have their residence in their market, at the heart of the city. The river Aa is enlarged from various gurgling springs, and enters the city walls from the south through heavily re-enforced gratings. The river fl ows through the downhill section of the city, and with a regular rubbing action, it scrapes at its banks, which are adorned on either side, at one point with pastures, at another with orchards, at yet another

81

12 This variety of stone is now known as “Baumberg sandstone,” and is quarried in the Baumberge to the west of Münster in the vicinity of Havixbeck and Nottuln. Presumably, K. has “German miles” in mind (one German mile equals 4.6 English miles or 7.42 kilometers), and Badenberg must be an older name for Baumberg. This stone, which is geologically different from marble (a form of limestone that has undergone metamorphosis), was commonly used as the material for prestigious building projects throughout northwestern Germany and the Low Countries since the later Middle Ages.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 143

6/7/2007 4:34:02 PM

144

82

chapter six

with buildings. This river drives not only the mills of the Knights of St. George, where it first enters the city, but also the mills of some nobles of the Wieck family in approximately the center of the city. Here it is separated into two branches, and as these are reunited downriver, it seems to form a kind of island, though this is joined to the mainland by bridges. Above this river, some privies have been installed and are maintained at public expense to increase the cleanliness of the city. In short, the river takes virtually all the filth of the entire city, which fl ows in from either side, and carries it off as it exits from the city to the north with its peaceful current. As for what is left in piles in the lanes, this is taken away in wagons belonging to the city council to increase the size of the ramparts. The right to fish in the city between the mills of the Knights of St. George and of the Wieck family is held by the venerable Lord Geoffrey of Raesfeld, deacon of the Lords’ church and provost of St. Maurice’s through the prince’s gift (this military benefice is always in his gift by feudal right). All the lanes in the city are covered with paving stone in plumb-line accuracy, so that water from rain or any other source that pours off the houses on either side with washed-away filth fl ows by the force of nature down the sloping gutters made in the center of the lanes and eventually swells the waters of the Aa. Whatever filth is collected here and there in the sewers also gushes into the river when it is pushed there by sudden downpours. At a time of sudden disturbance, all the lanes are also defended with iron chains that are dragged across them and pulled taut, a form of defense that is very effective against cavalry. Now I will say a few words about some customs and habits handed down since ancient days.13 On January 1, they make an auspicious start to the year by inviting each other to feasts, singing festive songs and exchanging gifts, with German music added in, and when they meet, they wish each other a happy outcome to the year, being fully convinced that the end of the year will resemble its beginning. At the same time, the matrons knead 13 In the following sections, K. gives vent to a curmudgeonly exasperation at certain raucous customs that did not meet with his favor. Unfortunately for K., in its anger at K. for the trouble he was causing with his historical work, the city council decided to take offense at some of these criticisms on the grounds that they brought the city into disrepute among its neighbors (see General Introduction 3b). Some of these objections (such as those about his discussion of the New Year’s cakes) are frivolous, and K. can hardly have been alone in his dislike of the more extravagant customs such as the Carnival revelry.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 144

6/7/2007 4:34:02 PM

public and private places and buildings of the city

145

a sort of dough made of fl our mixed with honey or mead or clear, tasteless water, as their means allow, adding pepper and other spices. From this they pull out as many portions as there are individuals in the family, and after first assigning God and the Blessed Mary their own portions, which are later used for the benefit of the poor, they finally share out the portions among the members of the family in a certain peculiar ceremony, reciting a fixed formula. Making a fist with their right hand, they strike the individuals on the chest one after the other, adding the words, “Small portion, good fortune! The kindness is better than the cake!” (“Klein stuck, groiß glucke! Besser ist der gunst dan der kuche”). That is: We give little presents, may the luck be greater than these! The intent is better: take it as a gift!

Then they eagerly tear the cakes up, though they put in charge of this business one of the stouter members, who keeps for himself the last piece of everyone else’s cakes for his efforts. As each one surreptitiously snatches cakes from another, he wins himself no little praise for his hard work from the others. Meanwhile, | they engage in hard drinking and spend a large part of the night in these pursuits. They banquet as much on the feast of the Three Magi14 and give themselves over to the cakes. Apart from these activities, they also appoint a “king” by lot, who assigns duties to the whole family after the fashion of kings, and by his royal authority penalizes those who neglect their duties. In addition, on these days as well as on the Nativity of the Lord, individual houses are purified and expiated by the male heads of the household with incense and holy water, and as he sings hymns, the whole family follows after him with lit torches. On the feast of the Purification of Mary,15 tapers are consecrated in churches the way that palm fronds are on Palm Sunday, and with these they fortify themselves against lightning and the stabbing of demons. They celebrate carnival with such lechery and licentiousness that they think that at this time there is no foolishness that is forbidden them. Egged on by a sort of voluntary craziness, both males and females transform themselves with horrible masks and weird attire, and with lit torches in their hands, they rush through the wards of the city,

14 15

83

I.e., Epiphany ( January 6). February 2.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 145

6/7/2007 4:34:02 PM

146

84

chapter six

accompanied by the crashing of drums and the plucking of stringed instruments. The men wear women’s clothing, and the women men’s. Many people also deceptively adopt the garb of foreign races and of other religious beliefs and at times even that of the black Evil Spirit,16 and in their anonymity they commit crimes worthy of him. By vote they choose a chief dicer who is to be in charge of throwing the dice, the profits and losses from this belonging to everyone. While he presides over gambling, the rest give themselves over to dances. Invited to drink by their host’s generosity, they guzzle without removing their masks. Instead, they put into the cup a tube that is made of silver or pewter and hangs from their neck, and suck out the liquid.17 When this tube is removed, the part of the drink left in it pours back into the cup in a thoroughly disgusting manner. Since everyone shares the same Westphalian origin and stupidity, such crudeness in manners is noticed by no one, but is concealed by ancestral custom. The apprentices in the individual guilds appoint one of their number who is not only outstanding for his physical strength and height but also more splendidly attired than the others, and to him they entrust the task of bearing the guild standard, half of them preceding him and half following. Just about one standard bearer can be seen for every guild. Marching through the city ward by ward, from the members of their own guild or from those who have at some time made use of their services they beg for money, meat and sausages, and from what they get they deck out feasts and banquets of great immoderation and excess. If perchance some members absent themselves from these feasts, as despisers of the fellows they are placed on ladders in a shameful and humiliating way and brought by force. In this way, they guzzle liquor, they get drunk, they devour food, almost as if they had been born for the purpose of squandering everything. What they do not use up they ruin, as if it were considered a sin to keep something back for obligatory uses, having no concern for the morrow. In excess of Westphalian practice, there are just about as many cups as there are individuals at the banquet. In challenges, they force each other to drink the same amount in one gulp, even at the risk of their own lives, and by this they infl ict disaster on their bodies and their purses.

16 17

I.e., the Devil (der böse Geist is a frequent term for him in Early Modern German). K. could find no word in Latin for “straw”!

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 146

6/7/2007 4:34:02 PM

public and private places and buildings of the city

147

For some days and nights, the whole city resounds with the din of the drums and the spontaneous madness of crazy people. The butchers are also driven on by madness at the dictate of a similar custom. At nightfall, one of the masters of this guild carries the standard on horseback, and the other is led on foot by not just any maiden but the eldest daughter of a butcher in the whole guild, while the sons of meat sellers ride on horses, decked out extravagantly in gold and silver, and baby boys still wrapped in swaddling clothes are carried on horseback by certain other servants. By riding a horse in this way, they acquire for themselves the right to a butcher’s table in the meat market, the parents running it until the children reach adulthood, since no one is entitled to this right except for the legitimate male son of a butcher who has been carried around on a horse in this procession. Behind them, all the male heads of households from the whole guild follow the maiden in a row two-by-two. Here and there, strong men are mixed | into this arrangement carrying on their shoulders large torches composed of oakum, fl ax, fat, pitch and resin to light the way. On the other shoulder they place a heavy club as a form of protection. A large number of such men follow this procession at the end of the column. At the head, public fl ute players ride on fairly gentle horses, playing songs through the lanes with their varied harmony. Specially hired footmen lead these horses by the bridle to keep them from grazing, since the fl ute players cannot hold the reins with their hands occupied with playing. Finally, a large throng of youthful servants closes the column. These people hold circles of oakum in their right hand, and by sticking their other hand in someone else’s circle they are joined together like a chain. Their leader wrenches the connected row of servants in gyrations from one side to the other, so that the people at the other end, who are almost always separated from the rest by a great distance, are dashed to the ground in a great heap, which easily raises a laugh among the spectators. This procession is led to the individual houses of the meat sellers, where as much wine as they want is shoved in front of the heads of households and the other more respectable characters who are responsible for these theatrics, while it is beer for the rest. Finally, after a song has been sung in the marketplace (and no longer understood by anyone), they go their own ways. That same night, in the Lords’ Field they set up rather long poles encased in straw, and after a fire has been lit at the top of them, they burn downwards as the fl ame gradually spreads. They also place in the market and some lanes pitched barrels on which some residue of the pitch remains, and

85

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 147

6/7/2007 4:34:02 PM

148

86

chapter six

set fire to them, or instead of this they raise up green yews, placing candelabra on top, and the young men and girls dance around them, at times to the loss of their chastity. How much license is granted to stupidity can also be understood from the fact that a certain number of the richer young men sometimes form a sort of society for themselves, calling it a “tavernship” (that is, a college of drinking companions) and establishing it on a firm footing with certain regulations—for the purpose of upholding the association’s respectability, as they claim. | The members hold banquets very frequently, reveling and guzzling liquor, often throughout the night, then sleeping during the day. These are the kind of people who turn night into day and day into night; who squander their own funds and increase others’; who promote not their own interests but that of others. For in getting drunk and feasting, they use up their own means, and in the meanwhile they carelessly ignore their own affairs, and enrich the innkeepers. Sometimes on horseback and sometimes on foot, they make a public spectacle of their own stupidity, when they wear masks or foreign clothing bought for this purpose. On the Thursday that directly precedes the Sunday of Pentecost, a few young men belonging to this college put on masks or falsely adopt the attire appropriate for jesters or some other position, and dash quickly through the lanes in a chariot prepared for this, carrying hidden with them in the chariot a clown manikin sewn out of rags and stuffed with straw. On horseback, many members of the society precede the chariot wearing masks, and many follow it. After leaving the city, some wear out even heartier horses by rushing through the open countryside, while others work out amidst this horse racing by jumping through iron circles held up by pine spears. Then, having returned to the city, they show off the fabricated clown in joyful triumph, as if it were a prince brought from elsewhere to whom they were giving a magnificent welcome. After escorting him with a liveried horse guard consisting of the entire college through some lanes of the city and three times around the marketplace to make sure that the potentate’s presence escapes no one’s notice, they receive him with the greatest honor in a hall well supplied with drunkards, and there, for days and nights, they guzzle, they gobble and they bring virtually no end to the drinking. Nonetheless, they have certain regulations for the preservation of their respectability, and these are particularly beneficial to young men, who, being otherwise licentious and unbridled by

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 148

6/7/2007 4:34:02 PM

public and private places and buildings of the city

149

nature,18 are excellently kept to their duty by them. For they allow no one who has transgressed against the regulations to get off scot-free. The college is laudable on this account in particular, since it is considered to be a school for unbridled youth. | Anyway, once the potentate is brought in, an unbelievable amount of stupidity (sorry, I meant jollity) is committed not only in this hall but also in various places throughout the city. For everyone thinks that he is granted immunity in countless varieties of idiocy as if in the presence of a patron19 of stupidity. This potentate also strives to extend his sway as far as possible, and for this reason towards nightfall masked members of his retinue are often sent forth armed with lit torches and accompanied by the din of drums and strings. They act with such confidence that they break in on nighttime feasts, and with their playing of dice and skill at drinking and dancing they entice people of both sexes to similar insanity, increasing the kingdom of stupidity with this stratagem. These efforts at extending the kingdom of revelry last until the Thursday before the Sunday “Invocavit,”20 at which point his retinue, noticing that they have worn themselves out with excessive drunkenness and altogether emptied the bottom of their purse, lay aside this voluntary craziness of theirs, and they come to their senses and think that the person responsible for such misfortune deserves the supreme punishment. Accordingly, they seize the clown as the instigator of their previous madness, and carry him around again ward by ward, but this time not in a triumphal chariot as before but in a lugubrious wagon accompanied by guards and a priest for confession. A very large number of horsemen are present to act as guards in order to prevent the least possibility of fl ight opening up for him anywhere and to prevent him from being rescued by his people and escaping the execution he deserves. At this point, after they have given the random crowd its fill with this spectacle on horseback, the wagon is driven three times around the marketplace and then the king of stupidity is snatched out of it and brought before a capital trial constructed in the general market out of theater masks. Here he is accused of many crimes: being a drunkard and wino who can never get enough beer;

18 19 20

87

Presumably, the schoolmaster is speaking from experience. I.e., patron saint. The first Sunday in Lent.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 149

6/7/2007 4:34:02 PM

150

88

chapter six

a greedy glutton and a gambler who squanders all his goods; a liar; a thief; a harborer of felons; a corruptor of youth; a whoremonger; the inventor of every kind of inconsequential stupidity; a disturber of the peace and instigator of many stabbings and murders; a raper of virgins who is befouled with the crime of incest; and a despiser of all God’s commandments. Since he has been caught red-handed committing these crimes in public, he cannot deny the charges and does not dare to, lest he increasingly call down upon himself the indignation of God, and worsen his punishment. Therefore, he excuses the charges with silence and atones for them with tears, as it seems, awaiting with trembling a sentence worthy of his deeds from the judges. Since this pile of crimes seems by right to demand a more severe penalty, | it is properly judged in the public decision that he should be consigned to the fl ames to be burned up. Immediately, the poor wretch is cast by the theatrical executioners onto a pyre that has been hurriedly piled up there, and is reduced to ashes. When these ashes are carried up by the fl ames, the wind takes them and scatters them throughout virtually the entire city, putting an end to the licentious stupidity. In this way, the voluntary madness gradually dissipates. When, in the year 1565, the very prudent city council was inspired by God to stamp out all these kinds of insanity as the causes of many misdeeds, to the applause of all good men these were quickly suppressed and halted through the fear of the punishment, so that almost no trace of them remains to be seen. After the burning of the clown, they composed themselves so earnestly for praying and fasting that they passed through the entire period of Lent without the sustenance of dairy products. They would keep the fasts of the four seasons21 on bread and warm water, and celebrate all the festivals instituted in ancient days by the Catholic Church as well as the associated ceremonies, which rouse the people to piety. The regular, customary prayers would be offered, and in addition to these, extraordinary ones would be decreed by the prince as necessary. After the introduction of the new religion, however, not only would they eat butter, milk, and eggs, but the chickens, cows, and fatted calves themselves had to fear for their lives. For at that time no distinction was made between the foods for various days. The holy days along with virtually all their ceremonies were abolished, the images were cast

21 I.e., Ember days, which were four periods of fasting that more or less corresponded to the start of the four seasons (hence, the name in Latin).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 150

6/7/2007 4:34:02 PM

public and private places and buildings of the city

151

from the churches, and prayers began to be called superstitions and fun was made of good works. All these things were restored for us and brought back from exile, as it were, after the end of the Anabaptist madness and the siege. On the feast of St. John the Baptist, girls would, here and there, hang wreaths and crowns from a rope drawn across the lane, and offer a cup to passers-by, inviting them coaxingly to drink. On this pretext, they ambushed certain people’s purses and emptied them of money. With the proceeds, | a feast was prepared, to which they invited young men. These young men took part in the feast and danced. Since this practice often provided many girls with an opportunity to sully their chastity, it has now been forbidden with very good reason by the civil authorities, and is considered abolished. The feasts of St. James and St. Martin22 are the ones most celebrated by the Lord’s Lords with their own presence. For the received custom of the one feast ordains that the year’s grain should be divided in equal shares among the Lords who are present, while on the other the same procedure is used for the income in cash. On the Monday before the feast of St. Margaret the Virgin,23 a solemn purification of the city takes place. The eucharist is carried around accompanied by the entire clergy and city council. Public attendants carrying white clubs surround them, and push back the commoners who press upon them on either side. A sizeable portion of the burghers and matrons participate in this supplication with great humility and piety. Very many people also follow bare-footed and in white linen clothing, which often brings tears to many spectators. The young men of the school of St. Paul sometimes relieve with licentiousness the discontent which they feel as a result of their constant pursuit of learning. Every year, all the youths are led out three times on expeditions, without weapons of course. The first one takes place on the Tuesday directly before Pentecost, and on that day they are drawn up in order (arranged by instructional class) and leave the city. They immediately head for bowers that have been erected the day before, and there they gobble food and guzzle with such immoderation that they almost seem to have gone insane. They do everything with such licentiousness that on that day the masters who are present | can do

22 23

89

90

July 25 and November 11. July 13.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 151

6/7/2007 4:34:02 PM

152

91

chapter six

nothing to restrain them. They are driven with such madness that they shake off the advice of the more cautious and seldom or never leave that place without sheer bedlam. Finally, they are persuaded with great difficulty, partly through threats, partly through beatings, partly through entreaties, and they have a hard time entering the city as they carry boughs in their hands and sing songs. When they reach the colonnade of the cathedral, they disperse. You might say that the teachers would prefer to thresh grain all day rather than be worn out with such worrisome cares. (The vicars of the cathedral also celebrate their own frond holiday, including well provisioned feasts to which they invite not only the leading men of the city but also the more respectable matrons and maidens.) The second school expedition takes place at the public recitation of the school’s poem, which they have learned in school with great loss and detriment to public reading and with severe annoyance for the masters. The final expedition is undertaken on the vigil before the feast of St. Nicholas.24 On this occasion, a bishop chosen from among the pupils is solemnly escorted to the Lords’ Field by the whole company of the youth with lit torches, and when the dregs of humanity who have nothing to do with this associate themselves with the pupils, assorted disturbances are stirred up. After a few poems have been recited there, they immediately disperse in order to hold a feast. The only reason why these school expeditions were originally instituted was so that the students, who have done violence to themselves through immoderate study, should find enjoyment in these means of recreation, and after regaining new strength, so to speak, in this way, return the more eagerly to their interrupted lessons. Now, however, since the expeditions delay their studies and, as it were, distract the students, and they moreover make the youth insolent and in some way estrange them from their learning, they have been justly abolished, and the students retain only the right to hold the ceremony of the fronds, with which Herman, the fourteenth bishop of the Church of Münster, who died in the year 1042, is said to have endowed the pupils of St. Paul’s school from what was then his own manor, | as can be seen in the catalogue of the bishops.25 To prevent this same right from being lost or falling into abeyance, it has been established that every year each

24 25

December 5. This right is not attested in surviving documents.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 152

6/7/2007 4:34:03 PM

public and private places and buildings of the city

153

student should pay one farthing (since then changed to a half-penny), and from this money the chanters who are called chamber men should buy themselves wax tapers to use in a proper mass for the dead in memory of this same Bishop Herman in the Church Across-the-River, which was founded and consecrated by him.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 153

6/7/2007 4:34:03 PM

CHAPTER SEVEN

DUAL JURISDICTION IN THE CITY

92

There is a dual jurisdiction in the city: ecclesiastical and secular. Only the bishop holds the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and not only are the disputes of the ecclesiastics dealt with there but so are those of laymen, particularly in order for debtors to be struck with the ecclesiastical fulminations let loose by the judge and thus forced to repay their creditors. As for these fulminations, although they infl ict no wounds on the body or cause blood to be shed, they terrify debtors to an incredible degree, and with good reason. For they lessen the debtors’ fortune and undercut their spirit. It is not permissible to strike a citizen of Münster with these weapons against his will in connection with a case that is both civil and secular. This court, which they also call a curia or consistory, has several different officers. The first is the judge, who is appointed by the bishop and receives his authority from him. They call him the “official of the court of Münster,” not, as Calepinus thinks,1 from the verb “officere,” that is, “to harm,” but from the “office” over which he presides. | At present, Lord Derek of Hamm, a man famed for his knowledge of the law, attends to this duty in a praiseworthy manner. Next comes the seal impresser, or rather clerk, who makes the decisions of the court official by affixing the court’s seal into green wax. They call him the “chancellor,” and sometimes he also carries out the function of sitting as an assessor. To him the prince assigns a special house to live in on the Lords’ Field. This house is commonly called the “chancery,” and every year ecclesiastical fulminations and censures bring large sums of money into it, to the prince’s profit. Lord Jacob Voss, a deacon of the Old Church who possesses great erudition in the laws, is the present chancellor. Next come the three scribes who draw up documents, who are called “notaries.” Either because they were found to be rather careless or because the three were by no means enough to write down all the cases, Bernard, the fifty-second bishop of the diocese,

1 The Latin dictionary (dictionarium latinum) of the Italian Augustinian Ambrosius Calepinus (ca. 1440–1510) was first published in 1502, and provided the basis for many subsequent (often multi-lingual) dictionaries.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 154

6/7/2007 4:34:03 PM

dual jurisdiction in the city

155

added a fourth, Arnold Isfording, a man who, while being talented in his skill, pays very much attention to his own interests. These scribes write down a reliable summary of the arguments put forward on either side by the contending parties, and then they take their summaries and stitch them together in verbose formulas filled with such contemptible redundancies and pointless blatherings that they cause nauseated disgust in the judge who reads them and sometimes lead him astray from the straight path into a trackless morass, thinking it the greatest sin and infamous heresy if someone deviates from the traditional phraseology. For the purpose of this sly grasping, they support at home a swarm of amanuenses, earning from this a splendid profit for themselves and their employees. Such faith is placed in the documents they draw up that these cannot be doubted. There are also other harpies—buzzards or swallows of paradise—who defend cases, thereby making no small gain for themselves as they drain the insides of purses, and those of them who are assisted by their tongue are so puffed up with haughtiness that when a poor man speaks, they turn to the side not just their face but their entire head, looking at him not directly but at an angle. This is the origin of the solicitors, who on behalf of their party remind the lawyers, who are involved in a plethora of cases, of the dispute. These solicitors often intercept with clever arguments of persuasion what the lawyers would otherwise get, and they snatch, as it were, the mouthful from the lawyers’ jaws. From this group, then, arises the great mob of vulgar scribes called “benchers” (bancales) who devote themselves to writing up less significant orders. | Next, there are the letter bearers, who, through their own peculiar assistants, distribute among all the parishes of the diocese the judicial decisions that have been certified with the court’s seal. Finally, there are others who are given the task of carrying out sentence in connection with the seizure of sureties. These men are commonly called “expeditors” or “expanders” in the vernacular. Many years ago, their job was in the hands of the letter bearers, but it has now been made a separate office in order to expedite the legal process and bring cases to an end. This single court not only provides a small income to all these officials along with their wives and a fairly large body of attendants, but fattens them with sumptuous feasts and bestows magnificent palaces on them. They send appeals from here to the court of the archbishop of Cologne. Some years ago it was the traditional practice that because of one person’s fault the worship of God would be suspended in the churches if someone accursed (struck by the thunderbolt of fulmination), that is,

93

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 155

6/7/2007 4:34:03 PM

156

94

chapter seven

excommunicated (ordered, as a form of censure because of his obstinacy, to withdraw from taking communion with his fellow man), was found there. But since it is unfair to punish the blameless for someone else’s crime and to deprive them of the sacraments and the Word of God, William, the fifty-first bishop, for excellent reasons completely abolished the practice of interdicting divine services and changed this to the invocation of the secular arm.2 Thus, while it had previously been at the judge’s discretion whether he should achieve his end through the secular arm or through an interdict, once the latter course was abolished, the use of the secular arm was made obligatory. They call the location of this court “Paradise,”3 and when it is in session, there is in it such screeching and thronging of strangers, such squabbling to the point of hoarseness among the pettifoggers who compete within the court’s enclosure, that you would think that these sober men were drunk and that you were passing by an inn full of drinking buddies. The secular court is always held in the area of the public marketplace that is fenced in with barricades, under the vaults of the council hall. In addition to civil cases, criminals are also tried there whenever the situation so dictates. The judge | is presented and offered to the council by the prince, who entrusts the management of the matter to him after exacting an oath.4 Unless there is an impediment for some just cause, the council accepts the appointee with the appropriate reverence and assigns to him two assessors from the ranks of the council. When, many years ago, the bishops claimed for themselves not only the rights over this entire court but also the revenues, returns and income (what is called “grute”), the result after 1277 was that Eberhard of Deist, the thirty-seventh bishop, took up arms against the city in defense of his Church, and at the urging of certain men who hated peace, he put the city under close siege. But the nobility and the leading clergy refused him assistance against the city, either because they thought that the reason for the siege was too trivial to merit such disturbances, and that it was imprudent of him to resort to arms, or because the war that 2 “Secular arm” (bracchium saeculare) is the medieval term for the use of the powers of the secular authority to impose temporal sanctions upon those convicted of ecclesiastical offenses (particularly, the burning alive of those whom the Church had condemned as heretics, since such activities were considered incompatible with the sanctity of the servants of God). 3 See 29D. 4 The city council took exception to K.’s account of the relative claims made by the prince and by the city to jurisdiction over this court (see General Introduction 3b).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 156

6/7/2007 4:34:03 PM

dual jurisdiction in the city

157

had been begun could be brought to an end only with great loss to the subjects and with bloodshed if there was to be a full-scale confl ict with enraged spirits on both sides, or because they would call upon themselves the city’s undying enmity, and accordingly the bishop, who was not equal to achieving his end by himself, despaired of taking the city. Bereft of assistance, he not only moved his camp and abandoned the undertaking of the siege, but under compulsion bought peace at the cost of half the secular jurisdiction and the loss of all the revenues and returns of the grute. Having acquired these rights in this way, the council has kept them for itself down to the present day, though certain people have tried to violate them. This court makes use of one scribe, and the services of this man alone are more than sufficient for all the court cases that are drawn up in documents. Six attendants undertake the task of protecting all the cases. Appeals from this court are lodged with the council, certainly not by a general right but by a peculiar one that has been confirmed by long custom.5 The judge alone claims the profits from the act of applying the seal; as for the other revenues (income) from the court, he first keeps half for himself in the bishop’s name and then leaves the rest to be distributed in equal portions between the assessors and the council. Apart from these statements, many more things could be said about each court, but for the sake of brevity I think that they should be passed over.

95

5 Once again, the city council objected to this conception of the appeals process, though K.’s description seems to be phrased neutrally without prejudicing the issue in the prince’s favor.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 157

6/7/2007 4:34:03 PM

CHAPTER EIGHT

DIVISION OF THE CITY’S INHABITANTS INTO ESTATES

96

The whole city comprises two categories of people, one consisting of the religious (ecclesiastics) and the other of the profane (laymen). Since the religious fall to God’s lot, they adopt the designation “clerics.”1 The totality of the religious is called the “clergy,” being divided into the main and the lower clergy on the basis of dignity in rank. The higher clergy consists of the forty canons of the cathedral, whom the commons call the Lord’s Lords.2 Admission to this order is granted to no one of blemished birth, and instead only those who possess the full and complete grandeur of knighthood in their ancestors, particularly in their four great-grandfathers on both sides and are outstanding in the integrity of their character and in their learning. | In the intervals between bishops, the administration of the diocese falls to these men alone as if by hereditary right, and they also have the sole right to choose the prince. Accordingly, this order of the clergy is justly called “main.” A careful investigation is made into the grandeur of their birth. In this they do not simply trust a title to nobility but summon men of venerable ancient lineage whose reputation and nobility are unsullied, putting faith in their attestations in this regard when these are confirmed by oath. In addition, no one is admitted to this renowned group who has not first, as ecclesiastic regulation dictates, spent some hundreds of crowns to study at a famous university across the Alps. Hence it happens that most members of this order surpass the others in learning, culture and personal integrity. The Emperor Frederick I,3 who had at that time selected Dortmund as his capital, graciously granted the chapter the right to choose the bishop. To be sure, it was easy for the chapter to get whatever it wanted from the emperor, since peaceable relations between emperor and pope were uncommon, and their rivalry severe. It had not been the case that the bishops were chosen

1 The term “cleric,” borrowed ultimately from Greek, is a derivative of the word for “lot” (kleros). 2 Herrenherren, i.e., the lords who serve the Lord. 3 Frederick Barbarossa, Holy Roman Emperor 1152–1190.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 158

6/7/2007 4:34:03 PM

division of the city’s inhabitants into estates

159

through election by the chapter but instead the emperors appointed those whom they had learned to be outstanding for their piety and unusual virtue. Accordingly, Count Otto | of Bentheim was the first bishop (the twenty-sixth overall) to be appointed by the free election of the chapter, being confirmed by Pope Honorius. From that time down to the present day, the unrestricted election of the prince has remained in the hands of the chapter, although other arrangements for the diocese have at times intervened, to the great detriment of the diocese and the commonwealth. The main order has over the years witnessed such an increase in its power, dignity and wealth that it hardly has its equal. So great is its infl uence that it keeps in subordination to it not only the entire nobility and knighthood through ties of kinship, but the prince himself through the constraint of an oath. For without the authorization of the main clergy, the prince can hardly make a decision that will remain valid in trivial matters, much less in troublesome ones that pertain to the well-being of the diocese. This order is very fittingly divided up by offices. The provost surpasses the others in dignity, and the dean does so in the authority of his office. The former is the archdeacon of all the parishes in the city (apart from the Parish Across-the-River) and censor of their morals, but involves himself in the chapter’s business only when asked to. After the prince, the latter is, even against his will, the head of not just the main clergy but also of all the ecclesiastics belonging to the lower clergy, and sets the standard for them in their way of living, receiving respect and reverence as a father and a teacher. He has the power to establish regulations for the clergy’s way of living and to punish transgressors with either the deprivation of their income or imprisonment. For the Lords have their own prison, and the fearsome terror it instills in the clergy keeps them to their duty, with the result that the prison today can be seen covered with dirt and cobwebs as a result of long neglect, | there hardly being any use for it nowadays. Even today, the dean displays the attire of canons (regulars) by wearing a black garment with a white stole wrapped over it. The schoolmaster not only defends the rights of the public school and takes care of the youth, but he also restrains the novice canons with his hand and rules. Letting them graduate at the appropriate time, he releases them from his rules and subordinates them to the chapter’s, and from this procedure derives the very beautiful graduation ceremony. The sacristan guards the gold and silver vessels and the

97

98

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 159

6/7/2007 4:34:03 PM

160

99

chapter eight

other adornments and treasures of the cathedral through the efforts of the beadles and other attendants appointed by him, and for this reason they call him the guard of the Lords’ Church. The steward has some hundreds of manors under his control, and from them he collects some thousands of gold coins every year for the use of the Lords, providing for them at fixed dates with the transportation of wood and with wines, candles, meals, cakes and other such things. The bursar is named after the leather purse4 from which he makes daily distributions of sums of money among those who are present in the choir and dutifully engaged in the worship of God (these distributions are called “presences,” since they given only to those who are present). This procedure is excellent for preserving the ecclesiastical order and keeping them to their duty. Here I pass over the cantor, who is the overseer of the cantors and of the chamber men; the archdeacons, who are the eyes of the bishop and inspect the parishes of the entire diocese, assessing their behavior; the superintendents of buildings, whom they call the building master,5 who is in charge of the workmen and necessary construction in the basilica; and the sick attendant, whom they call the rector of the ill, who keeps hog heads preserved in brine, so that when any of the Lords are sick with an inescapable illness, he will, after the supreme unction, offer them these heads along with bread, beer and a burning taper for three solid days, if they survive that long. There are many possible reasons why this custom has been established. Perhaps the reason is in order that since the Lords originally shared a common meal and did not provide anyone with separate sustenance at home, they should, when they give solace to the sick man with their presence, themselves be nourished from this act, or that this should be a final act of charity (for these meals are brought to the city’s alms-houses and distributed among the poor), or that by offering these thing to the dead they might propitiate Death and forestall their own fate, or that they should understand from this custom that they never lack anything either in life or in death, and should, as they are about to die, give thanks for this gift of God’s, | or that they should recall that throughout the course of their lives they have Lat. bursa. The description is necessary to indicate the sense of the Latin aedilis (rendered here as “superintendent of buildings”). In Republican Rome, the aediles had a number of duties involving the regular commercial and public life of the city, including oversight of the marketplace and of public buildings. The last duty is presumably why the term is chosen to translate the German Kämmerer (see further reference to them on 98D, 106D). 4 5

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 160

6/7/2007 4:34:03 PM

division of the city’s inhabitants into estates

161

been wrapped up like muddy pigs in the filthy dirty pleasures and were drowning in them, but should now cast such things from their minds and bewail the life which they have led, and then, under the admonition of the burning candles, seek refuge in Christ, the establisher of eternal light, and seek forgiveness for their sins in supplication. Finally, I also pass over the lower offices of the other canons. When not engaged in the practices of piety, the men of this order devote themselves to hunting, fowling and other delights after the fashion of noblemen, considering this a grand and elegant way of life. They go forth in public escorted by a great retinue of attendants, and they are impressive in stride, reverend in speech, splendid in gestures that are excellently suited to their words, and ready for arms if the safety of the commonwealth dictates. If they have to go a longer distance, they ride on the spirited horses that they maintain at home or on wagons. When engaged in the worship of God, they wear linen stoles that are particularly thin, fine and diaphanous. The clothing they put on is woven of quite pure wool or silk and faced with the soft furs of wild animals, fl owing down almost to their ankles. Their necks are encircled by golden necklaces twisted into many coils, and their fingers by gem-encrusted rings decorated with the insignia of their forebears. The younger ones wear tunics curled or frilled around the neck like garden or romaine lettuce. When about to make a public appearance, most cover their heads with silk hats, a form of attire that distinguishes them from the commons. Instead of shoes, the elder canons wear cloth-covered slippers, and avail themselves of other luxuries. They do not, however, think that they have been so exalted and enriched only for their own sake or in order that they alone should devour everything, since their particular aim is that the poor should not be neglected. For apart from the daily alms that they distribute everyday to the students of St. Paul’s, they give alms in common. This alms-giving was instituted in the past by Lord Lubbert of Rodenberg, a noble canon, and the revenues for it | have been gradually increased, so that the man in charge, who is always appointed by the chapter, contributes some thousands of marks in local money every year for the benefit of the poor. In the lower clergy are placed the canons (and their vicars) of all colleges of both the city and the entire diocese; all the parish priests and chaplains, apart from the one who is in charge of the Church of St. James as the officiant; and the abbots and priors of all the monasteries, and the men and women who devote themselves to the chanting of hymns and engage in the worship of God both day and night. (The

100

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 161

6/7/2007 4:34:03 PM

162

101

chapter eight

monks and nuns do intermingle other exercises during the day, but divide up their time in such a way that virtually no hour passes without them being occupied with certain pursuits. This is why people who are devoted to respectable activities cast off and shun base free-time, which is the cause of many crimes.) Apart from the cathedral college, there are four others: those of Old St. Paul’s, St. Ludger’s, St. Maurice’s Outside-the-Walls, and St. Martin’s. Apart from the one that we have said to be in the Lords’ Field, there are six parishes: the Parish Across-the-River, St. Lambert’s, St. Ludger’s, St. Martin’s, St. Giles’, and St. Servatius’. There are four male convents: the Brothers of St. George, the Hospitalers, the Brothers of the Fountain, and the Minorites; and seven of nuns: the Sisters Across-the-River, St. Giles’, Nitzing’s, the Roseum (named Rosenthal after a valley of roses; when its nuns willingly made themselves subject to the Rule of St. Augustine, only | Adelheid Helleberndes resisted, though in vain), the Ring’s, Hofrugging’s (named after a certain nobleman called Hofrugging, who bestowed his house on his two sisters for use as a convent, and after summoning certain other girls to it, these sisters were the first nuns there), and the Reinanum (in German, Reine) founded by Ermingard and Matilda, who were sisters from the noble Büren family, in the year 1344 on the day of St. Vincent the Martyr.6 The individual monasteries also have their own churches, apart from Hofrugging’s and Rosenthal, whose nuns enter the common church of the Parish Across-the-River when they are going to engage in worship. St. Martin’s takes the nuns from Reine’s, and St. Ludger’s, those of Ring’s. These convents do, however, have their own chapels with altars at which they sometimes tire themselves with private prayers, and, when necessary, hear the solemnities of the mass in private rites. Thus, the body of the entire clergy and all its members is divided into the two orders that have been described. The members are free of all civil burdens, unless they change their old residences which have been exempted from burdens since ancient days and inhabit the houses of burghers, in which case they bear the civil impositions on account of these houses. In all assemblies of burghers, both public and private, they receive preference on account of their religious vows and assume the leading role. The laymen treat them with such honor and reverence that you would think them not mortals but gods on earth. They all

6

January 22.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 162

6/7/2007 4:34:04 PM

division of the city’s inhabitants into estates

163

lead a life of celibacy, and they prominently exhibit a certain gravity in their behavior, gait and splendid clothing. This ecclesiastical order is restrained from the many varieties of sin and is kept to its duty by two synods, one in the fall and one in the spring. In them, the clergy, in the presence of the bishop (or at least his suffragan) and of the heads of the main clergy, are deterred from sin with Latin sermons, so that they are struck with the fear of both God’s vengeance and the penalty, and dare not commit any act that contradicts what is right and honorable and is in conformity with the behavior of the main clergy. The rule for living and teaching is laid down in these synods, so that everything should savor of the doctrine of Christ. The faults of the parish priests are also done away with through the censure of the archdeacons. In this way, everything throughout the entire diocese is kept in order. Below this order, that is, midway between clergy and laity, we properly place the masters of the public schools, who teach the youth with wholesome maxims and instruct them in the mores of a liberal education. To be sure, we do not do this on the basis of their prestige and authority, since they are considered lower than the lowest, as Mimimgardford bears witness in her lament7:

102

The crude lackey and the breaker of horses is worth more, And the cheap guide of dogs receives more honor, The hunter, and the clever bird catcher are worth more, The whore selling her crotch is more valued, The crowd of camp followers, useless in war, is worth more Than those who teach the crude youth character!

| Because of this order’s benefit to the public, we have assigned them this place (directly after the clergy). For when the body of each commonwealth8 is broken down with old age, they renew it with fresh, healthy members, and once the body is thus renewed, they foster its daily increase in strength, by cherishing and encouraging it. It is upon them, therefore, that we will bestow the highest repute in the city. For we are going to have the kind of priests and burghers that they will rear. There are public schools in three colleges of canons: St. Ludger’s and St. Martin’s teach boys the rudiments of the Latin language, while

103

7 The reference is to K.’s earlier work Mymingardevordae lugentis querimonia “Grieving Mimimgardford’s Complaint” (see General Introduction 3c). 8 That is, ecclesiastical and secular.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 163

6/7/2007 4:34:04 PM

164

104

chapter eight

the school of St. Paul’s, which has always been more renowned and noble in its age and the number of its students, is superior in language instruction through public and private exercises. For the young men are carefully trained with instruction not only in Latin but also in Greek and Hebrew, and with public demonstrations of their talents in the form of disputations and recitations. The principle aim is that the youths should not bob on the surface and run riot with a very shallow verbosity, but should instead acquire both a familiarity with the principles and an understanding of the subject matter. The students of this school who are burdened by poverty are supported with the receipt of loaves of bread through the remarkable generosity on the part of certain Lords. In addition to these public institutions, there are also in almost every ward little at-home tutors who teach private lessons, which results in the downfall of the public schools. This matter begets such confusion, such variation in behavior among the youth, such wrangling about the most monstrous opinions that they throw into chaos not only the public school system but also a large part of the citizenry. Accordingly, parents would look after their children’s interests more correctly if they preferred the light of day to the darkness of shadows, and sent their children to public schools, where, as one urges the other on and a very splendid rivalry prevails among the pupils, they would make great progress. In such a situation they would, from their first years, become used to not shunning their fellow men, those among whom they are going to live in the public sphere. As for the other situation, to an incredible extent the boys’ talents waste away in a lonely room, which they find wearisome and which they also shun like a prison cell, preferring to spend their time in daylight, that is, in the midst of many fellow students. If they were moved by the example of the Athenians and Spartans, the members of the government would justly consider that they in particular had the responsibility to care for the youth and their instruction, since the safety of the state particularly depends upon the public schools being equipped and supported with privileges and subsidies, so that the gentlemen who emerge from them will be fit to run the state. But if this can hardly be achieved, it can at least be granted without, I think, any public harm that the private schools should be abolished, and the public ones administered in such a way that the instructors and lecturers in them will not be indigent through the fault of the government. All the schoolteachers are virtually dependent upon the wealth and number of their pupils, since none of them is looked

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 164

6/7/2007 4:34:04 PM

division of the city’s inhabitants into estates

165

after with a public salary.9 As for the school of St. Paul’s, it is only the generosity of certain Lords of the cathedral that maintains it, and the city council’s authority lends it support in place of a salary. The laity (profane people not initiated in sacral matters) differ from the clergy in their way of life, customs, and clothing. I divide them into two orders: the patricians and the commoners. For the members of the knighthood do not | submit to the jurisdiction of the burghers or the city’s statutes, regulations or laws (though some of them own splendid mansions in the city). Instead, being scattered outside the city, they individually defend their privileges in their castles or strongholds and constitute a fourth status within the diocese that is separate from the other three, living on the income of their manors and by their own farming. Accordingly, the laity (the profane inhabitants of the city) have been divided by me into two groups. Out of these groups arises a third. From both groups, older men who are by comparison wealthy, outstanding for their probity, and experienced through long engagement in affairs are elected, even if they are unlearned, to run the government. These men comprise the third group, namely the order of city councilors, and to them is entrusted the civil administration of the entire city. There are twenty-four men in this order, and they are appointed by ten electors, who are confined within the council chamber, now on the Tuesday after the feast of St. Antony,10 but previously on the first Monday of Lent. In the past, it was only the workers11 who selected these electors, but now the entire body of burghers does so on a ward-by-ward basis. Since the aged councilmen are esteemed for the venerable excellence of their grey-haired wisdom, we call them “senators,” inasmuch as they see to the needs of the public interest with weighty votes in the council hall.12 On the other hand, inasmuch as they represent individual voting districts (“leyschoppe”,13 as they call them), they are called judges (“scabini”) and when disputes arise among

105

9 It would now seem that K.’s objections to private education are not entirely based on pedagogical considerations! 10 January 17. 11 I.e., guild members. 12 The Latin word senator is related to the word for “old man” (senex). It is not clear whether “we” refers to the author specifically or to all those who use Latin to speak of the city’s institutions, but in any case the explanation indicates why this particular Latin translation is used of the city councilors, whose duties were much broader than those of the Roman senator. (Whereas the Roman senate’s traditional role was advisory, the city council of a German city had executive and judicial functions.) 13 Literally “laities” (German Leienschaften).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 165

6/7/2007 4:34:04 PM

166

106

chapter eight

the burghers of the district, especially as a result of construction, these judges investigate the disputes, try them after the investigation, and settle them after the trial. The purpose of this arrangement is to avoid having the entire council affl icted with such annoyances when it is occupied with more important matters. If, however, this procedure would not be helpful, the matter is remitted to the council’s judgment. The city is divided into six voting districts, that is, geographical areas: St. Martin’s, St. Lambert’s, St. Ludger’s, St. Giles’, | St. Mary’s,14 and the Jew’s Field. Each of the first four appoints two electors but the last two only one (to reach a total of ten instead of twelve), and by vote these electors choose the members of city council from among both the commons and the patricians. If those elected shirk the honor of serving, they are penalized as haters of the public good not only with a fine but also with banishment for an entire year and the hatred of the burghers. The order of councilmen is divided by duties into several categories, and it is not the electors but the elected councilmen who distribute these duties among themselves for the well-being and advantage of the public.15 The heads of the burghers and of the council are the two senior members of the government,16 who surpass the others in judgment, diligence, reliability, watchfulness, authority, wisdom, infl uence, and experience. Two superintendents of wine17 administer the council’s wine outlet and its wine. The two assessors18 sit beside the civil judge on his tribunal and aid him with their advice in the trials of cases and the passing of sentences. Two superintendents of buildings oversee the public works and fortifications.19 Two financial officials who receive the city’s revenues are called the superintendents of the “scormorrium” tax (“gruethern”).20 They used to collect the tax on myrtle beer, which

14 I.e., the Parish Across-the-River, whose parish church was dedicated to St. Mary. 15 The city council objected to this fairly innocuous description of the electoral process and to the subsequent discussion of the offices exercised by members of the council on the grounds that K. had thereby revealed the council’s secrets (see General Introduction 3b). It is hard to see how this account could have been much of a revelation, since such procedures would seem to have been common knowledge. 16 Burgher masters (the term to be used in the text henceforth). 17 Weinherren (“wine lords”). 18 Richtherren (“judge lords”). 19 Kämmerer (also mentioned on 98D). 20 “Lords of the myrtle (beer).” Scormorrium was a neologism in Latin for the distinctive myrtle beer of Münster.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 166

6/7/2007 4:34:04 PM

division of the city’s inhabitants into estates

167

was once the principal beverage in the city and is referred to with the neologism “scormorrium,” and the name given them for that reason has lasted until the present day. | There are also two assessors21 of the secret Westphalian court that is set up to punish evil-doing. This court is called the “assize” (“vriegraf ’s”)22 and its tribunal in a lonely location outside the city is surrounded by leafy oaks on all sides. It is not, however, the oaks that expiate the acts of wrongdoing, as was the case in the past, but gold.23 There are two beer masters,24 who are entrusted with the care of beer, both domestic and imported, to make sure that the price does not exceed the value. Two superintendents of alms receive their title from clothing the poor25 and are in charge of all the “providers” of the entire city (overseers of the public alms that are distributed in each parish).26 Two officials each superintend the hospice for foreigners between the bridges, the leper shelter outside the city, St. Anthony’s alms-house for old folks, and the brick yard. The whole order of the council used to consist only of patricians. Then, as commoners were gradually admitted, a mixing of the two orders began to take place, on the understanding that one of the two burgher masters would always be elected from the commons and the other tasks would be administered partly by commoners and partly by patricians, each with equal authority. This set-up, after having been preserved for so long, lasted until the patricians, in the eager pursuit of knightly status, withdrew from civic functions | and shunned the rights of the city. For this reason, few patricians now belong to the order of the council, and even they do so against their will.27

107

108

Stuhlherren. High German Freigraf. 23 I.e., offenders are fined rather than hanged. The implicit condemnation of the practice of fining malefactors was one of the charges laid against K. by the city council (see General Introduction 3b), and in the later “Apology” in which he defended himself against the city’s councils attacks against his work (see General Introduction 3c), K. noted that whereas many criminals had been hanged by the court in the past, during his twenty-five-year tenure as rector of the cathedral school, no one was hanged by this court’s sentence (he notes two men who were fined in it for adultery and were executed only later by other authorities—the bailiff of Senden and the city council—for repeat offenses). Clearly, K. was a firm believer in the exemplary effect of execution and lamented the leniency of this court. 24 Bierherren. 25 Kleiderherren (“lords of clothing”). 26 See also 59D. 27 The patricians objected to this characterization of them (and to the comments in the paragraph after next), which in their mind seemed to detract from their claims to belong to the nobility (see General Introduction 3b). 21 22

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 167

6/7/2007 4:34:04 PM

168

109

chapter eight

This order has great authority in the city. It has the power to establish and disestablish, to pass laws and revoke those that have been passed, to command and forbid, to punish or absolve the accused, to mint copper coinage (though this is used only locally), to bestow the ecclesiastical benefices in the council’s gift not only on learned adults but even on boys or virtually speechless babes (though ones from whom there is the expectation of good fruits or whose parents have increased the public good with some skill).28 In short, this order’s writ extends not only to the city’s lanes, but also to its walls and towers, not only to the lowliest commoners but also to the most exalted patricians. The council also has a spokesman, hired at great expense, who is called a “syndic”; an amanuensis, who is called the secretary; a guard for the doors to the council chamber, and four mounted escorts, six attendants and a certain number of messengers, who wear the silver insignia of the city (their right arms are encircled by a circle of silver-leaf roundels attached to their cloaks); a master of force,29 to whom is entrusted oversight of the night watch and of uproars at night; and finally, to terrify criminals, a hangman who is distinguished from the other servants by his green attire. Then there are the patricians. These are the highborn burghers, who represent the remains of ancient bloodlines and the posterity of ancient families. The commons call them “Erffmans”30 as if the indigenous successors by hereditary right of their ancestors, who, having received their images from their ancestors, pass them on intact to the descendants,31 so that they accept no commoner, however wealthy, into their order unless | he is begotten of parents possessing the same ancestry.32 This is the reason why for so long now this status has retained K.’s complaint about giving benefices to minors was one of the accusations lodged against K. by the council, but it is to be noted that the parenthesis at the end of this sentence was meant to obviate a negative interpretation by indicating that those who were granted such positions at an admittedly young age nonetheless came from families that would lead one to expect satisfactory results from the incumbents in adulthood (i.e., the respectable well-to-do). Whatever the truth of the matter, K. was clearly trying to soften his criticism. 29 Gewaltmeister. 30 “Erbmänner” (“men of heritage”). 31 The allusion to “images” refers to the ancient Roman practice whereby death masks (imagines or “images”) were made of the heads of prominent families. These images were set up in the forecourt of the house and taken down for display in funeral processions, being tokens of the antiquity and splendor of the family’s lineage. 32 This last clause is not clearly expressed, since anyone of the same ancestry (presumably as the patricians) by definition is not a commoner. Seemingly, what is 28

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 168

6/7/2007 4:34:04 PM

division of the city’s inhabitants into estates

169

its significance in contradiction to that of the commons. Content with their revenues and farming, they imitate the knighthood. We have not, however, excluded them from the category of burghers, since the burghers consist of patricians on the one hand and commoners on the other, both groups being bound by the city’s laws. I also include in this category those who have been ennobled through appointment to offices on account of their learning, such as the doctors and licentiates of various professions, even if they are of common origin.33 The order of the commons encompasses the undifferentiated mob of the whole city apart from the councilmen and patricians, including freemen and serfs. The serfs live randomly among the freemen, and the freemen are partly common burghers and partly cerocensuals.34 The cerocensuals are those who are under the control of the sacristan or the superintendent of the fabric of the Lords’ Church35 and recognize them as their defenders and patrons. They are named “wastinsich”36 after the words for “wax” (cera) and “tax” (census) and are also called the “freemen of St. Paul” (“Sanct Pouwels frien”),37 purchasing the freedom of their goods with a payment of two pennies every year and one fl orin as a death duty.38 This category was introduced to make sure that no one among the commoners in the entire diocese should lack a “head” (as they themselves say), that is, a defender and patron. (The burghers have the city council, and the serfs have a lord.) Whenever anyone of common status (always with the exception of the knights) breathes his last who is not a burgher, cerocensual or serf, the prince becomes their heir, | excluding any children and seizing the property as if in escheat, though it is not in escheat when there is a lawful heir

110

meant is that only those of patrician ancestry are accepted, which therefore excludes commoners. 33 This refers to the grants of nobility given to those appointed to senior governmental positions (the “nobility of the robe,” to use a later expression). Such offices normally required a university degree and thus offered a route to noble status for commoners of intellectual ability. Here “doctors” refers to the possessors of doctorates in any disciple, while “licentiates” signifies advanced doctoral students who already possess a master’s degree and have been given official permission (“license”) to give lectures at the university (the high expenses involved in receiving the doctorate often resulted in those qualified as licentiates not bothering to get the degree itself ). 34 “Payers of the wax tax.” 35 Chamberlain. 36 High German Wachszinsig. 37 High German Sankt Pauls freien. 38 This group consisted of erstwhile serfs of the church, who used to purchase their freedom with a payment in wax, which was later commuted to cash.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 169

6/7/2007 4:34:04 PM

170

111

chapter eight

to it. It seems harsh and savage that we should cast away the lawful heirs and devour the sweat of someone else’s brow, plundering what another person has properly and justly acquired without any effort or trouble on our part, and that after stripping the children of their goods and reducing them to abject poverty, we should drive them into exile, producing an excuse for acting wickedly and increasing our own possessions through robbing someone else in a way that is contrary to nature and extremely grievous. Let those in whose interest it is to do so defend this practice. Just as the commons comprises several different groups, so too do they seek their livelihood through differing pursuits and practices. This includes all those craftsmen and workers who practice a trade for profit, working with both their mind and their hands. Some of these have guilds endowed with certain privileges, while others enter certain associations (called “broderschop”)39 that are distinguished by professional pursuits. Yet others are not attached to a specific guild or association, each man engaging individually in the private practices from which he earns a living. The guilds number sixteen. Three are beholden to the city council by oath, since they depend upon a decree of the council: the butchers (who are divided into two sub-guilds, one for the old market and one for the new), the wool workers, and the bakers. The remaining guilds operate by their own rules and regulations: the garment cutters, peddlers, blacksmiths, tanners, | tailors, shoemakers, furriers, goldsmiths, tawers, stone masons, coopers, and pewtersmiths; while the painters, saddlemakers and glaziers share a single guild. Each guild has two superintendents or masters, whom they call “Gildemeisters” or “Meisterlude,” apart from the butchers, who have four since they have a double guild. The guilds also have their own servants, who wear multi-colored clothing when they go forth in public. These servants are employed for the swift execution of the guilds’ business affairs, and for this reason they are called the “messengers” of the guild to which they belong. There were once separate guilds for the wooden shoemakers, the fish mongers and the cobblers, who fix worn out shoes by attaching soles, but now the wooden shoe makers, the carpenters, the cabinet makers, the cloth shearers, and weavers are distinguished from the guilds by

39

High German Brüderschaft (“brotherhoods”).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 170

6/7/2007 4:34:04 PM

division of the city’s inhabitants into estates

171

having associations. Those who practice other professions do not have collective organizations in the form of guilds or associations, but engage in the pursuit of profit individually: scribes, barbers (who also act as surgeons), dyers, belt makers, purse makers, yoke makers, lathe workers, millers, brewers, merchants of various goods, booksellers, linen workers, druggists, perfume sellers, wine merchants, and butter merchants. The peasants rent their pastures and fields from the clergy or noblemen or patricians, since these groups own the majority of the land around the city. They either sow this land with grain stuffs or use them as pasturage for thin cattle brought down from Denmark, | which they fatten up and then drive to market in Cologne, where they earn a good profit by selling them retail. A few, however, do sow their own land. Finally, there are two tribunes of the plebs in imitation of the Roman constitution. These they call either “allermans” because as representatives of all inhabitants they are the heads and presidents of the commons or “aldermen” after the word for “old age,” since it is presumed that the experience in which they ought to be outstanding is found in old age.40 In conjunction with the guild masters, the aldermen’s authority is so great that they can even rescind decrees of the city council if they so wish. Accordingly, in difficult matters that pertain to the well-being of the entire city, the council generally makes no decision without their participation in the deliberations. The youth are occupied with various pursuits. Some are turned over to school for learning, some to commerce, some to the profit-making trades of workers. The activities of women and girls mostly concern linen weaving, which is their principal business. In women there is an astonishing haughtiness that in its ambition surpasses general human nature, and this is particularly true among low-born women, who, in their zeal to make themselves the equal of richer women, are arrogant to the point of scornfulness and often forgo necessities for the sake of adornment so that they can parade around with greater refinement and beauty. In the inhabitants of both sexes can be seen a remarkable combination of friendliness, affability, wit, culture, and civility, and it therefore seems amazing that in the middle of Westphalia, which is girded all around with remarkable crudeness, such a splendid sort of character has arisen, since even the nature of the location resists this.

112

40 The German Allerman does in fact mean “man, or representative, of everyone.” The alternate derivation from Alter (“old age”) is false.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 171

6/7/2007 4:34:05 PM

172

113

chapter eight

Before the Anabaptist uproar, there had been such a connection of friendship and closeness between clergy and laity, such a tight bond of mutual concord among all the orders of society, that this bond could not be broken by any contrivance. The clergy lived among the laymen with such distinction in their chastity and their modest selfrestraint that you would have said either that angels had assumed the shape of humans or that humans had adopted the character of angels. Hence, the clergy were greatly enriched through the munificence of pious men and respectable matrons. As for the laity, their lives used to be resplendent with such impeccable piety | that they strove not only to equal but even to surpass the clergy, and such saintliness had suppressed the wantonness of the fl esh, which rebels against the spirit, that it was a sin for them to have tasted diary products on Fridays. There had been such love and veneration for the worship of God that those who had not attended mass every day and poured forth their prayers to God thought that they would not outlive that day, or would at least meet with extraordinary misfortune. As a result of this pursuit of piety and loving concord among the orders, this commonwealth gradually grew in wealth and power to an incredible degree. The city remained unharmed and prospered amidst this prosperity for as long as every single person kept himself within the limits of his own calling. Once those boundaries and restraints were broken, however, when in the licentiousness of their meetings the workers burst through the barriers marking off the ecclesiastics, and in their transformation into soldiers and merchants with their trafficking, the ecclesiastics burst through those of the workmen, with the property of the churches, which had been dedicated to God by pious people, being turned into the salaries of soldiers, informers, hunters, gluttons and pimps, everything began to be turned topsy-turvy. Each result was caused by an excessive abundance of material things. For among the clergy this abundance begat dissipation, dissipation begat drowsiness, drowsiness begat carelessness or neglect, and once this was let in, Satan could sow his seeds in greater security as the clergy snoozed. Among the laity, on the other hand, this abundance begat ambition (which is the companion of prosperity), ambition begat haughty arrogance, arrogance begat extravagance, extravagance begat poverty, poverty begat defiance of the government (the hungering commons know not how to fear, as the poet attests),41 defiance begat

41

Lucan, Civil War 3.58.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 172

6/7/2007 4:34:05 PM

division of the city’s inhabitants into estates

173

impunity in committing any act at all, which finally suggested the endeavor to snatch other people’s property and the eagerness to dump out the contents of other people’s strong boxes. They had not called this rapine (the etymology of the world would display its wrongfulness),42 but with a milder term had designated it as a “sharing of property,” which they would justify with the excuse of rebaptism. Accordingly, when the earlier situation, which was excellent in both regards and was maintained with the greatest concord, could no longer be tolerated by Satan, the enemy of the human race and hater of all peace, who instigates and expands discord, | he waylaid the prying, mutinous hearts of men, and through the clever use of these hearts he first introduced dissension and disagreement about the worship of God, as a result of which a very great confl ict in religious affairs arose between the clergy and commons. For as each man strove not only to defend to his own view tenaciously but also to propagate it as far as possible, they became entangled in mutual animosity and hatred. Thus, since a single religion had enjoyed the greatest prosperity in this commonwealth without dissent in any regard, it was contrary to everyone’s expectation when a faction crept in consisting of those who gave themselves the false title of evangelicals, condemning the good works and all the ancient and traditional ceremonies and enactments of the Catholic Church. The uproars which such innovation caused not just in this commonwealth but in very many surrounding ones, to their great misfortune, were of an incredible magnitude. Examples of what was done need not be cited from far off. For if you will carefully examine the neighboring towns of Westphalia (I pass over those of other regions), you will see that it was only with a horrible uproar that they first adopted the dogma of the evangelicals, and that from this dogma the greatest wantonness43 fl owed forth, as if from the start of a looser way of living.

114

42 Derived from the Latin verb rapio, rapere (to “snatch,” or “steal”), which K. used of “snatching” other’s property in the preceding sentence. 43 I.e., the Anabaptist regime.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 173

6/7/2007 4:34:05 PM

CHAPTER NINE

OMENS AND PRODIGIES THAT FORETOLD UPROARS IN WESTPHALIA AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CITY OF MÜNSTER

115

We learn through the reading of history that virtually no commonwealth was ever affl icted with some notable disaster because of crimes without God having first, in His gracious omnipotence, terrified it with horrible omens and prodigies in order that He might thereby make manifest the offense that He feels and give advance warning of the destruction to come, in case the astonishment caused by these portents might cause people to lay down their impiety and really come to their senses. It would not be difficult for me to demonstrate this with countless examples from very many cities if it were not the case that with such verbosity I would cause nauseated disgust in my readers, who are in a hurry to reach the actual subject matter.1 Indeed, I do not think that anyone with even a moderate familiarity with literature would have any doubts about this proposition, since the writings of both the Greeks and Romans on the one hand and the Jews on the other are filled with such omens and prodigies, incontrovertibly sent by God, which | foretold devastation and inevitable destruction to the latter and miserable death and a change in their affairs (as the outcome demonstrated) to the former. Let us, therefore, omit prodigies that once foretold the overturning of other cities and look at our local prodigies, which in fact are so many and so manifest that it would hardly be thought that I should neglect them as I am about to describe the transformation of the polity of Westphalia and of Münster in particular. We find that since the days of Charlemagne, that most Christian prince and the apostle of all Saxony, who waged very wholesome wars on Westphalia and first successfully beat down that very recalcitrant and fierce race by arms and then softened them by teaching them the saving Word of Jesus Christ, there were no notable religious uproars in

1 The conceit comes from the preface of Livy’s Roman history, in which he imagines that the reader wishes to ignore the salubrious lessons to be learned from Rome’s early history in order to hurry to the racier material concerning the fall of the Republic.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 174

6/7/2007 4:34:05 PM

omens and prodigies that foretold uproars in westphalia 175 this province. But in the year 1517 there were many omens: on January 12 at about 3 o’clock in the afternoon three suns pierced with bloody swords were seen in the sky in certain places in Germany, and on January 13, a sun of fearsome appearance could be seen surrounded by certain half-circles of various colors; next, on January 10 and March 17 three moons appeared. These omens indisputably foretold that the clarity of the one sun and faith was to be buffeted with hazy opinions and torn to pieces and that the leaders of states, which the study of history has shown to be what suns signify, would disagree among themselves, and after that year there arose many sects in certain provinces of Germany that gradually tainted almost all of Westphalia as if by contagion, not only stirring up many commonwealths but imposing horrible innovations on them. The very outcome indicated what was foretold by that terrifying omen seen in the sky by many people four hours before sunrise on October 11, 1527, being particularly visible to the north. | What they saw was the shape of a bent arm extending from the clouds, and in its hand could be seen a double-edged sword with a rather obscure star on either side and another star that was larger and brighter than the rest on the blade. On the sides could be seen bloody daggers with human heads intermixed, which struck the viewers with such terror that it almost made them faint. What was the presage of that fatal outbreak of the sweating disease called “English,” which broke out all over Germany with sudden and vast mortality in the year 1529, and within twentyfour hours of infecting people either caused them to choke to death or restored them to their former health at no cost to life?2 This outbreak terrified people so much that as they walked around, the living who still enjoyed their health proclaimed that they were dying. As this disease was going about in its depredations, randomly seizing very many victims and laying them low, the priests who administered the sacraments to the bed-ridden, being so few in number, were necessarily held in such honor and veneration that you would have thought them gods on earth. Certainly, the only thing which this universal malady of Germany and

116

The “sweating sickness” (morbus anglicus) signifies a disease that was first attested in England in 1485, and apart from the outbreak mentioned here never spread to the continent (hence the adjective “English”). The onset of this highly infectious disease was swift, and frequently its high fever and profuse sweating (hence the name) soon resulted in death. After several recurrences in the first half of the sixteenth century (Henry VIII was terrified of it), this dreaded disease swiftly disappeared in the second half, and its exact identification is unclear. 2

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 175

6/7/2007 4:34:05 PM

176

117

chapter nine

the affl iction of its inhabitants foretold was the magnitude of a greater misfortune: the overthrow of the ancestral religion. This unusual and sudden veneration that was shown to the priests contrary to habit presaged nothing but the fact that there would be a metamorphosis in the business of religion that would result in the priests being held in the highest contempt. For the situation now reached the stage where the priests would hardly be compared even to lackeys and the lowliest dregs of humanity or indeed be considered worthy of the designation “human.”3 Instead, they were called wolves who lead men astray, though Christ had no hesitation in calling them the light of the world and the salt of the earth.4 In fact, these are those times in which Christ foretold that if the salt became foolish, it would be trampled under foot by men.5 Therefore, just as that outbreak of the deadly sweating disease swept Germany like a plummeting lightning bolt from the southeast to the northwest, terrifying all the country districts and cities with its carnage, so too did the new religion, which, with its condemnation of the ancient ceremonies and good works, had been recently introduced, | to the commons’ applause, by certain vagrant Paphian priests who were cowl-wearing oath breakers,6 first crashed with thunder into the cities of the southeast and then finally swept across these cities of ours in Westphalia with a deadly momentum. When some articles were brought to Münster by certain merchants, the rabble stirred themselves up and threw off the tranquility of the ancient religion, rising up not only against the clergy but also against the leading men of the city. Seizing the city of Soest, this doctrine begat a destructive uproar among the citizens, and when the government tried to cure this, the two burgher masters and five council members, who were important, wealthy men, were arrested by the commons in 1531 and put in jail.

A rather forced interpretation of the supposed omen. Matt. 5: 13–14. 5 This would seem to suggest that in K.’s opinion the ecclesiastical hierarchy had itself to blame for the indignities it suffered at the hands of the reformers. 6 This is a reference to the propagation of Protestant views by monks who had given up their vows (the cucullus or cowl was a form of headgear peculiar to monks) and by priests who showed their denial of the validity of the Church to establish practices not justified biblically by rejecting celibacy and taking wives (the mandatory imposition of celibacy on all the clergy was an innovation of the eleventh century). The reference to the latter is a rather obscure piece of Classical erudition. Paphus was an ancient city on the island of Cyprus, which was associated with goddess Venus. Thus, “Paphian” means “associated with the goddess of love.” 3 4

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 176

6/7/2007 4:34:05 PM

omens and prodigies that foretold uproars in westphalia 177 The prince of Jülich, to whose jurisdiction Soest had submitted when it seceded from the diocese of Cologne in 1444, wished to calm the rebellion, and in 1532, on the Saturday after the conversion of St. Paul,7 he convened in Wickede an assembly of his nobles and cities to deliberate on the matter. There, it was decided that the people of Soest should be warned in a friendly way to give up their factious plotting. Accordingly, a delegation with official authority was sent several times at the prince’s expense to reconcile the commons with the council, but not only could the rebellious commons not be dissuaded with any reasoning from the course which they had undertaken, but being further enraged against the government, the commons seized control of the city after the peaceable men had been removed from the council by the factious. Also in 1531, the religious innovation in the city of Lippstadt led to the public roads around the city being occupied to cut off access to the city under the authority of the bishops of Cologne, Münster, Paderborn and Osnabrück as well as that of the prince of Jülich and the count of Lippe. In 1532, the city of Paderborn was greatly disturbed by religious innovation. The factious had elected themselves twelve apostles, and under their leadership they cleverly set a trap to seize the goods of the clergy and of other rich men (before the plundering, they secretly divided up the residences and possessions of the main clergy among themselves), but on October 9, the very day of his installation, Herman of Wied, the archbishop of Cologne and the administrator of the Church in Paderborn, subdued this disturbance with an amazingly sensible course of action, and it faded away. (I can attest to this as an eye-witness.) Around the same time, the new religion undermined the tranquility of Minden, Osnabrück, Herford, Lemgo and other surrounding towns. In the year 1533, the towns of Warendorf and Ahlen got involved with a similar faction. When their pastor, Lord John Harmen, | a man of ancient nobility and piety, was engaged in the worship of God, the men of Ahlen disturbed him with their German hymns, and in violation of custom, they interrupted him in church with their shouting. It is said that he then got some noblemen to drive away all the cattle of the troublemakers in a very thick fog on the Friday after the feast

7

118

119

January 30.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 177

6/7/2007 4:34:05 PM

178

120

chapter nine

of St. Matthew.8 The herds that were suddenly taken away in this way disappeared without the men of Ahlen ever setting eyes on them again, and the cows went off without even a calf coming back. As for Warendorf, it was besieged by the bishop himself, and after the town eventually surrendered, it paid the price for its rashness. The rebellions in these cities were foretold not only by the portents narrated above along with the sweating disease, but also by other omens in the sky. To pass over the more distant eclipses that took place on September 10, 1526 and October 16, 1529, an investigation of the historical record of the more immediate period shows well enough that in the following years, three eclipses of the sun, three of the moon, and three terrifying comets appeared in the sky in the three successive years as sure tokens of coming disaster. It is not a single generation but the agreement of many centuries that attests that eclipses of heavenly bodies as well as comets have always been omens of destruction, and accordingly it would not be rash to pay attention to them as heavenly warnings, since they urge us as we drown in sin to beg for God’s mercy and to correct our previous way of life. For even though eclipses of the heavenly bodies foretell very many disasters, nonetheless, God has often been placated by the supplications of pious men, so that He averted them. Therefore, whenever we see such events, let us be advised to make God propitious to us, knowing that otherwise nature will be left to take its course and very many misfortunes will descend upon us. These uproars in the cities of Westphalia, then, and this bloody war in Münster, which disturbed not only the surrounding towns but almost the entire Holy Roman Empire, were directly preceded by three complete eclipses of the moon. The first was seen on October 6, 1530, lasting from 10 pm until 1 am of the next day. The moon began failing in the twenty-fourth degree of Aries, which indicated a result specifically affecting us. | For whenever eclipses of the heavenly bodies take place in Aquarius, Virgo or Aries, astronomers have noted that we are threatened by famine, rebellions of the base and low-born commons, wars, and civil uproars. The second was on August 4, 1533, when the entire moon was concealed by the earth’s shadow, beginning to fade at 31 degrees, 30 minutes in Aquarius. This eclipse began before 9 pm and lasted until 1 am. 8

September 30.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 178

6/7/2007 4:34:05 PM

omens and prodigies that foretold uproars in westphalia 179 Next, the third eclipse, which took place on January 30, 1534, starting at 10 am at 20 degrees in Aquarius, foretold misfortunes to us in particular (we showed in Chapter 3 that Westphalia is subject to the sign of Aquarius). The shining of the sun was also removed from our sight through the interposition of the moon’s sphere three times before the Westphalian disaster. The first time was on March 29, 1530 from 4 am to 7 am at 18 degrees in Aries, which is ascribed to Mars, the second on August 30, 1532 from 11 am to almost 1 pm at 16 degrees in Virgo. The third time was not long before this calamitous war, on January 14, 1534. This time, the sun suffered a terrible eclipse from 12:30 pm until 2:30 at 3 degrees 38 minutes in Aquarius, the constellation of Westphalia. We also think it noteworthy that an eclipse of both heavenly bodies (the sun and moon) took place in the same month and the same sign of the zodiac. The learned bear witness that this event has always been followed by remarkable misery and sweeping changes unless God averts these events in light of His own, specific goodness. Furthermore, just as God foreshadows unpleasantness by means of eclipses, He also does so by means of comets, which in everyone’s judgment have portended wars, great changes in affairs, the devastation of powerful states, and bloody slaughter, as well as other disasters of this kind. In 1531, then, a fearsome comet blazed forth in the sky around August 6. For a few days, it appeared before sunrise, | then it followed the sun and was visible after sunset for about three weeks until September 3. Its path was through the third of the zodiac that encompasses Cancer, Leo, Virgo and Libra, and it disappeared in the last sign. This comet brought destruction to all of Germany, stirred up the Swiss War, killed Zwingli, the priest of Zürich, along with thousands of men, and made many cities in Germany rebel against their governments and prices to rise.9 In 1532, a comet was again seen two hours before sunrise for a few weeks in September. It started in the bright star located in the chest of Leo, which they call the Basilisk,10 then progressed through Virgo to Libra. Leo, which is the sign opposite our region, stirs up many

121

Zwingli died leading troops in a battle against the forces of five Catholic cantons. Old name for the star now known as Regulus. Note that K. calls John of Leiden a basilisk (a poisonous lizard) in the opening poem ostensibly giving John’s regretful retrospective interpretation of his actions. 9

10

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 179

6/7/2007 4:34:05 PM

180

122

chapter nine

upheavals, and when a comet first becomes visible under the Basilisk, it usually foretells that some foreign king coming from elsewhere will stir up wars for the sake of his ambition. This is amply proven to have happened to the people of Münster. Finally, in the year 1533, a comet that blazed with a much larger and brighter fl ame came fairly close to the place of the star directly above us as a more sure and closer harbinger of our disaster. For this reason, it never set on us, but wheeled around in a circle with the northern stars. In the morning, it seemed to hang suspended at the vertical point or zenith of our city, emitting a fl ame of wondrous length like a staff or long sword in the direction of the spot where the sun’s nadir (the point opposite its zenith) was found, this always being the direction in which comets extend their tail. (The circumstance that their movement is sometimes faster and sometimes slower brings it about that they do not always direct their tail toward the same area of the sky, since that area changes along with the zenith of the sun.) While this comet was also looking upon the provinces of Lower Germany11 with a specific omen, for a while it directed its tail at our city in particular like a fearsome sword. It first appeared under the constellation The Goat, which astronomers conceive of as a poor man carrying a goat on his shoulders, and moved to the constellation Cassiopeia through the drawn sword of the armed hero Perseus, who holds in one hand a sword and | in the other the head of petrifying Medusa. For a while it also appeared with a fl ame of unusual size and brightness in the Milky Way. Furthermore, it could be seen to retrogress from west to east in a backwards motion.12 All these phenomena were harbingers of an unusual uproar in affairs and of sudden innovation and terrible change. For what other operation was caused by the infl uence of this smelly, lecherous goat, carried by a poor man and always lusting after sex, its eyes looking sideways, to use Isidore’s words,13 because of its burning desire, emptying its bladder in the water it is about to drink

I.e., the area of the lower Rhine. “Retrogression” is the apparent backwards motion of a heavenly body (usually a planet) that is caused by the forward motion of the earth in its orbit relative to that of the body. This phenomenon was inexplicable in the ancient and medieval conception that the planets revolved around an immobile earth, and to fix this theoretical problem Ptolemy came up with the idea that the planets were not exactly fixed to the orbs that carried them around but actually spun around in little circles as they swung around the earth in their orbits. The motion of comets was even more problematical for the traditional Aristotelian/Ptolemaic theory. 13 Isidore of Seville, Etymologies 12.14. 11 12

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 180

6/7/2007 4:34:05 PM

omens and prodigies that foretold uproars in westphalia 181 along with the rest of the herd, rearing up, as the bold mate of many she-goats, against anyone—what other operation was caused by him than that the lowest dregs of humanity were going to choose a leader14 of the people who would be salacious like a he-goat, befouling his entire herd with his doctrines, stirring up many new uproars, raising himself against many men, mating with and raping many women? What other result was divinely pointed out by the Milky Way, which is called the Royal Way, and by armed Perseus than that some royal majesty would for a while rage against his subjects, then collapse by arms? What else did petrifying Medusa foretell than that many men would be turned in some way to stone by rebaptism, it being impossible to soften them with any wholesome advice and to drag them back from this? What did the retrograde motion of the comet portend but the repeal of ancient laws and the substitution of contrary ones? What of Cassiopeia? She certainly signified nothing but unheard-of danger to the female sex and the deaths of many virgins because of rape. Furthermore, I do not think it obscure what was portended when a prodigious dead fish15 68 feet long and 30 feet wide and with a gape 13 feet wide was beached in August, 1531 not far from Haarlem, a town in Holland. For John Matthisson of Haarlem put to shore16 in Münster and was considered a marvelous prophet there, though at the beginning of the siege he was run through by the enemy in front of Ludger’s Gate before he could manage any crime worthy of note, and no province of Germany begat more Anabaptist monstrosities than did Holland. | In fact, the chorus master, head and king of all monstrosities, John Bockelson of Leiden, came from there. In order that God could produce surer signs of the coming disaster and show clearly that this disaster was hanging over our heads right now, in case the signs that frequently appear and are open to varying interpretation did not move us sufficiently, He used more unusual and more manifest portents, seen and heard partly above the city in the air and partly within the walls, with extreme terror. As a very merciful father, His ultimate wish was to frighten the minds of the inhabitants away from the indecent way of life with these omens, which directly preceded the downfall and overthrow of the city of Münster. First,

14 15 16

123

I.e., John of Leiden. Presumably a whale. Metaphorically, since Münster is located inland.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 181

6/7/2007 4:34:06 PM

182

124

chapter nine

many torches, sudden fl ames, and unusual gleamings were seen contending with each other over the city for some time, in the end either falling down or licking the tops of the spires, though without harming them. The sky seemed to gape open, splitting into long cracks from which terrifying fires fl ickered out. Peasants who were either staying in neighboring manors and country districts or watching over horses or other herd animals at night often saw the city as if ablaze, and when they rushed up to investigate, they found that the fl ames had not only been harmless to the city but had disappeared altogether. Sometimes, the watchmen reported that the city was covered with fiery clouds that directly threatened to create a confl agration by suddenly falling down. Monstrous progeny of both farm animals and humans were born. A rabbit—the sort of animal that otherwise shuns contact with men—was caught entering the city. Chickens unnaturally crowed in imitation of the males, while effeminate roosters clucked. Three suns were seen on Feb. 9, 1534 at 1 pm, foretelling the threefold religious division into Catholics, Lutherans and Anabaptists, just as the three suns seen after the death of Julius Caesar foretold the triumvirate.17 | Certain people were seized with the madness of prophesying, being filled with the Anabaptist spirit. Rushing through all the wards of the city, they terrified the people with their fearsome bellowing, and called upon anyone they met to repent, shouting that the great day of the Lord was at hand. The daughter of George tom Berg the tailor, a sixteen-year-old girl as far as I could tell from the appearance of her body, was filled with the wondrous and terrifying inspiration of God on the afternoon of February 8, 1534 in the house of Bernard Swerthen.18 In a high location in the house, she sat under a vault with a large throng of people standing around, and gave a sermon to the point of astonishment, now on the punishment of the sinners, now on the exaltation and rewarding of the pious, now on the destruction of the city and of the whole world that would happen three days later, frequently mixing in the words, “Woe, woe to the inhabitants of Münster! Woe, woe to the impious!” She spent several hours chattering away in this aimless

17 Julius Obsequens (who wrote a late-antique collection of prodigies derived from Livy) 128 and Pliny, Natural History 2.99. The triumvirate was a dictatorship of three men that was established after the assassination of Julius Caesar and marked the demise of the Roman Republic. 18 This event is also related on 484D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 182

6/7/2007 4:34:06 PM

omens and prodigies that foretold uproars in westphalia 183 manner like a magpie. As we stood by and listened, this event instilled in us not so much astonishment as the greatest horror and a foreboding of coming disaster. Also, women who were tricked with the devil’s deception demonstrated with their linen dresses that it had rained blood on February 9 of that year.19 Some people adamantly insisted that on that day, various spirits and horrifying spectres appeared in the air. Around the same time, a man was seen aloft wearing a jewel-encrusted crown of gold, seeming to grasp a sword in his right hand and a rod in his left. The image of another man was seen squeezing both of his blood-covered hands, and they saw blood drip from them. Many people also saw in a clear sky an armed cavalryman with a threatening expression on his face brandishing a sword in his right hand. The night watchmen were terrified when the bolts to the city gates jumped by themselves without any human moving them. Toddlers and boys armed with clubs carried military standards made of paper or linen through the lanes, and often engaged in play fights, imitating the sound of drums and gunfire with their mouths. | I pass over the shouts of the soldiers, the crashing of weapons, the thronging together of infantrymen and cavalrymen, the neighing of horses, the crying of babies, the keening of women, the melancholy howling of dogs and hooting of owls, the sad groaning in tombs and cemeteries, the various gasping sobs in churches, the sounding of guns, drums and trumpets that were heard at night in the open areas behind the walls and in the out-of-the-way recesses of the city.20 Finally, I pass over the fact that sometimes during daylight the sound of military pipes and drums went through the air in a long procession, attracting the attention of many people. The people of Münster would have easily sensed both by hand and by foot that all these phenomena were not meaningless events but instead foretold manifest and fast-approaching disaster, had they not been misled by the foolish interpretations of their prophets, convincing themselves that these events did not at all relate to them. Therefore, since they did not allow themselves to be warned by any prodigies and omens, however terrifying, and no hope of a better way of life remained, it would be

125

For this and the following omens, see 500–502D. The last item sounds like a refl ection of folk beliefs about the “wild hunt” or “raging army” (der wilde Jagd, das wütende Heer), in which marauding armies of dead souls were thought to roam about at night battling other such armies and wreaking havoc; see Behringer (1998) 72–81. 19

20

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 183

6/7/2007 4:34:06 PM

184

chapter nine

unjust to ascribe to God the cause of the overthrow. Instead, this should be ascribed to the rashness of theirs by which they voluntarily fl ung themselves headlong to their death. What now remains to be said is how they rushed from crime to crime until their eventual extermination.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f4_85-184.indd 184

6/7/2007 4:34:06 PM

THE EVENTS OF 1524–1525 Through the whole doctrine and saintly way of life of the ecclesiastics, 126 the wisdom and authority of the city council and the obedience and pious imitation of the best burghers, Münster carried on with the religion that St. Swibert first taught and Charlemagne strengthened without admitting any novelty since that time. But in 1517 the doctrine of certain men who condemned good works by their doctrine and rejected the Church’s ceremonies began to break out like a disease throughout Germany and to spread to almost all cities, and later around 1524, when Frederick of Wied was bishop (he was appointed by free election on November 6, 1522 after the death of Eric of Lowenburg), Eberwin Droste and John Boland were burgher masters, Derek Münsterman, Henry Travelman, John Droste, John Osnabrugge the younger, John Herding, Wilbrand Plonies, Eberwin Stevening, Bernard Kerckering, John Oesen the elder, Richwin Meinershagen, Bernard Paell, Henry Drolshagen, Bernard Grolle, John Bischoping, John Schencking, Henry Mesman, Anthony Jonas, Gerard Oeken, Henry Moderson, Gerard Averhagen, Adolph Niehus and Herman Bisping were on the city council, and Ludger tom Brincke, and Henry Rotgers the furrier were the aldermen, preachers of this stripe surreptitiously crept into four parishes of this city, contrary to the expectation of good men. | 127 Courting the public’s fickle acclaim and slandering the priests to the commons, these preachers fanned the fl ames that had first been lit by certain merchants, and these fl ames, which spread further when no one put them out, quickly set fire to many men of the lowest sort. Although John Tant of St. Lambert’s, Lubbert Kansen of St. Martin’s, Frederick Reining of the Parish Across-the-River and John Vinck of St. Ludger’s had sown the word of God for some years without criticism, in this year they began to puke out words that roused the commons against the clergy and civic officials. Their zeal was increased by certain lecturers in the schools and most of all by the schoolmasters at St. Martin’s and St. Ludger’s, the latter of whom (Adolf Clarenbach) paid the penalty for sinning at Cologne as a violator of the Sacraments.1 They would

1

He was burned at the stake at Cologne on September 28, 1529.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f5_185-202.indd 185

6/6/2007 12:58:15 PM

186

128

the events of 1524–1525

never have been able to raise a faction with their own learning, most being completely lacking in education, if they had not condemned good works and done away with the reward for them, if they had not granted to the people the extravagant evangelical freedom, which easily erupts into licentiousness, if they had not raged with a fair amount of license against the clergy, as a result of which the rabble, who had already squandered their own possessions, seized the opportunity and reached such a pitch of madness that they not only despised the clergy but also thought that they were allowed to do anything against anyone. First, the rasher members of this faction and those for whom nothing was more pleasant than idleness would sometimes enter the monasteries in bands to get a meal, | some asking that morsels of food be given to them, others demanding this as if by right. Thunderstruck by this unheard-of novelty, the monks complied to avoid greater violence and uproar. Emboldened and made more daring by their impunity in committing this deed, they prepared more unpleasant plans against the clergy and richer burghers. Towards dusk on May 22, 1525, three men were sent by the factious to the cemetery of St. Servatius, which is located along the city walls away from any large numbers of people. Their purpose in gathering there was to attack the wealthy Nitzing convent, which was nearby, if the opportunity arose. Then they would open it for robbing, the rest of the troublemakers and their own wives standing nearby on the rampart with sacks, baskets and other containers and ready for looting. To avoid losing the opportunity for plunder, they sent a boy to let the others know immediately that the assault had been made. At this time, the abbess of the nuns at Dülman, who had by chance come to Münster to visit friends and been entertained by them with a meal, was coming, as nightfall threatened, with a servant girl to the Nitzing convent to spend the night, and the men followed her, plotting to launch their attack. When they were asked who they were and what exactly the reason was for their having come here towards nightfall, they intentionally gave false names to avoid being recognized. The first said he was Derek Hloschen, the second Piepenkenneken and the third Rudolf Potteken. But the abbess’s servant recognized and then betrayed them, giving Derek Hloschen as the name of the first, John Grever the maker of glass cups as that of the second and Rudolf Schomaker as that of the third. Hearing this, they realized that the ploy was revealed, grieving greatly at this. For this reason, they undertook no hard against the nuns, fearing for their own safety. When the lookout boy reported this to the harpies

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f5_185-202.indd 186

6/6/2007 12:58:15 PM

the events of 1524–1525

187

standing on the rampart, the group broke up, each person going his own way. | Nonetheless, the nuns, who were terrified by this unusual turn of events, entertained the three men in the convent’s hospice with more respect than was reasonable given their status. The nuns did this to avoid provoking the troublemakers, who were upset at the failure of their enterprise, into hostility against them and to soften them instead with kindness. They eventually left, being stuffed to the point of sickness with beer and wine. When this matter was reported by the servants to the burgher masters in the early evening, they realized that manifest rebellion would ensue if it was not countered with a swift response and punishment. When the council was convened to deliberate on this matter the next day, those responsible for the preceding day’s uproar were summoned by attendants. These men were directly followed by almost all the guilds, who thronged together in their zeal to protect the men. The guildsmen created a terrible uproar in the marketplace and council hall with their confused bellowing, and their ringleaders were mostly Reiner Stell the glassmaker and Lubbert Lenting. Meanwhile, as the councilmen in their chamber heard the uproar, they trembled, they made all sort of proposals and looked for opportunities to escape and ways to calm the raging commons. Finally, it was decided to send a delegation of four councilmen whose infl uence and authority among the commons were great. Relying most of all on God’s protection but also on the civility of certain men, the four men exposed themselves to the danger of undertaking the delegation. When they inquired after the reason for the uproar and what they wished to be done by the council, a fearsome shouting suddenly erupted, with men bellowing all at once to the point of hoarseness. The clergy, they said, were free of any tax and burden from civil obligations and were protected by the burghers’ fortifications and watches, but they caused the destruction of the burghers by engaging in money-making crafts and secular business deals, they took from their burghers their livelihood, taking possession of everything for their own profit, contrary to their status and calling. They said that what they therefore wanted was that the account books of the nuns of the Nitzing convent and the Monks of the Fountain should be taken from them and that stewards should be appointed to dispense to them as much as was needed for life’s necessities, but the rest should be used for the benefit of the poor. (They did not dare to irritate the other monasteries, which contained nobles, | to avoid calling down the anger of more powerful men upon themselves.) Next, they said that since God’s soldiers ought to be completely

129

130

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f5_185-202.indd 187

6/6/2007 12:58:16 PM

188

131

the events of 1524–1525

removed from the business affairs of the world, the equipment with which they weave linen and fit leather onto paper sheets2 should either be broken up or taken away from them so that the profits hitherto purloined through the clergy’s malfeasance should be restored to the burghers. If the council did not hurry up and remedy these losses to the citizens by repressing the greed of the papists, the guildsmen said that they would view the council and the papists as equivalents and consider them both as tyrannical oppressors of the burghers. It made little difference, they said, if swords were drawn against such people even without public authorization, and once they were gotten rid of, good men who would look after the burghers’ interests were put in their place. These sentiments and very many others they expressed not simply with words but also by making faces and gesturing. When this was reported to the council, they decided, as the situation dictated, to pretend to forgo the penalty that ought rightly to have been infl icted on those responsible for the strife rather than forget it, and to deal with the present emergency they promised the commons that they would take into their own custody the account books and work equipment from those two monasteries and would to the best of their abilities implement all measures that seemed to contribute in any way to public tranquility and the benefit of the burghers. With these pacifying promises from the council, the ferocity of the troublemakers was broken, and being appeased it subsided. Accordingly, they dispersed in exultation at the successful completion of the prologue to the play, in the meanwhile giving thought to the start of the main action. For at the suggestion of certain priests and with their assistance, they were hammering out for presentation to the council some articles and theses about the burghers’ burdens. The council wished to be obliging to the commons in order to avoid provoking them again by any long delay in fulfilling the promise and to do away with any cause for further uproar, and on May 26 appointed two delegations | that were to be undertaken at the same time by different men. In the council’s name, these delegations were to ask for the account books and work tools from the Brothers of the Fountain and the nuns of the Nitzing convent, not, as the raging commons imagined, to confiscate them but to protect them by saving them from the commons’ raging. The members of one delegation were the councilmen John

2

Seemingly a circumlocution for bookbinding.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f5_185-202.indd 188

6/6/2007 12:58:16 PM

the events of 1524–1525

189

Droste and John Osnabrugge and the commoners Bernard Gruter, Henry Swedarth, Herman Ramers,3 and John Langerman. The reason for choosing these men was not that they favored the trouble-making faction of commoners but that they could the more easily settle the commotion, since they had great infl uence with the commons. The members of the other were the guildsmen and councilmen Derek Münsterman and John Herding and the commoners John Oesen the younger, Henry Bureck, Roger Tos, and John Baggel. While the first delegation completed its mission with the Brothers of the Fountain without any uproar and quickly too, the other one encountered difficulty with the nuns of Nitzing, partly because of the recent uproar, on account of which they had made the commons hostile to them, and partly because of problems in taking apart the looms. For the dismantling and removal of the looms they employed the carpenter Derek Trutling, who would rightly have been very beholden to the nuns because of their services to him, if goodwill had been changed along with fortune. Nicholas Munth, who had a big mouth and was exceedingly long-winded, also greatly increased the madness of the commons, falsely claiming before the council and the entire populace that the nuns of Nitzing had one hundred looms to the great detriment of the commons, but when only eleven were found, he was publicly accused of lying by Münsterman and withdrew in shame, complaining that he had been deceived by the talk of certain men. While the looms were being dismantled inside by Trutling, the rabble formed crowds of incredible size outside as they took up position for looting and prepared an assault, and the members of the delegation barely succeeded in restraining the rabble by virtue of their authority. A certain troublemaker called John Groeten was also heard to say from the middle of the crowd | that it was good enough for the rich if they owned no more than 2000 gold coins. The only thing he seemed to mean by this was that after looting the good ecclesiastics they would dump out the moneyboxes of the richer burghers too and make all property common. So, the account books and the machines, which were snatched off with the warp and weaving still attached and placed on wagons, were hurriedly transported to

132

3 Ramers would give lodging to John of Leiden during his visit to the city in 1533 (see 372, 523K), and the following year he would defect to the bishop and reveal to him a scheme to assassinate him (see 506–507K).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f5_185-202.indd 189

6/6/2007 12:58:16 PM

190

133

the events of 1524–1525

the council hall, where they were protected in custody until the Feast of the Birth of Mary.4 While these actions were being taken by the delegations from the council in the two monasteries, the leaders of the troublemakers by no means calmed down. Instead, on the same day (May 26), they unexpectedly rushed around in bands and mobs, seemingly throughout the wards, either egging on everyone they met to similar madness with cajoling words or rebuking them with rasher ones. They asked why they did not join in and why they were acting so remissly. Were they unaware that what was at stake was the burghers’ liberty, to which everyone was rushing by natural inclination? Did they not know that the evangelical light had dispelled the shadows of errors and was dawning over the world, though the power of the arrogant, greedy papists had up till then suppressed it? Now their frauds had been uncovered, now the heavy yoke of good deeds had been removed, now the evangelical freedom had removed the servile status that everyone in his right mind rejected. The discordant voices of the rioters were thrown into a jumble with such immoderation that they could not understand each other. Many blackguards were privy to the factious plan and many were enticed by the novelty and unusual aspect of these events, but a few rushed up to calm the uproar. The more intelligent people, however, saw the folly of the mob and stayed in their own houses. This outbreak of madness greatly surpassed the earlier one, and if you compared the first with the second you would call it mere child’s play. Their eyes were fl ashing, their teeth gnashing, their lips frothing, their feet prancing on the ground, as they pounded their fists in threats against both clergy and magistrates, bellowing inarticulately, and some struck their heads to heighten their anger, muttering and mumbling to themselves. With equal zeal | they rushed to the council hall and stuck certain articles in the faces of the aldermen for them to show to the council. The council was to extort from the various estates within the diocese the ratification of these articles under seal; otherwise, they said, there was no hope for peace. The diocese is divided into four estates or orders, the first consisting of the bishop, second of the main clergy, third of the nobility, and fourth of the cities, and whatever decision is reached through the unanimous authorization of the four estates is considered to be a official enactment of all the members of the diocese. Accordingly,

4

September 8, 1525. The fate of the property of the monks is not known.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f5_185-202.indd 190

6/6/2007 12:58:16 PM

the events of 1524–1525

191

it was not without reason that they demanded the estate’s authorization of their theses. The text of these runs as follows. “1. Since by right of inheritance the main clergy always takes possession of the goods of the bishops after their deaths, it seems to be very fair that they should also pay off the dead bishops’ debts, so that the members of the other orders in the diocese should not be burdened on account of the debts. “2. Upon the death of the bishop, the main clergy will not only take 134 possession of the strongholds in all the diocese and administer them at their own discretion, but they will also admit one man each of knightly and councilor rank (or a respectable burgher in place of the councilor) to each stronghold for the common administration, until such time as a new prince will be appointed by unanimous vote. “3. When Eric, the bishop of Münster, took the stronghold at Lingen from Count Nicholas of Tecklenburg in the year 1518, many burghers of Münster were robbed of money and others of merchandise during the uproar, and the main clergy should make good their losses and expenses from the possessions of the dead prince. “4. No member of the clergy will oppress a burgher with pontifical (ecclesiastical) fulminations and commands, but if he is to take just action against a burgher, he should put his claim to the test in a secular court. “5. No ecclesiastics (e.g., those in holy orders, priests, monks, nuns, the concubines of clergymen) will engage in any form of secular business or put oxen to pasture or make any profit from linen or its weaving and working or from baking or any other thing, whatever its designation. For this reason, they will voluntarily sell at retail all the equipment acquired for such purposes, whether it be in monasteries or in the houses of canons or priests. Otherwise, they will be deprived of them by us. “6. No ecclesiastics will henceforth be free of the public burdens imposed by the city. “7. Both secular and ecclesiastical officials will restrain their subjects in the country districts outside the city walls from practicing any professional skills within two miles of the city or from acting in any way | as retailers, brewers or bakers, which would result in lessening the 135 burghers’ profits. “8. Two councilmen, two guild masters and two burghers without official position will be appointed, and after taking custody of the account books of the Brothers of the Fountain will receive their annual

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f5_185-202.indd 191

6/6/2007 12:58:16 PM

192

136

the events of 1524–1525

income and distribute to the monks of that monastery as much as will be needed, for the necessities at any rate. No one will be substituted in place of monks who die, and each one will be granted permission to leave, change his habit and take with him only the possessions that he had brought, without any stigma of infamy. “9. These six appointees who are elected by the commons as stewards will sell back to the burghers the pastures and fields of the brothers at the original purchase price. Whatever will be left over after purchasing the necessities they will spend on poor burghers in order that provision should be made for them too. “10. The Nitzing Convent will also be under the control of six stewards, who will, by the council’s authority, fix the number of nuns to be maintained there. No one will be admitted there for the sake of wealth or any other benefit or advantage or because of high birth, but only for the sake of God. It will, however, be lawful for them to bring their adornments bestowed on them by their relatives and to make use of them. “11. Both the cathedral college and others in the city will also be subjected to correction by us after the dissemination of the reformation instituted in Cologne, which we expect any day now. “12. All those inhabitants of monasteries, whatever their sex or order, who pollute themselves with monstrous secular crimes will without distinction or privileged treatment be punished in the normal way on account of the crimes they have committed. “13. No “outlying” or “stationed” monks (e.g., Carmelites, Augustinians and Dominicans) are to be tolerated in the city, and the pigs of St. Anthony5 and St. Hubert are not to be fattened in the lanes. “14. No one among the burghers of whatever sex will leave legacies to people of ecclesiastical status in their wills or fund memorials, exequies, funeral rites or confraternities. For all these ceremonies are abolished as pointless and vain and will in no way be celebrated. “15. The pastors of all the parishes of the city will neither install nor remove chaplains or preachers without the agreement of the “scabini,”6 providers,7 burgher masters and all the parishioners.

5 6 7

Patron saint of swineherds. See 105D. See 59D, 107D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f5_185-202.indd 192

6/6/2007 12:58:16 PM

the events of 1524–1525

193

“16. No foreign ecclesiastics (e.g., monks) of whatever order or variety will be allowed to preach. “17. There is no time when it is not permissible to celebrate a Christian marriage, and for this reason the laws prohibiting the celebration of weddings at certain times are to be repealed. “18. All harlots and priest’s concubines are to be distinguished from respectable women with certain marks, in order that due honor should be given to honesty and due disgrace should attend lewdness. “19. No one should graze oxen and instead they should graze only cows in the meadows near the city that are normally fertilized with dung transported from the city. “20. Fields enclosed within the last fifty years to which herds from the city are driven should be re-opened, the fencing being cut down. “21. No one among the burghers who has rented fields from the clergy will rent them out to someone else for a higher cost than what he himself rented them for or possessed them in ancient days. “22. No one, whether ecclesiastic or layman, will presume to extract annual income from the burghers by force unless he either bought it or inherited it or produces a title that is authenticated with seals in such a way that it cannot be contradicted. “23. To prevent the cases of burgher litigants from dragging on for many years | at great expense, they will be settled by the judge’s deci- 137 sion within six weeks. “24. The butter sellers who are burghers and sell their produce in the public marketplace should not be forced to pay an annual rent for their location. “25. No burgher who is prepared to offer surety will be imprisoned by a magistrate unless the issue is a criminal case. “26. The merchants who bring wines to this city should be able to take them out of their wagons without paying a tax, as used to be the custom in ancient days. “27. Burghers should be allowed to sell all varieties of local beer at retail, as has always been the case. “28. Anyone should be allowed to sell wine at whatever price they can get if they pay the usual tax to the council. “29. No one but a burgher may be a baker or brewer.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f5_185-202.indd 193

6/6/2007 12:58:16 PM

194

138

the events of 1524–1525

“30. Ecclesiastical benefices in the city’s gift will be granted to none but the children of burghers, who will be deprived of them unless they occupy them themselves.8 “31. Children of burghers who enter an ecclesiastical order will not transfer property that they inherit to another member of their order, that is, to an ecclesiastic, either by will or by gift or by any other means. “32. Burghers will not pay any toll or tax for crossing at the two bridges across the Ems River at Gelmer and Schönefl ieth, but will be altogether immune from this burden. “33. The payment of quitrent owing for certain fields outside the city | and of the ground rent owing for the Lord’s land (that is, of the Old Lords’ Church) in the case of certain houses in the city will no longer be made by the burghers. “34. The memory of the victory at Varlar will no longer be celebrated with the festive ringing of bells, but will be erased for the sake of the general peace.” (The victory at Varlar resulted from a dispute about an election. Once, when the main clergy, in whose hand rests the right to elect the prince, had chosen Walraf of Moers, but the city interfered with the election, preferring Eric of Hoya, things reached the stage of open fighting. In the year 1454, on the Feast of St. Arnulph,9 near the Varlar monastery both sides fought a fierce battle with the troops they had hired. When the burghers’ force was defeated, Duke Frederick of Lüneburg and Count Ernest of Schauenburg were captured, and after slaughtering many burghers Walraf and his supporters triumphantly carried back from that battle not only a remarkable victory but also monarchic rule over the diocese. In memory of this victory, the clergy used to celebrate the Feast of Arnulph with joy, while the burghers would receive it with lamentation in the monastery of the Minorites, to which the bodies of the slaughtered burghers had been transported.) If someone judges these articles by the standard of natural law that preserves human society, that is, by the rule that nature does not allow anyone to increase his own resources at the expense of someone else, he will see that the tendency of many of them is such that they are completely inimical to Christian love, and for this reason we have no 8 The last clause aims at preventing the practice whereby the holder of an endowed benefice hired someone else to carry out the attendant ecclesiastical duties for a sum less than the annual income and pocketed the difference. 9 July 18.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f5_185-202.indd 194

6/6/2007 12:58:16 PM

the events of 1524–1525

195

doubt that they were stitched together by trouble-makers in violation of all divine justice and of fairness. Nonetheless, they stuck them in the face of the council with impudent shamelessness, demanding their ratification. After the councilmen had been shown the articles in their chamber by the aldermen and they read them, they were stricken with a great terror that made them blanch, especially when they noticed that the commons had come in swarms to the council hall with the intention of insisting vigorously on the ratification of the articles, even to the point of bloodshed. | At this critical moment the council promised that they would, to the best of their abilities, plead the case of the city’s liberty before the other estates of the diocese when the opportunity arose. The commoners, on the other hand, shouted out that agreement could easily be wrenched, even against their will, from the main clergy, who were present, still being enclosed within the city’s walls, and that once this had been gotten, it would not be hard to get the votes of the other estates, especially since they had no doubt that the cities were following their lead. Without delay, then, they said, the matter should be put to the main clergy. To avoid calling down upon themselves the onslaught of the raging commons, the council promised to do everything the commons wanted. Satisfied with this promise, the commoners dispersed. After the gates had been closed to satisfy the commons’ expectations, on the Friday after the Feast of the Lord’s Ascension in 1526,10 the burgher masters and aldermen, accompanied by a small escort, set upon the main clergy, who with more boldness than wisdom were present and gave them the articles for reading and ratification. When the Lords had read them and examined them more carefully, they realized that these articles related not so much to themselves as to other groups in the diocese. Hence, they gave the response that they would submit the articles for the deliberation of all groups to avoid giving the impression of having forged the authorization of those who were most affected by the ratification. To this the burgher masters replied that they did not see how they could calm the commons’ angered frame of mind or protect the Lords of the chapter against attack by the commons if the articles were not ratified and sealed by them. From these words of the burgher masters it was obvious what dangers the Lords should expect in the closed city, and so they gave in to necessity and put their

10

139

June 26.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f5_185-202.indd 195

6/6/2007 12:58:17 PM

196

140

141

the events of 1524–1525

seal to some of the articles in order to satisfy the violent demand in some regards, promising that they would put the remainder before the assembly of the Lords who were absent and give them deeper consideration. But on the Thursday after the Sunday “Exaudi”11 they sent a letter of complaint to Bishop Frederick, | informing him of the whole affair just as it had happened. They told him that since those articles represented the overthrow of not only their own liberty but also that of other estates, he should give deep thought to them. For their own part, now that the uproar was to some extent calmed, the Lords chose to go into voluntary exile, realizing that they were involved in a potentially fatal situation and could no longer remain in the city without bringing about the downfall of the church’s liberty. They therefore left that prison barracks, each returning to his relatives, apart from Reiner of Velen, the provost of the Old Lords’ Church, whose departure was prevented by a serious illness. Scattering across the earth with much complaining, they brought upon the townsmen the hatred not only of their blood relations and friends but also of foreign princes. The lower clergy, on the other hand, stayed in the city since they could not maintain themselves abroad in the way that they could at home, and for this reason brought upon themselves no little hatred and resentment on the part of the main clergy. Nonetheless, the presence of the lower clergy in the city was very helpful. For the terrible fl ames that had broken out in the business of the faith upon the main clergy’s withdrawal into exile would have spread to all the best burghers had not the quick thinking and vigilance of the lower clergy put it out. The college of St. Martin’s, in which we learn that there have always been very weighty men of the greatest learning, relieved its priest, Lubbert Kansen, a man who did not refrain from participation in the troublemaking, of his duties with the council’s consent. Completely forgetting all shame, this man had attempted to seduce the young maiden daughter of an important family with love letters that were filled with sentiments taken from the Holy Scriptures and distorted to give a lewd meaning, though he had given his word that he would marry the daughter of a good burgher with whom had previously fornicated, and these were read out in a full session of the council. For innovating, John Tant too was cast down by Timan Kemner, the priest of St. Lambert’s | and the very vigilant

11

Fifth Sunday after Pentecost (hence the date is June 1).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f5_185-202.indd 196

6/6/2007 12:58:17 PM

the events of 1524–1525

197

principal of St. Paul’s high school, when the parishioners (especially the merchants in the vaulted houses) resisted and greatly objected. Godfrey Reining was deprived of the office of preaching by John tor Mollen, a great expert in law who was also the dean of the Parish Across-theRiver, though he thereby brought upon himself the ill will of certain parishioners. John Vinck, the priest of St. Ludger’s, for a while at any rate defended in his sermons the introduction of innovation in religion, to the applause of the parishioners, but after his mouth was plugged up with a rich benefice on the advice of good men, he forgot the innovating and was unable even to mutter against the Catholics. Though during the exile of the main clergy the lower clergy and pastors brought it about that trouble-making chaplains were relieved of the duties, the rioters went on with their business in a more relaxed and leisurely way. They were just like that fire that lurks still living among the hot coals when the firewood has been removed. In the beginning it had been the case that the commons would be stirred up against the leading men by trouble-making preachers and go around rioting in amazing ways, but with the removal of these chaplains the commons ceased to run riot. This was just like the situation when a spark is lit onto green, unseasoned wood. At first, when it is kindled through blowing, the fire crackles on the bark and chars it, but if the blowing stops, the fire dies down and eventually burns itself out. This departure of the main clergy was unwelcome not so much to the council as to the more insightful burghers, who had an inkling that it would bring misfortune to the city. Even many workers complained that their livelihoods were being harmed, and merchants sat idly at home, their business activities being halted to their detriment, but they did not dare to leave the city through fear that they might fall into the hands of the exiles and suffer a kind of shipwreck on land involving their life as well as their merchandise. Various mutterings, therefore, could be heard among the mob within the city walls. Hence, the lower clergy were worried about a new uproar and began to fear for themselves in case they should have to pay the price in the end if further extension of the exile resulted in harm to the public wellbeing. For this reason, they sent a delegation to the dean and elders of the main clergy to plead for a pardon for the rioters | and to invite the main clergy to return. 142 They urged the dean and elders to recognize that it was not they alone who were involved in this fate, to forgive a misfortune common to all Germany, and to allow themselves to be assuaged. They asked them to return to their homes and to the worship of God that had been long

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f5_185-202.indd 197

6/6/2007 12:58:17 PM

198

143

the events of 1524–1525

disturbed and interrupted through the excesses of certain people and to consider that God had been the avenger of insult and the protector of innocence. The lower clergy likewise pressed for the recall of the main clergy before the prince, pleading that since they feared a new disturbance and extreme measures against themselves, he should in his mercy grant amnesty to the burghers for any insult given and crimes committed, since the council and good men had never acquiesced in these acts but had resisted them at risk to themselves. They argued that he should not let the good men, who still constituted the majority in the town, be punished as if guilty on account of the rioters and should instead advance the cause of general tranquility, connive at certain crimes as necessity dictated, and tolerate the trouble-makers for the time being, lest violence be done to the grain when the weeds are pulled up.12 He should spare the evil men in the interim for the sake of the good so that the innocent would not be overwhelmed at the same time. The delegates said that they were leaving everything to the prince’s wisdom and inborn mercy for deeper consideration, having no doubt at all about his favor and kindness towards peacemakers. The prince gave the following response. It was not just the liberty of the clergy and knighthood, which he had sworn an oath to defend, but also his own jurisdiction and esteem that had been abused by force, and all this would lead to nothing being safe against the use of force and no one’s liberty, rights and jurisdiction remaining intact. Accordingly, he ought not to turn a blind eye to those acts if he wished to adhere to his oath. For this reason, the violence and insult infl icted on the clergy by the townsmen lodged deeper in the heart of Bishop Frederick than the burgher masters imagined. For he had no doubt that this withdrawal of the clergy would give rise to greater misfortune among his subjects, and for this reason, he warned the council on June 7 in the following words. | The councilmen had forcibly extracted from the main clergy their approval of certain articles that would subvert the liberty not only of the ecclesiastics but also of the knighthood and of the entire diocese, and had violently taken over from certain monasteries sealed records of their income and other things, doing so without any just cause sanctioned by law, but acting by their authority contrary to the standard of reasonability and fairness and to the decrees of emperors

12

A reference to the parable of the weeds (Matthew 13:24–29).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f5_185-202.indd 198

6/6/2007 12:58:17 PM

the events of 1524–1525

199

and popes. He said he would hardly have expected this of them, since it was his business to punish the clergy with lawful reformation and deserved penalties when they commit errors or crimes. Accordingly, he advised them to refrain from such unheard of behavior in future and to restore what they had extracted by force and unjustly made off with. If, on the other hand, they had anything to say against the main chapter, he told them to laid this out in the diocesan synod. He, along with the other orders, would do what reason, fairness and the law of the homeland demanded. On June 16, the council replied as follows. The commons of their own and of other cities in the diocese were complaining that their daily bread was being purloined from them without ancient precedent by bakers, brewers and other workers practicing trades at various locations in the country districts, and that certain members of the clergy and inhabitants of monasteries of both sexes were engaging in professional skills to the detriment of the towns and their burghers, even keeping workshops specially equipped for such purposes. For this reason an uproar was caused in Münster by the commons, and during this uproar certain articles were drawn up and presented to the council. If there was to be any hope of calming the stirred up commons, a matter in which the councilmen undertook no little effort and danger, the council had been forced to accept these articles. | The council had therefore laid these articles in a courteous, friendly way before the main clergy in order to assuage the angered commons and asked for a meeting to deliberate more broadly about this matter. The main clergy, meanwhile, had hurriedly withdrawn from the city, absconding from the cathedral and from their duties (with what intent they did this, the council did not know). Furthermore, it was not clear to the council that they had even offended consecrated places and persons contrary to the standard of reasonability and fairness, much less that they had done violence to them. As for having asked for and received for safe-keeping sealed records of income from the Brothers of the Fountain and the nuns dedicated to God in Münster, this was not done violently or without just cause, and the council would give an accounting of this to anyone who asked this of them. Nor was there any hint of rebellion in this action, which was undertaken and implemented for the safety of the burghers and for the benefit of the common good. The prince responded to this on July 10, as follows. The only thing that he could see was that the action of the inhabitants of Münster and their articles had been thought up, written down and made public

144

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f5_185-202.indd 199

6/6/2007 12:58:17 PM

200

145

146

the events of 1524–1525

contrary to all reason and fairness for the purpose of bringing the prince into disgrace and contempt, of repealing and destroying his jurisdiction and sovereign rights, and of harming and ruining the knighthood and the entire diocese. Accordingly, it was his earnest demand that the council should give back the sealed copies of these articles that had been extracted from the main clergy and restore to the monasteries the records of their revenues that had been made off with, and that the council, by whose talent these articles had been thought up and through whose authority they had been implemented, should immediately allow them to fall into abeyance and die away, keeping within the confines of received tradition and of the homeland’s privileges and remaining content with those privileges. The council should be satisfied with this and keep quiet. Instead they should thus plead with him regarding the violation of his episcopal jurisdiction through their disobedience. Once this was done, then if they thought they had anything that they were within their rights to say against the main chapter or the other ecclesiastics of this diocese, both those residing within the city walls and those without, they should entrust this for decision to the judgment of the prince and of the diocese. | As it was, the council should write back to say whether they were willing to acquiesce in the decision of the prince and knighthood. To this the council replied on July 27, as follows. The council could tolerate the abolition and repeal of the unjust articles and they would restore the documents to the Brothers of the Fountain and to the Nitzing nuns as a favor to the prince. As for the professional tools with which the livelihoods of the burghers were being pilfered and purloined, the burghers thought it most just that these should not be returned. Since it had done nothing tantamount to disobedience and had not violated the episcopal jurisdiction, they thought that the council should not be punished on account of disobedience or the violation of the jurisdiction and therefore there was no need to plead with the bishop. As judges of their actions they would accept the prince with his councilors, the knighthood and any other members of this diocese whom the council did not hold in suspicion. To this Bishop Frederick replied on August 26, as follows. Since the council was contriving to whitewash their own unfair undertaking and the violence committed by their own authority, so that it was impossible to tell for sure what their intention was, he accordingly warned the burgher masters by the obligation imposed on them by their oath that they should immediately allow all the articles without exception to fall

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f5_185-202.indd 200

6/6/2007 12:58:17 PM

the events of 1524–1525

201

into abeyance, return whatever they had taken, seized or extracted by force from the clergy, and give a guarantee to the Lords of the chapter about a safe-conduct for them to return to the city and stay there. When this was done and the council claimed to have a privilege against them, the bishop would, with the assistance of the knighthood’s advice, do what consideration of the diocese’s rights and privileges demanded. To this the council responded on September 23, as follows. The council said that they had hardly expected that the prince would condemn it without hearing the legal arguments. Be that as it may, the council would, as a favor to the prince, allow the articles to fall into abeyance and the possessions that had been taken from the Brothers of the Fountain and the Nitzing nuns for safe-keeping to be restored to them. By written documents they were giving guarantees to the Lords, whom they had not banished, about their safe return, and the prince could himself consider how disadvantageous this was for the council. The council could also allow those men to return to their own city and to leave it at their own discretion, just as had always been the case. The council would, however, invoke the homeland’s privilege to protect its position against any harm. To this the prince responded on October 16, as follows. He said that he was astonished that the burgher masters were invoking the privilege of the diocese to protect themselves when they themselves had violated it, treating the prince with remarkable contumely. It was, however, appropriate that he should leave everything for the future, it being his preference that they should set off down a fairer path to avoid running into a great misfortune, one for which they will have no one to blame but themselves. Next, the prince decided to send a embassy to his brother, the Most Reverend Herman of Wied, the archbishop of Cologne, in his capacity as metropolitan and to the Most Illustrious Duke John of Cleves, who was bound to the people of Münster by virtue of proximity. The members of this embassy were Nicholas of Münchhausen and Master Eberhard Aelius, his secretary. The sense of the embassy to the most reverend archbishop was as follows. The prince of Münster had no doubt | that news had long since reached the most reverend archbishop that the burgher masters and the council and common rabble of the city of Münster had set upon the dean and chapter of that city during a riot and forcibly compelled them alone to authorize with their seals certain articles, though this act actually belonged to all the estates in equal measure, and that

147

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f5_185-202.indd 201

6/6/2007 12:58:17 PM

202

148

the events of 1524–1525

they terrified the chapter to such an extent that in fear of threats to their lives and property they withdrew from the city and have been afraid of returning to the present day. Next, turning their violence to other places and persons consecrated to God, they seized account books and other property belonging to monasteries, and then, without any prosecution or trial by law, they also thought up, stitched together, wrote down and desired to make operative a large number of articles to the severe contumely, disgrace, loss and detriment of the prince, the knighthood, the entire region and all its inhabitants. Therefore, since these acts are all contrary to both secular and ecclesiastical law and they cannot be deterred from their undertaking by any warnings, however friendly, from the bishop, being instead rendered rasher as if they had the right to do whatever they wanted, the prince, on whose behalf the envoys were performing their mission, asked that the most reverend archbishop not fail him in his plans, and, in order for the people of Münster to be restored to obedience, begged the archbishop to revoke the safe conduct of the residents of the city and not to allow any property belonging to them to be transported through his territory. The result of this would be that they would come to terms with their prince and the lords whom just fear had driven out. To this the most reverend archbishop responded as follows. If for this reason he were to revoke and take away from the burghers of Münster the privilege of safe passage through his territory, this would give rise not to peace and tranquility but to greater disaffection and dispute and would greatly obstruct the cause of public concord. For as a result of this the burghers | would become increasingly angry at the prince and the chapter. The envoys should therefore report back to his brother the prince that he should ponder the matter more deeply and chose a milder path for himself, giving up the harsh one. Given this response from the most reverend archbishop, the undertaking to continue the embassy before the Duke of Cleves was abandoned.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f5_185-202.indd 202

6/6/2007 12:58:17 PM

THE EVENTS OF 1526 A few weeks later it was decided to send another embassy to the most reverend archbishop. The two parties having previously reached an agreement by letter as to the time and place for carrying out this meeting, on January 8, 1526, the bishop’s embassy was sent to Brühl. There the same information was conveyed to the most reverend archbishop and the request was made that as metropolitan he should plan to punish this insulting use of force and to avenge the demeaning insult infl icted on his brother, lest impunity in their prior deed should embolden the inhabitants of Münster to greater rebellion. The most reverend archbishop was of the view that this matter deserved further deliberation. Much later, on February 25, 1526, he asked his brother to inform him of what had been done in connection with the dispute concerning the inhabitants of Münster. The bishop answered that nothing had been done and matters | were still at the same stage as they had been several months before, adding that he was even now awaiting his brother’s advice, as they had agreed. To this the archbishop replied on March 2 that he would long since have sent an embassy to Münster, but had not been able to because of the hindrance of very great affairs in his own diocese. He said that he would nonetheless do so as soon as an improvement in the weather permitted. Some days later he sent this peace-making embassy to Münster, and on it were the brother of both bishops, the high-born and noble Count John of Wied, lord of Runchell and Isenburg; Bernard of Hagen from Geseke, a doctor of laws and chief notary; and Derek of Heyden, an orator from Mühlhelm. Finally, on March 27, after these men had for some days considered the dispute between the chapter and the council from both perspectives, with the agreement of both sides the following “recess” (record of the proceedings) was drawn up. “As a favor to the archbishop, the council will restore the sealed copies of certain articles that were extracted from the chapter, and all the articles conceived and written by the burghers will collapse as if dead and be repealed. Upon these acts, the lords of the chapter will return at their own discretion to their ecclesiastical functions, dwellings and property in the city of Münster without any obstruction on the part of the burgher masters, council, burghers or any of the inhabitants,

149

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f6_203-211.indd 203

6/6/2007 12:58:48 PM

204 150

151

the events of 1526

| and as in the ancient days they will come and go and reside in the city freely, without fear or danger to their lives and property. If anyone, either within the city or without, will on his own authority wrongfully undertake and presume any act of violence against them or any one of them (it being hoped that this will not happen), the burgher masters and the council will, to the best of their abilities, protect them and curb those responsible by infl icting due penalties. Both sides accepted these terms and gave their word that they would abide by them without any violation. As a token of perfect concord, three identical copies of the proceedings were drawn up and validated with the seals of the most reverend archbishop of Cologne and of the chapter and council of Münster on behalf of both itself and the entire community of burghers, the advisers of the most reverend archbishop who were assigned to the proceedings keeping one copy for themselves, and one of the other two being handed over to each of the parties. Issued on the Tuesday after Palm Sunday in the year A.D. 1526.” Next, certain other, very severe disputes and controversies were stirred up by the people of Münster against the prince and knighthood, and in the synod convened at Dülmen on May 28 these were altogether disposed of by the same envoys of the archbishop and by the highborn nobleman Count Eberwin of Bentheim and Steinfurt, Gerard of Recke, a knight, Roger of Diepenbrock from Bocholt, Henry of Merfelt, the bailiff of Dülmen, and Arnold of Raesfeld. All these men were nobles of the diocese who had been sent as representatives in order to reestablish peace and who had been detained for four days with great effort and at great expense to our prince. | The quarrel that had been festering between the estates of the diocese was turned into a harmonious agreement that was confirmed with sealed records by all the estates in order that it should remain unbroken. After these matters were transacted in this way, the clergy were sure of their ancient safety and did not hesitate to return from exile to their homes without fear. As they came back, the joyous celebration with which the burghers received them was greater than the contemptuous hatred with which they had sent them on their way. Thus, after the main clergy returned and the trouble-making preachers who had not ceased to stir up the commons against the clergy and councilmen were driven away by the lower clergy during the exile, everything seemed to have returned to the previous harmonious situation, but the commons, who always strain after novelty and cannot tolerate either concord or poverty, could not keep themselves within the limits set out for them by those responsible for the peace.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f6_203-211.indd 204

6/6/2007 12:58:49 PM

THE EVENTS OF 1527 For when the bishop’s ordinary judge (called the “official”), Justin Brandenburg, a man reputed for his knowledge of the law, was deciding cases in the customary way from his tribunal, Anthony Cruse, along with some trouble-makers, made an interruption. With his face contorted and his right hand threateningly placed on the hilt of his sword, he vigorously abused the judge with every offensive insult imaginable, stirring up such a commotion that he terrified all the judge’s attendants with this unheard of turn of events. I have no doubt that this commotion gave rise to many evils. For as a result, the authority of both | governments1 came to become diminished in esteem and the commons began to assure themselves of immunity in doing anything imaginable. These two developments usually cause the overthrow of the political order and of all rights. The judge thought that this remarkable insolence, which had not been infl icted so much on himself as on the prince, ought not to be ignored, lest the authority of the Church’s jurisdiction in the city become diminished in esteem, and he accordingly informed the prince of the affair, just as it had happened. When the prince learned of it, he took great umbrage (as was reasonable) and immediately sent a written command to the council ordering that since not only the city’s laws but decrees of emperors that had been renewed in almost all Imperial Diets indicated that he should be punished, the council should arrest him and impose on him the appropriate penalty. The council, however, perhaps because it was afraid to offend the parties in this affair and create an uproar, changed sides, claiming as their excuse that the man responsible for the crime had taken refuge in the sacred place of the Monastery of St. George as an asylum, from which it was not permissible for them to remove him. To this the prince responded that the man should be taken away from there to prison by his authority and permission, since no one could enjoy the protection of a place that he had himself had the effrontery to violate. He said that public crimes should not be ignored or left unpunished, so that evil men should not be given a greater opportunity to commit crimes and overwhelm the good men and the prince should not call down upon himself great

1

152

I.e., secular and ecclesiastical.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f6_203-211.indd 205

6/6/2007 12:58:49 PM

206

153

the events of 1527

outrage on the part of the Imperial government. Disturbed by this letter, the council ordered Anthony to be arrested at the monastery of St. George and taken to the prison at the Gate of the Virgin, where he was to be kept under close guard. The arrest of Cruse first upset his father and his brother, Conrad Cruse, then all his blood relations, who in turn stirred up Bernard Knipperdolling, the chorus leader of the whole faction, and the whole gang of trouble-makers, inspiring them to plead insistently and endlessly for his release before the council. By very persistently urging this course upon the council with warnings, requests and supplications, the members of the faction won the hope of release, though this was to be delayed. They refused to accept any delay, and their threats and unbridled thronging caused the council to conceive such a fear for its own safety that it allowed Cruse to be snatched away without any bail. | With a drum leading the way, the whole mob of the faction followed him to a wine shop as an insult to the magistrates and demonstration of their boldness. There they washed away all the filth of prison and his sadness of heart with a plentiful supply of wine. While drinking among themselves they conversed on various topics, as happens, but far into the night they mostly spoke rather immoderately about crushing popery and spreading their own beliefs. This violent impertinence in language seemed to be tolerated by the council, but when the opportunity to exact punishment arose, the councilmen summoned the aldermen and the guild masters to a deliberation on this wanton behavior. The councilors set out the following viewpoint to them. Since the council knew that it was bound by oath of office to foster the public good, there were several measures that they could fail to take only at risk of breaking their oath. First, they had to avert, as far as they could, the disaster that was assailing the commonwealth, and attempt to restore with the help and assistance of God and good men the concord that was in no small way shattered by the impertinence of criminals. Then, once concord was restored, they had to protect it with strong defenses against attack by the troublemakers. Since the right to do this was not theirs alone, the council would, in striving to bring this matter to a safer conclusion, avail itself of the advice of the aldermen and guild masters in particular, since ancestral custom had made use of their advice in very troublesome situations and the council knew they had a responsibility towards the city that was virtually the same as the council’s. The council had no doubts about their complete reliability in using their acts and advice to aid the oppressed city, knowing that they were more vigilant in saving the city than those human dregs were

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f6_203-211.indd 206

6/6/2007 12:58:49 PM

the events of 1527

207

in destroying it. For the aldermen and guild masters held their own wives and children and all good men dearer than they did the rash trouble-makers, and the council knew that they had not squandered their own property and were not hatching unjust plots against other people’s property, preferring the preservation of their homeland to its devastation, security to danger, peace and tranquility to bloodshed and plunder, and the glory of immortal fame to disgrace. This being the case, the council was accordingly asking the leaders of the commons to set aside all emotional upset, be present with their uncorrupted reason and examine the present uproar in the city, which caused both the divine and human justice and both the ecclesiastical and the secular polity to fear for themselves. This Cruse fellow had assaulted a public personage in the form of a judge of the prince, and amidst a large gathering of people public justice | had been violated by a private burgher in a sacred place before the tribunal, by which the prince and the other estates of the diocese were greatly offended. It was possible that a very small spark could be ignited into a vast confl agration that would consume and destroy the city. The leaders of the commons should consider this for themselves: if Cruse and his followers in this madness, who had not stopped harassing the council, emerged unpunished, all the laws dictating obedience would be annulled, all the bonds of concord would be snapped, and no official would be safe. Instead the officials would be nothing but hollow names and the example of this impunity would open the window wide for similar madness. The council would gladly hear what advice for the public good the leaders of the commons would give under these circumstances. After the council finished speaking, the leaders of the commons dispersed to take counsel. Putting their heads together, they disputed among themselves with various wishes and views, but without any contradiction they agreed that in order to make sure that the state not be harmed,2 it was necessary to suppress those who plotted domestic ruin, to put out the internal fire, and to protect the city against the criminal activity of the trouble-makers. As to the kind of penalty, there was no agreement. The judgment of some was that those who undermined the tranquility of the state deserved to be executed, and that the punish-

154

2 The phraseology of this last clause was modeled on the so-called “final decree of the senate,” a sort of declaration of martial law that was passed only during the most severe rioting in Late Republican Rome.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f6_203-211.indd 207

6/6/2007 12:58:49 PM

208

155

the events of 1527

ment infl icted on a few would benefit the many. The counsel of some was that they should be fined, of others, that they should be banished, and of yet others, that the whole thing should be ignored and that the highest dangers should be sedated with the least uproar. In this way, the deliberation dragged on for some time without any definitive resolution. Since there was no agreement as to the penalty, their answer was that the troublemakers should not be tolerated with impunity in the city, but they left the method of punishment to the council’s decision. Partly from the long deliberation conducted by the aldermen and their delay in responding and partly from the response itself, the senate readily understood that there was a difference of opinion among the deliberators and that Cruse had not lost popular favor. For the commons perhaps considered him worthy of favor on the grounds that compared to the others he was raging more openly and boldly against the clergy, who had gotten such a bad reputation that they were almost spoken of badly even among the Catholics. Accordingly, the council was afraid that if it passed an overly rash decree against the faction members, they would stir up a new uproar in the city, but if they passed an overly slack and lenient decree, they would anger the prince. It was therefore decided to banish them temporarily, this decision being made known to the aldermen. Thus, the troublemakers were cast out of the walls, | though not without the hope of eventually returning. The prince relented, and after being propitiated by a delegation from the burgher masters, he renewed the terms agreed to the preceding year at Dülmen and pardoned the city for its misdeed. This act greatly undermined the confidence of the criminals and revived the hopes of the good. It could have been hoped that the tranquility that had been returned to the city would have lasted longer, had not Bernard Knipperdolling been possessed by such immoderate impulses and gone so far in his madness that in disparagement of the prince’s honor and esteem he called him a spindle turner, because as a youth he had, after the manner of noblemen, learned the craft of using a lathe to avoid ignoble idleness. A burgher always eager for novelty, this Knipperdolling was driven by his poverty and hatred of the clergy to throw the state into chaos, relying on the throng of blackguards whom he easily enticed to himself through the hope of plunder. One day he was about to travel to Bremen on horseback and, as an insult to the prince, was wearing on his hat spindles with a little wheel made of wood, fearing no evil and without any worry. In the city of Vechta he was arrested by order of the prince, because of not so much the insult as the trouble he had

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f6_203-211.indd 208

6/6/2007 12:58:49 PM

the events of 1527

209

caused in the city, | having been primarily responsible for the release of Cruse, who had violated the bishop’s tribunal. When the commons, who relied very much on his authority, found out that Knipperdolling had been arrested, they compelled the main clergy and the council, partly through requests and partly through threats, to dispatch a letter of supplication and delegates of the greatest authority to seek his release, and these delegates pleaded earnestly on his behalf before the prince. They say that when the delegates would not bring their pleading to an end, the prince spoke as follows. He graciously consented to their wishes but expressed his surprise that at the cost of so much trouble and expense to themselves they were pleading so earnestly in order to secure the release of someone who had not ceased to stir up disturbances in the city, who had placed the clergy in the greatest danger, and who had always been rebellious towards the council and loud in his complaints against it. The bishop said that he had no doubt that the man would overturn the city and the entire diocese. (And the good prince was proven right in this prophecy.) Accordingly, after providing sureties and swearing an oath not to avenge his arrest, Knipperdolling was released from jail, which would cause the complete destruction of all good men. For after returning to the followers in his faction, he felt no shame at ignoring his oath and saying repeatedly in public that to settle accounts for his arrest he would turn everything topsy-turvy, confusing top and bottom, sacred and profane,3 so that the diocese would atone through the pointless spending of thousands of gold coins equal in number to the pennies that he had lost because of the arrest. The eventual outcome, when the diocese spent vast sums on the very difficult siege, proved the truth of this. Not only Knipperdolling himself but no member of the faction was able to curb his tongue and keep it from uttering witticisms and condemnations against the Catholics. | Some workmen were casting lead tiles during the process of strengthening the roofing of the “Paradise” (the seat of the episcopal court), and on September 7 their negligence in not watching their fire with sufficient care happened to cause the roof to catch fire at night. This destroyed not only the roof itself but also the library, that astonishing treasure of all Westphalia. In addition

156

157

3 This phraseology of turning everything upside down and of confusing the sacred and the divine was standard terminology in the Late Roman Republic to describe those who were thought to threaten the social order by stirring up the lower orders against their betters.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f6_203-211.indd 209

6/6/2007 12:58:49 PM

210

158

the events of 1527

to codices made of bark, this fire also reduced to ashes many copies of works written in the hand of their learned authors and other remarkable records preserved of Charlemagne himself. Though this loss almost moved good men, and especially those of learning, to shed tears, the members of the faction chortled with glee and rejoiced, shouting that the fire had been sent by God, that His outrage against the papists could readily be understood from it, and that Cruse’s innocence was now revealed by God. Now, they said, the axe had been put to the tree,4 now the harvest of the Lord was at hand, now papist chaff would be burned up as tares.5 They bellowed here in various places that the house and chapel of Satan had been destroyed by the fl ames of God, the roof of papist justice had been melted away, and this fire was no vain harbinger of papist downfall. In all their meetings and feasts, they uttered disjointed, mouthy screechings like these, so that they could not understand one another and resembled madmen. Although this verbal attack was very severe, it nonetheless neither frightened the clergy from their duty nor lessened the authority of the council. To the contrary, like the Marpesian6 cliff both of them stayed at their posts on the walls, keeping such careful watch against the commons’ madness that nothing worth noting in a work of history happened from this point until the year 1531. The grim visage of the sweating sickness that swept across Europe in 1529 and the calamity of a huge outbreak of the plague in the following year that laid low a large section of the population so terrified the survivors that since being stricken now with fear, they had no thoughts of innovation in the faith and its ceremonies. In addition, the Emperor Charles V was afraid that this city might be infected with the contagion in neighboring cities and increase the number of the rebels by defecting from the ancestral religion, | and in his desire to warn the city and frighten it away from the prohibited Lutheran sect, he issued the following letter at Augsburg on August 9, 1530. “We, Charles, by the grace of God the ever august emperor of the Romans, wish grace and all good things for the burgher masters and council of the city of Münster. It is not without the greatest anguish that we learn that the inhabitants and subjects of certain cities and

4 5 6

Matthew 2:10. Reference to Matthew 13:24–29. Reference to Aeneid 6.471.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f6_203-211.indd 210

6/6/2007 12:58:49 PM

the events of 1527

211

communities around Westphalia have, in violation of our Imperial decree against the Lutheran faction that was issued and made public at the Diet of Worms, embraced that sect and gone into rebellion against their government. We hear with pleasure that you and your subjects have obeyed our Imperial decrees until the present day. Whereas, however, it is to be feared in these perilous times that the contagion of this sect might creep forth from your neighbors and sneak into your state at the instigation of certain people, infecting your burghers in such a way that they would burst through the bulwarks of obedience and stir up in your state a rebellion that would bring with it the immediate destruction of all good laws, accordingly, we, in our great desire to assure your subjects’ salvation and our wish to remove any detrimental thoughts from their minds, in order that a violent sect like this, which begets turbulent rebellion, should be suppressed and that the boon of political order, concord and tranquility be preserved in your state, do earnestly prescribe by our Imperial authority that you should keep strict watch on those who are violators of the Imperial edict and roam about as troublemakers, and that if they are found to be rebelliously causing insurrection or are suspected of doing so through manifest indications,7 they should be imprisoned and speedily subjected to the appropriate penalties to make amends to the Imperial edict. Do what you will think needful for the preservation of good government, peace and tranquility, and do not be remiss or careless in this matter if you wish to avoid outrage and punishment from us and the Empire. It is our further wish by this Imperial authorization, that such rebellious and trouble-making disturbers of the public peace should not gain immunity, security or safe passage anywhere, and if they receive any of these things from anyone in violation of our edict, we prescribe that the act is to be void and to lack any import or significance.” This letter from the emperor provided the state of Münster with almost one year’s respite from innovations.

159

7 “Indication” (Anzeigung) is a technical term from criminal law that signifies circumstantial evidence of guilt.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f6_203-211.indd 211

6/6/2007 12:58:49 PM

THE EVENTS OF 1531

160

In 1525, the council had, at the commons’ insistence, prescribed by edict that no one was to drive oxen to the meadows near the city that could be manured with dung from the city, the clever purpose being that the clergy, whom it by no means befits to practice agriculture, should transfer their fields to the burghers through leasing. The nuns of the Convent Across-the-River, however, did not obey the decree, and in a meadow of theirs near Gievenbeck that was within sight of the city they put to pasture six oxen for use in their own kitchen. For this reason, the commons complained to the burgher masters that the decree was not doing them much good and was instead being haughtily despised by the clergy. Hence, they said, their request that the burgher masters reassert their authority and force the nuns who were enclosed within the city’s walls to obey its laws. The burgher masters answered that they could not take away from anyone what was his without violating the obligations of natural and civil law. This, they said, was especially true of the very ancient Convent Across-the-River, which had been endowed with many privileges by both emperors and bishops and with its generous alms supported the children of burghers reduced to penury, in addition to many other advantages that accrued to the burghers from the convent. The commons, however, were by no means satisfied by these words and pled their case much more insistently. The burghers’ liberty should not only be defended, they said, but also be increased in every way. The greed of the clergy and their annual revenues were, they said, in some way draining the wretched burghers and reducing them to extreme penury by exhausting their resources. In order, then, to indulge the importunate commons and keep them from engaging in some new uproar with a sop, the council sent Ludger tom Brincke to the abbess, requesting that she obey the decrees issued in previous years and remove her oxen from the pastures near the city in order to prevent the commons from using that as an excuse to cause more trouble. Through her dean and steward, the Lord William Staell, she gave the following answer. | She was keeping her oxen, bought at her own expense, on her own pastures and not common ones or ones belonging to others, she was encroaching on no one else’s rights, and she was merely exercising her own. Therefore, the burgher masters should

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f7_212-224.indd 212

6/6/2007 12:59:51 PM

the events of 1531

213

allow her to make use of her rights without harming anyone else as she saw fit. If, on the other hand, her oxen were seized or driven off, she at least would have to put up with this, but she would entrust the harm infl icted on her to God, endurance and the passage of time. As it turned out, the oxen were fattened in those pastures for the use of the nuns without any interference. In this same year there emerged a certain Bernard, who by some arrangement of fate had the last name Rothman as if a “factious man.”1 For he was responsible for almost all the factionalism and religious dissension in the city of Münster, so that the poet was very right to say: “The names for things often suit them.”2 This man’s homeland was Stadtlohn and his father was some blacksmith named Henry. (Stadtlohn is a little town in the diocese of Münster; the river Berkel, which touches it on the north side, drives a few grain mills and then, after passing the ruins of the old stronghold there, fl ows downstream to Vreden.) His ancestors and parents, who were accused of witchcraft,3 were generally considered to be of bad reputation. It is said that when Cardinal Raymond4 brought papal indulgences from Rome to Germany, Rothman’s grandfather, who was doing penance for witchcraft, carried around a butter churn at Deventer | and in this way received forgiveness for the crime he had committed through the protection of indulgences. (A “butter churn” is what they call the container in which whey is made to solidify and congeal into butter through constant motion.5) This Bernard, then, being a boy of very fickle and clownish temperament, was reared in various schools through the efforts of his parents, learning the rudiments of letters. However, since his parents were too poor to bear all the expenses of schooling, he was, through the assistance of Lord Herman Sibing, a relative who was also the vicar of the college of St. Maurice’s, enrolled among the chanters (choir singers) in the Church of St. Maurice, where he applied

161

1 K. associates the name, which ought to mean “Red man,” with the German word Rotte (“gang” or “mob”). 2 This aphorism is attributed to the late medieval poet Ricardus da Vesona. 3 Veneficium could also signify simply poisoning. 4 Raymond Perault (Raymundus Peraudi, 1435–1505). A high-ranking papal functionary (made cardinal in 1492), from 1476 on he engaged in a number of campaigns to sell indulgences in the Empire (and other countries) and eventually became embroiled in the increasing hostility to the practice in Germany. 5 This definition is made for the benefit of those who might not understand the obscure neologism used here for “butter churn.”

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f7_212-224.indd 213

6/6/2007 12:59:51 PM

214

162

the events of 1531

himself to singing and gained a livelihood. After living there for some years and insinuating himself into familiarity with many people through his affability and very ready capacity for compliance, he won for himself no little favor in many quarters. When he matured, however, and his voice became harsh instead of high-pitched, so that he no longer seemed suitable for performing this function, he undertook to run the school at Warendorf and taught the youth there for a while, at the same time making some progress in the liberal arts. Then, at Sibing’s urging, he set off for Mainz to pursue the studies that he had begun, and there, with the monetary support of the Westphalians who were residing there for education, he achieved the master’s degree in, I think, 1524. Having returned from there, he received not simply a position as chaplain but also an ecclesiastical benefice from Sibing in the Church of St. Maurice’s Outside-the-Walls in the year 1529. After entering holy orders, he was given permission to preach, | and in this capacity he at first taught Catholic doctrine, even receiving the approval of the Lords. But gradually he began to mix into his sermons doctrines that seemed to be inimical to Catholic dogma, and as he began to incite the commons to anger against the clergy, he attracted to himself some among the burghers who were eager for novelty. The clergy of St. Maurice’s thought it better to send him off at their expense to some Catholic teaching institution rather than implicate themselves in the protection of novel views, hoping that he would either not come back at all or at least do so with more acceptable views. Accordingly, the canons of this college decided to give him support for his studies on the condition that he should go to Cologne and devote himself entirely to theology. From the vicars he also got twenty fl orins, though he bound himself by a signed contract to repay them. Perhaps he will do so after Plato’s long year!6 In any case, he feigned one thing and kept another hidden in his heart, promising that he would set off for whatever destination the lords had in mind. Following the advice of certain evangelical merchants, who also secretly contributed money for his travel expenses, he went to Wittenberg. Meanwhile, Sibing acted in his place. It is said An example of jocular erudition. The “long (or great) year” refers to the period of time necessary for the seven ancient planets (the five planets visible to the naked eye plus the sun and moon) to proceed through their various motions from a given configuration compared to one another until they recreate the same configuration. The notion goes back to Plato (Timaeus 39A), who does not state the length of time required. The term used by K. (annus magnus) derives from Cicero (Nature of the Gods 2.20), who relates that this period consisted of 12,954 solar years. 6

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f7_212-224.indd 214

6/6/2007 12:59:51 PM

the events of 1531

215

that after becoming familiar with his natural character, Melanchthon7 remarked that Rothman would be either remarkably good or remarkably bad. | From there Rothman wandered through the cities of Southern Germany to learn the novel rites. This is demonstrated fairly clearly in the following letter, which he dispatched from Speyer. “To the honorable and virtuous Gerard Reining, who lives on the marketplace at Münster, his excellent friend and supporter, or in Reining’s absence to the wise and reputed John Langerman, member of the council, greetings! I offer to you in particular, my very beloved friend, the grace of Christ and the declaration that I owe regarding my duty. I have always suffered anguish because you were absent when I left Münster, and for this reason now that a messenger is available I cannot refrain from sending my letter to you so that you may know where I am and how I am doing. Be advised that I am now at Speyer and thanks to God I am enjoying good health. Having written this letter, however, I have suddenly resolved to leave here for Strasburg, since I perceive that Strasburg is the crown among all Christian cities and churches and wins first prize. I will restrict myself to a fourteen-day visit there for the sake of my desire to inquire into everything. I do, however, fear that because of the high price of food in these parts I will be stripped of my travel money and forced to abandon my plan to go there, so on account of both our friendship and the salvation that (I hope) will accrue not only to us but also through God’s grace to many others because of this journey of mine, I beg you to meet my supporters and friends on my behalf, asking them to contribute twenty gold fl orins for my maintenance. First ask Bernard of Beckum, a burgher of the town of Warendorf to whom I am also writing—I have no doubt that he will immediately and readily give you five fl orins—then Havichhorst, who lives on the fish market, John Langerman (my main supporter), Caspar Schrodercken, | and all the others who you know support me to give help as soon as they can. By a reliable messenger send the money contributed by the good men to the inn with the sign8 of green boughs here in Speyer. For its keeper, being a man very much devoted to the Gospel9 (like most other burghers in Worms, Speyer and the

163

164

Luther’s learned collaborator and right-hand man. An early modern inn described by the distinctive symbol on its sign. 9 The phrase “devoted to the Gospel” (evangelio addictus) implies that he is “evangelical” (i.e., Lutheran). 7 8

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f7_212-224.indd 215

6/6/2007 12:59:51 PM

216

the events of 1531

other towns of southern Germany), will keep a reliable watch on the money being sent until I ask him for it. I was unwilling to reveal to the bearer of this letter my intention to depart, and I ask you to do the same. (I convinced him that I was pressing forward with a lawsuit in the court of the Imperial Chamber.10) I am quite confident that you will not fail me in this matter, and the sooner the better. Make a careful list of how much each of my supporters contributes, for if God keeps me safe, I will in good faith return everything. At the present time I cannot write about other matters, but on my behalf please greet all the brothers and sisters in God in the most dutiful possible. By this letter I commend you to the Lord God. Dispatched at Speyer on the Vigil before the Lord’s Ascension,11 1531. Bernard Rothman

165

“Necessity dictates that my requests need to be fulfilled within one month of the writing of this letter. Otherwise, the money will arrive here too late and in vain. For in that case I will no longer keep myself in southern Germany but will hasten my return to you. God be with you! Please make sure that this letter is attached to yours when you send it to the addressees, and I beseech you to write back at the first possible moment.” After his return from southern Germany in July, 1531, Rothman cleverly refrained for a while from any sudden innovation when he gave sermons at St. Maurice’s. Gradually, however, he reproduced in an ape-like imitation all the ecclesiastical innovations and evangelical rites that he had learned at both Wittenberg and Strasburg, spewing forth from jaws now full all the venom that he had sucked in during the past years. | After all the ceremonies of the Catholic Church were annulled and rejected as human fabrications, the new ones thought up by the spirit of the Lutherans were substituted. While good works were condemned, the extravagant evangelical freedom, which was turned to licentiousness, promised impunity for committing sins, and with it Rothman attracted to himself through the hope of seizing other people’s property a large number of people reduced to abject penury. In short, to make a name for himself, Rothman’s doctrines smacked of all sorts

10 The Reichskammergericht had been recently instituted in an attempt to provide a general court of appeal for the whole Empire. 11 May 17.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f7_212-224.indd 216

6/6/2007 12:59:51 PM

the events of 1531

217

of uproar and faction, undermined the general peace in the Church, enraged the commons against the clergy and the burghers’ government, did violence to the Catholic religion, and did away with all the Church’s enactments and rites. For the sake of this insane innovation nature begot Rothman, his will trained him, and his fortune preserved him. Many people, especially those weighed down by debt, revered him like some godhead, hung from his every word, and were convinced that he was driven in his actions by the Spirit of God. Despite official orders to the contrary, they followed him in crowds from the city on account of their eagerness to hear him speak, their desire to do so being so great that they considered that there were no preachers but him and despised, condemned, and cursed the others along with the entire clergy. Many people had no doubt that certain councilors of the bishop were patrons and advocates of his doctrine, since on January 25, 1532 Leonard Maess, the prince’s secretary, had Henry Wichman, an employee in the chancery, inform Rothman that he should have no fears for his own safety. For if the bishop made any sort of rash decision against him at the urging of certain spiteful people, Rothman would learn of it soon enough through secret intermediaries from the chancery. This is what Wichmann informed Rothman by letter. But after the main clergy and the city council had notified the prince about the innovation in religion and the troublemaking stirred up among the burghers by Rothman, | the authority of weighty men was more infl uential with him than were the urgings of certain light-weight, oath-breaking courtiers, and for this reason the bishop immediately banned Rothman from the office of preaching. Hence, Rothman, who had not feared any such thing, was terrified and approached the bishop with the following letter of supplication, which was dispatched on November 1. “To the excellent and most splendid prince and lord, Lord Frederick, elected and confirmed as bishop of the Church of Münster, his most merciful lord and prince, grace and peace from God through Christ! “With groans and in supplication, I cast myself at your knees, O most glorious bishop and famous prince! I do so not with the external adoration of the body that I owe your lordship according to God, but in the way that I can, namely by lovingly and humbly laying my wishes before the eyes of your loftiness through this letter. Do not turn away your eyes, I beg you, most merciful prince, but look at my tears! If only it were possible to paint a picture of them as true as the great sadness that causes them to pour forth in large numbers from the eyes of me, your abject little client! And why should I not say “little client,” when

166

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f7_212-224.indd 217

6/6/2007 12:59:51 PM

218

167

the events of 1531

I have so often named and styled you both judge and patron? Still, it is with great distress to my conscience that I obey the command of your loftiness that I should not publicly preach Christ, not look after the salvation of the souls entrusted to me, not light up the glory of the name of God, not advance the cause of piety and uproot impiety (for I cannot further the progress of all these tasks with my customary zeal if I cannot preach). It is not my wish at this point to emphasize the burden on my mind. For on the one hand it is overwhelmed by terror at the judgment of God, in that it might seem that I cannot cast off all fear and confess Christ as his own, and on the other it is taunted, harassed and vilified by the tearful complaints of the pious and the biting rebukes of the impious and their insulting criticisms of my having abandoned my duty. The only thing that I say is this, most merciful prince: If only you would see | the tears and lamentations of the pious people all over the place here, as they bewail not so much my lot as theirs and the insult to Christ! For your lordship has been so infl uenced by the lying accusation lodged by the impious that you have thrown me out of my office, deprived them of hearing the Gospel, and even surrendered the Gospel of Christ to the scoffing of evil men. For when these men lambaste my doctrine, which has always been no less in agreement with the Gospel than is the very Gospel itself, and accuse it of falseness, they insult Christ Himself. I beg you, excellent prince, to imagine what sighs, what sobs this situation wrenches from the pious when they consider it. You would swear that the Israelites lamented no more at their misfortune when they were oppressed in Egypt than the pious people here lament that I am being wrongly weighed down by the defamatory accusations of my enemies and that they are being deprived of hearing the word of God, as far as I am concerned. I say this not because I think that I am the only prophet on this earth but because all those who have ever heard me are agreed that I engaged in the business of the Gospel with equal measures of faith, zeal and diligence. Therefore, they grieve the more greatly that a man whom they have not found to be guilty at any time or in any place, a form of praise that the envy of evil people will never be able to take away, is now being thrown out as a peddler of the eloquence of God to the disgrace of the Gospels, this without him receiving a hearing or any charge being made. Accordingly, since it is impossible for me to keep quiet and neglect the office of preaching any longer without distressing my conscience, aggrieving the pious and disgracing the Gospel of Christ, I earnestly beseech you in the name of your salvation, most

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f7_212-224.indd 218

6/6/2007 12:59:51 PM

the events of 1531

219

pious prince: grant me the favor of being allowed to preach Christ freely among Christians, take pity on the lamentations of the pious and do not allow impious men, of whom I have no doubt that they used contrived calumnies to wrench from you an order like this against me, to profane the sanctuary of God with impunity. Your lordship’s order was a temporary prohibition, lasting until such time as some other decision could be made on the basis of a more exact investigation. Look, most civilized prince: it has now been more than three weeks that I have been in these difficulties, hearing the tearful keening of the pious and the criticism of the impious. | Take heed finally and have pity on your supplicant, who both constantly pleads for your clemency under the compulsion of necessity and likewise rejects no form of trial or judgment. So please lessen the sternness of your order, fairest of princes, and command me, as I await judgment and desire to receive a hearing, to act beneficially, that is, to teach the word of God, to care for the souls entrusted to me, and to console the oppressed consciences of the pious. If I look after this duty in a manner too remiss, I would certainly be worthy of harsher penalty. As it is, you will help rather than hinder me, excellent prince, as I bustle with zealous activity and make an earnest attempt at this very thing. I am confident that as this is a righteous and pious act, your lordship will not perform it grudgingly. Indeed, if those cheating accusers of mine will not allow this, but will lay charges too serious for you to think that this indulgence should be granted to me, please grant me this much, which I think has never been denied to anyone, that if someone makes an accusation I will be allowed to plead my case. It is an old practice deeply ingrained in the natural customs of all nations that no one should be convicted without being given a hearing to plead his case. Everyone receives a trial and has sentence passed on him. Certainly, I am in fact so far from lacking confidence in my case, that if given the opportunity to plead my case, I will have won. This I boldly state, that I will refuse no form of punishment if I am truly convicted of any crime such as the many ones that are probably being lodged with your lordship. If, on the other hand, a struggle will have been fought with main force, it is up to your lordship for the most part to determine what will become of me. For if your lordship will be my defender, the situation is safe, but if you will forsake me, there will be danger in it. Nonetheless, I will not despair, relying on my good conscience. I at least have placed my hopes in the Lord, and He will rescue me, lest my enemies should, like a lion, ever tear away my soul, while there is no one to deliver or

168

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f7_212-224.indd 219

6/6/2007 12:59:52 PM

220

169

the events of 1531

rescue me.12 For I know: Many dogs have compassed me and the assembly of evildoers has besieged me.13 Rather, God will turn aside the evils infl icted on me by my enemies and in His truth will destroy them.14 There is no doubt but that Christ, who looks upon everything, is directing His vengeful eyes toward this misfortune of mine, in which I am being so overwhelmed with defamatory lies because of my free and pure confession of His name, that my very fair and pious lord’s mind has been rendered less propitious to me. But what wonder is there that what should have commended me in the eyes of the good has caused offense in the eyes of the wicked? If, then, you have, | most excellent and illustrious prince, been worn down by the obstinate wickedness of the false accusations made by those men (whoever they may be) who keep lodging denunciations against me with your lordship in this hateful way, and have for this reason heeded them and forbidden me from my duty, you ought not to give in to them any further without my having been first convicted by your judgment of the accusation slung at me. I am so sure that you will do this that I am stopping worrying about myself any more. I turn my entire self over to the discretion of your loftiness, so that you may in this matter reach a decision that is just and pious, since you are a prince whose innate character is such that by disposition you are no less observant of justice than of piety. Hence, the case itself would cause you to protect me in this situation and to grant in your great mercy the request that I am making, even if I did not do so myself. In addition, I am urgently requesting an answer from your lordship in the most humble terms possible, so that I may understand where I should turn now that I am placed in such difficulties. May Christ the Savior preserve your lordship for as long as possible through His grace and in His mercy lead you to the Kingdom that He obtained for us. To Him be the glory along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Amen! Dispatched from my study at the Fields of St. Maurice, November 1, 1531. “Your lordship’s most abject little client, Bernard Rothman, Servant of Christ’s Church in Münster at St. Maurice’s”

12 13 14

Paraphrase of Psalm 7:1–2. Paraphrase of Psalm 22:16. Paraphrase of Psalm 54:7.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f7_212-224.indd 220

6/6/2007 12:59:52 PM

the events of 1531

221

The prince sent back notice through his councilors that for the time being Rothman should abandon his seat and leave the homeland, postponing his return until the decision of the future diet (assembly). Having received permission from the councilors to consider his answer, Rothman responded the following day as follows.15 “Yesterday, you excellent and magnificent gentlemen, who are also most reverend and splendid lords and very wise councilors of our prince, explained the situation for me at the prince’s command, telling me that for the time being I should leave the homeland and depart from here until the completion of the future diet (assembly). With due carefulness I have weighed the matter in my mind, considering what needs to be done to the extent that I could discern this by my painstaking efforts. I ask that given your courteous nature you deign to listen with goodwill to my reply, which I will strive to set out briefl y. “I wish and am justly obliged to give my ready assent not only to our most merciful prince’s requests but also to his commands, even if they cannot be carried out without physical harm. For it is written: It is necessary to obey one’s superiors, even bad-tempered ones.16 Thus, even if this departure of mine cannot be undertaken without great harm to my body and property—for I have such modest means that I cannot maintain myself in exile for even the smallest period of time, and also the resources, such as they are, with which I now eke out my existence will be taken away by my chapter if I set off without their agreement, and in this way I will become bereft of both homeland and livelihood at the same time; and furthermore, given the malice of certain people, I would not be rash in fearing the possibility of a greater danger—yet, if such will be the prince’s absolute wish, then despite

170

15 Many events about the bishop’s dispute with Rothman are omitted here, and the undated letter that immediately follows is clearly out of its proper chronological place. On November 14, 1531, the provost and dean of St. Martin’s complained to the bishop that Rothman was continuing to preach despite the prohibitions of the bishop, and on December 17 the bishop issued another prohibition and also wrote to the city to forbid attendance at seditious sermons. On December 24, the chapter of the cathedral wrote to the bishop to complain about Rothman’s continued disobedience, and on January 5, 1532, the bishop revoked Rothman’s safe conduct. Rothman’s response to the revocation appears in a letter dated January 16, which K. reproduces at the start of the events of 1532. Since the present letter refers to Rothman’s confession of faith, which is dated January 23, 1532, and is addressed to the bishop’s councilors, who did not enter the city until January 27, it belongs later in the account and is not a direct response to the actions taken by the bishop directly after the letter of November 1. 16 1 Peter 2:18.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f7_212-224.indd 221

6/6/2007 12:59:52 PM

222

171

the events of 1531

these considerations and without any delay I would quite readily accept these physical losses and withdraw in obedience to the prince’s will. But since this cannot be carried out without permanently | blemishing my conscience with the affront, offending my people and incurring the anger of God, I have absolutely no expectation that our very merciful prince will, after giving this matter closer consideration, burden me with such immediate danger to body and spirit. For many people have received the doctrine of the Truth from me through the grace of Christ. But if I leave in this way, abandoning the Word, which I have taught, they would certainly be right to consider me faithless minister of the Word and a perfidious17 apostate and to accuse me as such. There are also many others who have not yet grown deep roots in the doctrine of the Truth, and if I left without bidding farewell to the host, as the saying goes, as if I had committed some rather criminal act, they would certainly be scandalized. For the impious slanderers, who do not cease in other ways to tarnish, slander and blaspheme my doctrine with their deceitful carping, would in that case certainly spit upon it and trample it under foot, defaming me as a very base and fickle wretch. Also, I have offered a summary of my doctrine to my beloved brothers in Christ, my spiritual collaborators, asking for their assessment, but if I forestall their decision by leaving at this point, it is easy to guess what their conclusion and pronouncement is going to be about me and my doctrine, which I ought to defend, even at the risk of my life. If I save my skin as if fl eeing, I would, because of the scandal caused to many people, incur these injuries without a doubt and perhaps other, harsher ones as well, to the eternal damnation of my soul. It is written: If anyone offends against these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for him if he were dropped into the depths of the sea with a mill-stone hung around his neck.18 Accordingly, if I will be thrown out altogether by force, if I will be forced into exile because of the slanders of impious men who decline to make an accusation in person, then since I have a clean conscience, I thought that I should follow the example of Christ, my contest master,19 and of His soldiers and overcome my

17 In the ecclesiastical context, this adjective signifies someone who has broken the Christian faith. 18 Matthew 18:6. 19 Agonothetes, a Greek word that literally signifies one who sets a contest. Though the word properly refers to a pagan magistrate who is in charge of putting on games,

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f7_212-224.indd 222

6/6/2007 12:59:52 PM

the events of 1531

223

fortune by enduring it. For in that case, whatever danger or scandal ensues will redound to the detriment not of me, who am being forced to shake the dust from my feet in testimony about them,20 but of those people, who are responsible for my fl ight. Far be it from me, indeed may it be a sin for me, to have any such suspicion about our prince, | who is endowed with both innate mildness and the honesty that is inherent to Christian piety. I am so far from thinking that I will in any way offend him with this steadfast position of mine, that I am instead confident that my hesitation to give up rashly the office handed over to me by God will be greatly welcome to his lordship. For just as it is base for a soldier to abandon the position assigned to him by his leader, so too will it be dangerous and disgraceful in equal measure if I rashly abandon the activity entrusted to me by our leader Christ. Yet, if it is the prince’s absolute wish to prohibit me from teaching doctrine to the congregation entrusted to me and governing it, then since the command is the bishop’s, I will ask Christ not to hold me responsible and I will readily obey to the extent that the fear of God and my conscience allow. If this is not permissible, then (to speak honestly what I feel) it is preferable in my mind to fall into the hands of the enemy than to incur the judgment of God, which is a source of terror in human plans. In any case, as for the fear that uproar and rioting will ensue on my account, while this fear has hitherto proven groundless and has perhaps been feigned by the impious, for whom there is never any peace, if any evidence of such a connection, however obscure or hypothetical, comes to light, I will yield to whatever chastisement or fine the prince will, in his great mercy, wish to infl ict on me for it. I have constantly striven with the greatest zeal to uphold the state’s tranquility, as I could with no difficulty at all demonstrate with many proofs, and I expect that I will always strive after this. Accordingly, since my presence will be a nuisance to no good man and my absence will be a minor offence to many, I would ask in the most strenuous terms possible that our most reverend and illustrious prince deign to grant, if nothing else, then at least the permission to remain safely in the homeland in which I have

172

in the Christian context the word “contest” often refers to the martyrdom, since the Romans executed Christians as part of their public games. 20 A reference to Mark 6:11.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f7_212-224.indd 223

6/6/2007 12:59:52 PM

224

the events of 1531

never committed any but a respectable act or one for which I am not prepared to give an accounting. Just as I expect that his lordship will do this ungrudgingly, so too will I await his merciful answer with the most ardent vows. Bernard Rothman

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f7_212-224.indd 224

6/6/2007 12:59:52 PM

THE EVENTS OF 1532 The councilors promised that would take this answer of Rothman’s to the prince. But the prince, who was still not mollified by it and instead was further angered against him by Derek of Merfelt, the bailiff of Wolbeck, summoned Rothman to the city and revoked his safe conduct, as it is called (that is, he removed his right to reside and live in the Parish of St. Martin in safety). Rothman, however, secretly enjoyed the liberty of the city by restricting himself to the company of the followers of his faction, and thinking that this abrogation of his safe conduct harmed him as he fervently toiled in the business of the Gospel, he begged rather vigorously for the prince’s forgiveness in the following letter of supplication that was written on January 16. “Grace and peace in Christ! Although your reverend piety seems to show itself to be rather harsh and not very well disposed towards me, most excellent bishop, I cannot in any way bring myself to believe that it has now become so hardened and that the bowels of all your compassion toward me have become so stiffened that I can no longer find any opportunity to defend my innocence before your reverend lordship. I confess, lying calumnies even have their own divinity, Pitho the goddess of persuasion, who sometimes fools wise and good men with deceit, and we not infrequently see that more liberty is granted to lying than to truth, and to calumny rather than to innocence. Nonetheless, it is characteristic of a spirit that is unfair and less than civil to accept the defamatory denunciations of accusers (or rather revilers) and to deny the innocent man’s defense. | I consider it sinful even to harbor such a suspicion about your lordship’s civility, and for this reason I do not think that the hateful calumnies spoken against me by tricksters have led you to conceive such a sense of outrage against me that you will not in your mercy allow me to respond and submit myself. For you have had and do have such a reputation in my eyes for innate piety and fairness that if someone offers a defense of his innocence before you, he would be readily granted the grace of your piety and fairness against all accusations, however defamatory. Furthermore, if, as I hardly expect, your lordship had, as a result of being persuaded by the lying calumnies of my enemies, unshakably conceived some altogether implacable sense of outrage against me, nonetheless, you will, I have

173

174

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 225

6/6/2007 1:03:42 PM

226

175

the events of 1532

no doubt, willingly undertake and strenuously uphold the cause of truth and justice. For your most saintly piety and the inborn fairness of your truly heroic spirit will not tolerate allowing the offence of a single man of private station to endanger truth and justice and to cause a minor offence to many people at the same time. If these considerations will be maintained through your protection, then whatever will become of me in this case will be easy, even if will also be very bitter. Accordingly, most glorious prince, a few days ago your bailiff in Wolbeck, the honorable Derek of Merfelt, came to your city of Münster and summoned me to him from my house in the suburban countryside of St. Maurice’s. I readily complied, as I ought to, I went and he met me. Oh, what misfortune! Completely unexpectedly since I had a clean conscience, he informed me of your lordship’s rescinding of my safe conduct. At this statement, my sweetest lord, I was, I confess, dumbstruck! My hair stood on end and my voice stuck in my throat (if I might be allowed to express my astonishment with Virgilian poetry).1 For why should I not have been struck dumb at such unexpected news? Since I have always offered myself to your jurisdiction and judgment and in particular to trial by your princeliness, readily recognizing you as the appropriate judge for me, and to all the other ones to which I think I ought to, there is nothing that I could have expected less than that I should, when seeking the verdict of justice, be stripped of official protection without being tried or convicted. For my part, I grieve most heavily at this fate of mine, and along with me almost all pious men grieve and lament. For we see that it is to the detriment of many souls and the disgrace of the Gospel that this happens. | Hence, in the name of your salvation I pray and beseech you, most courteous lord: let heed be taken for the salvation of souls and the glory of the Gospel before I am forced into exile from the homeland in which I have never committed any criminal act for which I am not prepared to give an accounting. Since the glory of the Gospel and the salvation of souls will be upheld through your protection, then whatever will become of me will be easy, even if it will also be very harsh. This will happen if your princeliness will order my accusers to make a public accusation before your lordship, so that I will have an opportunity to defend myself. If I am found guilty under such circumstances, I will incur shame and punishment. In that case, the Gospel will gain its glory and the souls

1

He quotes Aeneid 2.774.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 226

6/6/2007 1:03:43 PM

the events of 1532

227

their salvation. If, on the other hand, I am outlawed without trial, some of these souls will think that I have been unjustly cast down along with my doctrine, and others that I despise the Gospel, being offended at the scandal caused by my being cast out. If it were a brigand or parricide seeking permission to speak his case before being forced to hear the sentence of conviction, there is probably no race so barbarous as to think that this should be denied. For everyone is granted a trial. As for me, since I am innocent or at any rate have not yet been condemned as guilty, I hope that your lordship will in your mercy grant this to me too, especially since I am requesting asylum only until such time as I should make good my claim of innocence or undergo the penalty for conviction of guilt. Look, then, most merciful prince, in reliance on the gentleness of your Christian mind’s benevolence towards the affl icted, I fl ing myself at your clemency’s knees and once again, as so often in the past, offer my entire self to the judgment, trial and decision of your clemency, ready to take a stand against my accusers. Lest anyone be able in any way to accuse me justly as someone who causes delays or declines a hearing of his case, I did the same thing before the venerable chapter and the city council of Münster. In offering myself I am prepared not only to give an accounting of my doctrine but also to undergo an examination of my life and character and of all my actions. For although I confess myself to be a sinner before God, nonetheless I know that I owe nothing to the sword of secular justice. Let my defamatory denouncers oppose me, accuse me, revile me as much as they want: they will make no charge stick apart from my having preached the name of Christ too freely, which perhaps is the greatest charge in their eyes. Oh, if only I could plead this case before you as judge, particularly since I ought to endure or have no one but you as my judge! | If in that case someone proved me guilty of any crime subject to penalty, I would certainly not refuse any punishment. For my request is not that any form of pardon be given in this case. I ask to be judged with the utmost severity. What more should I do? If your civility will be unwilling to accept this abject surrender on my part, if the calumnies of evil men have stuffed up the ears of your piety to such an extent that you cannot hear the requests of an innocent man, if, in short, I abandon my duty and leave my beloved homeland when merely accused, then since I know that all of this is happening to me for the sake of Christ’s name, I also turn over this case to Him. Just as He looks upon everything, so too will He in the future turn His vengeful eyes to this calamity. Yet, I am so firmly and unshakably convinced

176

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 227

6/6/2007 1:03:43 PM

228

the events of 1532

of your piety and fairness that even though your clemency seems to display a stern visage, nonetheless I do not cease to cherish the highest expectations of you as if of a very well-disposed father. Therefore, excellent prince, take heed, I ask you, of the exigency of this case, take heed of your reputation and the very high esteem in which you are held not simply by me but by everyone, and grant that by your protection I may live with security in this homeland of mine for a little while until I am proven guilty of some crime by my accusers or at any rate until the confession of my doctrine, which I will produce any day now in order that its nature can be determined by the public judgment of everyone, will, after examination, be approved or condemned at my risk. Since considerations of fairness demand this, I ought not to doubt that your lordship will act with clemency. On this basis, I commend myself to you, having confident expectations of your most illustrious lordship! May the Lord Jesus Christ preserve and exalt you for us to the eternal glory of the Gospel! Amen! In supplication I ask for your lordship’s merciful response. Dispatched on the Vigil of St. Antony.2 In abject submission to your lord.ship, Bernard Rothman Priest of St. Maurice’s”

177

The confession of Rothman’s doctrine alluded to in the letter had been sent by him to the pastors and presbyters of the churches, although in a form quite different from what he had often taught orally. To this letter John Langerman added a preface written in the vernacular, which I have rendered literally as follows.3 “John Langerman sends greetings to the reader! “The grace and peace of God through Jesus Christ, pious and honest reader! For the benefit of you who cannot read Latin I have now translated into German the confession of his doctrine which Lord Bernard Rothman published, having composed it in Latin and divided it into articles. My purpose is that after seeing and reading it, you may judge whether his doctrine that he has up until now professed and is now setting before the eyes of everyone, is in conformity with the Holy Scripture and the Gospel. For although you do not know Latin,

January 16. Langerman, who was a councilor, not only added a vernacular preface but also translated the entire confession into German and published it. 2 3

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 228

6/6/2007 1:03:43 PM

the events of 1532

229

it is nonetheless your task and duty to distinguish in a sure manner which spirits are from God, since Christ appears to have spoken to no specific kind of person. Protect yourselves against false prophets,4 but also protect everyone in general who does not wish to be led astray. Everyday you hear that this Lord Bernard is reviled and taunted by certain slanderous people as if his doctrine smacked of heresy and were foreign to the Word of God, but now that he is bringing his doctrine into the light of day and setting it before the judgment of everyone, his false accusers cannot fault or blame it. It can easily be seen from this in whose hands the truth is presumed to be. It is said by Christ: “He who does evil hates the light and shuns it, lest his works be reproved.”5 Hence, honest reader, to make sure that you are not moved by the calumnies of impious, crazed men—for the truth can never be safe against the calumnies of the malevolent—weigh this confession carefully and use the Holy Scripture on it as the touchstone by which all doctrines should be tested. If you find this doctrine to be in conformity with Holy Scripture, if it attributes to Christ alone the remission (absolution) of sins and all salvation (as | the Scripture too does), do not be thrown into confusion or upset by what human enactments to the contrary and ancient custom, which would justly yield to the truth, think up, decide and ordain. For if we wish to be the sheep and disciples of Christ, it is also necessary for us to listen carefully to the voice of our shepherd and master and not to let ourselves be led astray by others. May God bestow on us His grace for the steadfast fulfillment of this matter. Dated, 1532.”

178

“Summary of the confession of the doctrine of Bernard Rothman of Stadtlohn, priest of St. Maurice’s “To the venerable gentlemen and lord servants of Christ, the lord deans, pastors and presbyters of the city of Münster and of the college of St. Maurice’s Outside-the-Walls Bernard Rothman sends greetings! “Grace from God the Father and sincere judgment through the Holy Spirit of Christ! Certain impious men do not cease to blaspheme and spit upon the Gospel of Christ Jesus that I have up until now propounded with equal measures of faith and zeal, and this now compels

4 5

Matthew 7:15. John 3:20.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 229

6/6/2007 1:03:43 PM

230

179

the events of 1532

me, my brothers, to undertake to publish in a written composition what I have up until now propagated faithfully by tongue and voice in public to the extent allowed by my modest share of grace. Since the matter bandied about in this way by the calumnies of evil men has led to my being forced to refrain from the office of preaching in public, I thought that it was necessary to use pen in place of tongue, and in writing I will attempt, as far as my humbleness allows, to carry out what I am forbidden to do by tongue: demonstrate the truth of the Gospel propounded by me. I think that it is necessary to oppose by all means these impious blasphemies by which I know that evil men most outrageously revile not my but Christ’s doctrine as hare-brained, crazy, erroneous and heretical. If I am willing to turn a blind eye to this insult to Christ and blasphemy against the Gospel or to pass it over with indifference, I will be faithless both to Christ, Whose Gospel it is that I have propounded, and to myself and my brothers, who achieve salvation through the Gospel. Accordingly, as I am duty-bound to zealously advance the glory of God and the salvation of the congregation entrusted to me, I thought it worthwhile to set against the lying calumnies of the impious a true confession of my doctrine as a kind of counter-argument. | For I am inspired by the fair hope that as soon as a true confession of my doctrine is made public, the refrains of the impious by which they hold the uneducated mob, the ignorant commons in thrall and scare them away from truly learning the Gospel’s truth, will either be completely uprooted or at least reduced in their harmful effects. Just as the man who walks in the light stumbles less,6 so too will the defamatory tricks by which the impious strive to cast the truth into shadows be less likely to trip up the minds of the simple folk if the clear light of the truth is set beside them. And so, my brothers, this is the reason, this, I say, is the explanation of why I have been forced to reduce to articles and to confess in public the main points of my doctrine, against which certain aged and virtually atheist men rage with such fury. Although these articles are of limited scope, nonetheless I think that they satisfy someone who has a moderate amount of wise experience with the Holy Scriptures and the knowledge of Christ, these being the sources from which whatever I have taught has fl owed as if

6

John 11:9.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 230

6/6/2007 1:03:43 PM

the events of 1532

231

from a spring.7 Hence, such a reader will not lack much for the purpose of assessing and judging my doctrine. To the extent that I could recall the essence and order of my doctrine, I have omitted nothing that he would not find reliably written here in the same form as it was preached. I readily submit this confession of my doctrine, my brothers, to the judgment of the whole Church, which makes its decision in accordance with Holy Scripture through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but I do so to your judgment in particular, not only for some other reasons but most of all because you, who have been entrusted with the same function as I have, ought, like me, to undertake to defend the cause of the Gospel’s truth and of the people’s salvation against the baneful calumnies of informers, even if no one warned you to. You will clearly do your duty if you assess this doctrine of mine against the standard of Holy Scriptures and do not refuse either to approve or disapprove it. However this is done is fair in my eyes so long as the light of the Gospel and the salvation of the people are upheld. For my own part, I have a clear conscience and know that I have never taught anything outside of the canon of Scripture, the only thing to which the faith conforms, as Augustine taught. Yet, by Paul’s example,8 as if making a contribution, I am readily submitting to your assessment what I have propounded, in order that the Gospel should be the safer through your support. | I beseech you in the name of your salvation, my brothers, that just as I am honestly and readily submitting to review through your assessment, you in turn should likewise be willing to read and judge this confession of my doctrine with equal honesty. If you can provide a truer doctrine, like an obedient son I am not going to spurn the doctrine of my fathers. Farewell! Münster, January 23, 1532.

180

“On Holy Scriptures “It is only to Holy Scriptures that we yield and adhere without dispute. “Holy Scriptures are those writings that can render us knowledgeable for the purpose of salvation, which is through faith in Christ Jesus, in

7 This is a reference to the theme very common in the Reformation (and made popular by Erasmus) that the original sources (that is, the books of the New Testament and, in the minds of some, ancient patristic writings) are comparable to springs giving forth pure water, while the doctrines of the medieval church are castigated as dirty ditch water. 8 Romans 15:26?

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 231

6/6/2007 1:03:43 PM

232

the events of 1532

order that God’s man should be whole, being ready for every good work. “On the Word of God “Christ Jesus is God’s true and natural Word, in which and through which everything was created and has been restored. “Scriptures which promise the remission of sins and salvation in anything other than Christ are both vain and impious. Those, on the other hand, which make this promise in Christ are properly called the Word of God. It is necessary to give firm agreement to this Word of God in all matters, and this Word of God must not be invalidated by any reasoning or by human doctrines. Every word is possible with God.9 “On God “According to the exposition of Holy Scriptures and both the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, God alone and by Himself is by nature good, true, omnipotent, just, wise, the creator and overseer of all things visible and invisible. He is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit: three persons to be sure, but they have a simple, uniform essence.

181

“On the Incarnation “In a true manner only the Son assumed on our behalf and out of the immaculate and perpetual Virgin Mary the fl esh and the entirety of human nature or rather the entire man consisting of body and soul and became a man. | This man Christ Jesus was subsumed into the unity of the hypostasis (person) of the Son of God while at the same time being a single inseparable and indivisible person. “Also, those statements made by Holy Scriptures and the Creed of the Faith about the single nature of God and the trinity of persons are correct. “On Man “God, Who from eternity for ever looks upon everything with a single, simple view, created man, who in the beginning was simple and honest, though He foresaw that man would later fall through disobedience. He likewise decided from eternity to clad His Son in human nature in order that He should repair the fall. By this means, God’s goodness has been

9

Cf. Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 18:27.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 232

6/6/2007 1:03:43 PM

the events of 1532

233

made manifest in every regard. Man, therefore, being by nature good, was made evil through disobedience. The contagion of this evil spread to all of human nature, making it so faulty10 that all men begotten by nature are born with the sin as sons of wrath.11 This general fault of nature truly is sin, damning all those who are not reborn by discovering Christ, that is, through baptism and the Holy Spirit. Thus, all men, being the linear descendants of Adam by nature, are shut up under sin as servants of sin.12 “On the Law “Through the Law we recognize this servitude to sin, the curse of human nature and the anger of God. Accordingly, the Law has been given as a cause not of righteousness but of mortification.13 It causes mortification when by recognizing our sins through it we both realize the inability of our nature to do good and are forced to despair of our own strength. Those subject to sin are condemned to eternal damnation.14 No one can be freed from being a captive to sin by the pursuits of human reasoning and by works. Human nature can by itself do nothing but sin. According to the right belonging to sin, He alone can give freedom Who is without sin. Satisfaction for sins can be carried out only by Him Who does not know sin. Christ Jesus alone did not make a sin, but was made a sin on our behalf, in order that we may live for righteousness. Righteousness, that is, the remission of sins, falls to the lot only of those who | believe in Christ through the

182

10 The image in the Latin is hard to render in English. The noun vitium literally signifies a crack in a piece of pottery and is used metaphorically of a “fl aw” or “fault.” In the ecclesiastical context, it refers to a “vice” (the form of the English borrowing) and the derived verb vitiare (literally, to “render faulty”) refers to making someone “vicious.” Unfortunately, all of the English borrowings have developed noticeably different meanings in regular discourse and are not normally thought of as being related to each other. To remedy this, I have chosen to translate the words literally (though perhaps with some loss of the implication that the “faults” in question are the sins that ruin human nature). 11 Ephesians 2:3: “We were by nature sons of wrath like the others.” 12 Ephesians 3:22: “But Scripture has shut up all things under sin”; Romans 6:17, 20: “Servants of sin.” 13 Here there is another Latin play on words that cannot be readily transferred to English. The Latin adjective justus signifies not simply “just” in the secular sense (as the English derivative does) but also “righteous” in the ecclesiastical sense. Thus, “justification” signifies “making righteous” (a sense normally lacking in modern English) and is opposed to “mortification,” which literally means “making dead” (again a sense lacking in the English derivative). 14 Cf. Mark 3:29?

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 233

6/6/2007 1:03:43 PM

234

the events of 1532

promise of the Gospel. When their sins are remitted, men are then truly made righteous. “On Faith “Only through faith in Christ are sins graciously forgiven by God. This grace is made manifest to the elect through the Gospel and is perceived through faith. Just as nothing but faith gives righteousness, so too is there no sin but lack of belief. Faith, furthermore, does not give salvation because it believes but because God promised salvation to the believer. Faith means the firm conviction and steadfast awareness, through the Holy Spirit, of righteousness and salvation, which is acquired through no good works at all but only through the grace of merciful God as a result of hearing His Word. The greatest happiness in this faith is knowing that you are the heir of eternal goods. Just as no one can please God without faith, so too is it impossible for faith to exist without many constant great works. Faith that does not work through charity is not faith but dead opinion.15 Without the fruits or enjoyment of faith, which alone works wondrous mortifications in men, no one is saved. By faith one tastes how sweet the Lord is, and with the discovery of this most precious pearl, the notion of becoming righteous through works is considered rubbish. “On Good Works “There is no merit of human work by which grace can be received. Good works are the fruits of faith, evil works those of lack of belief. Works contribute to salvation to the extent that fruits contribute to the essence of the tree. Man produces the fruit of good works to the extent that he has put down roots in Christ. It is not faith or righteousness that come from works but works that come from faith and righteousness. Every work that does not derive from faith is sin.16 A good work sometimes is done through the opinion of seeking righteousness and salvation through it. Such opinion is complete impiety, unhappiness and idolatry and sins against the faith, the promise of God’s truth and the entire first tablet.17 Only those works approved by Holy Scripture

Cf. James 2:26 (also 17, 20). Romans 14:23. 17 Presumably a reference to commandments one through four, which concern God (as opposed to five through ten, which deal with human relations, and are 15 16

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 234

6/6/2007 1:03:44 PM

the events of 1532

235

are good and only those disapproved by it are evil. According to the goodness or badness of our works, we will be adjudged to eternal blessedness or damnation, because works are testimonials to our piety or to impiety. “On Human Enactments “Works connected with human enactments are either pointless or impious. Those who publicly promise the remission of sin, righteousness and salvation on the basis of works connected with human enactments are the most impudent deceivers. Those who fight on behalf of human enactments as being necessary for salvation are unworthy of the designation “Christian Church,” since the Church is nourished and governed not by human decisions but by the revelations of God.

183

“On the Church “The Christian Church is the congregation of the saintly. The saintly are those believers who are marked out by the spirit of sanctification, which belongs to Christ. The spirit of sanctification falls to one’s lot as the result of the preaching of the faith (the Gospel). Faith comes only from the Word of God. The Church does not invalidate the Word of God. Similarly, the Church does not have the power to draw up any article of the faith. It never has done this and never will forever. He alone has the power to make articles of the faith who has the ability to make promises and grants. The Church of God ordains and arranges all faith, customs and actions by the standard of the Word of God. Hence, those human enactments which confl ict with the Gospel of Christ must not be obeyed. It is not the agreement of men, received tradition, the authority of the Doctors,18 or the devotion of the mind, as they say, that make a work good, but the testimony of Scripture alone. It is not because of ceremonies that believers are called the “Holy Catholic Church” in the common expression but because of the fact that they hold the one God, the same Word of the Gospel, the same spirit and the same head, which is Christ.

conceived of as occupying the first of the two tablets on which Moses inscribed the commandments. 18 Literally, “teachers,” the technical term for the writers recognized as orthodox and authoritative by the medieval Church.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 235

6/6/2007 1:03:44 PM

236

184

the events of 1532

“On Ceremonies “The Church of God has the power to ordain ceremonies, provided, however, that these ceremonies do not confl ict with the articles of the faith or the prescriptions of works, that they are possible and in the Church’s power, and that they do not disturb or oblige the conscience. Ceremonies are the rites that have been enacted by the agreement of the Church, so that ministering the Word, the administration of the sacraments and the other observances of piety may be performed in the ordained manner. These are considered to be indifferent according to the assessment of the practice.19 Just as those ceremonies that are performed in a superstitious manner should be considered both useless and impious, being contrary to the faith and the Word of God, | so too should only those that are performed in accordance with the faith and in conformity with the Word for the edification of the Church be considered useful. “On the Ministers of the Church “There is only one true master of the Church, namely Christ, Who, for the purpose of salvation, gives internal instruction through the Spirit in the faith of the Word. The reason why He has given external bishops, pastors and deacons to teach and guide the Church with the external Word is to assure that everything is done in the ordained way. All Christians are priests, because they all ought to offer their bodies as a holy sacrifice. They are not all ministers of the Church, however. The true servants of the Church and spirituals are specifically those who, having been enlightened through the Holy Spirit, are in charge of teaching the doctrine of the Gospel, administering the sacraments and serving the poor. Through the Gospel three things are presented to the Church: the doctrine of the faith and of works and the tokens of the promises.

19 The term “adiaphoron” derives ultimately from Stoic philosophy, in which it signified matters that are not morally obligatory and are thus matters of indifference to the sage: the term literally means “that which is indifferent.” This term was picked up by certain reformers, especially Melanchthon, to designate doctrinal and ritual matters that are considered to be neither directly enjoined by the New Testament nor contradictory to it. Such matters thus do not “matter” and can be adopted or rejected at will. A liberal attitude in defining the practices that fall into this category would allow a certain amount of the ritual and dogma of the medieval Church to survive, while a stricter interpretation would lead to much more thoroughgoing changes. Luther clearly leaned in the former direction.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 236

6/6/2007 1:03:44 PM

the events of 1532

237

“On the Sacraments “The tokens are neither righteousness nor the fruits of righteousness but the things by which we are reminded of the promise and made sure of God’s grace. There are two tokens of the New Testament, that is, of the promise of grace: baptism and sharing in the Lord’s Supper. “On Baptism “Baptism is a sure token by which it is betokened that we pass through death to life. Just as the people of Israel considered the crossing of the Red Sea to be a sure testimony to God’s grace, so too is being baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit an indisputable pledge for us of God’s favor. Our being baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit betokens for us that our sins are remitted by this same Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If salvation is the purpose of grasping this promise, a process that takes place through faith, then it is worthwhile that it should be announced to the listeners in open language. “On the Eucharist “Sharing in the Lord’s Supper is a token that reminds us of the grace that is given through Christ. The sole and true purpose of this sacrament is to make the heart’s faith certain through Him. Just as Gideon was made certain of a successful outcome through receiving the fl eece,20 | so too are we made certain of the grace given through the Gospel by eating the body of the Lord and drinking His blood. In accordance with what Scripture attests and Christ instituted, we are all obliged to take communion in both kinds, as the saying goes.21

185

“On the Mass “The Mass, as they call it, is not a sacrifice but the token of true sacrifice. Just as Gideon offered nothing in receiving the fl eece, so too do we offer nothing when sharing in the Lord’s Supper. Among Christians there is no more sacrifice on account of sin. For with His unique offering, Christ has rendered ever perfect those who are made saintly. Just as Christ no longer dies, so too is He not offered. Masses Judges 6:37–40. In traditional Catholic practice, the communicants receive only the wafer, the wine being reserved for the officiant. Protestant practice gave the communicant both “kinds.” 20

21

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 237

6/6/2007 1:03:44 PM

238

the events of 1532

that are celebrated on behalf of others (and this for sake of money) are completely impious and blasphemous, so far from being of any benefit. Just as each individual is baptized in his own name, so too does each individual participate in the Lord’s Supper in his own name. The only use of the Mass (the meal of the Lord, which they call the Mass) is to remind us of the death of Christ and to make us certain in our hearts of the promises made by the grace and will of God. Through the Word meaningfully uttered, the use and fruit of this sacrament is made known. This Word should be uttered openly in understandable speech. Masses and rites for the dead intended to secure their release from Purgatory are of course tricks with which to snare other people’s money. Apparitions of the spirits of the dead are either dreams or illustrations of the Devil. It is sinful to ask the truth from the dead, and an abomination in the eyes of God. “On Purgatory “Also, Purgatory, which is thought to expiate the sins of the dead, is nothing but an impious fabrication. The opinion about Purgatory confl icts with all Holy Scripture. For if Purgatory and its accoutrements are able to wipe away the filth of sins, then God’s promises are pointless lies. For it is only through Christ that He promises the remission of sins and grants it to believers. The believers fit for this promise are in truth those who are led everyday by their repentance for their sins to crucify their fl esh along with their lusts. Such is the true cleansing of our ancient sin. 186

“On Repentance “Repentance is the mortification of our ancient sin and spiritual renewal. Such mortification takes place through the Law, when it shows sin. Vivification,22 on the other hand, takes place when the remission of sins is bestowed. In showing sin, the Law scares and kills it. In proclaiming that sins have been pardoned because of Christ, the Gospel consoles, encourages and vivifies. Repentance leads us to confess our sins and to yearn for absolution. Without repentance, confession is pointless.

22

The granting of (eternal) life.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 238

6/6/2007 1:03:44 PM

the events of 1532

239

“On Confession “Repentance does not consist of five ‘Our Father’s,’ a fast or any bodily observance but of the earnest hatred of sin through the Holy Spirit. They truly confess who recognize their sins and in giving themselves up for lost remand themselves along with their hatred of sin to Christ. They truly remand themselves to Christ who vigorously strive both to become and to be in conformity with His image. “On the Works of Charity “Christ dedicated all His efforts to helping and saving His brothers. Thus, those who wish to be Christians ought to have the same urge when training themselves in the works of charity. In their works, Christians look not towards some merit but towards the will of God and the benefit of their neighbor. Just as the limbs of the body do not serve their own interests, such is the case with Christians. Loving one’s neighbor is the perfection of the Law and works no evil. The reason why Christians constantly train themselves with a view to piety by praying, fasting and holding vigils and so on is to chastise their body and subordinate it to the service of love. “On Prayer “Prayer is the ardent spirit sighing within us to God the Father in order to receive some necessity or anything at all with faith through Christ. In this way, the pious strive towards God with a certain constant perseverance, and for this reason Christ says: “It is necessary to pray all the time.”23 True prayer does not need a voice or words unless it will be appropriate to strengthen it with the common agreement of the Church. Nonetheless, we do not reject spoken prayers that come from the heart. Yet, the muttering of words and the chattering of lips, | chants and the other supposed prayers that are produced without paying attention and faith are abominable. The prayers of the pious believers are common to all. No one may, with money or a reward, usurp a Christian’s praying for himself alone or for anyone he wants to. As for those who peddle their prayers for profit for any reason at all, their praying turns into a sin.

23

187

Luke 18:1.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 239

6/6/2007 1:03:44 PM

240

the events of 1532

“On the Intercessor “Just as there is a single God, so too is the prayer of Christians, like everything else, welcome to God through a single intercessor, the God and man, Christ Jesus. The means through which the Heavenly Father is prevailed upon to accede to prayers belongs to Christ alone. “On Invocation “Those who invoke dead saints as guardian deities deny the faith. For faith, being fixed in the promise of God, patiently awaits the promised help which it ardently asks for and is certainly granted. It was not in the name of the saints that any promise of salvation was made but in the name of Christ. Dead saints should not be honored with any religious worship but through the imitation of their faith and good works. Since all the saints love God with all their heart, with all their soul, and with all their strength, no loyalty is more welcome to them than that we should love God most ardently just as they did. From the beginning of the world down to its culmination, it is only through Christ that all the saints have secure access to God. As for the person who heads towards God from some other direction and not through this opening, he is a thief and a brigand.24 “On Statues “Whoever places the name of some saint on a statue and in time of need invokes it under the guise of religion is an impious idolater. Images that are set out like harlots for worship are not to be tolerated by Christians since they are in diametrical confl ict with the Word of God. As for those that are not set out for worship, we are so far from condemning them that we recognize both the painted and sculpted portrait of God as gifts. “On Pilgrimages “Visiting statues and carrying them around for the sake of religion is an impious superstition. Whoever vows such pilgrimages commits sin through this very vow, because he makes a vow in violation of the faith.

24

Cf. John 10:1.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 240

6/6/2007 1:03:44 PM

the events of 1532

241

“On Vows “Just as a woman has no right to make a vow without her husband’s consent even in connection with permissible acts, so too should Christians make no vow contrary to the will of Christ, their bridegroom. Just as anyone who makes a vow contrary to Scripture truly sins, so too does anyone who makes a vow of something that is not within his power slip the noose of death around his own neck. An unlawful vow can be lawfully disregarded.

188

“On Exorcisms “Exorcisms performed on animals, statues, water, candles, plants, church bells and other such things are of no avail. Every creation of God is good, being sanctified through the Word. They cannot be improved with our exorcism; they are good or bad for us according to whether we use them properly or otherwise. All things are clean for the clean.25 Lack of faith and misuse are evils in connection with all things. “On the Higher Power “For misuse to be corrected or done away with in connection with all things, a two-fold form of governance is necessary: spiritual and bodily. “On the Ecclesiastical Government “Spiritual government is the government in which consciences are taught the Word of God and are ruled. This government is administered through the ministers of the Word, as is proven by Christ (Matthew 16,26 1 Corinthians 4 27). In giving some injunction by the Word of God, the administrators of this government should be listened to just like Christ. If, on the other hand, their decision stands in contradiction to the Word, it is necessary to watch out against false prophets and to obey God rather than men.28 The bodily government is civil administration by which the body is restrained, property is divided and force is prohibited.

Titus 1:15. Perhaps Rothman has in mind Verse 16, in which Christ gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. 27 Verse 1: “Let man consider us as ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God.” 28 Cf. Matthew 7:5 and Acts 5:29. 25 26

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 241

6/6/2007 1:03:44 PM

242

189

the events of 1532

“On Secular Government “This government is administered through the official who is called secular. The secular official is the one to whom God has entrusted the right to use the sword to punish the evil and praise the good.29 Christ gives His approval to such an official ( John 1030 and Romans 1331). Honor and obedience are owed to him on account not simply of wrath but also | of conscience. If the official gives a command in accordance with the will of God, he should be obeyed like God. If he gives a tyrannical command, in this case too he should be tolerated for the sake of charity. If, however, he gives a command contrary to God, he should not in any way be obeyed. Any act that is contrary to the Word of God and the approved laws should be punished without regard for anyone’s status by the official, who is the minister of God’s punishment. Whatever evil act the official permits freely or with impunity, of this he is himself guilty. The official who wishes both to be and to be considered a Christian one ought to punish pseudo-prophets too. The official not only is compelled, like any private individual, to avoid those who lead astray but may not even tolerate them in the state without endangering his own salvation. Just as God causes a hypocrite to rule because of the people’s sins,32 in order for the sin to be punished and the people scattered, so too is there a gushing away of the public salvation if an impious official is in command. Above all else it is worthwhile to pray on behalf of those in power that they should rule in the fear of God, in order that salvation and peace should remain intact for everyone forever. Amen! “Here then, my brothers, is the abridgment of my doctrine, which I firmly believe, teach and defend just as has been set out. So long as I am allowed to breathe, on the basis of my duty I neither can nor ought to do otherwise. For it has been brought forth not from the workshop of my mind or from the gutters of human enactments but from the archives of God’s revelations, from which only the doctrine of salutary knowledge is imbibed. For all that, we have performed the task in a crude and succinct way because of the shortness of time, the annoying distraction of other affairs and a meagreness of talent and grace. If only

1 Peter 2:14. Presumably Rothman has in mind the statement that shepherds should give up their lives for their fl ock (Verses 11–14). 31 Verses 1–3. 32 Job 34:30. 29 30

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 242

6/6/2007 1:03:44 PM

the events of 1532

243

we had been able to expound everything more deeply and more richly! But because the occasion does not allow this, we remain content with these statements, though if necessary we will go over individual points more broadly in the future. We think that the words that we have set down here and have taught up until now are such that someone could easily scoff at them (and what can be safe against reproaches in the present day?) but no one can uproot them. But if some one wishes to try his luck, he will certainly recognize and perceive that the truth is by far the strongest thing of all. Accordingly, it is as pleasant and welcome to us as it is fair and just that we should entrust every last thing to the Holy Scriptures, by which the truth is recognized, and to the church, which forms its judgment from the Spirit in accordance with those Scriptures. May the truth be victorious! In the year 1532.” I think it a good idea to insert these articles of Rothman’s so that the pious reader may understand, first, in what regards they diverge from the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and, second, how far they differ from those which he later taught and defended after falling into the Anabaptist error. At first, to be sure, he fought quite vigorously against the Anabaptists, as he himself attests in a letter written by him to Busch on September 6, 1532, in which he states among other things, “Now my business is with the Anabaptists, who temporarily left us but threatened as they departed to return with greater force. On the other hand, if God is for us, who can be against us?” The commons eagerly embraced these theses of Rothman’s and petitioned the council to grant them permission to adhere to them safely. This petition was published under Rothman’s authorization and sent to the surrounding small towns in order that the example of the local metropolis should entice the largest number of people possible to embrace a similar religion and profession of faith and that this religion should be spread as far as possible, resulting in the hatred or rather overthrow of the entire clergy. The Catholic preachers in the city made no response to these articles, perhaps because they thought that all proper decisions had been made in the general councils and that the thieving commoners, who were plotting to defect from the authority of the ancient councils and from the official decisions, could not be prevailed upon to stop by the preachers’ private response. Perhaps, they thought it inexpedient to bring upon themselves the anger of the commons, who favored Rothman’s novel doctrines, with contentious argumentation and mutual recrimination,

190

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 243

6/6/2007 1:03:45 PM

244

191

192

the events of 1532

especially since they were enclosed within the walls of the same city and they saw that the power to pass judgment was in the hands of the commons. | Accordingly, they judged it the safer course to keep silent rather than provoke the troublemakers under these circumstances, causing themselves to be killed and their possessions to be plundered. Hence, the spirits of the factious, Rothman’s self-confidence, and the contempt in which the clergy were held all increased. The clergy came to be so hated that they scarcely dared to walk in public because of the impertinent rebukes of the troublemakers. All this happened because of the inopportune clemency, not to say indolence, laziness and neglect of the officials, who did not punish those responsible for the trouble-making at the start, when the situation was as yet lukewarm, and instead left them unpunished until their madness blazed forth more brightly. For the nature of rebellious troublemakers is such that if checked in the beginning they act less energetically, but if the start turns out well, they do not quiet down, and they do not end their rioting or in any way limit it unless they are made to plummet from top to bottom in such a way that they have no hope left of escaping. In this situation it is impossible that they should not also drag along with them to their doom the officials, who have been overcome through their longstanding toleration. So, the troublemakers in the city were neither checked nor crushed, and by an incremental process like climbing some stairway to the pinnacle of rebellion, they climbed up from crime to crime, from madness to madness, from rebellion to rebellion. It would not have been sufficient in their eyes merely to blacken the reputations of the opponents of their religion with insults, if they did not also make themselves and their supporters renowned with honors and exalted with offices. Since no church was available to Rothman for preaching either outside the city because of the prince’s prohibition or inside it because of the opposition of the clergy, they undertook to open one through force. Therefore, on January 23, a certain | Herman Bisping, who had severely offended both the prince and council in that it was said that he had forged letters and defrauded very many people with counterfeit money, Herman Tilbeck, Caspar Schrodercken, Arnold Belholt, a public judge and, as the story went, an adulterer, Bernard Knipperdolling the tailor and John Ummegrove, a pettifogger and defender of legal cases, were men who seemed prepared to risk not only their possessions but also their reputations and lives on behalf of Rothman if necessary, and on February 6 they brought Rothman to the cemetery of St. Lambert, accompanied by an escort of certain troublemakers and strengthened

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 244

6/6/2007 1:03:45 PM

the events of 1532

245

with a guard of what was claimed to be certain leading men of the city. This was contrary to the decree of the prince and council, and not only did the main clergy resist but in the end all the good men and respectable matrons in the city shouted out in protest. When the church remained completely closed to him, they at first refrained from violence and listened to him as he preached from a wooden pulpit that stood before the repository for skulls.33 This sermon, in which he preached about the extravagant evangelical freedom and the abolition of idolatry, infl amed everyone with such zealous ardor that they suddenly rushed to all the parish churches in the city, where they broke open the repositories for the Eucharist and pillaged the altar clothes, smashed the images, and destroyed all the ancient decorations and adornments of the churches, profaning everything sacred since they thought nothing sacred that confl icted with Rothman’s dogma. In this way, all the churches in the city apart from the cathedral were exposed to the wantonness of the factious, and the pastor of St. Lambert’s was removed to make a position available to Rothman. As a result of the troublemakers’ impunity in this, the crowd was so increased and encouraged that it did not pay much attention to the prince’s authority, the clergy’s dignity or the council’s warnings and decrees. Now everything in the city was tending not only towards open rebellion but toward violence, random slaughter, the pillaging of both public and private property, and, in short, the overthrow of the entire state. | After this turn of events was not punished appropriately by Frederick of Wede the bishop, he thought it better for himself to give up the bishopric than to get involved in calming these dangerous uproars and suppressing those responsible. Accordingly, on March 24 (Palm Sunday), in the sacristy of the parish church of a little town in the diocese called Werne he resigned from the bishopric that he had overseen well for more than nine years, placing it in the hands of the cathedral chapter and reserving for himself an income of 2000 fl orins per annum from its revenues. For the very circumspect prince foresaw the coming ruin of both the city and the entire diocese, and to avoid this he returned to Cologne, where he gave himself entirely over to repose and lived as a private individual until his death in 1549.

193

33 Space in cemeteries being limited, the bones of older burials would be removed to make way for new ones and placed in a repository called a charnel house in expectation of the resurrection.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 245

6/6/2007 1:03:45 PM

246 194

195

the events of 1532

At this point, men weighty both by birth and by authority were appointed in the customary way, being put in charge by public agreement. The job of administering the diocese is entrusted to them as if during an interregnum, and they are called “vicars” in Latin and “Stadtholders”34 in the vernacular in that they exercise “vicariously” the administrative functions in the absence of a bishop. Their administration lasts not simply to the election of the new bishop but until the election is confirmed and sanctioned by the pope. Once that happens, full legal possession of the diocese is transferred to the new prince along with the entire powers of administration. Realizing that domestic dissension had arisen in the city because of religion, these diocesan vicars resolved to send a precautionary letter to the townsmen by their own authority, reminding them of the Imperial decrees promulgated in 1530 at the Diet of Augsburg that prohibited any innovation in religion or any rash change in ceremonial, and advised that it was necessary to await the decision of an ecumenical council. The vicars urged the towns to be mindful of their own salvation and civil concord, obeying the council and refraining from all innovation, especially in the matter of religion. For, they said, the example of many cities had always shown such innovation to be dangerous, since it had disturbed many cities in various areas and caused great uproars that were accompanied by horrible revolution and lamentable destruction not just in the distant cities to the southeast but also in the neighboring cities of Westphalia. The townsmen should therefore take thought for themselves and their wives and children and not let themselves be rashly and contumaciously alienated from the other estates of the diocese. Instead, they should free themselves from every suspicion of rebellion to which they were subject, receiving a bad reputation from this. In this way, the vicars said, they would receive from God not merely grace and salvation but also unbroken tranquility in their state. This letter was approved, but it could not placate the commons or call them back from the course of madness upon which they had set. After Frederick of Wied had resigned as bishop, the main clergy who have the sole right to elect the bishop, on March 27 unanimously chose Eric of Grubenhagen, the bishop of Osnabrück and Paderborn, to put in charge of the Church of Münster. This choice displeased the troublemakers to an unimaginable extent. Since he was born of the

34

“Place holders” or “lieutenants.”

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 246

6/6/2007 1:03:45 PM

the events of 1532

247

illustrious and noble house of the dukes of Brunswick, and was related by blood to many of the most powerful princes in Germany who were particularly devoted to the Catholic religion, the troublemakers were especially afraid of his strength and power, being fully convinced that not only would all their most cherished endeavors collapse but they themselves would have to pay the price for all the trouble they had caused. Their aim, therefore, was to drive the commons in the city to join in their criminal behavior, implicating them in their evildoing and making it impossible to punish their own crime because of the large number of malefactors. Therefore, at the urging of the commons, Rothman sent to Eric, who was now elected bishop, the articles of faith that he had stitched together (and are set out above), and promised that he would defend them at the risk of his own life before an audience of any right thinking men, thinking that with these articles he would make the bishop more clement to himself and his followers. At the suggestion of Rothman and his followers, the whole mob of the rabble and the workers made a petition to the aldermen and guild masters about maintaining religious concord in the city, though they appeared to approve and adopt Rothman’s dogma and | to reject and oppose that of the other priests. The following letter of petition was made public and presented on April 16. “In the civil society of cities nothing there is better or more excellent than public concord and firmly established peace, and such a situation can be kept only if the burghers readily submit to a single religion and to a common justice and obedience to the laws. We have noticed to our great grief and lamentation that in the business of religion and the cause of the faith, which ought to be the chief element in our salvation, there have arisen in our city the most severe dissensions and the worst disputes, which will, unless merciful God should prevent this, violate the common rights, abrogate obedience to the laws, and cast the entire state headlong into the total and inevitable destruction. Therefore, in order to avert this calamity from ourselves and our wives and children and to avoid being justifiably considered obstinate rebels, as we are criticized by some, it seemed to us helpful and necessary to seek refuge as suppliants with you as our immediate ruler and to ask that you not deny us just protection and support before our city council. It has no doubt not escaped your notice that no little controversy and contention has arisen among us in the business of the faith with reference to preaching. For those who would urge us with a single doctrine to one

196

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 247

6/6/2007 1:03:45 PM

248

197

the events of 1532

faith, the fear of God and mutual concord disagree among themselves in full warfare. On the one side, through the Word of God Bernard Rothman has restored to the light from the filthy darkness the evangelical Truth that had up until now been overwhelmed by manifold abuses and destructive errors, and he asserts that he will demonstrate this at the risk of his own life both with the living voice in sermons and in writings. On the other side, no one dares to oppose Rothman openly by engaging him in battle with Scriptural quotations. Hence, we have no doubt that his doctrine is in conformity with the Gospel and the Truth. We do, however, notice that certain people oppose this doctrine, both in private grumblings and in public sermons. Hence, in order for all disputation to be dispelled in the state and concord nourished, we ask you with great confidence and advise you earnestly that since Rothman has offered to have his doctrine examined by the judgment of all doctors or rather by the entire world, you should intercede with the council and prevail upon them to force the priests of this city by the government’s authority | to prove Rothman guilty of error, if they can, through manifest Scripture (in which case he would not only keep quiet but also endure the punishment that he has voluntarily imposed upon himself if defeated) or make themselves conform to his doctrine and teach the Word of God in pure doctrine or themselves keep quiet and no longer oppose the truth to the detriment of many souls in order to avoid stirring up anew a further uproar in this state. For as long as the preachers contend with each other in doctrine and cause division among the people, there should be no expectation of either peace or civil concord among us ever. Accordingly, since both sides disagree about the same point and for this reason one side must be wickedly deviating from the truth, our only wish, our only desire is to be freed from false doctrine. For nothing more deleterious can happen to our souls than that to be convinced of the correctness of false doctrine, since Christ in particular, the sole restorer of our salvation, as well as the decrees of his Imperial Majesty and the letter written by the vicars of this diocese, order every one of us to keep our guard against false doctrine. In order, then, that peace and tranquility should once more be sown, cherished, nurtured and preserved among us, we think it fair and necessary that the other preachers should, just like Rothman, make public a confession of their own doctrine and of any solid complaint they have against him, so that there should finally be an end to the disputes. There are in fact very just reasons why we judge that Rothman’s dogma is pure and untainted by any of the filth of human tradition and that it instead

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 248

6/6/2007 1:03:45 PM

the events of 1532

249

agrees with the Gospel. For he has promised of his own accord that he would, without any recourse to violence, demonstrate the correctness of his doctrine before uncorrupted judges, and, if it should turn out that he is defeated by the Word of God, he would readily yield to the truth and to the penalty that would be imposed upon him. It being the case, however, that they cite nothing from Holy Writings that seems to contradict Rothman, it is our view that their doctrine, however ancient and outwardly holy, is nonetheless contrived falsehood. Accordingly, we think it necessary to adhere to the Truth, the pure Word of God, until someone shows us better doctrines. Also, if learned men are to be summoned here from elsewhere for this purpose, it is our wish that this should be done at our expense and cost. Being Christians, we desire only that which is pious, respectable and salubrious, and would restore, nourish | and preserve our mutual concord. May God grant us His grace plentifully, so that we may achieve these ends. Amen! We trust that you will not be remiss in pleading before the council our cause, or rather the common cause of everyone.” These requests were reported to the council by the aldermen and guild masters, and while the council was deliberating about the answer to be given, the following letter that Prince Eric dispatched to the council and all the estates of the city on April 17 was delivered. “After we had, through the arrangement of divine providence, been chosen unanimously as bishop of the diocese of Münster, we received word of the following, by no means vain news. A certain Bernard Rothman, a priest who had the duty of preaching at St. Maurice’s Outside-the-Walls, had, in specious preaching, made statements that seemed to bring the ancestral religion into contention and to lead the congregation into error. Therefore, our predecessor Frederick had for very just reasons forbidden Rothman to exercise the function of preaching and had, after Rothman had shown insufficient obedience to this decree, revoked and removed his safe conduct to live within the city. This Rothman took up residence within the walls in contempt of said bishop, and the protection of certain members of his faction allowed him to usurp a place in the parish church of St. Lambert in violation of the Imperial Edict promulgated at Augsburg and in contempt of his ruler. He then preached unaccustomed doctrines, introduced novel ceremonies and chants after abolishing the old ones, and by these acts stirred up a large part of the populace to such an extent that many men, having broken or shattered all the laws of civilized behavior, piety, obedience and concord, follow a sect of impious novelty, in violation

198

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 249

6/6/2007 1:03:45 PM

250

199

the events of 1532

both of the Christian concord that has been successfully maintained since the establishment of Christianity down to the present day and of the edicts and recesses35 of the Imperial Diets. As a result of this, the thing first to be feared is sedition and the next is the eventual overthrow of all that is good. It is, in fact, impossible to state with what sadness we learned this news. For as far as we are concerned, nothing more welcome could happen to us than that mutual concord, Christian charity, and true peace should be restored to you by God’s will. Therefore, we ask of you sincerely and warn you in a friendly way that | you should retain the traditional religion and the ancient ceremonies that have been bequeathed to us by our ancestors and maintained with true piety until the present day, that you should suppress the rioting of the commons and restrain them from every sort of criminal innovation until a permanent religious settlement is arranged. For our certainly favorable attitude towards you would be most grievously enraged if your rebellion called down upon us the outrage of the Emperor and brought upon us disfavor from him and punishment from the Empire. Let me point out to you the following point, which you should consider carefully. If, as I hardly expect, you are going to reject this very pious undertaking, this more than paternal attitude and this very friendly warning of ours, be advised that I will be obligated to fulfill what is demanded by my duty and the Imperial edict, namely preserve Christian charity and public tranquility among you. I leave you to think more deeply about all this. We expect a definite answer from you as to which among them you are going to do.” In response, the council wrote back on April 18 that they had, with the appropriate reverence, received, read and understood the letter sent by the prince to all the estates of the city specifically about the preacher Lord Bernard Rothman and others. Therefore, they said, they would make their burghers and other concerned parties aware of the letter at a suitable time and place. After that they would soon send a reply based in the traditional way on the common consultation of all the estates. After Eric’s letter had been read before the aldermen and guild masters and certain leading men among the commons and finally before the entire estate of the commons and they had made a copy of it for

35

Diet.

“Recess” is the technical term for the concluding resolution of an Imperial

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 250

6/6/2007 1:03:45 PM

the events of 1532

251

Rothman, who was the man most concerned in this matter, they spent several days in prolonged deliberation. Impelled by his great confidence and impetuosity, Rothman forestalled the council by sending a response himself, writing to Prince Eric on April 19, as follows. “At the start, I send grace from God the Father through Jesus Christ, His only Son, and the ready compliance of my innocence, most reverend and glorious prince! Although I could easily understand from the letter that you sent about me in particular to the council and all the estates of Münster | in what unjust ways my detractors have falsely denounced me before you for sedition and rebellion, or rather for piety, I have nonetheless conceived the firm and confident hope that in light of the outstanding nobility of your birth and your exceptional love of fairness, you will be second only to God in not only patiently allowing me to clear myself against the false accusations of my enemies but also, after you are sure of my innocence, defend me, as befits a Christian prince, against all the defamation and injury infl icted on me by denouncers. For the fact that you have been divinely appointed as bishop of this diocese I rightly congratulate you and me and thank God, who does not so much set princes in charge of states as govern their hearts. And God will not, I am fairly sure, tolerate that after I have cleared myself, your heart should persist in such suspicion as a favor to these detractors, who happen to be the enemies of the Almighty no less than they are mine. For it is not my cause but that of God and His Truth that I uphold, for this reason receiving in large measure the greatest hatred and the most serious and savage insults. “You write that you have learned through by no means false report that I have, in performing the office of preacher at St. Maurice’s Outside-the-Walls, made in specious sermons statements that seemed to bring the ancestral religion into contention and to lead the congregation into error, and that therefore your predecessor Frederick had for very just reasons forbidden me to exercise the duty of preaching and had, after I had shown insufficient obedience to this decree, revoked and removed his safe conduct to live within the city. Most glorious prince, I ask you in supplication and for God’s sake to follow your usual mercy and allow me to respond. From this it will easily become apparent in what a miserable way I am being treated and my reputation, such as it is, is being torn to shreds. It certainly is true that I have been called upon by divine providence (as I hope) and selected and appointed by the usual human ordination as the priest (chaplain) of St. Maurice’s, as well as endowed with the ecclesiastical benefice that is attached to the

200

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 251

6/6/2007 1:03:45 PM

252

201

the events of 1532

position. With God’s help I have carried out the duty entrusted to me with such faith that I have always been prepared to give an accounting of it before God and the entire world. I have not shirked the judgments of all good men, and if I have behaved badly in this duty, | I have made no excuse to avoid the penalty that the transgression deserves. Beyond all this, however, I suffered calamitous harm to my reputation through being accused before Frederick, and although I could never learn the charge or the name of the accuser, so that I would have been able to clear myself (a course to which I always offered myself ), nonetheless, persuasion by my detractors led that good prince to forbid me to exercise the duty of preaching even though I had not been allowed to give an excuse, much less been convicted of any crime. I did not spit out his order with contempt, as they have persuaded you, or reject it at all. Although I knew myself to be innocent and yearned to see the face of the slanderer who dared to make up such lies about me, nonetheless I obeyed his command until such time as I would clear myself, to the extent that I could in writing since I was not granted a personal audience, by invoking the protection of justice and fairness against that lying whisperer. Later, however, when no account was taken of either justice or fairness and neither the accuser nor the charge were revealed to the light of day, I resumed the calling of the duty that I had undertaken, relying on my innocence and heeding the command of God, to which I owe priority if I mean to carry out the office of preacher. Therefore, most reverend prince, the man who not only obeys justice but invokes it in his defense as I have always done and am still doing, cannot be judged a contumacious rebel, as is the case with me. The reason that induced the prince to make a public declaration revoking the safe conduct for my wretched self (that is, the false denunciations of my enemies) I entrust to the Lord God and leave this matter for your more careful consideration, lest I cause you to become sick and tired of listening if at this point I verbosely count off one-by-one all the things that have undeservedly happened to me. “Also, most gloriously prince, the accusation lodged before you against me that I took up residence within the walls in contempt of Frederick is completely contrary to the truth. Since one of his subordinates summoned me to him in the city and there in the name of the prince he took away my security from me, denying me the right of defense and all safe conduct, necessity compelled me in defense of my innocence to avail myself of the Imperial liberty of the city in which I was living.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 252

6/6/2007 1:03:46 PM

the events of 1532

253

“In addition, | you write that the protection of certain members of my faction allowed me to usurp a place in the parish church of St. Lambert without the lawful permission of the ruler, and that there I preached unaccustomed doctrines and introduced novel ceremonies and chants. If only my innocence were clear to you, most honored prince! In that case, those defamers would certainly regret their false accusation and poisonous tongue! For after I had been asked to preach in the time of Frederick, I not only approached my ruler but also demonstrated with the most weighty explanations that I ought not to fail divine providence and the calling to preach (if he allows). I also requested that since I was being pressed to preach from various quarters, the ruler should give an indication of his will, since, I said, I would do nothing contrary to his wishes. Hence, it is easy to see that I wished to satisfy my calling, not with any help from the factious but with the faithful help of Almighty God alone. When, then, I was called upon to preach, by the ruler’s permission I mounted the pulpit in the place where the congregation yearning to hear the Word of God had gathered. Without injury or harm to anyone and in mindfulness of my duty, I taught the Words of Life, something that should in justice be denied to no Christian. For by what right will one man be forbidden to teach another in doctrine, especially in a spot intended for such teaching? After I was called and sought nothing but the public good and civil tranquility, as the truth attests, I did not think it necessary to ask of anyone permission to do good, since this would be altogether contrary to praiseworthy custom and Christian freedom. For it always has been permissible to do good without anyone’s leave, and it always will be. I at least would have been right to have expected gratitude for a good deed from a ruler even if I had done so without his authorization, though in fact I did nothing without it. The reason why every Christian ruler has been appointed by God is that he should of his own accord invite everyone to do good. If, one the other hand, he gives some order that is hostile to God, Scripture orders me to obey God rather than men.36 “Therefore, most glorious prince, since I have been accused by those who slander me of disobedience and rebellion and of having preached impious, erroneous and novel doctrines that are contrary to all the peace and tranquility that has been maintained up until now and that have resulted in nothing but dissension and horrendous sedition, I beg you

36

202

Acts 5:29.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 253

6/6/2007 1:03:46 PM

254 203

204

the events of 1532

in the name of everything sacred and of divine and human justice | to force my denouncer to demonstrate the truth of the charges laid against me. If I am convicted with incontestable proofs, not only will I refrain from the duty of preaching as the council, aldermen and guild masters wish because of your prompting, but I will also be prepared to undergo the penalty that the deeds deserve. However, since I know that I am innocent of the crime of which I am accused, since the duty of preaching has been laid upon me by God, who is owed more obedience than is any man, and since very many pious people are asking for my services, I neither can nor ought to refrain from carrying out the task of preaching in public without risk to my eternal salvation. I therefore have no doubt that you will lend me your support and defense, since I have full confidence that you are an outstanding bulwark of God’s truth and glory. May you look upon this attempt of mine, such as it is, to clear my name with a benevolent attitude, and with the noble attitude worthy of a prince stop up your ears against the shameless lies of those who defame me.” After a prolonged deliberation back and forth about Eric’s letter, the commons explained their wish in an answer sent to the council on April 28, and we set out the text of it as follows. “May the grace and peace of God acquired through Christ be with you. Amen! Since, by God’s will, you have been appointed by our votes to the dignity of governing this city, we rightly owe you lawful obedience, but at the same time you owe us a just defense in a pious matter relating to virtue, so that the body politic may enjoy better health when all the sections of the state are kept safe. We understand the letter that was sent by Eric, Bishop of Osnabrück and Paderborn and Duke of Brunswick, who has been elected to this diocese as well, has been presented, read and made known to our leaders, and that this letter assails our priest Lord Bernard Rothman, a man outstanding in both integrity and learning, and ourselves to some extent, treating us in an unworthy manner. Since, however, Bernard has doubtless offered in his own letter a sufficiently stout defense of himself against the slanderers who wickedly reviled him before the prince, we are not going to plead his case but our own, | so that the prince will not consider us to be the kind of people we are said to be. We are therefore directing our petition to you in particular, so that in your letter to the prince you should bear witness to our innocence. It is not, however, the prince, whose honesty and goodwill are very well known to us, that we consider responsible for this defaming of us but those malevolent slanderers and accusers.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 254

6/6/2007 1:03:46 PM

the events of 1532

255

The revelation of our innocence will cast their lies into the dark, so that the truth will win out in the end, emerging triumphant and washing away every stain caused by our being defamed. To begin with, councilmen, we are accused of plotting sedition and revolution, and without any sense of shame our slanderers have convinced the prince of this. Since nothing can be safe against calumnies, we console ourselves with the example of Christ, Who was called seditious by His enemies even though He brought peace, or rather was Himself peace. Certainly as far as we are concerned, we think that nothing more better or preferable can happen to us than that peace and mutual concord, as well as the true, pure and evangelical doctrine, should fl ourish among us. This is perfectly clear from our previous letter and the confession that has been made public and offered for the whole world’s criticism, as well as from the writing that we just showed you and that you still have fresh in your memory. With their lying these slanderers have infl icted the greatest injury on us despite our innocence, unless they consider it seditious that we do not cease to direct many requests to the ruler urging upon him matters that pertain to salvation, that we wish the Gospel’s truth to be cleansed of every impurity by the action of the ruler and thereby rendered more gleaming, and that we yearn to retain the pure doctrine which Lord Bernard has been teaching, and think that we must not deviate from it if we wish to be Christians. For we have no doubt and know for a fact that this is the pure doctrine and the true Word of God, which he makes a public promise in virtually all his sermons to defend before anyone at all, even at the risk of his own life. Yet, no one on the other side dares to come forward, as is fitting. Also, in the prince’s letter we are denounced for introducing innovation in the ancient religion in violation of Christian concord. If, however, the matter is assessed against the standard of the truth, it will never be possible to lodge this accusation against us rightly unless we pretend that Christian concord is violated by the fact that in accordance with the command of Scripture and of Paul especially, | we clearly and concordantly sing psalms translated into the vernacular both before and after the sermon in order to increase the glory of God and to promote piety. Apart from this we do not admit that we are culpable in anything. If, however, you or any one else on earth demonstrates that any of us is guilty of any crime or violates Christian piety, we will not feel any reluctance in handing him over for punishment at your discretion, whatever his prestige or status. For we have decided to commit no act that we would be unwilling to have judged in the sight of God and of

205

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 255

6/6/2007 1:03:46 PM

256

206

the events of 1532

the entire world. We wish you now to bear witness to this fact too and to defend it before our prince and that our malevolent slanderers will be prevented from gaining a hearing with the prince when the truth is brought to light, which would put an end to the slanders.” After reading this submission from the estate of the commons by which they undertook to defend themselves, the council sent the following letter to the prince on May 2, including the commons’ selfjustification. “A few days ago we received the letter you sent to the entire state and to all the estates of the city of Münster. In it we are warned to reject all religious innovation and civil sedition and to adhere to the traditional ceremonies and the ancient tranquility. After we had informed everyone concerned of this letter, they answered that they were devoted and genuinely inclined not to sedition but to retaining and preserving concord in the state. In addition to this response, we were offered a document from all the estates of the diocese, copy of which we send on appended to this letter so that you can learn everything more exactly. As far as Lord Bernard Rothman and his sermons are concerned, we informed him of your letter and strictly forbade him from preaching. To this he answered that he had written to you an explanation of his doctrine and bound himself to prove the correctness of everything, but that since he had not received any response, he would carry out his duty until the prince responded. Since we are expending a great deal of effort to preserve peace and tranquility among us and are very anxious, we leave everything to be considered more carefully by your expeditious judgment, | so that you may give us your advice as to what must be done to calm the sedition.” After reading this, the prince realized, not just from the letter but also from the indications provided by many other things, that many councilmen favored the ancestral religion but were so stricken with fear that they dared not do anything against the rioting of the commons. On the other hand, he understood that others were tainted and were furthering the business of the commons. He also noted the commons’ obstinacy from their earlier letter. For this reason, he was greatly offended and wrote back to the council as follows. “I have received your response, with which was included a submission from the commons, and from it I have learned, among other things, that the burghers of the commons think that it was the suggestion of certain men who are ablaze with blind hatred against the townsfolk that impelled me to write since in my earlier letters they were assailed

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 256

6/6/2007 1:03:46 PM

the events of 1532

257

for sedition, impiety and innovation in connection with ancient matters, contrary to all truth (as they claim). To this I respond that it is not because of the disparaging of malevolent, lying enemies but of my own accord and because of the outstanding zeal of my well-intentioned favor toward the city that I was roused to urge the council, the aldermen, the guild masters and the entire estate of the commons in writing to take steps that seemed to be salubrious for the city. For you and your burghers have never been maliciously accused before me with false accusations. General report and sure proofs provided by some churchmen and burghers of yours have, however, brought you into disrepute among men, and for this reason I thought it to be my duty to give you and your citizens a friendly warning about the impending calamity that will in the end burst forth from this situation. Therefore, in my letter of deterrence I tried to convince you that while the innovation that you have undertaken should be done away with and those who preach it abandoned, the ancient ceremonies and the kind of church decoration inherited from antiquity should be retained. I did this with great confidence that you would both give some consideration to my advice and send back an answer worthy of me and of you. I was, however, unable to achieve either purpose with you, and when I saw that a certain contumacious obstinacy was increasing your burghers’ resolve in their design as if they could not do without either the preacher or his doctrine without risking their eternal salvation, | I realized that the rash and ill-considered design of the preacher and his faction had been undertaken under the guise of the Gospel. Now I have also determined through more careful investigation that it is absolutely true that through the assistance of the followers of his faction and in particular of one Brixius of Norden this same preacher has, both in the time of Frederick and now, said publicly from the pulpit many things that violated the decision of the Catholic Church and the recent Imperial Diet in connection with not just one but very many articles of the faith, at the same time causing the ignorant commons to hate the government and all the ceremonies maintained with praise from antiquity until the present day. Accordingly, my predecessor had very good reason to command him to refrain from this sort of unheard-of doctrine and from the zeal to innovate. Although he has abstained from such acts, he has contumaciously opposed that order with a certain amount of insolence down to the present day, or rather he has more and more indoctrinated the commons in the forbidden innovation and its contentious doctrine, which is a breeding ground of every sort of

207

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 257

6/6/2007 1:03:46 PM

258

208

the events of 1532

sedition, and has so fixed those doctrines in their minds that they have fallen headlong into dangerous errors, obstinately despising divine and human law and the Imperial edict. If this situation should be endured any longer, the surest destruction will result not just for you but for the entire diocese. I am striving to avert this with all my strength, and for this reason I am warning you sternly and asking you in a friendly way to oppose and remove Rothman, his colleague Brixius and the other preachers of this stripe, that you restore the ancient rites and ceremonies in the churches, abolishing all innovation, and that you give some consideration to my last letter, thereby protecting yourself from disaster. For if you and your fellow burghers pay no heed to my urgings and continue to press on with your novel contrivances, which I have no expectation that you will, I leave it to you to consider more carefully what it befits me to do by reason of my duty to uphold the edict of the Emperor and the Empire. It is my earnest wish to receive an answer soon as to which of these courses I should expect from you.” That this letter from the prince did not have much infl uence with the unintelligent commons can be gathered from the fact that they were not very worried about the answer to be given. After many days had slid by without the council writing back any answer, the delay in responding led to outraged astonishment on the part of the prince. Accordingly, he sent Berthold of Büren, a man who belonged to the knighthood and served as the bailiff of Iburg on an embassy to Münster. In a full session of the council he gave the following speech before the aldermen and guild masters in order to finish the matter. “First of all, the most reverend and glorious prince prays for salvation and tranquility for you and the entire city. Next, he commands me to inform you of the following. A few days ago he asked you in his letter to remove the preacher, who is protected by your walls, because he preached contentious doctrines by which he was able to impel the gullible commons first to error, which is the parent of strife, and then to the manifest insanity of sedition, in violation of the Imperial edict and the general peace. The prince was convinced that you would do this, particularly during these dangerous times, in order to avoid a greater calamity, but he has received nothing in the way of response from you. For this reason he once again strictly enjoins you with all the earnestness that he can summon to give a considered response within a few days as to what decision you have reached regarding the removal of the preacher.” The council promised that it would respond soon. At the instigation of certain people, however, the commons, who felt that they were being

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 258

6/6/2007 1:03:46 PM

the events of 1532

259

petitioned by the prince, became not only insolent but more savage, obstinate and impetuous. For even certain people of great reputation were enthusiastic with the desire to innovate and strove to spread this unheard-of doctrine throughout all the parishes of the city. Although Eberwin and John Droste, the council members from the Ward Acrossthe-River, were adherents of the ancient religion along with Herman Jonas, nonetheless on May 20 they were induced by the alderman Ludger tom Brincke, Herman Tilbeck and Michael Nording and by other followers of this stripe to ask the abbess of the Convent Acrossthe-River, who had legal control over that parish, | to remove a certain Lord Martin, who was the chaplain and Catholic, and put in his place someone else who would teach the pure Word of God undefiled by human tradition and administer the sacrament of the Eucharist in both kinds according to the practice instituted by Christ. The abbess asked for a period of time to consider the matter, but since they were rather unenergetic in pressing their demands and the zealous desire to innovate was fading, none of the old ways was changed. It is said that the prince deliberated day and night on the ways in which he could settle the disturbance in the business of the city. Certainly, that good prince would have achieved much in this matter through the assistance of his own authority and the support of his friends had he not been forestalled by a premature death. For some say that he fell ill while unusually happy in the stronghold of Fürstenau in the diocese of Osnabrück, though others say that he died suddenly on May 14 after drinking a large cup of wine. Arnold Belholt, a judge in the city, was a man naturally inclined to sedition. We showed above that he was, along with certain other followers of his faction, responsible for the sedition, and in his lack of gravity he attributed the greatest authority and gravity to Rothman. At the death of the prince, this man thought that he was allowed to do anything at all with impunity, and for this reason he did not cease to do his utmost to stir up the commons against the chapter and council with his malicious plotting, but when he could not achieve his aim readily and feared for his wellbeing because of his guilty conscience, he left the city, though not with impunity. For he was arrested during his journey by the vicars of the diocese, into whose hands the administration is entrusted in the period between bishops. First jailed in the prison of Horstmar, he was transferred to Bevergern, where he was questioned under torture. | He confessed to being the instigator of many crimes and revealed what he and his associates had had in mind. He would

209

210

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 259

6/6/2007 1:03:46 PM

260

211

the events of 1532

certainly have paid the price for his rash activity if the vicars had not forestalled the danger of greater uproar. Fined a great sum of money, he was released from prison, and after returning to his associates he was less energetic in pressing on with the business of sedition. After the death of Eric, the main clergy wished to avoid any further appearance that the government of the diocese was adrift without a helmsman and met to elect a new prince in their stronghold at Lüdinghausen, thinking that they were no longer safe against the plots of the seditious in the city. On June 1, they unanimously elected as bishop of Münster the bold hero Francis, the bishop of Minden and count of Waldeck, who was of the ancient and most noble lineage. Immediately after the election, the main clergy handed over possession of some strongholds and castles to him, an unprecedented act since this normally happened only after the public installation of the new bishop. We have no doubt that the reason for this was to make sure that no one thought there was no prince in the region, since it is believed that everything is done by his authority. This was especially necessary under the circumstances, since the city was ablaze within because of great disturbances and horrible acts of sedition, and it would have easily carried the entire region and all the smaller cities with it over the edge to disaster if the troublemakers had not feared that the chosen candidate already enjoyed the full power to command. When he was freely elected bishop of Osnabrück too a few days later, | all the seditious conceived a triple fear of him, shrinking from his powerful strength as if he were three-mouthed Cerberus.37 It now remains to say how much this good prince toiled against them to preserve the general peace, true piety and the salvation of his fl ock without sparing either himself or his resources. The lower clergy complained to him secretly by letter38 that their duties, privileges and liberties were being violated by the faction members, who did everything by their own caprice, that the Catholic ceremonies were being abolished and new and unheard-of ones substituted, that good works were considered worthless, that the Catholic preachers were being removed by force and replaced with Lutheran ones, that the churches were being stripped, and that everything was 37 Cerberus was the three-headed beast in mythology whose savage biting kept the dead from re-emerging from the underworld. 38 No such letter is extant, and Detmer thinks such a letter unlikely, since the letter written by the lower clergy on August 24 sounds like their first.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 260

6/6/2007 1:03:46 PM

the events of 1532

261

being done capriciously. They asked him to deign to use his authority to get the townsmen to agree to a full restitution. This letter impelled the prince to write to the townsmen and to all the estates of the city on June 28, as follows. “After we were elected as bishop of the diocese of Münster by divine providence, we learned through the report of trustworthy individuals and then through general rumor discovered it to be true, that Lutheran preachers have arrived in Münster, partly through their own bold daring and partly at the instigation of certain commoners, in particular the unreliable and rebellious adherents of their faction, and that they have not only despised the embassy and warning sent by my predecessor but also impetuously and contumaciously violated the edict by which their safe conduct was revoked, an act of remarkable insolence towards him. We hear that they remain there to the present day, and that without the permission of the secular government and contrary to the most recent Imperial edicts they have seized the main parish churches by their own authority, casting out the lawful pastors and chaplains along with the ancient rites | and replacing them with themselves, their own sermons and a doctrine concealed in the guise of unheard of ceremonies and novel rites. Finally, we hear that in disseminating this darkness of error they have imbued the commons in notions that clearly incite them more and more every day to sedition and every sort of rebellion, throw the political order into chaos, and completely overturn peace and tranquility. I would hardly have expected such unreliability, rebellion and impiety from you inasmuch as you were previously loyal and considered by all the neighboring cities to be highly devoted to every sort of piety and gravity. Accordingly, since Almighty God has divinely entrusted to our anxious care the rudder of this diocese, we have decided that the first thing that we should do by God’s grace is make sure that the members of our fl ock should always live bound to each other by peace, tranquility, obedience and above all by religion, in order to uphold the Imperial edict. Thus, it is in your own interest that we beseech you to take the following steps. Under the circumstances, you should accommodate yourselves to the will and decision of the last Imperial Diet at Augsburg, which has been earnestly entrusted to our care, restore the ecclesiastical rites and the ceremonies that were instituted in antiquity and have been maintained down to our own time, cast out the preachers along with all the innovations and misuses introduced by them, and call the commons back to concord, tranquility and obedience, either until some final decision is made in the business of religion at the present Imperial

212

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 261

6/6/2007 1:03:47 PM

262

213

the events of 1532

Diet by the estates of the Empire and our lawful ruler or until we are installed and attain full authority to administer this diocese. For at that time we will, if necessary, make sure that everything will be reformed by the standard of God’s Word and that every opportunity for rioting will be done away with. For this reason, we have no doubt that you will take the Imperial edict and our paternal warning into consideration. If, however, you contumaciously spurn these suggestions, which we hardly expect you will do, we leave it to you to consider what steps we should take under the circumstances to make sure that we do not seem to be opposing the Empire and the Emperor’s edicts whose enforcement was entrusted to us at the Diet of Ravensburg. | We yearn to receive from you a clear answer as to your attitude.” The people in Münster deliberated on this matter, arguing back and forth as to what they should respond. Finally, on July 1339 they answered by merely saying that they had received the prince’s letter touching upon the priests. They had, they said, heard the letter read and offered it to the aldermen and guild masters, but for certain reasons that it would take a long time to describe, they could not give a quick answer. For this they asked the prince’s forgiveness, promising to answer by their public messenger as soon as they could and wishing him good health for a long time. The address on the letter almost exceeded its contents. Meanwhile, Knipperdolling’s obstinacy by no means softened and he prevailed upon the aldermen Henry Moderson the butcher and Henry Redeker the furrier to use their official authority to summon all the members of the guilds and the guild masters. On July 1 they obeyed the aldermen’s order and entered the “Schohaus”40 (guild hall) in droves. (This is the place in which all the guilds customarily meet when they are to deal with matters that concern the common good of the whole city.)41 The dregs of the city gathered there, and—good God!— what commotion, what grumbling and shouting resounded not only in that house but in the neighboring ones on all sides, as some men bellowed one thing and others something else. Finally, when this initial uproar gradually died down, the aldermen and guild masters took the seats assigned to them in the customary way according to

39 40 41

Actually July 10. The events narrated from this point until July 15 are not otherwise documented. For the Schohaus, see 77D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 262

6/6/2007 1:03:47 PM

the events of 1532

263

their honor and prestige, and when they ordered silence, tranquility suddenly prevailed. Then, John Windemoller, who had been coached by the aldermen, Knipperdolling and other members of the faction, | repeatedly said that the reason for the summons was hardly trivial, but was one that concerned exalting the glory of God, the salvation of all the burghers and the increase of peace and liberty. For, he went on, the matter had to do with the evangelical doctrine and the life eternal: in his doctrine Rothman clearly showed the true path to this life, cutting back the thorn-bushes of human enactments, and revealed how the papist filth darkened this path with clever lies made up for its own profit and blocked it with horrible confusions. Therefore, he said, they should strike an agreement to protect Rothman and his doctrine, whose truth they confessed. At this virtually the entire mob interrupted the speech by shouting that they would defend Rothman and his evangelical doctrine to the last breath and as long as the blood coursed in their veins, both with arms, if necessary, and with all their resources. Some peacemakers, however, opposed the seditious people, bearing witness with open words that they did not like the innovation in religion, and chief among them was John Menneman the tailor. (After the siege he was raised up to the dignity of alderman by his outstanding gravity and experience in many matters. He exercised the duties of this office to the satisfaction of the commons down for many years down to 1570, and then in 1573 was appointed as councilman.) At this point he publicly shouted back at these innovators, bolstered by the greater confidence he had compared to the others because of his sense of having the better cause. At these words, the crazed commons thronged around him from all sides, hemming him in, and he was punished, rebuked and punched. Some even bellowed that as a clamoring rebel against the evangelical Truth and his government he should be removed, and if good men had not intervened, he would have been stabbed with the daggers that had been unsheathed in the midst of the dense crowd of commoners. Certain other men who shared Menneman’s attitude and relied on his resolution were so terrified by this uproar that they preferred keeping quiet to risking a similar danger. In the end, he was dragged before the aldermen, who | ordered him to state his reason for dissension. He said that this matter should be considered and decided not with crazed shouts or ill-conceived rashness but with deliberation, clear thinking and timely refl ection, since hurried, back-to-front plans often bring along regret as their companion. If, therefore, they wished to reach some laudable decision, he told them to conduct their

214

215

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 263

6/6/2007 1:03:47 PM

264

216

the events of 1532

consultation in a calmer manner, with each man listening to the other with tolerance and good will. He said that if they separated the guilds and determined the opinion of each by vote, he too would support their decision if their votes all agreed. They would have followed this man’s advice if it had not been the case that separate deliberation chambers were not available for the various guilds. Nonetheless, the aldermen decided to reduce the disorganized swarm of deliberators to a smaller number since it was difficult to have all the guilds participate in the various matters and in the midst of such human dregs to reach any sensible resolution given the importance of the debate. From all the guilds twenty-six men were chosen to inform the aldermen and guild masters of their plans whenever necessary and to harass the council, nothing being done by it without their authority. When Henry Iserman the goldsmith was appointed as one of the twenty-six, he left no stone unturned in resigning honorably from the post. He pointedly insisted that all the guilds should consider more carefully this civil tumult and the plans they had taken against the council, since it was seldom the case that those who opposed their government emerged successful. Such plans, he said, had almost always redounded to the misfortune of those responsible. He professed to having learned this from the memorable example of the sedition in the state of Cologne in 1513. There the men responsible for the sedition were penalized with beheading at the very time when they imagined that they were safe and successful. To these words the alderman Henry Redeker replied, “If with all this talk of cut-off heads you are showing your fear for yourself, you are not only useless in terms of implementing our intentions, but you are in fact a great obstruction.” Thus, a bolder and more confident man who prattled on more resonantly about the Gospel was substituted in place of him. After the men were appointed in this way, the authority of all the guilds was transferred to the aldermen and guild masters. The terms of this transfer were as follows. They were to deliberate in common and oppose the council in connection with advancing the cause of the evangelical movement, without, however, harming the state and the city’s liberty. Their main aim in the council was to bring it about that a unanimous form of worship without any disagreement in any regard was to be taught throughout the city. This religion was to be nourished and cherished, and, along with all its accompaniments, defended to the last gasp and the last drop of blood. All false doctrine was to be uprooted like the most harmful plague, so that no impurity

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 264

6/6/2007 1:03:47 PM

the events of 1532

265

that in any way opposes the evangelical truth was to be left. Finally, the general tranquility and liberty were to be procured, strengthened and preserved, being increased with daily additions. If, however, the council prevaricated in this cause, which was as pious and respectable as it was useful, and showed itself to be troublesome, this situation was to be remitted to the entire estate of the commons for its deliberation. After reaching these decisions, the men went their ways, chatting as they went in groups of two or three or four about the success of the Gospel and showing, in the manner of the apostles, more concern about this than about their own granaries.42 Later, on July 11, the aldermen and guild masters summoned the council to its chamber and laid before them the commons’ requests, at the same time demanding that the council should protect the Word of God along with all its accompaniments and that full agreement in wishes and pursuits should exist between both the commons and council. To this the council responded that they would in no way oppose the Gospel and Word of God, but since it was not yet determined who was spreading the true doctrine of the Gospel, they would send an embassy to put before the prince a request that by his authority learned men should be sent for by the common counsel and expense. The power to judge the purity of worship would be entrusted to them, and it would be sinful to express opposition to the decision of their judgment. When this was achieved, said the council, it would be possible and appropriate to establish firm agreement in all wishes. The elected representatives of the commons were by no means satisfied with this answer, and at around 3 p.m. on July 12 they sent the aldermen and guild masters back to the council to get another answer, the main purpose being that the council should not obfuscate but state in so many words whether an agreement in all wishes on both sides was to be hoped for and whether the council wished and approved the resolutions of the commons. | To this the council answered that they would never deviate the breadth of a fingernail from the Word of God, but would always adhere to it and defend all burghers devoted to it to the extent that their powers allowed. For this reason, they said, they asked the commons not to harass them any further. The representatives of the commons were greatly offended and angered by this response from the council and sent the aldermen back

42

217

Cf. Psalm 144:13.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 265

6/6/2007 1:03:47 PM

266

218

the events of 1532

to extract another response, saying that they were no longer willing to be deceived with ambiguous, obscure and convoluted answers, and instead the council should state clearly whether they were willing to agree to the commons’ wish and adopt common counsel in the business of religion. Then, they said, they would plan their action more accurately in light of the nature of the response and necessity of the situation. At about 9 a.m. on July 13, the aldermen and guild masters reported all this to the burgher masters and certain other councilmen, who were deliberating with the chapter in the cathedral about the Turkish tax.43 They asked the councilmen to be careful to give a specific response, since, they explained, they could no longer keep the commons, who were ablaze with love for the Gospel, from causing a disturbance and they feared that unless a way to assuage and tame them was soon found, they would begin to take energetic steps that would result in the destruction of all the clergy and of many inhabitants. This statement from the aldermen disturbed the burgher masters and councilmen so much that given this emergency they had the attendants summon the full council at 2 p.m. After once more explaining the desire of the commons, the aldermen left. There was much debating back and forth as the council tried to find ways to pacify the commons’ anger, but no specific decision was reached that day. Nightfall intervened and broke up the meeting, so the vote was postponed until Monday, July 15. In the meanwhile, the guild masters summoned their own individual guilds to the “Schohaus” (guild hall) at 8 a.m. on that day, so that they could deliberate there just as the council was doing in the council hall. When the councilmen entered the council hall, the aldermen and guild masters were let in to plead the case of the commons, as follows. “First of all, wise and most honorable members of the council, the commons, on whose behalf the necessity of our office has placed upon us the duty of carrying out this embassy, publicly declare that in their deliberations on the present matter | their sole aim is to procure the glory of God, the salvation of their soul, and the common good. If, on the other hand, the opposite can be ascertained by any judgment,

43 A special tax voted periodically by the imperial diet (in this instance by the Diet of Regensburg in the spring of 1532) and collected locally to help defray the heavy expenses of the emperor’s military operations against the Turks, who at this time appeared to pose a serious risk to eastern Germany as a result of their decisive victory over the Hungarians at Mohács in 1526 (they had attempted to besiege Vienna as recently as 1529).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 266

6/6/2007 1:03:47 PM

the events of 1532

267

they submit to their government, which they promise to obey readily in connection with all lawful and respectable acts, as is suitable and has always been the case before, and not to deviate the breadth of a fingernail from its orders. On the other hand, the commons demand that just as the ruler demands obedience from his subjects, so too should the government take up the guarding and defense of the subjects, maintaining the privileges and liberties with which the city of Münster has been endowed by many emperors and successive bishops, and, whenever necessity dictates, preserving, defending and protecting the advantages of each and every burgher, both within the walls and without. For without faith, defense on the part of the government, and true and lawful obedience on the part of the subjects in fear of God, no city and no state can long remain unharmed. “As for the commons’ not having ceased to demand these actions from the council in the humble manner of suppliants, they are eager to explain the reason and purpose of this when permission is graciously granted to give an account, so that with the removal of all the suspicion and disputation which is swelling up between the council and burghers, solid and by no means feigned concord can be restored in the state along with an honest way of living. For it is easy for the commons to perceive that when the subjects and the government are held in the thrall of suspecting the other of evil-doing and disagree with each other in concealed hatred, the state is enveloped in fatal dangers and buffeted about. Therefore, the commons, being subject to your power, are not too bashful to make known the reasons for their suspicion. On the contrary, it is their great yearning to learn from the senate what is displeasing in the commons. They promise either to undertake the defense of their innocence or, if they have acted badly, to live more correctly. Similarly, they ask the council to show to its subjects the kind of attitude that is demanded by their office. “In order, then, that you, most honorable councilmen, may understand the reasons for the commons’ suspicion and for their fear that they will be harmed by you, hear a few words. First, the council has for some time denied the opportunity for a meeting, and has instead shunned any discussion with the commons on a matter that is especially urgent and difficult. Second, the council, which is divided into factions, has avoided the customary location for deliberation in the council hall, and sometimes six, sometimes eight, sometimes ten councilmen have sought out little sessions, convening in various chapels and other hidden places. | The burghers were in no small way chagrined at this

219

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 267

6/6/2007 1:03:47 PM

268

the events of 1532

practice, and since they were thereby denied the opportunity to speak with the council, the commons began to hold the council’s good faith suspect. Third, on the advice of the aldermen and the guild masters, the council promised to see to it that each parish should have sincere heralds of the Gospel,44 and whether it is through carelessness or forgetfulness that this has been neglected down to the present time is not known.45 Fourth, although the estate of the commons has implored the council’s defense of all their laws and privileges, the council has not cleared them of the accusation by writing to the prince. It is these and other similar reasons that have led the anxious commons to suspect the good faith of the council.” The matter was laid before the council in this way, so that the council could more easily give answers to the individual points, and thereby satisfy and assuage the commons, who would from then on trust their government without any suspicion of evil-doing. After a short deliberation, the council gave the following response. They had never, they said, averted their attention from the well-being of the commons and had always devoted more concern to the burghers’ advantages than to their own, being well aware of the extent of the danger when limbs of a single body are alienated against one another. For this reason the council had avoided any grounds for disagreement and sought grounds for concord. They had never, they said, kept away the aldermen or the guild masters, who were the defenders of the commons, but only the ignorant mob, who clamored in an unruly manner and did not plead their case in the traditional manner through the aldermen. “As for the fact that certain members of the council had occasionally deliberated outside the council hall in rather secret locations, sometimes about private matters, sometimes about public matters, but in any case always about trivial ones, this had in no regard undermined the rights or privileges of the city, the aim in these meetings being the public good just as much as it was in the council hall.46 It was only to avoid the immoderate behavior of certain people that a lonely meeting place 44 That is, preachers, the terminology being indicative of what was expected of them. 45 There is no external documentary evidence for such a promise on the part of the council, but it is acknowledged in the council’s reply. 46 With this sentence, K. seems to shift to direct quotation, though this is clumsily carried out at times and seems to be indirect discourse with the use of indicative verbs after the fashion of German rather than the correct accusative-and-infinitive of Latin (but note the use of the first person plural towards the end).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 268

6/6/2007 1:03:47 PM

the events of 1532

269

was chosen, it normally being the case that it is not through location but wisdom and reliability that a decision gains authority. “As for the fact that the commons have lacked preachers down to the present time, this happened through neither the carelessness nor the forgetfulness of the council but through the lack of the kind of grave and learned men that the council wishes to entrust with the parishes, | it having proved impossible to acquire the services of such men on short notice. “Finally, the council admits that they had not defended the impetuous acts of certain men before the prince, since they were under no obligation to defend acts which they had neither ordered nor authorized. On the other hand, acts carried out under a common plan had always received the council’s protection. Therefore, let the commons stop harboring wicked suspicions about the council. Since one man could not do without the other’s support, let us cast aside all suspicion and return to mutual affection. Let us be joined in mutual trust, being bound by oath to one another. Let us do each other favors, let us be ablaze with the zealous desire to help each other, let us conduct all our actions by each other’s authority. Let the council love the commons, not disdain them, and seek to benefit them without harming anyone else. Let the commons be obedient to the council and not resist when the council issues proper warnings. If at times the commons deviate from the straight path, let them patiently allow themselves to be warned and think that they have won not through rebellion but through obedience. In this way it will happen that we will never fall into strife with one another and every kind of suspicion that may swell up on either side will be plucked out by the roots. In this way we are finally going to have a very firm state. If, therefore, the aldermen and guild masters promise that the commons will have this attitude regarding fairness and the council, the council in turn will promise that they will not fail the commons.” The aldermen and other representatives of the commons gave their assent to these words. After this agreement had been made by both sides, the aldermen and guild masters explained the commons’ desire to the council in the following words. “Now that the government and subjects of this city are tied to one another with the bounds of good will and obedience and every suspicion of disfavor and dissension has been removed, we think that in order to prevent any opportunity for sedition arising again in our state, it is above all necessary that a uniform religion consisting of the Gospel and

220

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 269

6/6/2007 1:03:47 PM

270 221

222

the events of 1532

pure doctrine should fl ourish throughout the entire city. For a varied and impure doctrine | brings eternal death not only to the body but also to souls. Since no doctrine works to achieve salvation as well as the evangelical doctrine which Lord Bernard Rothman proclaims in a pure and genuine manner through the enlightenment of God, the entire estate of the commons embraces it as the route to salvation and asks that they be allowed to profess it safely and unanimously, that the council defend it and with their careful vigilance provide for the individual parishes preachers who will spread the Word of God without mixing in falsehood and administer the sacraments in the manner instituted by Christ, and that those preachers who opposed the Gospel and Truth be deprived of the office of teaching doctrine. In addition, since the estate of the commons, who have now been educated by the Word of God, notice that abuses of many varieties have crept in, causing irrevocable harm to souls, they demand that through the council’s diligent action any ceremonies that diametrically contradict the Word of God and cannot be retained without causing scandal be removed. If the council perchance does not know which these are, it is easy for them to perceive them on the basis of Lord Bernard’s daily sermons or Lord Bernard will be happy to define them at the council’s request. If, furthermore, anyone among the religious or the laity thinks he has some means by which he hopes to overturn Rothman’s doctrine through Holy Scriptures and clear arguments, the estate of the commons ask that by its own authority the council should command the clergy in particular to make this public and to pay the penalty if refuted. Since the commons have no doubt that Lord Bernard’s doctrine is in agreement with the Gospel, they cannot deviate from it unless it is refuted by Holy Scripture. He has often offered himself to such a contest and comparison of Scriptures, but no one has dared to come forward against him. Finally, since the burghers notice that everyday, alas, ancient and praiseworthy customs, royal grants, and privileges are being broken and that the failure to preserve them in their vigor results in harm and damage to this city, the entire civil commonwealth47 asks that the council should, with the help of the aldermen and guild masters, take strenuous steps to prevent the undermining of this city’s ancient rights and to see that they are instead restored. | In these matters, the council

47 As opposed to the religious commonwealth. Medieval political theory held that the state as a whole consisted of these two elements.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 270

6/6/2007 1:03:48 PM

the events of 1532

271

should present itself in the way that befits a Christian government, so that we may lead a way of life at once pious and peaceful. For just as nothing is more necessary for the collective body of burghers, so too do they seek nothing with greater ardor.” The council promised that they would do this and in a common compact under the signature of Henry Hoier the amanuensis of the council, they publicly associated themselves with the aldermen, guild masters and the commons, a copy of the compact being handed over to the aldermen. In addition, the council bound itself to announce to the pastors that within a prescribed period of time they should refute Bernard Rothman’s dogma with legitimate arguments and scriptural passages, or else the council would, under the protection of the aldermen and guild masters, do what was demanded by considerations of justice and fairness. On July 25, after the completion of the compact, the council by itself responded quite confidently, as follows, to the previous letter from the prince, even though it had been written to all the estates of the city. “It was not only to us and the aldermen but also to the guild masters and the estate of the commons that you, most reverend prince, wrote in connection with a few preachers who partly through their own boldness and partly at the urging of certain commoners entered our city, taught their doctrines and spread unusual ceremonies among the public. You say that you were therefore requesting that we should preserve the longstanding ecclesiastical rites which had been established in ancient times, cast out the recently introduced preachers and ceremonies, and restrain the sedition of the commons. We have, most reverend prince, shown this letter to all the estates of our city and especially to Lord Bernard Rothman, whom it seems to concern most, and he has given us a response, a copy of which is being conveyed to you so that you may learn his intentions more fully. Furthermore, to remove any suspicion of rebellion as far as possible from us, you should be aware that neither this Rothman nor any other of the preachers was summoned by us to the city for the purpose of preaching, and that instead Derek of Merfelt the bailiff called Rothman to the city from the residence which he had at that time established in St. Maurice’s, | and in the name of the prince he denied him any defense and revoked his safe conduct and immunity. Rothman conveyed various complaints about this matter to almost all the townsmen and promised that he would defend his cause with arguments based on justice. We too have in similar vows yearned for nothing other than Christian ecclesiastical rites. As you too, most

223

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 271

6/6/2007 1:03:48 PM

272

224

the events of 1532

reverend prince, know, in our city there are a remarkably large number of clergy, including pastors, the members of the mendicant orders called “terminaries,”48 and other learned men, and to them Lord Bernard has offered a confession of his faith and doctrine which is drawn up in articles and which he has, with good will, asked them to instruct and enlighten him if he has erred anywhere. Up until now, however, they have carelessly neglected to do so or to set out any objection to his writing, and for this reason the commons, who are devoted to the evangelical Truth, feel more confidence in adhering to the admonitions of the preachers. Also, we do not feel that we have tainted the ancient ceremonies in our city, much less abolished them. In addition, since our burghers have offered the obedience rightly owed by them and have adopted a single religion embraced by them in tranquility, it will be our task to strengthen the civil concord without violating the rights and ancient privileges of the city. Hence, we think that it will be easy for the prince to see how difficult it is to send away the preachers and to despoil our burghers of the saving Word of God. We therefore ask both that the prince too should consider this and that if he has some other thought which he thinks will be advantageous, he should advise us of it publicly. Please consider this a well-intentioned response to your request.” A copy of the letter from Rothman to the council which is mentioned above was attached to the council’s letter to the prince, as follows. “Grace and peace from God as well as ready compliance in my office I offer to you first, my lord councilmen! The prince elect sent you a letter concerning me in particular, and you showed it to me so that I could either rebut the charges against me or, as someone subject to your judgment, suffer the penalties that the prince commanded you to infl ict. This letter I have carefully read and re-read, and in it I find that before the prince my innocence has been torn apart with abominable accusations of unspeakable crimes that are completely unacceptable among Christians, | as if the sole aim of my efforts has been that both my doctrine and my life should refl ect nothing good or respectable. Hence, the prince has earnestly commanded that you should strip me of the office of preaching and cast me out of the city. Certainly, the crimes of which they accuse me before the prince are monstrous, and if they were shown to be true and not concocted with

48

For “terminaries,” see 71D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 272

6/6/2007 1:03:48 PM

the events of 1532

273

hatred and a remarkable zeal to revile by enemies bent on destroying my reputation, it would not be surprising if the prince ordered that such an inveterate blackguard should be expelled from the boundaries of the diocese. Indeed, I would be worthy of having the earth split open and of plunging alive into the depths of hell along with Dathan and Abiron.49 As it is, since I know that I am innocent and that I can absolve myself the more readily because of this, I have absolutely no doubt that so long as I am allowed a true response against these slanderous accusations, the fabrications of liars will harm me neither before the prince nor before you, councilmen. For my view is that Christian government is saintly and generous, and I am persuaded with a firm conviction that if I am both willing and able to defend myself with the truth, he will be so well disposed towards me that he will justly protect me against the lying fabricators of falsehoods, especially since the case concerns not me but that of God and His Word. The fact that my person, which is not of much importance since Christ Himself endured the same thing, is being torn to shreds with false reproaches and rent apart with the most impudent lies does not harm me. Rather, these affl ictions are visited upon me by Satan, the instigator of every lie and slander, to overwhelm the noble, saving Word of God that He explains and distributes to His people through me as His servant. I would certainly respond in this letter to the individual accusations if I did not fear that I would exceed the limits of even a letter and if I thought that you were both officially and privately unaware of the charges against me, which are being falsely strewn about before the prince and have led him to write these things. Such verbosity on my part would cause disgusted boredom in you. Hence, I think that this general justification is sufficient for my defense at the present time. | If, on the other hand, it should be thought necessary to respond to the individual charges and this is asked of me, I promise that I will do this so that if any lover of the truth wishes to examine everything more deeply, he will have the means to shut the mouths of the malicious. Therefore, I beseech you with my most ardent prayers in the name of all that is holy and for the sake of God that with good will you accept this response of mine and this offering of my office and that as much as possible you will help me in dealings with the prince. In the meanwhile, I promise you

225

49 Numbers 16:30–33. The Lord attests to the wickedness of these two men by causing the earth to swallow them.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 273

6/6/2007 1:03:48 PM

274

226

the events of 1532

that without violence I will respond to anyone at all who thinks that he will cite against me anything that is contrary to Christian doctrine and piety. If I am refuted, I am prepared to suffer that penalty which Christian law imposes on those convicted on this account. Since these are the most stringent standards to which I can bind myself, I do not think that I should be oppressed with less tolerable conditions. If only one of my accusers would come forward so that either my innocence or my fault would be brought into the light of day! If it should be that I have done something wrong, I will not refuse to suffer a punishment worthy of the deeds. For it would be better for me to die than to plan anything against God and to stay alive while piling up God’s outrage against me more and more. But God is the only just judge whom the thoughts of the heart do not escape. To Him I, too, readily submit the case involving my actions, so that He may, by His will and decision, direct all the matters between me and my enemies, and save me in my innocence from the hands of my oppressors. May God glorify His name for eternal ages. Amen!” While this was going on, the leaders of the commons suggested that the council should strengthen their cause with external support, and accordingly the council sent an embassy in secret to the illustrious lord, Prince Philip of Hesse, whom they knew to support their Gospel. The gist of this embassy was as follows. | Despite the opposition of the bishop and the clergy, the state of Münster had accepted the Truth spread by preachers both learned and pious, and for this reason the inhabitants were apprehensive about an attack from them, fearing that they would join forces and plot against the inhabitants and the preachers, particularly at the time of the bishop’s installation. Hence, they entreated him to help them with the great infl uence he had among the evangelical princes and to send to the bishop a letter deterring him from overwhelming the Gospel, as he may have decided to do at the urging of the clergy. Philip promised that there was nothing that he would not do to defend the Gospel, and accordingly on July 30 he wrote to the council of Münster as follows. “We are glad to hear that by Almighty God’s favor you have been enlightened with the knowledge of the Truth and have, through certain evangelical preachers, successfully set out the Word of God before your burghers without any deceit or admixture of filth. Since you are apprehensive of your well-being, fearing that at his investiture your bishop will infl ict a great harm on you by removing these preachers, you have asked us to deign to avert this dangerous eventuality by writing

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 274

6/6/2007 1:03:48 PM

the events of 1532

275

a letter. Wishing to gratify you in this matter, we have written to the bishop, and attach a copy of it to this letter. In addition, it seemed a wise idea to warn you to make sure with timely planning and careful diligence that your fellow burghers do not use the pretext of evangelical freedom to commit instances of contumely, rebellion and disobedience against their government or to seek and to lay false claim to license of the fl esh, sedition, or some private advantage, which are all contrary to the Gospel. You should also take strict measures to oblige the cohorts of the factious to refrain from stealing Church property and unjustly seizing incomes. If you heed these admonitions of ours and just make sure that the Word of God is proclaimed sincerely to the people, we have no doubt | that the newly elected bishop will show favor and good will in matters that involve exalting the glory of God, spreading the Gospel, and the common good of the state. If, however, it happens that apart from this some other dispute arises between him or the chapter and you, and our good offices are requested by both sides to settle it, we will strive through our councilors to achieve concord, so that you may live in piety and peace with one another after the remaining disagreement has been completely removed through God’s help.” The council issued a short response on August 5, saying that they had, with due respect, received the letter delivered by the bearer of this letter and would inform their people of its content and do what fairness dictated. Next there follows a copy of the letter that Prince Philip of Hesse sent to the bishop on July 30, which was mentioned in the previous letter from the landgrave. “Reverend Lord in Christ! It is reported to me not by a burgher of Münster but by someone else whose name I will tell you in person, that the city of Münster is apprehensive of its well-being at the time of your installation, fearing that at the urging and instigation of the main clergy | you will force them to abandon their evangelical preachers. The individual therefore entreated me to free the city of this fear by writing to you, and I was unwilling and unable to refuse his request, which came from a Christian heart. Although I have absolutely no doubt of your evangelical attitude, I ask you in a friendly way that if the chapter has urged you to expel the city’s preachers, you conduct all your actions in a wise and circumspect manner so that neither side is left with any grounds for complaint, the clergy are not deprived of their fruits, revenues and annual incomes, and the burghers are not robbed of their evangelical preachers. In this way it will happen that both sides

227

228

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 275

6/6/2007 1:03:48 PM

276

229

the events of 1532

will live together in mutual tranquility and adapt themselves to your will and decision. If, on the other hand, you do not conduct yourself in a wise, circumspect and pious manner in the matter, you will offend the electoral duke of Saxony and other Christian princes and estates of the Empire and live with your people in discord and division. In addition, you can easily see from all the present circumstances that His Imperial Majesty is not as energetic in this matter as he used to be. Do not, then, act in such a way as to suggest that you have cast off the fear of the Lord, burdened your conscience and caused more discord than concord. If you are not much moved by such considerations, then be moved primarily by the glory of Almighty God and then by my requests that those poor, imprudent people not be robbed of the Word of God. If you do so and to some extent grant my wish, God will at the same time pour into you as if from the most plentiful spring salvation for your soul, health for your body, success for your administration, and His grace. I and all the other princes and estates in our turn promise to repay your kindness with all the obligations of friendship. Issued at Sababurg on the Tuesday after the feast of St. James,50 1532.” Next, on August 1 at around 11 a.m., the council members from the Parish Across-the-River called “scabini”51 and certain guild masters approached the abbess of the Convent Across-the-River, who has legal control of that parish, and set out two requests in particular. | The first was that the parish priests and chaplains should refrain from preaching and that others should be put in their places and left alone by the previous incumbents unless the latter refuted them with clear arguments based on Holy Scripture. The other request was that they should allow the impious ceremonies which had previously been customary to be abolished. This was also announced throughout all the city’s parishes at the urging of the commons but without the authorization of the council. Since this command was not given the council’s authorization, it was by no means obeyed. In any case, the prince took no small offense at the last response from the inhabitants of Münster and at Rothman’s bold obstinacy, to such an extent that on both sides the situation now seemed to be leading to armed confl ict. Nonetheless, the prince’s innate clemency won out over his first inclination, and he preferred to try every effort

50 51

July 30. For scabini, see 105D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 276

6/6/2007 1:03:48 PM

the events of 1532

277

through forbearance before taking up arms in case the madness of the townsmen could be calmed through good will. Accordingly, on August 5 he wrote as follows. “We have understood well enough the sense of the letter you wrote on behalf of your preacher. As for your response, your attempt to clear him, and all the other things that are decked out by you with some specious appearance of evangelical truth or other, although we find this to be quite divergent from the truth, as the general report attests, nonetheless we readily leave these matters to your judgment, though we make our own assessment. On the other hand, we relied on our more than paternal admonitions and requests and would have expected from you a more appropriate and solid answer regarding the banishment of the preachers, the abolition of the recent innovations, and the restoration of the ancient ceremonies. Be that as it may, we again ask and demand of you that you let these and earlier admonitions sink into your minds and not erase the memory of them, that you do away with the religion you have taken up and the innovation and misuse in ceremonies, that you restore and retain the traditional and praiseworthy rites that were instituted by the Church in ancient times, and that you exile your preachers. If, on the other hand, you again ignore these demands with contempt, as I expect you will not, then I leave it to you to consider more carefully what action it befits us, as a member and loyal prince of the Empire, to take against such disobedient rebels in order to preserve the general peace and tranquility and the law that was issued by the Emperor at the Diet of Regensburg and whose execution was entrusted to us, | though as God is our witness we shrink from this. We benevolently desired to send you these admonitions a second time, so that you should take thought for your salvation and give us a definite answer.” While this business was being conducted by correspondence, at the request of the aldermen and guild masters, the burgher masters convened the council on August 6 by virtue of their oath as councilmen. After the councilmen had taken their seats in the council chamber in the customary manner, the aldermen and guild masters gave the following explanation to the council. They had been sent by the guilds and the elected representatives of the commons, who had held a meeting in the guild hall, to ask the council to remember the earlier compact that had been signed by the council’s amanuensis and to establish as their principle goal that once the papist preachers were removed, all the parishes should have pious evangelical preachers to whom the

230

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 277

6/6/2007 1:03:48 PM

278

231

the events of 1532

council would, by its authority, entrust control over the parishes, just as had been recently promised in the council’s registry.52 As the council had a long debate about these requests, engaging in various conversations with the aldermen about the matter, it became obvious that the councilmen were prevaricating. Growing impatient at the delay, the aldermen reminded the council that the commons were gathered in the guildhall and expected from the council a serious answer without any procrastination. The aldermen said that if they could not get from the council a well-intentioned answer with which the commons’ sense of outrage could be assuaged or at least satisfied in part, they would bring the entire crowd and the council could, with their customary prudence, negotiate directly with them. When the council heard this, they began to be fearful of their safety, thinking it dangerous for them to deal with the unruly mob, who approved any impulse as if it derived from better reasoning. They therefore resolved that this matter deserved further consideration. After pondering everything long and hard, examining things this way and that, up and down, the council decided that it was better for them | to make some concession to the raging commons and, given the exigency of the situation, derogate in some way from the rights of the Church rather than rashly put themselves in the greatest danger and risk their lives. It was therefore decreed that the judges (“scabini”) and guild masters, as well as certain more respectable commoners, would, by virtue of the council’s authority, proclaim to the pastors and chaplains in the various parishes that they should refrain from carrying out the office of preaching, admit the preachers established by the council until such time as they were convicted of error, and, finally, allow the abolition of the impious ceremonies that were diametrically opposed to the Word of God. Being satisfied with these decisions, the commons went their various ways. After this, the townsmen did not give up the course of madness that they had undertaken, and since they yearned to spread their innovation as far as possible, on the feast of St. Laurence (August 10), by virtue of the authorization they had extorted from the council, and under the leadership of Bernard Rothman, Brixius of Norden, whose sermons had caused the people of Ahlen to lose their cows,53 Bernard Knip-

52 53

For the registry, see 76D. See 101K.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 278

6/6/2007 1:03:48 PM

the events of 1532

279

perdolling, Herman Tilbeck, Caspar Schrodercken, John Langerman, Peter Friese, Peter Mensing, John Windemoller, John Ummegrove and many other members of this faction, they rushed into the churches, where they abolished the old practice of the sacraments and the ancient ceremonies that still remained, broke up the altars and images that were still undamaged, threw the priests out of the churches, replacing them with effeminate, unlearned members of their faction who lacked gravity, prohibited the solemn celebration of the mass, and muttered psalms in German. In short, they barely kept their hands off of the cathedral and the Church Across-the-River, and in the other churches without any fear of punishment they threw everything sacred into confusion with the profane. Escorted by followers of his faction, Brixius entered the unoccupied house | attached to the position of chaplain in St. Maurice’s by removing the barricades in order to live there. After spending some weeks there, he eventually entered into a legal marriage with Rothman’s sister, whose immoral company he had been enjoying for some time, thinking that he was making amends for the earlier immorality. When his previous wife arrived with two children, however, it is said that he repudiated the latest one. As a result a feud arose between Brixius and Rothman, but in the end their common zeal to spread the Gospel and their profession easily did away with it, so that those who professed with equal vows a unanimous faith in the evangelical truth would not seem to be in disagreement with one another, which would certainly have estranged many people from their preaching. When the good men realized that they were exposed to the greatest danger by living among seditious men who seemed to hanker after the possessions of others, they secretly snatched away their titles to income and other wealth, which the factious men seemed to be plotting after. For they dared not have any confidence in a city that was thrown into confusion by the boundless authority of the commoners. On August 14, the nuns of the Convent Across-the-River also sent off a strongbox filled with sealed titles and certain other adornments of gold and silver, depositing them in a safer location outside of the city. Who would ever have expected such a turn of events? Whereas in prior years the inhabitants of the diocese had, when faint with fear of hostile arms, had confidence in this city’s fortifications and brought their property into it, now they thought that this same property was safer outside the walls. Certain more prominent members of the council and the patrician estate even abandoned their ancestral homes and

232

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 279

6/6/2007 1:03:49 PM

280 233

234

the events of 1532

moved their residence elsewhere, such as Eberwin | Droste, Derek Münsterman, Wilbrand Plonies, Herman Schencking, a judge in the city, Herman Heerde, and other outstanding luminaries of this kind. Other good and peaceful men who had always proposed suppressing the sedition did the same, thinking that it was better for them to live among wild animals than among savage barbarians in a situation where they would endanger themselves and all their property. In order not to seem to be failing to support the state with their advice, the councilmen divided up among themselves their duties and the days fixed for council meetings, so that they would not all be present or all absent at the same time. No one doubts that it was an act of great prudence to adopt this practice in order to prevent the commons from assailing the entire council according to its own lights or extorting anything from it through the direct application of force. The burgher masters Eberwin Droste and Wilbrand Plonies did not return to the seditious inhabitants, resigning their office and hiding in voluntary exile. The commons were very chagrined at the absence of the burgher masters and their voluntary exile, particularly at this time, when the state of Münster was suffering from the lack of advice and public orators (the senior burgher master always served as the public orator on the council). Hence, the commons ordered the aldermen and guild masters to convene the now leaderless council at 7 o’clock on August 16. There the commons presented to them a bill of complaints, the text of which follows. “Most vigilant aldermen and guild masters, who are also most zealous for our interests! The commons and the entire multitude of burghers is worried, being moved by a suspicion of someone in that the senior burgher master, who possesses the leading position and the greatest infl uence on the council, has at this time in particular elected to go into voluntary exile and has in this way polluted his office and involved the city in critical danger. Also, it is rumored that the council has earnestly entreated this same burgher master by letter to return to his position as head of the council, and he might answer back to the council, so that the reason for his fl ight into exile would be made known. It is not without reason that the commons fear for themselves on account of this fugitive burgher master. Rather, the commons have many grounds for this, and they will reveal them at the appropriate moment. Although this city has been abandoned by the burgher masters, the commons nonetheless wish and consider it a matter of the greatest importance that steps be taken | so that it should not receive any harm that would result in the destruction of all the inhabitants. Therefore, two things in

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 280

6/6/2007 1:03:49 PM

the events of 1532

281

particular must be seen to. First, an orator must be procured at public expense to defend with great eloquence not so much our common rights as the rights of the city and the customs of the homeland. It is necessary to employ such an orator now in particular, since the senior burgher master, to whom the office of acting as an advocate belongs, is absent. Even if he were present, the advice and eloquence of an orator would still be needed, since the burgher master has openly stated that he is not up to the job because of the loss of his ability to memorize and that he would not bring down upon himself or his children the rancor and hatred of any man in order to benefit the city. The entire body of burghers thinks that no one is more suitable for undertaking the office of orator than John of Wieck, a man possessing an outstanding knowledge of the law. The commons therefore ask the council to strive with all its thoughts and diligence, and quickly too, in order to make sure that the city is not deprived of that man’s services, however much it may cost the city’s treasury. The second measure is that the strictest attention should be paid to this city’s fortifications and weapons. The people make these requests of you and entrust them to your diligent good faith. If you have some other thought that you think will be beneficial to the city’s interests or defense, the commons leave it to you to consider this by your judgment and to implement it in a timely manner.” After this statement had been handed over by the aldermen and read by the council, the councilmen promised that they would endeavor to the best of their abilities to make sure that the city would lack nothing that was necessary. An embassy was sent to Doctor John of Wieck, the orator of the city of Bremen, to offer him the position of orator for Münster. He declined on the grounds that he was so involved in the affairs of his own city that he could not abandon his people without violating his good faith, which he would do if he did not first extricate himself by performing his duties well. After these events, on the same day (that is, August 16) at about 10 o’clock, the aldermen and guild masters reported to the council, which had not yet departed, that Bernard Rothman and the other evangelical preachers had drawn up certain articles about abuses which they wished to present to the council. They therefore wished to have these men admitted for discussion. The council, however, argued on various grounds that they should not be admitted, particularly since this matter belonged not to the council but to ecclesiastical judges. After much time had been spent in protracted debate without the aldermen putting any limit or end to their insistence, the men were eventually

235

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 281

6/6/2007 1:03:49 PM

282

the events of 1532

admitted. At this point, Rothman and his people gave a document about ancient abuses to the council in the presence of the aldermen and guild masters. It was read out before a full session of the council, and a copy of it follows.

236

237

“Summary of certain abuses that have crept into the Church and been adopted over time composed for and presented to the council, aldermen and guild masters of the city of Münster by the servants of the Gospel.54 “We wish for you grace and peace from God the Father and the true and saving knowledge of Christ the only-begotten Son and our sole savior | through the Holy Spirit, most wise and honored councilmen! For some time now, the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ has been spread in your city by the grace of God, and through it, we hope, many people have acquired true knowledge and comfort for their souls, no one having impugned it, or been able to impugn it, with solid arguments down to the present day. For this reason, we think it obvious that from this doctrine the knowledge not only of our salvation but also of many impious abuses fl ows and becomes more manifest. The commons, therefore, being devoted to the Christian doctrine, recognize these horrible impious abuses and strenuously oppose them at the urging of the Holy Spirit in order not to lose both their bodies and souls, and thus they have, we gather, begged that by your authority you should cleanse the true doctrine of the Gospel, freeing it of all the blemishes caused by the impious abuses. In this matter you have readily shown the attitude towards your subjects that befits a Christian ruler, and for this reason it is easy to see that in your state you will tolerate no doctrine but the pure and untainted Gospel of Jesus Christ, having summoned us to spread it, though we are unworthy. We will, nonetheless, endeavor to satisfy our evangelical calling to some extent. | May God bestow on us His grace! How faithfully and energetically we have toiled in the vineyard of the Lord is for others to judge, in particular you since you have discovered through experience whether our life has not corresponded to the doctrine presented by us. For it is necessary to conjoin these two elements, since anyone who teaches one thing as doctrine and lives another errs in one or the other. Hence, the magistrates are not only fully entitled to forbid the office of preaching to those who do not strengthen and express their doctrine with Holy Scriptures and their own way of life but obligated to order them to 54

The original text is no longer extant.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 282

6/6/2007 1:03:49 PM

the events of 1532

283

refrain from all impious ceremonies, which cause no less harm in the state than does false doctrine. Now, certain people complain that they do not know which ceremonies are impious, and they claim that for this reason they are unable to deviate from the traditional ceremonies and the customary ecclesiastical rites unless the ones that are impious are specified by name. This is stated well enough in our daily sermons, and those who are uncertain in this matter should be referred to them, but nonetheless, in order to facilitate their recognition of any kind of impiety and abuse and to prevent them from being able to allege any excuse for their obstinacy in maintaining these abuses, we wished to bring forth for you from the shadows into the light of day a summary of the abuses, which is, to the extent necessary at the present time, corroborated with Holy Scriptures, so through this occasion those who are surrounded by the fortifications of your city and remain ensnared within these impious nets should at your command either be prevented from following these practices or cite against the new ones some solid argument by which they may legitimately defend their own customs. For the abuses which have, up until now, been concealed under the specious appearance of piety and will be revealed by us here are nothing but blasphemy and slander against God, and what you should strive with every resource and effort to avoid is that the holy name of God should be befouled with any blasphemies by your subjects. For particular honor is owed to God by everyone, especially the government, and if they are insufficiently concerned about the glory of God, they also involve their subjects in this same wicked carelessness. God will especially avenge contempt for His glory at the hands of rulers. Since in our zeal to honor God we are here explaining the abuse and blasphemy against God’s name, as the calling of our office demands, we beseech and pray that you too remember the task imposed on you by God and act with diligence in implementing what you will think relevant to the glory of God and the salvation of souls. | For just as it is our duty to seek God’s glory and spread His Word, and to teach, exhort and console Christians, so too does it befit you to restrain with lawful punishments those obstinate rebels who blaspheme against God. For it is not for no purpose that you ply the sword, but rather so that the wicked will fear you to the glory of God and the good will love you. For what has not been planted by the Heavenly Father will be uprooted,55 and what this is we will explain in an orderly and brief way. May the will of God 55

238

Matthew 15:13.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 283

6/6/2007 1:03:49 PM

284

the events of 1532

work in us, and to His protection we commend you. Issued at Münster on the feast of the Assumption,56 1532. Zealous for your Reputation, Bernard Rothman, Brixius of Norden, John Glandorp, Henry Rolle, Peter Wirtheim, Godfrey Nienhove of Stralen

239

“1) The mass, which has been stitched together piece by piece by men, is the destruction of the Lord’s Supper and is blasphemy against His death. “2) The Lord’s Supper will be taken in the manner instituted by Christ, whereby Christians meet and proclaim the death of the Lord. “3) On the other hand, in the mass one man eats and drinks contrary to the manner instituted by Christ, presuming to do so on behalf of another person and, what is more abominable, making of it an offering that is to be Christ Himself, Who is again to be offered by the officiant on behalf of the living and the dead, which is a derisive insult to the Passion of Christ. In addition, almost all masses are paid for with money in just the way that the Jews bought Christ from Judas the traitor. “4) Just as it is impious for one man to usurp the Lord’s Supper on behalf of many, so too is it impious to distribute it in only one kind (bread).57 For the Lord’s Supper is a testament to the Son of God that no one ought to change. “5) The sacrament (as they call it) that is placed in patens, carried around and worshipped is blatant idolatry. For the Lord God alone, Whose seat is the heaven and the earth His footstool,58 | Who is neither able nor willing to be enclosed within temples wrought by the hands of men, is to be worshipped. What is carried around in patens, invoked and worshipped is nothing but mere bread, and it cannot be a sacrament. “6) Since the bread and wine are shared in the Lord’s Supper as a commemoration of Him, it is indeed a sacrament. Otherwise, the bread

August 15. This refers to the development of late medieval liturgical practice whereby the parishioners received only bread in communion and the wine was reserved for the priest (wine and bread being referred to as the two species or “kinds” of communion). 58 Isaiah 66:1. 56 57

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 284

6/6/2007 1:03:49 PM

the events of 1532

285

is and remains bread, and the wine is and remains wine.59 As for their saying that through the action of the five words “For this is my body” they make the sacrament or body of Christ, this is an impious lie. “7) Masses for souls, vigils and other rites for the dead have no basis in the Scripture and Truth of God.60 Rather, they are derisive insults to the blood of Christ. For it is thought that they can cancel sins, but this should be attributed only to the blood of Christ. Such masses are deceitful tricks with which to gut the wallets of the ignorant commoners. “8) For these and many other reasons it follows that the papists’ masses, in which they place the host in a paten, carry it around, worship it, and distribute it in one kind, are pure slanders and blasphemies against God and contrary to Divine Scripture. “9) Since everything in the Church, that is, the congregation of the faithful, should be done for the purpose of educating and correcting it, it is also necessary that we should understand the things that are being done, since there can be no correction on the basis of what is not understood. “10) It is therefore wrong if among the congregation of the faithful in church we use a different tongue from the one that can be understood by everyone. “11) Thus it is also fitting for baptism to be practiced in the vernacular tongue, since it is in everyone’s interest to understand the method of the baptism. “12) Also, all ecclesiastical rites, chants and anything else encompassed under the rubric of divine worship that has become traditional for the sake of presents or money, whether this is the main or a secondary intention and whether principally or co-incidentally, are useless.61

59 An attack on transubstantiation (the notion that the bread and wine are literally converted into the fl esh and blood of Christ). 60 An attack on the institution of purgatory. 61 Two notions are combined in this article. First, it is assumed that certain rites were instituted for the monetary benefit of the priests, who refused to carry them out without some form of recompense. The statement about the primary or coincidental purpose of the payments is added to dispose of any counterarguments from defenders of traditional practice to the effect that the payment was neither the reason for the original institution of the rite nor an integral element of it (thereby defl ecting the assertion that the payment invalidates the practice). Second, all such rites are to be abolished as pointless (whatever the origin).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 285

6/6/2007 1:03:49 PM

286

240

the events of 1532

“13) Chants by which the benefit of the intercessor or advocate is attributed to anyone other than Christ, like the “Salve, Regina”62 and the similar chants, are impious blasphemies. “14) To bless water, candles, plants, boughs, statues, bells, salt, oil and the such like with formulas for the benefit of our salvation smacks of paganism, shuts out true faith and opens the path to eternal damnation.63 “15) To anoint the sick with oil for any purpose other than to revive their limbs and bodies and to restore their strength, but as if the soul’s salvation depended on this, is impious blasphemy. “16) To invoke, honor and carry around images of the saints is manifest idolatry. “The reason why we have selected these abuses among many to list here is so that those who are fattened by them may not cite as an excuse that they do not know which abuses have crept into God’s churches. Thus, they can grasp here in a few words that the feigned worship of God is the greatest blasphemy against God (even though they also learned this from our early writing). From these writings and the reasons cited it is indisputably true that these abuses not only do not correspond to Holy Scriptures but are in diametrical opposition to them and reopen the wounds of Christ. Second, we have noted these abuses all the more readily in order for the son of perdition, who exalts himself above everything that is called God, sitting in the church of God and setting himself forth as God, to be revealed,64 so that those men who usurp God’s power and publicly declare that they represent God or rather that they are the vicars of Christ and possess the authority to absolve souls and remit sins should be betrayed through the removal of their covering. For with these abuses that lurk under the specious guise of religion they slaughter souls just as brigands slaughter unwary men in their lairs. There is a general clamor, and the princes also write, 62 Known as “Hail, Holy Queen” in English, this is far and away the most famous of the four breviary anthems to the Virgin Mary. Its authorship is unclear (it was attributed to a number of individuals), but seems to have been composed ca. 1000. It was adopted in the late medieval period by a number of monastic orders for evening services, and chantries were established specifically for performing it. Both Erasmus and Luther objected to the emphasis placed in the work on the role of Mary in salvation, and while the sentiment in it was not doctrinally offensive to Protestants, the anthem became strongly associated with the Catholic Mariology promoted during the Counter Reformation. 63 Attack on the widespread use of exorcized objects in traditional worship. 64 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4 (the text was taken as referring to the Antichrist).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 286

6/6/2007 1:03:49 PM

the events of 1532

287

that the ancient, Christian and praiseworthy rites of the Church should be retained, it being impossible ever to deviate from them. If only in obeying the commands of princes we learned with outstanding zeal which rites are to be considered ancient, Christian and praiseworthy, and which sinful and impious! Without a doubt we would not in that case so readily embrace the abuses that have been betrayed by us, since they have been introduced and accepted in violation of Scripture, of ancient Christian custom, and indeed of Christ Himself, for the sake of profit. In your presence, then, we will defend what we have written here against anyone. Accordingly, if any sinning in connection with such blasphemies takes place later in this city, | we consider ourselves to be innocent before God. It will be your task to ponder carefully what the considerations of the office entrusted to you by God demand of you in this matter.” After these statements were read in the council, the council noted that they pertained not to themselves but to ecclesiastical judgment, since it was not the city’s liberty but the clergy’s that was at issue. Therefore, in order to give an opportunity for defense, they sent a copy of the document to the clergy, so that they could defend their own cause by rebutting the arguments of the preachers. When these articles about abuses were handed over to the clergy, they sent them to Cologne and awaited a solid refutation of them by the theologians.65 On the same day (August 16) the council deliberated about the response they should give to the previous letter66 from the prince. In the end, they issued the following statement by decree. They had, in the customary manner, shown the letter from the prince to the aldermen and guild masters, and from it these men had learned that the prince had not, as they had expected, been pleased by the council’s previous response. In that response, the council had written that the preacher Lord Bernard Rothman, who had not been summoned to the city by the council, had offered to submit a document containing articles outlining his faith to the pastors, terminary monks and other men outstanding in learning, earnestly requesting correction from them if he erred in any regard, but they had given no response as if the matter were no concern of theirs and instead slept peacefully on either ear.67 For this

241

65 The theology faculty of the University of Cologne was a hotbed of reactionary scholasticism and a staunch defender of orthodoxy. 66 That of August 5 (see 229–230D). 67 A Latin expression signifying a lack of worry.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 287

6/6/2007 1:03:49 PM

288

242

the events of 1532

reason, they had written, the commons, being devoted to the Gospel and the Word of God, had been more confident in following Rothman. They also requested of the prince in that same response that he should, in order to protect civil society, deliberate about what measures seemed suitable to calm the uproar without violating the ancient rights and privileges of the city. They had hoped that the prince would not spurn a respectable request but would hear it graciously, | but since they found the contrary to be the case, they asked that the prince should, if so inclined, send to the city council some of his own councilors who were foremost in learning and authority, so that by their common counsel they could deal with all the uproars in the city in such a way that when all error and discord was done away with, an opportunity would be given to truth and concord. To this the prince responded on August 17 as follows. He had expected to receive from the council and the entire city of Münster a very different answer to his previous request, imagining that the inhabitants of the city would have obeyed by banishing the priests. Since, however, he saw that they had done nothing of the kind, a matter that caused him no little distress, he again requested that being mindful of their own salvation, they should finally, particularly under the present circumstances, consider the whole matter as carefully as possible, returning to a more sincere frame of mind: they should not introduce or allow to be introduced any innovation or any ecclesiastical rites different from those which existed in ancient times and should instead retain in use the ancient ceremonies and ancestral rites of the Catholic Church. As for their having asked him to send councilors, they were at the present time occupied with a different and necessary embassy, but upon their return he would take up this matter for deliberation and quickly write back the decisions of his council and make known what was considered appropriate in this situation. While this was going on, news reached Charles V, the most august emperor of the Romans, who was at that time engaged in business in Regensburg, about the innovations that had arisen in Münster and resulted in changing the form of religion and the ancient ecclesiastical rites. Realizing that this was a matter that could brook no delay, he immediately sent a letter to Bishop Francis of Münster, the text of which follows. “We, Charles V, by the grace of God the ever august emperor of the Romans and so on, wish our grace and everything good for our prince Francis, the most reverend bishop of Minden and nominee

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 288

6/6/2007 1:03:50 PM

the events of 1532

289

for the sees of Münster and Osnabrück. | Most reverend and pious prince, we have gathered through hearing by no means false accounts that many citizens and inhabitants of Münster have welcomed into their city certain Lutheran preachers in violation of our pious and beneficial edict that was issued at Worms in 152168 as well as of our law that was promulgated at the last Imperial Diet in Regensburg in 1530, and that these preachers are leading the ignorant and unwary commons from the true Word of God with their monstrous views and self-serving doctrine and do not cease to cause hatred, enmity and sedition among the religious and the laity, who are still devoted to the ancestral religion, as a result of which nothing but public disorder and bloodshed is to be feared if the opportunity is not quickly removed. It will be our task to obviate this misfortune with the appropriate remedy of timely planning. Accordingly, we command you, earnestly enjoin and resolve that you should as bishop examine the deeds in the city, not only remove from office the seditious preachers along with their following but also drive them out of the city, and restrain the factious burghers with lawful punishments and compel them with specific laws to obey their government, so that the clergy, as well as the city council and the other townsmen, may live together within the city walls in tranquility and full peace. Be advised that if you take these steps you will have complied with our will.” The prince had a copy of this Imperial letter that was checked against the original sent to the city council, and he attached it to his own letter of August 21, as follows. “That his Imperial Majesty has written a strict command to us that particularly concerns you and the inhabitants of our city you will learn from the copy that we have checked against the original and attached to this letter. Therefore, by virtue of the authority of this Imperial letter, we ask you with our devoutest wish and faithfully advise you under the impulse of our good will towards your city that you should disown the innovation that you have undertaken in the business of religion, cast out the seditious Lutheran preachers and restore the ancient and accepted ceremonies of the Catholic Church, | so that you will not seem to be violating the edict of his Imperial Majesty and the Estates of the Empire and contumaciously despising our frequent warnings.

243

244

68 The manuscript erroneously has “1530” but the correct date appears in the original of the Imperial letter.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 289

6/6/2007 1:03:50 PM

290

245

the events of 1532

We are certain that you will take these steps as obedient subjects of the Empire. Otherwise, we will be obliged to proceed to carry out, as we have been ordered, the Imperial order commanding the repression of the rebellion with lawful remedies, though in our devotion to you we shrink from these. We wish you to send through the bearer of this letter a response stating what you are going to do.” To this the council gave the following response on August 28. They had received the letter from the prince along with the copy of the Imperial command that had been sent to the prince. They had shown the letter to the aldermen and guild masters in the customary manner and received from the burghers the answer that they had done nothing in violation of the Imperial decree, to which they declare they owe all obedience. For the fact that they had summoned and admitted preachers to teach the Gospel and Word of God in a pure and sincere manner without pollution from any stain of heresy was in complete and express agreement with the Emperor’s edict issued at Worms, so far was it from violating the edict. Also, the council had found that it was indisputably true that these preachers had shown the pastors and chaplains of the parishes certain articles about doing away with abuse in certain ecclesiastical rites, and that the pastors and chaplains had as yet given no response to these articles, just as had been the case with Rothman’s. From these responses and others given previously, the prince could easily assess how impossible it was for the council to keep their burghers from the Word of God and to drive the preachers from the city. If, then, the prince did not cease to be oppressive and burdensome, the council and their people would invoke the city’s rights and in particular the privilege of the diocese, because of which they did not expect that they would be in any way oppressed or affl icted by the prince with insufferable savagery. They seem to be referring to the following article, which is included among the privileges of the diocese: “Item. The bishop will admit every single one of his subjects to their rights, privileges and reasonable customs, and he will defend those so admitted.” There are also other articles among the privileges which the burghers thought supported their position. For instance, “Item. If one of the subjects contends that he has some legal action or | case against the bishop, it should be settled amicably by the chapter or decided according to justice and custom, and the Lord should acquiesce in the decision” and “Item. His appointees will not execute ‘koslach’ against the members of the knighthood or the city of Münster and its towns,” though here the burghers

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 290

6/6/2007 1:03:50 PM

the events of 1532

291

incorrectly read “toslach” (“arrest”) as if the bishop were forbidden the right of arrest among his subjects.69 On August 29, the prince responded as follows to the townsmen’s letter of August 16, in which they asked for councilors of the prince to be sent to settle the sedition. He had been quite prepared, he said, to send the councilors in order to preserve the tranquility and well-being of the state, but it had become quite clear to him that in recent days, and in particular on August 10, the townsmen had done what he had by no means expected. In violation of the Imperial edicts and in derisive contempt of the Imperial decrees promulgated in various Diets, in the parish and other churches they had, by their own authority and in the manner of seditious rebels, altogether abolished and done away with all the pious ceremonies and worship of God that were ancient and traditional. Accordingly, by his own council it had been decided that he would not send members of his council to waste their time in negotiations with people who are constantly consumed with the zealous desire to innovate, unless, that is, all the innovation in religion and ecclesiastical rites that had also been forbidden by the Emperor was first cast out of their territory and then the rites now in exile were recalled. In that case, he would negotiate with the townsmen either in Münster or in any other place, and if any sort of feud, hatred, abuse or error was discovered in either the ecclesiastical or secular order, he would do away with it by his authority and substitute practices that were conducive to unbroken peace, a tranquil life and public well-being. Hence, he had no doubt that the townsmen would be mindful of the obedience they owed and of their duty. The lower clergy were upset at this miserable situation and unheardof turn of events, and since they were unable to oppose the commons’ uproar and their seditious and violent machinations with their own strength, they begged for the prince’s help in the following words. “Most reverend and glorious prince! We have no doubt that you have learned through the general report that certain lowly men unknown to us have, without the permission of the secular government but at the

246

It is hard to make sense of K.’s argument because while K. is apparently denying to koslach the meaning “arrest” (in the sense of “seize”), which he restricts to the word toslach, koslach does in fact share this sense with toslach (and also signifies “driving cattle from a meadow”). K. apparently gives this incorrectly restrictive meaning to koslach in order to deny the burghers’ interpretation, but he does not explain what he takes koslach to mean or what he thinks the bishop’s officials are actually supposed to refrain from doing. 69

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 291

6/6/2007 1:03:50 PM

292

247

the events of 1532

command of certain councilmen, aldermen and guild masters and of certain people of commoner status, intruded into the parish churches, throwing the pastors and chaplains out of their positions and taking over their offices, that they have disseminated many innovations and unheard-of propositions among the common folk, that they have rejected as destructive, impious blasphemy the ancient rites in the churches and the worship of God that were established many centuries ago and have been accepted since then, and that they have drawn up their doctrine under a few headings, claiming that these matters will remain valid until they are refuted by Catholic preachers with legitimate arguments based on Holy Scriptures. All these matters have caused us the greatest grief, and under these most distressing circumstances we take refuge in no one (after God) other than you, our prince, defender, protector and future bishop, expecting advice, help and support from you. As a result of such disorderly, violent and forbidden enactments and undertakings on the part of seditious men not only all good and pious ceremonies but also the worship of God, peace and tranquility are smashed, cast to the winds, and despised, and the commons are not roused to mutual affection but instead are made to be so angry against us that we can scarcely be confident of the peaceful possession of our property for a single day or conceive what we should do and expect in the end amidst such vicissitudes and constant innovation. Consequently, most reverend prince, we implore you, we beseech you, to help us with your authority. May the frightfulness of the present time, our pale worries and anxieties, | the risk of death with which we are threatened every day, or rather every hour, and finally consideration of your office impel you to succour us with your advice and help amidst these distressing and perplexing difficulties and bring it about that with the ancestral rites and ceremonies retained in churches we may be reconciled with the council and commons and live in peace as we have up until now. If you do this, you will make us obliged, or rather most obliged, to you. We are eager for you to answer back what your attitude toward us is.” The prince gave the following response. “I am compelled to endure with great distress your affl ictions and the death of the ancestral ceremonies and holy rites at the hands of the people of Münster. At the present time I cannot aid or succour you with definite advice given my situation or with sufficiently strong protection compared to the importance of the matter. Let us, therefore, put up with this joint misfortune for the time being. With God’s help, however, steps will be taken to

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 292

6/6/2007 1:03:50 PM

the events of 1532

293

ensure the swift suppression of the rebellion rashly undertaken by the people of Münster, so that all your affl ictions will be done away with and you yourselves will be restored to your former status.” On the same day (August 30), the prince responded as follows to the letter sent by the council on August 28 concerning the Imperial edict. “You responded to our previous letter, to which we attached and conveyed to you a copy of the Imperial letter, by stating that your burghers did not feel that they had violated the Imperial edict by calling to them preachers who would declare the Word of God to the people in a pure and sincere manner just as was ordained by the Imperial edict promulgated at Worms. In addition to this, we have also noted how frivolously, stupidly, pointlessly and without any justification you have invoked the rights and privileges of this diocese. That neither you nor the other inhabitants of Münster have brought yourselves into compliance with the edict of Worms is not only demonstrated everyday with your manifest and very well-known deeds but also manifestly proven by a comparison of your innovation with that edict and other edicts and recesses from various diets. | We would never have expected that you and your burghers would so obstinately persevere in the course of rebellious sedition that you have undertaken in contempt of the Imperial edict and our pious warning or that you would invoke the privileges of this diocese in specious defense of your case, there being, in our opinion, no occasion for you to invoke it in this case in particular. Accordingly, it would have been fitting and right for you to have considered these matters differently and to have arranged your affairs more prudently. Hence, by this letter we advise and exhort again and again, to the point of excess, that you and your burghers should obey the command of his Imperial Majesty and give due consideration to our pious prayers and friendly admonitions that you should not call down the Emperor’s outrage upon you and your townsmen, thereby putting yourselves at great risk through your own fault.” The people of Münster could not, however, be deterred from the obstinate course of rebellion that they had undertaken by any warnings from the prince, however pious and extremely beneficial. Instead, his good willed clemency made them not only bolder in their innovating but even more precipitous, since they were confident of the city’s fortifications. This situation had partly offended the prince and the good men and partly terrified them to such an extent that nothing more was needed for the future overthrow of the city. But to avoid it being said of him that by his own authority he was making any overly harsh

248

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 293

6/6/2007 1:03:50 PM

294

249

the events of 1532

decision against the city or imposing more burdensome sanctions than was fair, the prince wished to refer everything first to the public consideration and deliberation of the entire nobility, and the time and place established for this deliberation was September 17 in Bilderbeck (this is a little town in the diocese of Münster that is particularly celebrated as the place of death of St. Ludger, the founding bishop). After the nobles had assembled there, the prince, through his orator, praised the nobility, noting their ready compliance with his wishes, and at the same time indicated his own frame of mind and his gratitude towards them in turn. Next, the orator revealed the reason for the assembly and continued as follows. “The nobles summoned here know on the basis of sure and manifest proofs that with their doctrine certain preachers in the city of Münster have in recent days led the ignorant and unwary commons astray from the Word of God and cast them headlong into the most baneful views, and after abolishing the ancient Catholic ceremonies that have been accepted for many centuries, they have, by their own authority, replaced them with new ones which violate the edict of the Emperor and the decisions of the Imperial Diets. They also know that unless this innovation is promptly opposed with their advice and assistance, in many towns and country districts of this excellent diocese error, faction, discord, sedition and disobedience on the part of the subjects and the destruction of the good men, or rather the complete dissolution of the nobility, are to be feared as a result of contamination. Having been elected by God’s ordinance as bishop of this diocese, the noble and high-born Francis of Waldeck honestly declares that it is his duty to cure these evils to the best of his ability, and he has down to the present time attempted to achieve this end in many ways, asking of the people of Münster that they remove their preachers and refrain from any innovation until he attains full authority to administer the diocese, at which point he promised that he would look after the interests of all his people on the basis of fairness, so that no one could justly complain. In order that this request should have greater authority, he passed on to the city a copy of the Imperial order forbidding innovation that had been checked against the original. Yet, the people of Münster neglect and spurn all of this, keep their seditious preachers, do away with the customary ecclesiastical rites, substitute uncustomary ones, and exceed the limits of their jurisdiction by seizing the prince’s prerogatives, which they usurp for themselves. The prince thinks that these acts should by no means be tolerated by him. Relying, instead, on the help of God

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 294

6/6/2007 1:03:50 PM

the events of 1532

295

and his friends, he intends to beat down, as far as possible, both the townsmen’s impious beliefs and their impudent wantonness in doing whatever they want, so that he may satisfy the command given to him strictly both verbally and in writing by the Emperor at the most recent diet at Regensburg. Since this insolent rebellion of the townsmen | has by no means been checked but will result in the destruction of the whole nobility of this diocese, whom they involve in a disaster similar to their own, the prince asks, nay begs, that you be on your guard for the common honor and benefit of the diocese, consider everything quite carefully, help your prince in a cause both pious and respectable, and save yourselves and your children from the threatening disaster, so that the townsmen’s rebellion, sedition, impiety and lusting after every crimes will not break out anew to your destruction and after making the entire diocese, which has always been remarkable for its noblemen, into the laughingstock of foreign populations along with them, and eventually destroy you. Rather, as a warning to others their crimes should be quickly restrained, so that this region may maintain its ancient reputation unharmed, intact and uncontaminated and pass it on to your descendants. What, I ask, is the benefit from this false pretext of religion used by the townsmen? What is the use of specious piety? In this, the Word of God is cleverly stitched together as a concealing cloak for every sort of rebellion, insolence and impunity in malfeasance, so that hatred and enmity, disobedience and rebellion, every sort of contempt for both the ecclesiastical and the secular government, dissension and sedition, slaughter and bloodshed are covered over and concealed, out of which the most certain disaster will in the end burst forth against the city. Let it serve as an example to us that in past years it is mostly for these same reasons that noteworthy disaster has befallen other cities. Accordingly, the prince has no doubt that in this matter you will, of your own accord, do what Christian piety and obedience, the honor of the homeland and, finally, the well-being of yourselves and your children seem to demand. He will not fail to recompense you in turn for carrying out these meritorious duties. The prince desires to receive a reply indicating which of these steps he can expect from you.” To this the nobility responded as follows. The townsmen could not be deterred with any warnings from their obstinate rebellion, religious undertakings and unheard-of innovation in ceremonies, but were all the more zealously pressing on with their business, | neglecting the laws of the faith and of the common compact and becoming alienated from the rest of the other orders of the diocese. Although the prince would

250

251

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 295

6/6/2007 1:03:50 PM

296

the events of 1532

have been completely within his rights if he had attacked them more fiercely and bitterly—and in that case, the nobility declared that they were obliged to help the prince with advice and assistance—nonetheless, the one thing that they demanded from him for the sake of the general peace was that in his mercy he should temporarily postpone carrying out any more severe punishment that he had in mind for the townsmen. This would avoid causing bitter feelings on both sides as a result of a sudden onslaught, and otherwise the townsmen, being reinforced with the protection of many cities on the pretext of religion and rendered more precipitous because of the fortifications of the city, would drag all the clergy, the whole nobility and the entire diocese down with them into the fullest disaster and permanent ruin. For if they are provoked, they would mix everything up topsy-turvy, confusing the sacred and the secular, so that they could have as many allies as possible in their rashness and downfall, and they were so deranged on account of their religion that they would prefer to endure anything at all rather than give it up. Hence, every effort involving clemency must be taken before resorting to a step as a result of which the downfall of the good men was to be feared. The good men should be considered more than the wicked. The tares should not be pulled up to the detriment of the wheat. The wicked should be temporarily tolerated in the meanwhile, so that when the wicked are restrained with more severe penalties and with great fear, the innocent will not be included in their downfall. Accordingly, let the prince not blaze forth with excessive anger because of the townsmen’s impudence and insolence, and the passage of time would recommend a method of punishment that would restrain them without harming the good men. According to the dictates of necessity, the nobles would, if at all possible, bring it about that the townsmen should, after casting off the seditious preachers and bringing back the ancient ceremonies, be reconciled with the prince. If, on the other hand, this could not be achieved, they would join forces with the prince to execute whatever kind of penalty he wished.” This response from the nobility was heard by the prince with good will and brought the townsmen a delay in punishment until the last measures that seemed conducive to restoring peace had been tried. Lest this difficult matter that was replete with trouble should be conducted with insufficient gravity, eight prestigious noblemen whose authority was respected by almost everyone were chosen to give counsel to the vicars of the diocese, receiving from the knighthood the official authorization to make decisions and pronouncements on the understanding that

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 296

6/6/2007 1:03:50 PM

the events of 1532

297

whatever they decided would be considered valid. Their names were | John of Münster, bailiff of Steinfurt, Bernard of Westerholt, Godfrey of Schedelich, Caspar Smising, John of Asbeck, John of Büren, John of Merfelt the younger, and Henry of Merfelt the bailiff. After choosing these men to negotiate with the people of Münster in the assembly at Bilderbeck, the knighthood sent a letter to the council and leaders of the commons on the same day (September 17), as follows. “We have unanimously decided that since we are busy, the vicars of this diocese and other men of outstanding infl uence who have been chosen by us from the knighthood should negotiate with you for your own sake about important matters that concern the well-being of the diocese, and for this reason we ask that at 8 a.m. on the Monday after the Feast of Matthew70 you come without prevarication to Wolbeck to hear the logic underlying our advice and to deliberate in light of this with the vicars and with our representatives about the clear demands of necessity in order that on that basis peace and tranquility will be established and strengthened in the state. We have no doubt that since this is in your interest, you will readily comply with our requests.” Having also received authorization for this from the knighthood, on September 18 the representatives wrote to the council and the other estates of the city, in the following words. It was with the greatest distress, they said, that they had learned within the last few days that the prince and the people of Münster were disaffected from one another because of a change in religion and ceremonies. As a lack of peacefulness swelled up among certain people, this could lead to certain acts, which, if they were not calmed through the intervention of peace-makers, could cause the destruction not only of those who were party to the dispute but also of all those who were caught in the middle. For nothing is more detrimental to a state than for its heads to disagree among themselves, since if both sides are infl amed with the desire to cause harm, they squeeze the members, who are caught in the middle, and entangle them in great misfortunes.71 Therefore, to avoid a situation where the entire diocese would be cast headlong into such perils, the representatives had been entrusted by the knighthood

252

September 23. This sentence is based on a play on words in Latin. Membrum signifies both literally a “limb” of the body and metaphorically the “member” of a group of people. Medieval political thought compared the government and members of the body politic to the head and limbs of the human body. 70 71

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 297

6/6/2007 1:03:51 PM

298 253

254

the events of 1532

with the task | of cutting short this destructive disaffection and then, if possible, of resolving and dispelling it without harm to this homeland. The representatives promised that they would readily do this, since these matters concerned the well-being and general peace not of one person but of everyone. Accordingly, by the authority of the entire nobility, at whose command they were carrying out this embassy, they entreated and beseeched the estates of the city to be mindful of their own wellbeing and to send plenipotentiary representatives on September 23 to Wolbeck (a little town located about one mile from Münster). In that place there would be deliberation on a matter that would cleanse the diocese of all factions and internal disturbances and, after restoring, with God’s help, the diocese to its former tranquility, keep it in that state for the longest period of time possible. It was not without reason that neither the main clergy nor the burgher masters of the other towns were invited to this day of deliberation in the customary way. First, the people of Münster would have considered the main clergy, whom they did not allow to be named, to be responsible for everything that they imagined to be directed against them at that meeting, and as a result the clergy would have incurred even greater enmity among the townsmen. As for the second point, since a certain number of towns in the diocese had adopted the same innovation, their presence would have made the people of Münster even more bold and impetuous. Accordingly, it was better for those whose presence would have been more a hindrance than help in the matter at hand to be absent. The representatives of the people of Münster arrived on the appointed time and place, and after they had been brought into the presence of the noble delegates for the discussion, the official given the vernacular title “marshal” spoke as follows. The council, aldermen and guild masters had been summoned by letter to this assembly in a friendly way, but neither of the burgher masters was present and instead some foreign orator was to be seen among the representatives. Accordingly, the vicars of the diocese and the delegates chosen by the knighthood to convene this meeting wished to receive a declaration as to whether the people of Münster had come there with the intention of listening to the delegation from the nobility with good will, | and after receiving an answer they would consider more fully what needed to be done. For it was the accepted practice of ancestral custom that in meetings to discuss the common well-being at least one if not both burgher masters should be present.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 298

6/6/2007 1:03:51 PM

the events of 1532

299

Understanding that he was viewed as a foreign member of the delegation from Münster, Goswin of Velmede, the orator for the people of Münster, answered as follows. A few days ago he had come to Münster to complete some business, and at that time the council had asked him to undertake the job of orator and act on behalf of the burghers at this meeting. If, however, he came to the conclusion that this business was acting against the interests of the prince, nobility or diocese, he would voluntarily dissociate himself from the people of Münster. The people of Münster also responded to the marshal’s statement, as follows. The burgher masters had not been in town when the nobility’s letter had arrived, and the council relayed it to them. The reply from them was that one was gravely ill and the other had been seriously injured when his grazing horse suffered a fall, and accordingly neither of them could be present at the appointed time. The aldermen, guild masters and other representatives of the city, on the other hand, were present in order to hear with good will the words that the delegates were instructed to say. At this point, the marshal of the diocese thanked the people of Münster for having readily attended this meeting when summoned by the knighthood’s letter, and he gave the following report. A few days ago, he said, the prince had summoned the knighthood of the entire diocese to Bilderbeck and laid out the following points. After having been elected as bishop of the diocese of Münster, he found out through sure indications and factual proofs that recently certain lowly and insignificant fellows who were Lutheran preachers had crept into the city of Münster. They perceived that the pliable commons were devoted to their preaching, and being protected by their advice and help, they had ill-advisedly seized the city’s parish churches without the permission of the lawful secular government, being carried away by their own authority. | They deposed the lawfully appointed pastors and chaplains, substituting themselves in their place, and in their sermons they disseminated among the ignorant and unwary commoners very many erroneous, divisive and baneful innovations and views, inciting them to every sort of rebellion, impudence and insolence and increasing the hatred felt for the order of presbyters72 in particular in order to bring about the destruction of the entire clergy. As a result of this contempt for all rulers, both secular and ecclesiastical, was to be feared. They not only had thrown out all the pious rites that were Catholic

72

255

The context suggests that this signifies the main clergy.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 299

6/6/2007 1:03:51 PM

300

256

the events of 1532

and traditional along with tranquility, unity and obedience but had changed, nay altogether abolished, them in violation of the Emperor’s edict and the decisions of the Imperial Diets and in derision or contempt of their secular government. The prince, on the other hand, having noted with the greatest distress this seditious insurrection mounted by the burghers against the Church within the city’s walls, had often, by virtue of the Imperial edict, whose execution had been entrusted to him by an Imperial letter, as he demonstrated to the nobility, written to the people of Münster to warn them in a friendly way to refrain from their divisive sedition, give up their preachers, unanimously embrace the ancestral Catholic religion, and cherish peace and mutual concord until the abuses were done away with in a general reformation.73 Ignoring all this advice, however, the preachers, along with their following of the same stripe and the seditious dregs of the commoners’ faction, had persisted in this rebellion, casting to the winds and altogether despising the edict of his Imperial Majesty and the prince’s friendly warnings. They had completely abolished and done away with all the ecclesiastical rites and the worship of God that rouses the people with a passion for the duties of piety, and had by their own caprice replaced them with an immoral, impious and schismatic way of life. Up until the present they had been devoted to this terrible example in which they wallowed, though in the end nothing was to be expected of it but a deplorable look in the city, the destruction of general tranquility, the neglect of obedience, the overthrow of the government, mutual civil slaughter, the shedding of kindred blood, and the most certain downfall of the entire diocese. “Since74 the prince has also noted that the people of Münster are obstinately clinging to their impious faction and the undertaking of rebellion, and could not be pacified with any warnings, however friendly, he thought that it was his duty and role | to ward off and avert from his subjects any misfortune through the help of God and the assistance of his friends, and to check and restrain the burghers because of the rebellion they have set in motion with the obstacle of lawful penalties to avoid the eventuality that they would become more and more insolent through long-standing impunity, and, as often happens, drag down the innocent precipitously into the same disaster by infecting them. Instead,

73 Here “reformation” refers to internal attempts at reform within the Catholic Church, a common meaning in the years before Luther. 74 Here K. suddenly begins to translate the response in direct quotation.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 300

6/6/2007 1:03:51 PM

the events of 1532

301

his aim is to restore civil peace, religious unity and obedience towards the government and after restoring them preserve them for as long as possible. In this matter the prince earnestly asks for advice and assistance from us. The knighthood is deliberating about this affair, and the more deeply considered opinion of its timely refl ection is that this innovation rashly undertaken by the people of Münster will bring an exceptional revolution and destruction not only to the burghers and the city but also to the entire diocese, and that as a result, after the bonds by which this city was, by the grace of God, always tied in loyalty to the prince and the other estates of the diocese are broken asunder, the city will in the end collapse in unending disaster and drag down with it into this calamity the largest number of people possible. The threat of these misfortunes is such that the nobility and the other estates of the diocese will not refrain from using the most careful diligence and the highest zeal to forestall them as far as is possible.” Accordingly, in a friendly and familiar way the knighthood offered for their salvation the carefully considered and serious advice and request that the council, aldermen and guild masters, and indeed the entire state, should examine the matter from all the best perspectives, carefully consider it and reconsider it, putting both their own and the city’s salvation and destruction in the balance, obey the edict and command of his Imperial Majesty and the frequent written warnings of our prince, abandon the preachers, reject all the uncustomary rites and innovations introduced by their own authority, restoring the ancient ceremonies now hallowed by age and the original decoration of the churches to their previous position of dignity and respect, and willingly allow themselves to be penalized with the punishment for rebellion that they deserved for violating the Imperial edict. If the people of Münster would accede to this, there was no doubt that given his inherent mercy, the prince would, without any admonition and of his own accord, make sure that if there existed within the city any abuse, any disturbance or any dispute between the religious and the laity concerning religion and ceremonies, he would do away with it with his advice and assistance | and restore the longed for tranquility with fine or fair terms. Consequently, the prince, the city and its inhabitants, and the entire diocese would thus live together for the longest period of time possible in mutual concord and the Christian religion, as had been the case up until then. If the knighthood had any infl uence with the prince in this matter because of their advice and assistance, they would not fail the city in using all their waking efforts to cast out discord and restore peace. If, on the other hand, the

257

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 301

6/6/2007 1:03:51 PM

302

258

the events of 1532

people of Münster did not acknowledge the Imperial edict, the prince’s very frequent and friendly warnings and the great favor and beneficial counsels of the knighthood, and instead went on with their obstinacy, impiety, rash presumptuousness, and zealous pursuit of disagreement, which was not to be expected, the knighthood of the entire diocese would not fail to give the prince their advice, assistance and action, but would, in their adherence to him, join their forces with his in order to free the city and the whole region from the Emperor’s outrage and punishment. The knighthood expressed its great desire to be informed as to which of these courses the people of Münster would take. After the marshal brought his speech to an end, the representatives of the townsmen gave the following response after holding a consultation. They would be eternally grateful to the knighthood for the present good turn, favor and outstanding goodwill that they had shown to the city of Münster in removing their disadvantageous situation. But the vicars and the delegates chosen by the knighthood to settle the dispute in the present case could easily realize with their great wisdom that it was not within the power of representatives, especially ones not granted full authority, to agree that the townsmen would give up and oppose their factious rebellion and plotting of revolution, and that instead they had to report for the entire city’s deliberation the terms that had been laid out before them, though certainly in the confident expectation that the disagreement would be settled. They said that being in particular need of the nobility’s advice in this matter they asked them not to fail to give it, so that the rebellion of the commoners, which all good men had always opposed and for which the commons and not the government were responsible, should be halted and uprooted. Hence, they asked to be given fourteen days to deliberate with all the estates of the city. To this the vicars and the delegation of the nobility gave the following response. It was not in their power to grant them such a long period of time to take counsel, and they dared not exceed their instructions, since they had been strictly and officially enjoined to demand a firm and unalterable decision from the representatives of the townsmen without delay. Although this situation did not allow private modification, they would nonetheless grant them one day to consult with their people. And if the people of Münster were willing to comply with and obey the terms set out, the knighthood would not fail to give them advice and assistance, so that the city, the nobility and the other estates of the

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 302

6/6/2007 1:03:51 PM

the events of 1532

303

diocese would remain bound together in tranquility and full peace, as had been the case until then. The people of Münster persisted in their request to be granted a fourteen-day period for deliberation, and although the vicars and the noble representatives produced the instructions in which the knighthood and the prince specified that a very short period of time was to be granted to the people of Münster for deliberation, the representatives of Münster complained to the contrary that the innovation in religion and ceremonies had taken such hold of the minds of the burghers and set down such deep roots that it was impossible to eradicate it quickly. Therefore, they said, they again and again asked that the vicars and representatives of the knighthood should in their mercy grant the amount of time asked for, promising that in that case they would zealously strive to the best of their abilities to restore the peace. In the end, they managed with difficulty to get a grant of two days, on the understanding that within this time they would give the knighthood a serious answer as to what they were going to do in order to avoid the possibility that the prince might, if they gave a different sort of answer, give vent more bitterly to the sense of outrage that he had conceived against the city because of the rebellion, something that the knighthood would strive with all its might to prevent. The representatives from Münster, however, did not budge from their request for fourteen days, since the undertaking of sedition could not be settled so quickly. For, they said, if the burghers’ activities were suddenly checked, the council feared the worst consequences for itself in its innocence,75 since a sudden change in the city’s affairs had always been a source of danger and had never been achieved without great uproar. In order for them to avoid being responsible for many deaths, they entreated the vicars and the representatives of the knighthood to use the wisdom with which they were endowed to consider and refl ect upon this matter more deeply | and not to deny them such a small period of time for deliberation, promising that within that time they would bring a definite answer to Wolbeck or any other place determined by the knighthood.

259

75 This is apparently a mistranslation on K.’s part. The original seems to state that the representatives feared for their own safety: “they would be killed by the council like the innocent” (se vam rade als de unschuldigen umb de halsse komen). (It is not clear why the “innocent” should be killed, and perhaps this is itself a mistake for als de schuldigen, i.e., “as those responsible.”)

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 303

6/6/2007 1:03:51 PM

304

260

the events of 1532

When the vicars and the noble delegation neither wished nor dared to give an extension of more than two days, the representatives of Münster gave the following answer. Since such an uproar and sedition in the city could in no way be settled suddenly and the small amount they had in supplication requested for deliberation was rashly denied to them, if, then, the matter unexpectedly turned out badly, the vicars and nobles should remember this day on which the representatives of Münster had both invoked the privileges of the diocese and in supplication asked for a mere fourteen days to deliberate on a matter involving the life and salvation of the innocent. To this the vicars answered as follows. It was not within their power to grant an extension. As for the invocation of the privileges of the homeland, they were not relevant in the present case and could not be twisted to suit it. Nonetheless, said the vicars, they would tenaciously remember the statements made by the representatives of Münster, so that if the occasion arose in the future, they would not seem to have forgotten. They in turn asked that if the beneficial warnings and peaceable advice of the knighthood were ignored, the representatives of Münster should recall the good turn, goodwill and favor that had been discarded contrary to the homeland’s privileges. Since the representatives could not get the fourteen days, they asked that they should at least be given eight, promising that within that time they would give a definite answer in the name of the city of Münster. After a short deliberation, the vicars and the nobles granted the eight days, expecting that the prince would not take it amiss if all the strife and the calamity of the impending disaster was prevented. They did so on the condition that the people of Münster would follow the warnings and advice of the knighthood, and otherwise be mindful of the goodwill shown them. Next, after all the negotiations had been carefully drawn up by both sides as a protocol, the meeting was ended and the participants went their separate ways. After returning to the city, the representatives of Münster copied out the protocol in the form of a letter of information and showed it to Rothman. While they engaged in private and public deliberation and consultation, on September 25, Rothman spewed out the responses that they had written against the terms laid out by the marshal | and offered them to the assembled council, aldermen and guild masters with the intention that in the coming meeting the council should relay these to the knighthood as their official response, as if the council were in need of someone else’s advice and of Rothman’s services as a wordsmith.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 304

6/6/2007 1:03:51 PM

the events of 1532

305

Copy of Rothman’s response “Response to the instruction set out by the vicars and knighthood of the diocese of Münster to the city’s representatives on September 23 at Wolbeck. “First, the vicars and the representatives of the knighthood will be thanked for their loyal warning, for the offered support and consolatory promise of their good services. Even if these had not been offered, the city of Münster considers that they would not be missed because of the superiority of their case and because of their privileges. Since a definite response was asked for by the knighthood at the meeting at Wolbeck, they should receive this one with good will and discretion. “As for the first item (that the bishop elect has discovered through reliable indications that certain lowly and insignificant fellows and Lutheran preachers have crept into the city, and after making the people devoted to them, seized the churches of the city with their help and without the authority of the government, casting out the lawful pastors and preaching impious and seditious doctrines, and so on) our response is this. If anything that is impious or incompatible with the true office has been introduced in the business of religion, so that anyone could justly complain about it, it did not arise from us or from the commons but from the preachers, who promise that they will give a perfectly justifiable defense of their doctrine without any recourse to violence. If, then, there is anyone who can lodge any accusation against them or our burghers, we will not shut the courts of our city to him, but we allow what will be just in our tribunal to be carried out (this procedure will prevent the violation of the privileges and royal rights of our city being violated). “Second, as for the claim that by the Emperor’s command we have been ordered by the prince in writing to oppose the impious, seditious and forbidden doctrine by expelling the preachers but instead have unalterably persisted in this rebellion in contemptuous derision of the Imperial edict and the prince’s well-intentioned warning, | our response is this. If anyone censures our preachers or burghers for a fault of which they cannot clear themselves with legitimate arguments, or if, as is fair, he proves the criticism made of us, not only will we give up our plan and remove the preachers but we will also infl ict the due penalties on those convicted of criminal wrongdoing. For we have always opposed what is impious, unrighteous and false, and pursued what is pious, righteous and true. Thus, the matter has been referred to the parish priests and those in other positions, so that if they think

261

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 305

6/6/2007 1:03:51 PM

306

262

the events of 1532

of any complaint against the doctrine of the preachers, they should bring it to the light of day. But no one has come forward. We have also written in supplication to our prince with the request that he turn this dispute over to fair arbitrators for judgment, so that it should be revealed who defends the more righteous case. Since the commons are convinced of the truth of the doctrines that they have heard from their preachers, who do promise that they will defend these doctrines, but no one among the parish priests or other curates of our souls or anyone else overwhelms these doctrines with more solid arguments from Holy Scripture, it is difficult, nay impossible, to drag the commons away from the truth. “Third, since we are criticized for having completely abolished and removed from the parish churches the worship of God and all praiseworthy ceremonies, we are necessarily compelled to note how each act was carried out. It so happens that everyday now the commoners seek to know the true God through being educated in Holy Scripture in order to do away with every dispute between the ecclesiastical order and the laity (one preacher says one thing and the next another), and that at their request the government of Münster announced to the parish priests and chaplains that they should teach the Word of God without the admixture of falsity and refrain from teaching falsity as doctrine. When, however, these priests and chaplains declared that they knew no abuses, the preachers wrote them up in a list and offered it to us. We therefore convened a meeting of our pastors and curates of souls, laying these abuses before them so that they should either overwhelm them with arguments or refrain from their own ceremonies if they are impious. But to the present day nothing has been alleged against the abuses compiled by the preachers, and the priests and chaplains have instead allowed their own ceremonies to fall into abeyance and die out. For our own part, we could have allowed everything that was not contrary to true piety, but since neither our clergy nor anyone on their behalf | is able or willing to defend their position and refute the preachers’ list, we can in no way make the commoners return to the ancients rites in the churches before the propriety of such practices is demonstrated and the doctrine of the preachers refuted. If, on the other hand, the doctrine of the preachers is refuted with legitimate arguments, we will readily obey you in this matter, as we always do otherwise. Therefore, we ask that the vicars and the knighthood strive to convince the prince that he should, with the assistance of all the estates of this diocese and at our expense (since this is in the interest

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 306

6/6/2007 1:03:52 PM

the events of 1532

307

of all the inhabitants of the diocese, as the marshal stated), summon from elsewhere learned men of great authority. To them both sides will entrust the right to assess and decide the matter, and if in their judgment the preachers are convicted of erring and of teaching impious doctrines, they should be sentenced to their deserved punishments. For as long as they are not found guilty of error, and instead publicly profess their doctrine in writing and speech and invoke the protection of the truth without anyone coming forward to dare to prove them guilty of error, there is no opportunity to expel the preachers, this being the only kind of force we can apply. However, in order that the vicars, the representatives and the entire knighthood should know that we, along with the entire citizenry of this city, are zealous in our pursuit of the truth and of fairness and are not plotting any rebellion against anyone, we have ordered the preachers to refrain temporarily from giving sermons. If their doctrine will, in the meanwhile, be proven to be impious by anyone, they will not escape the lawful penalty. If in the meanwhile the prince too organizes the matter of religion into a pious, Christian order, we will very readily embrace it unasked.” Rothman stitched together this document for delivery as the response to the vicars and the knighthood, doing so in the name of the council but without any authorization from it. The council, however, quashed it in order not to be dependent upon his advice and suggestions and to avoid offending the knighthood with this emotive document, which was full of irony and sarcasm and seemed to be a pleading on behalf of the preachers. After deliberating, they told the representatives what response they should give in the name of the city. The representatives returned to Wolbeck to give this response on the eighth day granted to them (September 30). There they found at the meeting the noblemen Gerard of Recke, a golden knight,76 Gerard Morrien the marshal, Arnold of Raesfeld, Godfrey of Schedelich and Bernard of Westerholt, | and the scribe Master Eberhard Aelius. These men declared that they had the authority to act on behalf of the count of Bentheim and the rest of the absent nobility, and to them the representatives of Münster relayed the following message.

263

76 This is a technical expression for a knight who received his knighthood through being dubbed personally rather than through inheritance. Comparatively uncommon, this status was indicated by the privilege of using golden spurs and stirrups, which gave rise to the title.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 307

6/6/2007 1:03:52 PM

308

264

the events of 1532

They said that they had, on September 23, received the requests that had been made by the knighthood assembled at Wolbeck in written and oral form concerning the city’s preachers and the rites in its churches, and they had laid these requests out to the council, aldermen and guild masters and to all the estates of the city whose interests were involved. Since after many entreaties and much suppliant begging eight days for deliberation had been granted to them only with the greatest difficulty by the vicars and the noble delegation, accordingly, in light of the amount of time given them they had left no stone unturned every day in their efforts at advising, requesting and beseeching now the commons and now the leaders to whom the commons harkened most. Day after day, they had expected a definite answer about restoring the ceremonies in the churches and removing the new preachers, but down to the present time they had been unable to manage this. Therefore, it was not in their power to give any definite answer in the name of the city to the items laid before them, and thus they asked the vicars and the noble delegation that being mindful of the dangerous toil undertaken by the representatives in an attempt to lessen the commons’ madness, they should not suspect them of malfeasance but should argue earnestly for their innocence before the prince. Since the clergy had, through the assistance of learned men, come up with a counter-argument against Rothman’s articles, the prince should turn over this case for decision by fair arbitrators, so that the preachers would be convicted of error and acquiesce in Holy Scripture. If this request was granted, there was no doubt that the commons would accept different doctrine and thus easily allow the ancestral religion to be restored. If, on the other hand, the prince could not be persuaded to adopt this course of action, which they hardly expected, they were sure that the prince’s concern, civility and fairness were such that he would certainly not infl exibly force upon the city of Münster’s council, aldermen and guild masters actions that they could not perform. The representatives also invoked the assistance of the regular law and of the Imperial edict promulgated at Regensburg on August 3 and made known in Münster on September 9 and in different cities of the Empire | at various intervals, expecting that neither the council or any individual would be oppressed or treated inappropriately in violation of these measures. To this the nobles responded that they wished to report the negotiation to the prince in the exact form in which it was conducted. This is the gist of the Imperial edict mentioned above. It was clear that many seditions and various dangerous situations had arisen

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 308

6/6/2007 1:03:52 PM

the events of 1532

309

throughout the Empire in the name of the faith and of religion, and it was to be feared that the result of this would be very bitter uproars, dissensions, wars and irreparable devastation and damage to assorted populations, and in the end, unless timely counsel prevented this, the destruction, downfall and lamentable demise of all of Germany, particularly at that time, when the Turk was considering a campaign against Hungary, Austria and the other regions of Germany. Therefore, in order to provide for tranquility in Germany, the Emperor Charles V ordered that a general peace was to be maintained, intending that no one was to use the excuse of the faith and of religion or any other matter to harass someone else with arms, plundering, stealing, burning or taking captives, to attack or suppress him with violence either by himself or through another, and that no one was to harbor the violators of this edict until the dispute about religion was settled either in a general council77 or by the Imperial Diet. Knipperdolling and certain members of his faction imagined that they were being oppressed by the bishop and clergy, and they also sent to the Imperial Chamber Court78 a complaint in the name of the council and city of Münster, though without the council’s authorization or even its knowledge. On September 23 they begged for and received an injunction against the bishop and clergy that would, they imagined, help them. The gist of the injunction was as follows. The burgher masters, council and the entire city | of Münster explained to the Chamber Court with their sad complaints that in recent times they and the lower clergy had, without the participation of the bishop, reached an agreement that certain intolerable ceremonies should be abolished and the Word of God announced to the people in a pure manner without any additions made by human enactments, just as was very reasonably provided for at the Diet of Nuremberg, and that it was not right to deprive anyone of his possessions undeservedly, whether he belonged to the religious or the laity. The bishop, however, had been incited at the suggestion and urging (as was suspected) of the main clergy to terrify the townsmen with frequent threatening letters. Indeed, he had led off certain men under arrest and committed other acts which would have long since caused a noteworthy sedition and the shedding

265

I.e., an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. German Reichskammergericht. This court was established at the Diet of Worms in 1495 as a venue in which the estates of the Empire could settle their disputes through legal adjudication rather than by resorting to force. 77 78

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 309

6/6/2007 1:03:52 PM

310

266

the events of 1532

of human blood if thoughtful planning had not forestalled this. What was worse, the canons, who were responsible for this misfortune, would have driven the townsmen headlong into disaster with their clever and under-handed schemes if the crime they had resolved upon had not been providentially checked by God. Since these townsmen were eager to avoid sedition, calamity and the destruction of their city, they had invoked the common rights of the Empire and received an injunction against the bishop and the main clergy, the Emperor thereby commanding that they should not infl ict any violence upon the burgher masters, council and city of Münster and on its inhabitants under any excuse of wrong doing. Otherwise, they would themselves pay the penalty for violating the peace and the Empire’s outrage. In the presence of Peter Mensing, Herman Krampe, Bernard Bontorpen, Ludger Mumme and Henry Xanten,79 who were the elected representatives of the commons, Bernard Knipperdolling handed this injunction over to the aldermen so that in the name of all the guilds they would deliver it to the council for them to announce it to the bishop and main clergy. After reading it, however, the council refused to carry out this task, since it had been gotten not by the authority of the burgher masters, who were in exile, or of the council, but | by that of a few individuals. Thus it was sent back to Knipperdolling through the aldermen, so that he could make use of it as he wished. Being unwilling to be made a fool of by the townsmen any more, the prince ordered his bailiffs and stewards throughout the diocese of Münster to sequester the property of those men in particular whom he understood to be the leaders of the sedition. In obedience of this order, at Werne at around 8 o’clock on October 8, they halted the cattle of Caspar Judefeld and of other burghers that were being driven to Cologne, and then detained them by virtue of the chief judge’s authority and the prince’s order. (Werne is a little town of the diocese of Münster about four miles from the town itself.) Next, on October 9 the prince wrote to the council, aldermen and guild masters in the following words. “We thought that you would have set higher value on our friendly and clearly fatherly warnings and on your well-being and the safety of

79 There is much confusion over this man’s last name. Dorp calls him Santes, but K. gives the forms Xantus, Xantis and Sanctus. The initial “x” perhaps suggests that K. associated it with the town of Xanten.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 310

6/6/2007 1:03:52 PM

the events of 1532

311

the entire homeland than on your rash pursuits, and we would not have expected that in derision of our reputation and in defiance of the obedience that you owe to us as your ruler you would be so concerned about the divisive innovation introduced into your city and of the preachers who are responsible for all the sedition in the city, much less that you would be such impetuous defenders and supporters. Having discovered that the opposite is the case, however, we would long since have been perfectly within our rights to have taken more severe and harsh steps against you and the other inhabitants of the city of Münster, as the best reasoning and the emperor’s command, a copy of which we have relayed to you, dictate. In our mercy, however, we have up until now given you the favor of not doing so in the hope that you would become mindful of the common well-being and would restore the institutions you rashly abolished and remove the preachers you foolishly let in, so that we will not pile up the emperor’s outrage and the Empire’s penalty to the detriment of ourselves and our diocese. Being unable, however, to attain either of these aims from you, we ordered that the goods of certain burghers who were notable in pressing on with the business of sedition should be sequestered, | deciding to exercise our rights against them, by virtue of the chief judge’s authority. We therefore earnestly warn you that you should not take them under your protection and custody to the extent of removing them from our jurisdiction and the punishment they deserve. Otherwise, with the assistance of God and of all the estates of the diocese, we shall try out against you the steps demanded by justice and the emperor’s edict. If, however, any of you is innocent or now regrets the sedition and wishes to return to obedience, we will, if his name is made known to us, adopt the same attitude towards him as we have towards you, and he will not be bereft of our good will and grace. We desire to be informed of which of these courses of action you have in mind.” After the ominous story about the seizure of the burghers’ cattle had become widely disseminated, incredibly fearsome fulminations were uttered by the seditious men and resounded throughout the whole city at the beginning of the madness, as is usually the case. They reviled the bishop with pointless curses and imprecations, some calling him a tyrant, others their oppressor. Some referred to him as the meagre, paltry count (though he was actually corpulent), others bellowed that he was unworthy of his position. Some accused him of lacking wisdom and prudence for daring to provoke such a well-fortified city, others held the main clergy responsible for the misfortune since these were

267

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 311

6/6/2007 1:03:52 PM

312

268

the events of 1532

all happening at their urging. Some advised that the cattle should be reclaimed physically, others that the prince himself should be sought out. If they had not lacked confidence in their ability to return, their blind rage would have urged many other steps. Some, being terrified by the start of the misfortunes, lamented to themselves in their anxiety about the future, others who had invested almost all their fortune in purchasing cattle feared for their cattle that were still in pasture. Some secretly took their cattle from the pastures at night and successfully drove them away over long and circuitous paths, but others unwarily fell into the hands of the bishop’s stewards. During these events, those who had lost cattle complained to the council that their property had been wrongfully and violently taken away from them by the bishop’s stewards, and for this reason on October 11 the council sent the prince a written supplication to secure the return of the cattle, as follows. Certain of their citizens who had been about to drive off their fattened cattle to sell them in Cologne had complained to the council that certain of their cattle had been stopped on the journey while still in this diocese and sequestered by the bishop’s bailiffs and stewards. The council did not know the reason why this had been done, since the owners owed the bailiffs and stewards nothing as a debt or surety. Accordingly, the council was roused by the burghers’ complaints to inform the prince of this in writing and to ask at the same time that since such property would naturally decline in value as a result of long sequestration, the bailiffs should, at the prince’s command, release the cattle from the pens and restore them to the burghers, and that they should in future refrain from this sort of seizure and sequestration of burghers’ goods. If, on the other hand, the prince, chapter, nobility and diocese of Münster as a whole imposed just burdens that did not confl ict with the diocese’s privileges, the council would not take this amiss. They asked the prince to write back what reward the burghers could hope for from this supplication. The council sent a letter of virtually the same content to the dean and the main chapter, asking that they plead before the prince the case of the burghers whose property had been stripped from them, and that once the sequestration was cancelled, the burghers should go about their business activities without harm or fear. If, on the other hand, the prince or anyone else thought that they had a complaint against the council or their citizens, the council said that they should pursue the matter legally.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 312

6/6/2007 1:03:52 PM

the events of 1532

313

On October 12, the prince responded to the letter sent to him as follows. He had several times been led by his very great grace and good will to write to the people of Münster to ask of them in a friendly manner that they should cast away the impious, divisive and seditious innovations rashly allowed in violation of the emperor’s edict and the Empire’s decree and in contempt of both the ecclesiastical and the secular government, and that they should return to the original religion and concordant mode of living, just as the knighthood had constantly, with equal zeal and concern, warned and asked them to do in the name of all the estates of the diocese. | All these efforts, however, had been endured fruitlessly, and as the people of Münster cast everything to the winds, it was impossible to sway them with any warnings or entreaties. The bishop, then, had long had the most just grounds, given the dictates of the emperor’s edict, to take more severe steps against the people of Münster (especially those responsible for the innovation) and their property in connection with stamping out their obstinate sedition and to suppress their undertakings in the same way that the seditious had pressed on with them. He had indicated this in earlier letters, but as a favor to them he had postponed action until the present time. Now, however, since they were not bringing their tumultuous behavior to an end, the circumstances demanded that he should resort to this legal step, and he thought that he should henceforth persevere in it. Since it was in violation not only of the city’s privileges but also of the emperor’s edict, the decisions of princes and all the magistrates that the people of Münster had begun the establishment of their seditious schism and were protecting it and illegally maintaining it within their walls to the present day, it was pointless and contrary to legal reasoning that they should invoke the protection of those privileges, and this invocation would not be recognized by him. For he who had violated the law was unworthy of its help. He would shun the sight of no one, but would publicly give an account of his action before any princes of the Empire or any other men of good sense. Accordingly, he again advised and urged them, as he had done so often, to be mindful of their own and the whole diocese’s well-being and obey the emperor’s edict and the prince’s very frequent warnings by casting down the seditious preachers and restoring the ecclesiastical ceremonies and all the adornment of the churches to their original place of dignity, and by keeping those guilty of sedition in their own custody without protecting them from justice and the penalty for law-breaking and handing

269

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 313

6/6/2007 1:03:52 PM

314

270

the events of 1532

them over for punishment once they were convicted. If this was denied to the prince, as had been the case up until then, he would, with the help of the Almighty and the assistance of the princes and his friends, justly suppress the seditious, schismatic, impious plotting of the people of Münster until they repent of their sedition, becoming peaceful and obeying the Imperial edict. They should consider this the response that they had asked for. Henry Hake, the dean of the main chapter, also answered, as follows. He had received the letter from the council about the cattle of certain burghers that had been put under sequester while in transit by the stewards and bailiffs of the most reverend bishop. Since he represented only one person among the members of the chapter and knew that it was not in his power to make a decision by himself without the votes of the others, he would find out the views of the other lords who lived in reasonably close proximity. Whatever they decided he would send on as a well-intentioned answer. Dispatched at Schönebeck on the Saturday after the feast of Sts. Gereon and Victor.80 After holding a consultation with a few noble canons, the dean wrote a petition to the prince on the same day on behalf of the burghers whose property had been sequestered. The prince for his part wrote that he had responded to the council’s petition seeking the cancellation of the sequestration and restitution of the cattle, including a copy of his response with his letter to the chapter. He did not think that he should change his course of action under the circumstances. On October 14 the dean passed this answer from the prince on to council so that they could learn of the zeal and care with which he had pled the case of the people of Münster before the prince. On October 12, the prince also wrote to the individual guilds letters of virtually the same content as he had to the council, now warning, now entreating them not to pollute themselves and their children with impious schism and voluntarily plunge them into destruction. He asked them to banish the madness from the city by their own authority just as they had introduced it by their own authority, and to embrace tranquility, cultivate mutual peace and revere their government. He gave them this and other well-intentioned advice. Both burgher masters and certain other members of the council had resigned their office, going into voluntary exile, and although they had

80

October 12.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 314

6/6/2007 1:03:52 PM

the events of 1532

315

often been summoned back to duty, they refused to make themselves available to the city. It was therefore decided that the council should be restored to its full membership by replacing them, especially now that the city was tied up in rather complicated entanglements. Accordingly, on the Monday after the feast of Sts. Gereon and Victor (October 14), an assembly for electing the government was held in the commons’ hall. | After the aldermen and the guild masters along with all the guild members had gathered there, everyone voted to fill the council by election. From there, then, they proceeded to the council hall in the customary way, though at a different time, and they voted for the electors by ward. Peter Mensing and Herman Krampe were returned from St. Martin’s Ward, John Baggel and Master John in der Bade the smith from St. Lambert’s, Herman Wedemhave and John Wechler from St. Ludger’s, Gerard Kibbenbrock and Herman Redeker from St. Giles’, Anthony Grotevader from the Ward Across-the-River, and Henry Roede the goldsmith from the Jews’ Field Ward. After giving their oath, these men entered the council chamber, and in the place of the four men who had defected (Wilbrand Plonies, Eberwin Droste, Bernard of Tinnen, and Herman Heerde) they freely elected Anthony Jonas, John Bastert, Henry Fridagh and John Palck the iron smith. A few days later, on October 18, the council responded to the prince as follows. A few days ago, they said, they had received the prince’s letter concerning the legal halting and detention of their burghers’ cattle. As their well-intentioned response they did not wish to conceal from the prince the fact that in recent days representatives of the council, aldermen and guild masters had been sent to Wolbeck to give to the vicars of the diocese and the delegation of the nobility the response that the council had striven with all its zealous industry to bring it about, namely that the priests should be removed and the ceremonies restored to the churches to avoid offending his Imperial Majesty in any regard, but that the council had hardly been able to achieve this. The main reason for this was that Lord Bernard Rothman had offered to the pastors, chaplains and other heads of churches in Münster, first, articles about his doctrine and, then, with the advice and assistance of his people, further articles about the abuses that had for some time taken over the Church, but these men had not yet given any response to the articles or refuted them with Holy Scripture, although the council was aware that the clergy of Münster had received a retort to those articles from learned men. Since, therefore, the council and all the burghers had always invoked the rights and privileges of the diocese

271

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 315

6/6/2007 1:03:52 PM

316

272

273

the events of 1532

as they were doing at present, the council begged with all the energy it could muster that in light of his mercy the prince should put the better interpretation on everything and let this case involving the preachers and ceremonies come before fair judges, that the articles should be generally distributed among them and examined to be refuted with manifest passages of Scripture, and that in the business of religion a specific formulation be established that it would be fair for both clergy and laity to obey. The council also asked that | the sequestration be cancelled so that the burghers could get their cattle back, and that they not in future be harassed in violation of their invocation of justice and privilege, but that they be protected against all violence and daily harm. The council asked to receive a response as to which of these courses was to be expected from the prince. To this letter was attached a sheet, the text of which was as follows. “Also, most reverend prince, since you have written to the individual guilds of our city, the response to your letter, which was presented to us by them in the customary manner, we pass on to you with our own letter. We are sure that you will take this action reasonably. You will readily perceive the attitude of the burghers from the response. Dated as above.” The response of the guilds to the prince sent on October 18: “We have, most reverend and glorious prince, received with suitable veneration your letter that was brought to us. Having read it, we learned to our very great distress that we had fallen under suspicion in your eyes of having instigated sedition and rebellion and that we were judged and considered to be despisers of your warning and rebels against the council. The reason for our distress is not that we admit to being guilty of the accusations lodged against us and therefore rightly fear suppression and disaster. Rather, we grieve because we see that you are being carried away by the immoderate language of certain men and (if it is no sin to say so) that you are being compelled by our evil-minded detractors to pile up such charges against us without allowing any defense on our part. We do know, since you are a prince with a benign and Christian heart, that you never cobbled together these charges through the impulse of your own mind, | but to the contrary you were brought to this by suggestion, urging and exhortation of malicious men. We ask, then, that in your mercy you allow us a defense against impudent slanders and false complaints and cease to have evil suspicions about us until the case is properly examined on both sides. For if our case should be assessed by the standard of truth and justice, you will see that we are

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 316

6/6/2007 1:03:53 PM

the events of 1532

317

not only free of any grounds for suspicion but are totally cleared of the charges. If, on the other hand, we lose our case in court, we will not give excuses not to suffer the penalties worthy of our deeds. Since the accusation lodged before you (which is also the source of the suspicion of our criminality) is that we have impetuously undertaken schism and divisive scheming in our city of Münster and have spread this scheming as far as possible and so on, we are quite amazed as to the right or reasoning by which these charges are made against us, since those men do not deserve to be called seditious or schismatics who subordinate all these actions to the judgment of Holy Scripture and the decision of the written law and who indeed assert that they will demonstrate that their undertakings are in conformity with Holy Scripture, promising that if they cannot succeed in this, they will adhere to the judgment of those with better sense and readily undergo the chastisement of condign penalty. Those men are seditious and schismatic who begin some business on their own authority, ignoring divine, natural and human laws, and impetuously and obstinately defend their undertaking. We, on the other hand, have never had the intention of committing any act that was opposed to God, respectability and justice. Therefore, it is not without reason that we have very often, both orally and in writing, invoked the phrase “justice and fairness,” not secretly but in a published document, and that in this case we seek and have always sought the judgment not of one or two men but of all the princes of all the nations and of the entire world. If someone had proven us guilty of sedition and schism and we had nonetheless obstinately persisted in our view and our course of action without accepting any salutary warnings, we would not be free of the suspicion and fault alleged. As it is, we are entangled in suspicion without being convicted, indeed without being heard. But we are sustained by the confident expectation that what we have undertaken is not only in agreement with fairness and justice | but also an extremely necessary act that we cannot give up without showing contempt for God’s majesty and losing our own salvation. For when the Word of God is not preached, His glory goes unheeded, is cast into darkness and gradually becomes erased from the hearts of men, so that they cease to be Christians. It is therefore better for Christians to lose all their possessions and, if necessary, their lives through violence than to separate themselves from the Word of God and allow anything as a concession to any man in violation of God and the dictate of their own consciences. Hence, most glorious prince, you can easily recognize what compels us to hold our course in the matter

274

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 317

6/6/2007 1:03:53 PM

318

275

the events of 1532

undertaken by us, which we maintained even before the dignity of prince in Münster was bestowed upon you. You will not therefore rely on the urgings of malicious men and believe that we have undertaken this matter in contempt of you and our council, to whom, after God, we have as far as possible, as God bears witness, given our primary obedience, judging, as we have said, that the matter is pious, fair, respectable and necessary for salvation. Hence, we ask you, after God, that you reconsider this business and in your mercy break it off, and then let it come before fair judges, so that we may be granted permission to defend ourselves justly against the slanders of those malicious men who accuse us of sedition and schism. For justice enjoins that a man should not be condemned for any suspicions or presumptions but should first be shown to be guilty of the charge through manifest proofs. If, on the other hand you, most reverend prince, or someone else clearly demonstrates that the dogma of our priests that we have ordained as our own is opposed to true religion, piety and respectability, we are prepared to dispose of it immediately. For the only reason for us to defend it is that we judge it to be pious and salutary. Since, then, we are not going to act against you in a contumacious or in an impetuous or obstinate manner but are invoking the decision of justice and fairness, we are certain that you possess such mercy that you are unwilling to overwhelm and condemn us without hearing the case. Also, most glorious prince, you write that you will proceed against us on account of our disobedience, as the most recent decree of the Diet dictates, in order to avoid incurring the Empire’s outrage against you and the entire diocese, and that this is the reason why you halted the goods of our fellow burghers in transit and detained them in sequestration, | although we have not yet been declared rebels in sedition and whatever has been done among us is a matter of the faith and religion, which is freely granted to anyone in the emperor’s edict and the Empire’s command under pain of the penalty for violating the general peace. According to the Imperial edict, then, we think that you have no grounds to overwhelm us without hearing the case, and accordingly we ask that you not let us and our fellow burghers be oppressed in violation of the general peace of the Empire, and that you order the restitution of our goods. Whatever sentence is justly passed against us or for us by a suitable judge we are prepared to obey.” Next, on October 21, when twelve councilmen (no more were present), namely Henry Rotgers, Melius Herte, Bernard Gruter, Gerard Averhagen, Anthony Jonas, John Langerman, Herman Tilbeck, Caspar

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 318

6/6/2007 1:03:53 PM

the events of 1532

319

Schrodercken, Henry Fridagh, John Palck, Caspar Judefeld and Henry Moderson, convened in the council chamber for deliberation, at about 9 o’clock the aldermen, guild masters and certain elected representatives of the commons approached them to complain about the shortage of preachers in a city with such a large population and the fact that the agreement signed by the council’s amanuensis on July 15 had not been fulfilled. The commons, they said, therefore asked the council not to neglect the provisions of that agreement. To this the councilmen present responded that once they had entered into an agreement, they would not violate it in even the least respect, but would carry out the provisions that were pious and just before God and the world. Satisfied with this response, the aldermen, guild masters and representatives departed. But in its constant hankering after new schemes, the commons once again devised new ones, and their representatives recounted them in the council on October 25, as follows. First, they said, the commons took it very badly that the Lord’s Lords had without any just cause become the most hostile enemies of the city of Münster and had together left the city because of the doctrine auspiciously spread by Lord Bernard Rothman, | though the council and virtually the entire city of Münster had undertaken in a general compact to defend and protect it until such time as Rothman would lapse into silence when refuted with Holy Scripture and the truth. Also, the lower clergy had churlishly put its snarling eloquence to use before the prince, and in recent months had without warning impiously, basely and bitterly reviled, slandered and accused the commons, though the commons did not knowingly deserve this but promised that they would always do whatever was urged by considerations of justice and fairness. The commons did not believe that the burgher masters, Eberwin Droste and Wilbrand Plonies, were free of fault in this suspicion; and it could be easily perceived from the following fact that they favored the side of the clergy and the shaven crowd.81 They had recently been warned by certain councilmen in the country district called Bösensell to remember the common good and the oath that they had given and return to their city, to carry out the duties that they had been offered and had accepted, to exercise their office without the fault of being held suspect, not to oppose the calling of God and to protect themselves and their descendants against disgrace and any other detriment, being told that if they had not reached

81

276

Meaning “monks,” because of their tonsure.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 319

6/6/2007 1:03:53 PM

320

277

the events of 1532

a final decision in this matter and thought this course unsuitable, they should take a month to consider what they would do. It was said that to this they had given the response that within a month the people of Münster would have new views. Since, then, the burgher masters had put off their return until the present day and a few days after they gave this answer, the bishop had seized the cattle under sequestration during their journey, there could be no doubt that the burgher masters were joined to the clergy and the shaven crowd in a common compact and were aware of the harm infl icted on the burghers. For another thing, Derek of Merfelt, the bailiff of Wolbeck had dragged burghers before a foreign tribunal on the pretence of the sequestration, and although the burghers had availed themselves of their just right of refusal and their immunity from trial elsewhere, nonetheless he got his way in that court through violence and not through justice. For another thing, the council | had promised to the aldermen and the guild masters that they would, with full zeal and effort, protect the city’s rights, privileges and burghers, but now that the burghers were involved in foreign lawsuits and were being harassed with various difficulties, they were finding out that quite the opposite was the case. What the commons discovered from this was the powerlessness of the government, even if it did genuinely yearn for the burghers’ advantages. Now, in order that the city should avoid destruction and downfall, the commons was asking the council to immediately enroll five hundred veteran infantrymen to protect the city against violent assault from clergy and the shaven crowd. For this was more tolerable for the commons than being harassed by their hostile foes within the walls at the latter’s discretion as much as they pleased, being stripped of their property and finally being plunged by them into the extreme risk of death. If, on the other hand, these requests from the commons seemed to the council burdensome and difficult, the public treasury having been drained through the erection of the city’s excellent fortifications, then the commons would see to their pay, even if this exceeded their abilities. And since the commons noticed that the city’s resources were exhausted and that there was not much public money left, they thought it appropriate for the city’s situation that the council should strike for the soldiers’ pay copper money worth two thousand gold coins, which would be used only within the city until timely planning could acquire money from some other source. For the commons had definitely decided that they would in no way put up with the injury infl icted on them and their property, but would avenge it, even at the cost of the blood of many.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 320

6/6/2007 1:03:53 PM

the events of 1532

321

This matter was left for the council’s deeper consideration. The commons also requested of the council that the clergy should be restrained from leaving the city gates by the public watch and should instead share the common lot, and finally that the council should issue a strict decree to the clergy and their allies commanding them that since they were, as the accusers, responsible for the commons’ misfortunes, they should pay 4000 fl orins every month until they removed all the injuries done to the burghers and also made good their expenses. For the commons wished the clergy, whom they not only tolerated but even protected within their walls, to take these actions, and would defend themselves against their enemies to the extent permitted by the Almighty. After a short deliberation, the council answered that they would take every step on behalf of the common good. But in order to avoid oppressing the less wealthy with unbearable burdens, the council thought that at first only three hundred soldiers were sufficient for the city. They enlisted them within a few days | and put them under the command of George of Kyll, a man of great experience in warfare, minted the copper coinage, and elected four important councilmen to act in place of the absent burgher masters. They advised that the other proposals made by the commons’ representatives should receive further consideration, to make sure that it did not seem that any decision had been taken rashly. Then, when the prince realized that he was being deceived by the intricacies of the townsmen’s various letters, that they were nonetheless attacking and violating his jurisdiction by their own authority and with a certain violence, and that even after his warnings they were not restoring anything to its original status, he thought that he could avail himself of the same. Therefore, wishing to break the bolder spirits among the factious and to lay their arrogance low without bloodshed or fighting, he had his cavalry take possession of the public roads and cut off access to the city, and throughout the diocese he forbade any food supplies to be transported into the city and any revenues or income to be paid to the burghers. His intention was that the lack of necessities would force them to recognize their prince, to learn to obey, to confine themselves to the limits set for them, not to overstep their boundaries, not to rashly intrude on someone else’s jurisdiction, to make use of what was theirs without injuring anyone else, to restore what had been removed and torn down, and to call back and restore to their original status those who had been removed from their offices without the authorization of those whom this concerned.

278

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 321

6/6/2007 1:03:53 PM

322

279

280

the events of 1532

Taking this action badly, the people of Münster wrote on October 30 to the vicars and the representatives of the diocese gathered at Wolbeck in the absence of the prince, as follows. They understood that the public roads were being kept under guard by certain cuirassed cavalrymen everyday, so that no supply of necessities was being brought to the city for sale, and that this was being conducted from the city of Wolbeck in particular. That small town was serving as a place of refuge for those who were returning with plunder, | something which the people of Münster had hardly expected since they were endowed with the same liberty and privileges as the other inhabitants of the diocese and perhaps with greater ones. They therefore asked that these violators of the public roads be restrained lest any occasion for complaint or attacking them be thrust upon the people of Münster. They requested a response as to which of these steps would be taken. To this the vicars and the nobles responded as follows. If the cuirassed cavalrymen had committed any act on the public roads at which the people of Münster could take offence, they were unaware of it. If, on the other hand, such an act and the circumstances surrounding it were described to them, they would give a legitimate response. If, however, the prince had legally begun any action against the burghers of Münster and their property, they had no doubt that they would learn of the cause of this in a letter from him, and in the absence of the prince they could not change the situation. The people of Münster were to consider this the response that they had asked for. Next, by order of the prince the burghers Caspar Judefeld, Peter Friese, John Rotermunt the elder and the younger, John of Deventer, Bernard Menneken, Bernard Schomacker, Henry Redeker, and Albert Bodeker were summoned by various judges (those of Wolbeck, Sendenhorst, Bokenfeld, Telgte and Aschenberg) to assorted tribunals on the grounds of being leaders of the sedition and of having acted in violation of the edict of his Imperial Majesty issued at Worms in 1521 and of the recesses (laws) promulgated at Augsburg by receiving Lutheran preachers. These men entreated the council on November 2 not to let them be dragged before foreign courts contrary to the burghers’ ancient liberty, adding that they would respond to any adversaries before their proper judge. | On November 3, the council wrote to these judges to say that they should let the cases drawn up and lodged against their burghers lapse in order to avoid stirring up a cause for greater misfortune. The judges wrote back to say that they had to obey the prince,

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 322

6/6/2007 1:03:53 PM

the events of 1532

323

and that if the council got relief from him, they, the judges, could put up with this. The townsmen were made more impetuous by this response, and in frequent armed raids they carried back to the city from the surrounding country districts the necessities that they lacked. At the same time, they ordered the peasants to have no fear in bringing grain, wood and the other necessities just as they had before, stating that otherwise they, the raiders, would take them without payment. Whatever else the raiders found on the roads, they brought back with them. The entire situation was now one of hostility and aggression, everything pointing the way to violence, and as a result there was such trepidation among the inhabitants of the neighboring countryside that they even quivered at the arrival of a single mouse from the city and thought that the enemy was at hand to steal all their possessions. Thus, fear of enemy raiding broke the prince’s command. While these men were engaged in frequent raids outside the gates, others strove to further the affairs of their faith as widely as possible within the city. On November 3, which was the Sunday after All Saints’ Day, Ludger tom Brincke, Michael Nording, Herman Foecke the tailor, Paul Busch and Anthony Guldenarm approached Ida of Merfelt the abbess in the name of the Parish Across-the-River, asking that as a favor to the parish she should remove the present chaplains and replace them with Dionysius Vinne of Diest and Godfrey Stralen, men outstanding for their learning and eloquence on the one hand and for good character and piety on the other. The petitioners stated that they wished to be always deserving of this favor through their good will and dutifulness. The abbess replied in the name of the nuns | that they had been forbidden by letter by the prince and the dean, their lord John tor Mollen the doctor, to receive either new preachers or the new doctrine which smacked of sedition in any way, and were instead commanded to avoid and reject them. Thus, she said, they did not dare to implement any innovation unadvisedly in the dean’s absence. If, on the other hand, any violence or insult was infl icted on them by anyone on this account, they would not only leave it to God and His blood to avenge this but also make it known to foreign princes and to the entire world with their tearful laments, “and from this all good men will understand with what piety you attempt to spread your religion.” To this, Ludger tom Brincke replied, “Be advised that however the matter will turn out, the parish has decided to support

281

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 323

6/6/2007 1:03:53 PM

324

282

the events of 1532

the two preachers at their own expense for the time being.” In the meanwhile, he said, the nuns should remember the answer they gave on this day. Thus, by their own authority they hired these preachers with the money contributed, and after conducting them to the church with a foul crowd of members of the faction, they entrusted the pulpit to them after removing the Catholic priests. After the abbess refused to support them (she customarily maintained her chaplains) or provide them with the daily necessities, they sowed together cone-shaped sacks out of blue-colored linen, and after attaching them to the end of long prongs, Lubbert Lenting and Reiner Stell, two men who surpassed the others in being convulsed with the evangelical spirit, carried these sacks around in the crowd at sermons, with this contrivance begging for money to support the preachers. Since most people were so ardently focused on the evangelical doctrine that their zealous obsession caused them to become virtually stupefied, chimes were fixed to the inverted or dangling sack strings, | so that when the chimes struck the audience, the jingle would rouse them to make a contribution. Some womenfolk also became inspired with the evangelical spirit, and chief among them were the wives of Lenting and Severinus, who would beg from the adherents of their faction throughout the parish and gathered such a supply of meat, grain, butter, candles, smoked and wind-dried fish, linen, cheese, mushrooms, wood and other necessities that they quite luxuriously and daintily fattened up the one preacher, who had a wife and five children, and the other, who was an unmarried celibate. For they considered it a sin to deny anything for the bodily maintenance of those who would spread the glory of God and nourish the souls of the many with evangelical food. Lacking its chiefs, the council was reduced to the most dire distress and was completely at a loss as to what they should do about the general peace and the cancellation of the sequestration. For the sense of feuding and resentment was growing on both sides, the people of Münster accepting no warnings or terms for peace, however tolerable, from the prince or the nobility, and the prince, though importuned by the city’s letters and reminded of the Imperial edict and the homeland’s privileges, not allowing the sequestration to be cancelled. Accordingly, there were many sorts of deliberation, and attempts were made to find reasons to oppose the prince and void the sequestration. In the end, it was decided to get a specific injunction against the prince and clergy from the Imperial Chamber Court, and so on October 23 the following letter was written to Francis of Werne, a lawyer then working in

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 324

6/6/2007 1:03:53 PM

the events of 1532

325

the Imperial Court who was in the employ of the council and who became the council’s amanuensis after the siege. “You are not unaware of the efforts undertaken by the bishop of Münster to have the preachers removed and banished and cast out ceremonies restored in the city’s parish churches. The vicars and the knighthood of the city of Münster also summoned the council, aldermen and guild masters to set out these proposals before them and gave them a written copy of these. To this the council also responded through envoys, and at the same time invoked the authority of the general law, fairness and the Imperial edict recently made known throughout Germany, turning over a copy of this edict that had been checked against the original. | Yet, the prince despised this sort of Imperial edict and our invocation of the law, and through his stewards he had the cattle and property of certain burghers put under sequestration while in transit. We wrote to him that he should let the sequestration lapse, and at the same time invoked the privilege of this homeland and other rights, but he cast all this to the winds to destroy the burghers. Therefore, since we cannot dissuade him from his undertakings either with our friendly letters or any means other than the Emperor’s edict and that of the Imperial Chamber, we are sending you copies of all the documents so that you may see what action is necessitated by the facts, and after employing the counsel of learned men and especially of John Helfman the licentiate82 in law, may, in the name of the council, aldermen, guild masters and of all the burghers and inhabitants of Münster (since we lack burgher masters), procure against the bishop, dean and chapter, and the knighthood and all the estates and classes of the diocese of Münster an order that no one should use violence against the city of Münster and its inhabitants on account of religion, ceremonies and preachers. By virtue of this order, authority over the seized cattle and all other sequestered property would be taken away from all courts and a proclamation issued to our adversaries through the official herald of the Imperial Chamber. Issued on the feast day of Severinus,83 1532.”

283

A licentiate was someone who had completed all the requirements for a university degree (and was therefore “licensed” to teach) but had not made the (not inconsiderable) expenditures necessary to receive the degree. 83 Surprisingly enough, three Sts. Severinus share October 23 as their feast day: Severinus Bishop of Cologne (born in Bordeaux and martyred in 403), Severinus Bishop of Bordeaux († ca. 420), and Severinus Boethius, the literary figure more commonly known simply as Boethius († 524). 82

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 325

6/6/2007 1:03:54 PM

326

284

the events of 1532

The leaderless council sent the same message to Helfman, asking him not to fail to provide Francis of Werne with his help and assistance as a favor to the city, and if Werne happened to be absent, to reseal the sealed letter written to him and expedite the entire business. In accordance with their instructions, then, these two men pressed on urgently with the petition, but since that most august panel of judges recalled that on September 23 of the same year they had issued an order against the same defendants in the same case, they thought that the city should avail itself of the earlier order until there was need of a stricter one against disobedience. Meanwhile, the people of Münster applied their vigilant and strenuous efforts in gaining as many supporters as possible for their faction, strengthening themselves with defenses in all directions and stirring up many people to hate and resent the bishop. Thus, the leaderless council wrote to various princes, counts, lords and cities. On October 24 they wrote to the most reverend Archbishop Herman of Cologne as follows. “Most reverend bishop in Christ and most illustrious prince! We wish you to know that for some time a man named Bernard Rothman has proclaimed the Word of God to the people at St. Maurice’s, a church located within sight of this city, and that a large crowd of burghers and other men has followed him to hear his preaching. When he was no longer tolerated there and the hope for official protection and peace had been taken away from him, he was summoned to our city by the people and brought in to assume the office of preaching. After drawing up his doctrine in the form of articles and offering these to the pastors, chaplains, terminaries and monks and to other learned men among the clergy, he asked to be corrected by them if he had committed an error in any regard, but as if deaf they have ignored this and given no answer. Being devoted to the Word of God, the commoners have embraced his doctrine more zealously and summoned to them more preachers, who, after abolishing certain ceremonies, have taught pious hymns. They too have offered to the pastors and chaplains instances of abusive ceremonies, but have not yet received any response. For this reason, we have allowed the abolition of the ancient ceremonies. Our prince has therefore written to us and to the aldermen and guild masters that we should remove these preachers and restore the abolished ceremonies. We have spent much effort in obeying him, but since the articles about Rothman’s doctrine and the ancient abuses have not been refuted by anyone with Holy Scripture, it has been impossible to

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 326

6/6/2007 1:03:54 PM

the events of 1532

327

implement the requests made of us by the prince. We therefore asked the prince to have this case involving the preachers and ceremonies entrusted to fair judges for settlement and the articles presented to pastors for a decision on the basis of Holy Scripture. We have also invoked the argument of fairness on the basis of the general law and this homeland’s privileges, but the prince has ignored all this, and contrary to everyone’s expectation he seized the burghers’ property in transit and put it under sequestration. These are the acts, most reverend prince, that we wished you to know, and at the same time we beseech you to remedy this sequestration either by letter or by any other means and to cause the fairness of this case to be examined by just judges, | so that we will not be denied the right that we have invoked.” On October 31, the archbishop replied as follows. “We have received you letter, and since, contrary to your ancestral custom, it bears the name of only the council, excluding that of the burgher masters, it declares that you are in dissension, something that usually causes nothing but baneful sedition and unassuageable hatred against the government on the part of the subjects. Given the remarkable amount of favor that I have always bestowed on you and that I thought would be long-lasting, this situation has caused me the greatest distress, and I leave it to you to consider more deeply what sorts of benefit and harm are going to arise from it. It would be unpleasant for me to hear such things about my own subjects. As for the preachers who have proclaimed the Word of God to the people and issued certain articles, I do not think that this has been done in accordance with the established practice of the Catholic Church. To the contrary, it is in violation of the Imperial edict, of the decision of the Empire and its Diet, and of the ancient, praiseworthy custom inherited by the Christian Church from our ancestors that you have, by your own authority, tolerated this preacher in your city and lent your wanton ears to him. You say that you allowed the abolition of the ceremonies after the articles were laid out without getting any response, but if you gauge the matter with the better half of your minds, you will easily conclude that neither you nor anyone else is allowed to take such steps. Accordingly, it is not unreasonable, in my opinion at least, for your prince to have been roused to oppose your undertakings. Be that as it may, since you are invoking my assistance and perhaps place confident expectations in me, our advice to you is that you should give up any inclination to sedition that you may have conceived against your ruler, and that whatever you do in connection with

285

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 327

6/6/2007 1:03:54 PM

328

286

287

the events of 1532

the activities of preaching, changing ceremonies or any other matters should be in conformity with the emperor’s edict, the decisions of the Diets and the rites of the Catholic Church, | so that every sort of civil disturbance that could arise from this will be avoided. Nonetheless, I will send a copy of your letter to your prince and indicate to you whatever he sends back as a reply.” Since the archbishop did not seem to have understood their letter, the council wrote back on November 8. “We have received, read and understood your response to our previous letter about the preacher and the sequestration infl icted on us by our prince. We ask that in your mercy you receive the following words for your information about the case pertaining to the preacher. When Lord Bernard Rothman was preaching the Word of God as chaplain at St. Maurice’s outside the walls of our city and the people would go in large numbers to hear him, eventually Derek of Merfelt, the bailiff of Wolbeck, summoned him to our city and revoked and took away from him the safe conduct officially allowing him security. Rothman was therefore terrified by this decree and dared not return to the parish of St. Maurice, and instead kept within our walls, relying on the protection of our city’s liberty. Since he was guilty of no capital offence, we could not deny him the rights of our city, and thus he was impelled to preach by the people, as we indicated in our previous letter. As for your writing that our letter, being uncustomarily written in the name of only the council without the names of the burgher masters, smacked of sedition and hatred against the government, we reply that we have not driven off our burgher masters. Instead, when they left, we left no stone unturned and spared no effort, sending now councilmen as envoys, now letters, to get them to return to their positions among us, but all the trouble we have hitherto taken has been in vain. Accordingly, what we could find no cure for had to be endured, and we do not expect that you will cast this in our teeth for smacking of sedition and discord. We therefore ask you again and again in supplication that you intervene with the prince for us and our burghers and ask him not to be offended by the invocation of rights and privileges that we made in our previous letter and instead to give that invocation a more favorable interpretation, | and not to continue with the sequestration and the cases begun in other courts against our burghers and instead to allow them to lapse in his mercy. If any dispute arises on account of the preachers and the ceremonies, let him refer it to peaceable arbitrators, and at the same time let some definite decision be made in the matter of religion that both sides will obey.”

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 328

6/6/2007 1:03:54 PM

the events of 1532

329

A sheet with the following text was attached to this letter. “Also, most reverend prince, we have no doubt that it is still fresh in your memory that the edict of his Imperial Majesty concerning religion that was issued at Regensburg has been proclaimed to everyone all over in Germany, including this city. We therefore ask that you deign for our sake to write to our prince to bring it about that we and our burghers will not be harassed in violation of this edict.” To this the archbishop replied on November 13 as follows. “I have received the reply that you have made to my most recent letter concerning the sequestration and dispute arising between you and your prince. To satisfy your requests I have sent on to your prince a copy of your earlier letter. Since he has not replied, there is no reason why you should expect an answer from me at this time. But to repeat my previous letter, I genuinely advise you again and again that you should give up your bold and presumptuous authorization that opposes praiseworthy ancestral custom and acquiesce in my warnings, lest you plunge into disaster both yourselves and your fellow burghers, who have always rendered to me and my subjects the mutual good turns urged by neighborliness. If in this matter you indulge one who is giving you good advice, you will pile in large amounts pleasure for me and countless benefits for yourselves and your fellow burghers.” On October 24, the leaderless council wrote to Prince Philip of Hesse as follows. “Illustrious Prince! On July 30 you wrote to us about the preachers | who expound the Word of God to the people in our city, and we have received a copy of the original document sent to our prince in connection with this matter. Our burghers have therefore placed such confident expectations in your letter that they have no fear for their own well-being and instead think that they may in safety retain those preachers and press on with and adhere to their doctrine. Our prince, however, has ordered us by letter to banish the preachers and restore the ancient ceremonies in the churches to their prior state of honor. Since this command has not yet been obeyed, the cattle and property of certain burghers, and indeed the burghers themselves, have been seized in transit and sequestered by the prince’s authority. After the burghers had brought their complaints about this action to us, we earnestly pleaded with the prince by letter to cancel the sequestration and invoked the rights of public and private privilege, but he contemptuously ignores all this, and in fact, contrary to our expectation, the cases are being proceeded with under even stricter sequestration. We are therefore impelled by our burghers to reveal our wounds to

288

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 329

6/6/2007 1:03:54 PM

330

289

the events of 1532

you and to beseech that in order for us to feel that your letter was infl uential with our prince, we should recover our previous liberty in movement through the cancellation of the sequestration, and that the case involving the preachers, the ceremonies and the articles drawn up by the preachers should be decided by fair judges, in particular those who serve on your council. For it is our particular hope that if by your permission they bring their presence, advice and wisdom to this case, we may finally enjoy general peace.” On November 3, the Prince of Hesse replied to the council as follows. “I have received the letter conveyed to me from you in which you complain about the harm infl icted on your citizens by the Bishop of Münster because of the Word of God and your preachers, contrary to the confident hopes you conceived as a result of our previous letter. Your letter was immediately delivered to your prince attached to a letter from me. I have no doubt that he will readily accept the entreaties for peace | and in his mercy will in the meanwhile suspend the sequestration and the legal actions he has undertaken. When he replies, I will, under the inducement of the love of peace, cut this dispute short, burdensome though this may be. I will soon fix a date for a council and will send important and wise men who serve on my council so that they may spare no efforts in case they can, with the assistance of God’s favor, restore peace between you. Meanwhile, in a friendly way I ask you and your fellow burghers not to stir up against yourselves a fresh case involving new disturbances.” To this the council replied as follows on November 8. “When it was brought to us, we embraced your letter with the appropriate reverence. In light of the good turn you have done us, we offer you the greatest thanks possible and in turn declare publicly that we are under the greatest obligation to you. We will not conceal from you the fact that while our messenger was en route, the prince’s stewards and gaugrafs84 have, though provoked by no fresh offences, infl icted the greatest harm on our burghers, and we once more complain of this to you, a prince of the Empire in whom we place our hopes, beseeching in supplication that you be moved by this wretched situation in which we find ourselves and that on our behalf you approach our prince either with your entreaties or, if this is not burdensome for you, with your own

84 The overseers of country districts. This term seems to refer to the officials whom K. otherwise calls “bailiffs” (“satraps” in K.’s Latin).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 330

6/6/2007 1:03:54 PM

the events of 1532

331

presence, so that he will in his mercy let the sequestration and the cases undertaken either lapse or be temporarily suspended and the case be referred to arbitrators for judgment.” When Prince Philip of Hesse received from the bishop of Münster the reply that he had asked for several times, he wrote back as follows to the council on November 20, attaching to his own letter a copy of the reply sent to him by the bishop. “Because of my love for the general peace, I would have dearly wished to halt the dispute between you and the bishop. As it is, the bishop writes that the estates of the diocese have made the same request of him with their most ardent entreaties, as the attached copy of the bishop’s reply shows, and so I have no doubt that the inhabitants of the diocese, to whom the case is better known than to me, will, with less hard work and diligence, settle the disturbed affairs of their diocese. Wishing to gratify you too, I have on your behalf asked the bishop to let the sequestration lapse.” Here is the copy of the bishop’s reply that was attached to the previous letter.85 “You asked me in your letter that I should, at your urging, allow the dispute that is being pursued between me and the city of Münster to lapse, but since the entire diocese of Münster has for a long time been making the same demand of me with great earnestness and I could not rightly deny them this, I have allowed them to be parties to this dispute. If, however, I can gratify you in some other, indeed greater, matters, I will not fail to oblige you.” The council also wrote to the noble and well-born Count Arnold of Bentheim and Steinfurt, who was the leader and orator of the knighthood in the diocese of Münster, and to the entire knighthood, to urge them to favor the council. They complained that they were being injured, especially given that the articles of the preachers had not been refuted and the council wished to have the case brought before arbitrators, invoking public and private rights and the privileges of the diocese. Ignoring all of this, the prince had, they said, seized burghers’ property in transit and undermined the fourth estate in the diocese, the city of Münster. The council, therefore, asked, that the knighthood should intercede with the prince to assuage him and to persuade him to cancel the sequestration and entrust the decision in the case involving the ceremonies and preachers to arbitrators.

85

290

The original gives the date as November 11.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 331

6/6/2007 1:03:54 PM

332

291

292

the events of 1532

On October 24, the council sent a letter to the main clergy. “In our previous letter86 to you we indicated that the prince had had his bailiffs seize burghers’ cattle while in transit in the diocese and sequestered them, and we availed ourselves of your services as intermediaries in this case. Having received from the prince a reply that will hardly be helpful to us, | we wrote back to him that in this case involving the preachers and ceremonies we were invoking the privileges of this homeland and the common judgment of all the other estates. We have found, however, that we have achieved nothing, since every day not only the goods of our burghers but also the burghers themselves are being constrained with further, ever tighter sequestrations, prohibitions and seizures. Constituting as we do the fourth estate of this diocese, we would hardly have expected such treatment. Since, therefore, you have not been offended by our burghers and you agree that on several occasions we, as the fourth estate of the diocese, have at great cost to ourselves protected subjects of this diocese who were invoking the privileges of the diocese (one example of this which took place a few years ago is still fresh in the memory of men), we wished to point this out to you in a friendly way. At the same time, we entreat you to obstruct the prince’s sequestration, so that the invocation and protection of the law will not be denied to us, the articles of the preachers will be demolished through Holy Scripture, and a definite order to which both the religious and the laity should adhere will be ordained in the business of religion.” To this Henry Hake, the dean of the main clergy, responded on October 27, saying that he and his college would faithfully plead the case of the people of Münster before the prince when he returned. For he had suddenly left the diocese and his return was to be expected. The others to whom the leaderless council had written each promised their efforts in persuading the prince by entreaty. In order to have imitators and adherents in the other cities, the guilds of Münster also wrote to the individual guilds of the smaller cities, advising, urging and beseeching them to follow their own example, even if their magistrates objected, by casting away all the superstitions, additions and frauds of the pope’s followers | and embracing the Word of God and to protect themselves with mutual assistance against the persecutors of the Gospel and the whole papist crew. With these and

86

See 268D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 332

6/6/2007 1:03:54 PM

the events of 1532

333

similar words they provided the commons in certain towns, particularly those in the eastern half of the diocese, with heavy weaponry against their own councils. In the western half, on the other hand, where the leading men of the cities were not given over to factions, the business proceeded more slowly. It made a great difference that a peaceable government was in charge. To make sure that they would not be stripped of the favor and protection of the allied cities, the council also called upon them to provide assistance through intervention. Accordingly, they first wrote to the people of Coesfeld on October 23. “We have no doubt that you have learned through general report that a man named Bernard Rothman, a priest and chaplain in the parish of St. Maurice outside the walls of our city who was summoned to our city, has for some time taught the Word of God to the people in both locations and summoned to him a certain number of colleagues in his avowed beliefs, and that as a result of this the prince was upset and sent us an earnest letter bidding us to drive away these preachers and restore to their previous status in the churches the ceremonies which had been abolished through their doctrine and articles. We, on the other hand, have rightly, as we see it, invoked our public and private rights, that is, the privileges of our homeland. The prince, however, has cast all this to the winds and had his bailiffs seize the cattle and other property of our burghers, and indeed the burghers themselves, during transit, putting them in sequestration. Since the states represented by our own and your cities constitute the fourth estate of this diocese, we would never have expected this to happen. Hence, we have requested in writing that the articles of the preachers be refuted by Holy Scripture. It was our wish that you should not be unaware of these events, and at the same time we ask you to explain them to the cities near you and to persuade the prince through entreaty to cancel the sequestration and not to deny us the invocation of the law, to refer the case to fair arbitrators who are by no means suspect, and to have the articles demolished through Holy Scripture.” A letter of virtually the same content was written to the people of Warendorf bidding them convene a meeting of their towns in the eastern half of the diocese and consult with them about a response. | Being attached to the people of Münster with remarkable favor and having at the same time been long since initiated in the faction through a certain contagion as a result of proximity, the people of Warendorf immediately convened the meeting, read out the letter from the people of Münster, and discussed the matter back and forth in deliberation.

293

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 333

6/6/2007 1:03:54 PM

334

294

the events of 1532

On October 26, they decided upon a response. They said that they would not violate their common treaties or separate at all from their metropolis, having no doubt about the fairness of the case, since what was at stake was the business of the Gospel, the glory of God, the true faith that had hitherto been polluted through enactments, and eternal salvation. Accordingly, they earnestly promised their efforts before the prince. On October 26, the council of Coesfeld gave the following response to the council of Münster. They said that they had already learned through the general report the matters contained in the previous letter, and as requested they would summon the other towns to the customary location to set out these matters to them and to tell them of the decision of the people of Münster. This location in which the western towns customarily meet to discuss important matters is between Ramsdorf and the public inn called Hulschen’s house. Hence, the people of Coesfeld, the chief town in the western half, summoned the people of Bocholt, Borken, Dülmen, Haltern and Vreden to meet for deliberation on October 30, and after advice was proffered there, a decision was reached as to the response that should be given to the people of Münster. This is the reply sent to the council of Münster by the Hammonic (Bramian) towns.87 “To satisfy your wish, the council of Coesfeld summoned the leaders of the other towns to the customary place and laid your letter before them. Accordingly, we, the plenipotentiary representatives of the towns, deliberated with timely judgment about giving an answer and at the same time compared our views. Consider this, then, as the response that you requested. In the first place, we have long since learned that the preacher has given sermons for some time outside your walls and then inside, that he called others to him as colleagues, and so on. We would not have expected that you, in whose hands lies the governance of the city, | would tolerate this but that you would have halted their extravagant freedom in the beginning before they progressed in rashness to the point where they thought that they were allowed to do anything. As for the prince having written for this reason that you should cast out those preachers and restore to their original position the ceremonies abolished by their articles and so on, it seemed to us fair that you should, as obedient subjects, obey the prince in this. If, after everything had been restored to its original state, some

87

I.e., those of the western Münsterland.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 334

6/6/2007 1:03:55 PM

the events of 1532

335

dispute had remained on either side, then there would have been in this regard, as far as we can see, an opportunity to invoke privileges and rights. Also, you write that after casting your invocations of the law to the winds, the prince had used sequestration and seizure to restrain burghers’ cattle and other property as well as the burghers themselves, contrary to your expectation since the cities have hitherto constituted the fourth estate and so on. We do admit that we are allied with each other in the firm and specific bond of a treaty just like the limbs of a single body, but since in the records of the treaty an exception is made for the decisions of the pope, our mother the Church, the Roman King,88 and our prince, all of whom we must obey under all circumstances without the possibility of prejudicing their prerogatives in our own treaties, we did not feel that we had violated the treaty if we did not give our sanction to or approve the innovations that you have undertaken without consulting us. For the religious obligation to adhere to the treaty remains equally inviolate. Be that as it may, if you are prepared to become reconciled with the burgher masters and the councilmen who have withdrawn from you and to remove every unheard of innovation that you have for some time tolerated in your city, then after your representatives come to the assembly to be convened at Dülmen, we will, to the extent possible, endeavor to have your dispute halted in accordance with the agreement entered into in the past by the entire diocese and brought to adjudication. Since we have always lived together in full peace because of our mutual treaty since ancient times, we also ask you not to violate the obedience that you owe the prince, | so that we will not become involved in common risk and danger and in the end be plunged with you into inevitable disaster. We send this to you as our well-intentioned reply.” On November 4, the council of Münster replied to the towns individually as follows. “We have read the letter you sent as a reply, and from it we note your benevolent favor towards us and your helpful advice (as you thought). We leave all this to its own devices, though we will remember it at the appropriate time. As for your warning us in that letter to become reconciled with the burgher masters and the councilmen who have withdrawn from us and so on, we respond that we have expended great efforts, now through envoys from the council, now through letters, beseeching them to deign to return to us and the

88

The Holy Roman Emperor also held the title of Roman King.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 335

6/6/2007 1:03:55 PM

336

296

the events of 1532

duties entrusted to them, and when we realized that these entreaties had no infl uence on them, we thought that this should be taken in an indulgent, if unhappy, spirit. We convey this information to you as a reply, so that you may understand the facts.” On November 4, the council of Münster also sent a letter to the estate of the commons in each city to stir them up against their government, and its text follows. “In recent days we wrote to the council of Coesfeld about matters of no little import, so that after summoning the magistrates of the other cities to a meeting, they should set this letter before them and satisfy our requests. But in our judgment at least we find that the reply sent to us by the burgher masters and representatives of all the towns, a copy of which we are conveying to you, is ill-considered and undutiful if the religious obligation to adhere to the treaty and consideration of neighborliness are taken into account. We would by no means have expected such a reply from them since we have received a more tolerable and reasonable response from the other towns in the east. We did not, as they perchance imagine, drive out the burgher masters and councilmen. To the contrary, we have in a friendly way invited these men, who wrenched themselves away of their own accord, to return by sending embassies and letters. We did not wish to conceal this matter from you in the confident expectation that you would plead with your burgher masters and council that they should not rashly cast off treaties entered into in ancient days.” To this the estate of the commons in the various cities replied as follows on November 8. They said that they had read a copy of the letter sent by the towns but could find in it nothing ill-advised | or contrary to the obligations of civilized behavior. Thus, after the burgher masters and councilmen compared advice and gave an answer as to what seemed fair, honorable, pious and peaceable, the commons would not reject and would instead approve the decisions of their magistrates in order to avoid being tarred with the suspicion of sedition. If, on the other hand, the council of Münster deigned to acquiesce in the warnings of the towns and allowed themselves to be turned from their seditious undertakings back to obedience, the commoners would always act on behalf of the city of Münster to bring about what fairness urged, the religious necessity of the treaty demanded, the consideration of the general peace dictated, and the obligations of civilized behavior suggested. The people of Münster had no hope of assistance from the main clergy or the knighthood or the leaders of the towns or the estate of the commons in those towns, but would not allow themselves to be led

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 336

6/6/2007 1:03:55 PM

the events of 1532

337

away from their obstinacy, so they first strengthened themselves as far as possible through their own resources and then decided to seek refuge in the advice of foreigners. Hence, the two aldermen summoned all the burghers of the city and the inhabitants residing outside the walls to a meeting on November 6, and one of them addressed the burghers as follows. “The Word of God and the pure doctrine of Christ has been spread for some time in our city through God’s propitiousness, and it has not only brought many people to a true knowledge of the faith but confirmed them in it to such an extent that the guilds and archers of the entire city publicly avow that it and no other is the doctrine of heaven. For this reason, these people have agreed among themselves that it is impossible to deviate from this doctrine through fear of some danger, thinking that instead it is necessary to fight on behalf of it to the last breath of life until such time as it is demolished through Holy Scripture. Also, though we have invoked both public and private rights in defense of ourselves, nonetheless we are being harassed. Therefore, all the guilds and the archers demand of you, their fellow burghers and the inhabitants of this city, that all those who voluntarily wish to adhere to the Word of God (no one should be forced) and who are prepared to defend it, even at risk of their lives if need be, should move to one side of this building.” At these words, some people, being devoted to Rothman’s faction, which they were convinced was in accord with the Word of God, obeyed the alderman, while others, being uncertain of the outcome of this matter, departed. After their departure, the alderman said, “It is rightly fitting that when their fellow burgher and neighbor invokes the common privilege, every single one of the burghers should protect and defend him against violence and injury, even to the loss of his life and property. If, then, we invoke right and fairness for the sake of the Gospel and yet not only we ourselves but the entire city is harassed in violation of this right, would you be prepared, as fellow burghers and inhabitants in the faith, to ward off this injury at the risk of your lives and property?” Everyone answered together that because of their love of the Gospel they would undergo the most extreme dangers. Thus, as the alderman recited the formula of the oath for them to repeat, a formal union was established. After this was finished, the aldermen, guild masters and elected representatives of the commons accosted the council with the following words. “In the cause of the Gospel and religion, because of which we are being affl icted by our prince, we have often sent letters to our prince, the main clergy, the

297

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 337

6/6/2007 1:03:55 PM

338

298

the events of 1532

knighthood, the towns and certain princes, vainly invoking the general law, the homeland’s privileges, and the ancient liberties, immunities and customs of this city of ours, and in derisive contempt of privilege, law, custom and the edict of his Imperial Majesty we have been unable to get any protection from any estate or class. Indeed, contrary to our expectation, we are being oppressed with unfair sequestrations by our own people rather than by foreigners, entangled in foreign courts, and defrauded with unjust legal decisions under the specious pretence of law and fairness. We accordingly ask in the most dutiful terms possible and remind you in a friendly way on behalf of the commons, that you should devise other ways to stop this unjust use of force and implore other princes of higher rank to keep this city from being stripped of its liberties and privileges and shoved over a cliff from which there can be no hope of return. Hence, since no assistance is to be expected from those by whom we could not be justly abandoned, and we are instead being increasingly overwhelmed with unjust force in violation of the edict of his Imperial Majesty and the Empire that was promulgated throughout the provinces of Germany, it seemed expeditious to us, provided this could happen with your authorization and consent, to set out this case of ours before certain electors, princes, counts and other leading men and estates of the Empire who are going to hold a meeting89 at Brunswick on the feast of St. Martin90 | and to implore their advice and assistance to keep our prince from shattering this city and throwing it into chaos contrary to public and private rights and in violation of the Imperial edict. It is on the best of grounds that we seek refuge in the help and assistance of these princes and estates. First, they are Christians and with outstanding zeal pursue the evangelical Truth for the sake of which we are being affl icted. Second, they are members of the Empire, and the edict in violation of which we are being harassed was drawn up and promulgated on their advice and by their authority. There is therefore no doubt that they will uphold this edict in light of their very weighty authority and undertake to defend us. We protest, however, that we will take no action against our prince except to the extent necessary against the unjust use of force.” The council embraced this advice from the aldermen, and on November 7 sent a letter to John of Wieck, doctor of law and syndic

89 90

This refers to a proposed meeting of the Schmalkaldic League. November 11.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 338

6/6/2007 1:03:55 PM

the events of 1532

339

of the city of Bremen, asking him | to plead their case faithfully before the princes in that assembly. The text of the letter was as follows. “You must be reasonably sure from general report, most learned sir, that certain inhabitants of our city have earnestly received evangelical preachers who adhere to the Word of God and that because of the sermons and articles made public by these preachers on the subject of doing away with abuses the hitherto customary ceremonies have been removed from the parish churches. For this reason, our prince Francis, the confirmed bishop of the diocese of Münster and Osnabrück and administrator of the church in Minden, has demanded of the council, aldermen and guild masters that we should drive out the preachers and restore the ceremonies to their prior position of honor, but since the estate of the commons insists that they will not allow this unless the preachers are convicted of error and their published articles are demolished through the testimony of Holy Scripture, we replied that we were invoking the fair usage of the privileges of this homeland and the dictates of general law, or rather the common judgment and decision of all the estates of this diocese. By no means satisfied with this response, the prince seized our burghers and their cattle en route and sequestered them, and after dragging them before foreign courts, he plunged some of them into constant disaster, and being heedless of the Imperial edict recently promulgated in connection with the faith and religion, he infl icted irremediable harm on others. We offer this narrative to you, most erudite sire, for your deeper consideration with the wisdom and experience in which you are surpassing. At the same time, having learned that you are going to attend the assembly that certain princes, counts, leading men and estates have called to meet at Brunswick, we ask you to plead this case of ours faithfully before the princes so that they will bring it about by writing letters or sending embassies or some other more convenient means that the prince will let the sequestrations and legal cases against our burghers lapse, make no use of violence, and remit the matter of the ceremonies and preachers to fair arbitrators, so that there should be some consideration of our invocation of the law. We are confident that you will not fail to oblige us in this matter.” An additional sheet said, “Also, most prudent sir, we would have sent representatives to you from the council, but we understand that the public roads are occupied in such a way that virtually no one is able to leave the city in safety.” Having learned from the council’s letter that the Word of God was taking root in his own homeland too, this syndic for Bremen, who was

299

300

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 339

6/6/2007 1:03:55 PM

340

301

the events of 1532

ablaze with the common zeal for religion, undertook to carry out in quite good faith the task entrusted to him, and for a few days he detained the messenger sent to him by the council so that he would not lack one after successfully completing the business. On November 18, then, he wrote back via this messenger with news of what he had achieved at the assembly on behalf of the city. Having taken letters from the syndic for Celle, however, the messenger roamed through other places to make a greater profit before returning to Münster, and he arrived there rather late because of the distraction of delivering the other letters. Having expected but not gotten some response on November 30, the council took this delay on the part of the messenger very badly and sent another one to Bremen with a letter from the council to ask for a reply. In this letter, the council asked for two things from Syndic Wieck. First, since the messenger through whom he was to write back about what had been done on behalf of the city of Münster in the most recent assembly of princes had not returned, they wished him to write back via the second messenger about the progress of the mission entrusted to him. Second, they wished him not to begrudge coming to them on the feast of Mary’s Conception,91 adding that if his activities did not allow this and he preferred to postpone it to another, more convenient time when he could stay a while in Münster without great harm and detriment to himself and others, this course was acceptable to the council, so that a longer period of time would be available for mutual deliberation on very important matters. Finally, if he did not think that it was permissible for him to do so without consulting the people of Bremen, he was to order the messenger to deliver a letter he had written to the council of Bremen. The text of this letter was the following. “We have written to the most learned John of Wieck and asked him to assist us in person for a while in connection with some difficult matters which are necessary for us. We therefore ask that you grant your permission for this to happen. We will repay you with a similar or greater favor.” While this was going on, Eberhard Fabri,92 the long expected messenger, suddenly showed up with the letter from Wieck. The council would certainly | have made him pay for his long delay with prison if he had not cited many plausible reasons to excuse him and the council

91 92

December 8. Presumably, a Latinized version of Schmidt.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 340

6/6/2007 1:03:55 PM

the events of 1532

341

and aldermen had not been delighted with the newly brought letter. A copy of it follows. “John of Wieck, doctor of laws and syndic of the city of Bremen, to the council of Münster. As soon as your letter was delivered to me in Brunswick, I went before the deliberative meeting of Ernest and Francis, the Dukes of Brunswick and Lunenburg, the councilors of John Frederick, the electoral Duke of Saxony, and of Philip, the Prince of Hesse, and the representatives of other cities. In the presence of all these men, I delivered a speech with all the faithfulness and care I could, pleading the case of your distressed and extraordinarily harassed city. At the same time, I presented the written judgment for contumely issued by the bishop’s judges against Caspar Judefeld, and I indicated that other burghers were being overwhelmed with similar legal decisions. The letter of Master John Ummegrove that contained in exact detail all the circumstances of the case was also read out along with the instructions given to you by the knighthood and your response, so that it would be clear that nothing that was relevant to a detailed explanation of the case had been passed over. The whole matter was opened for discussion, and they considered the means by which you could be provided with assistance, and at that point the councilors of the landgrave reported that you and their prince had exchanged letters about this matter and that permission had been granted by the bishop elect to settle the dispute, and that he would soon send a delegation to your city to bring about a restoration of peace. The princes and the representatives of the princes and cities not only asked that this be done promptly but also gave an order in some fashion in the name of the Schmalkaldic League that the landgrave should negotiate with your prince elect in such a way that the unfortunate situation would be done away with and that you would be restored to your former liberty without being stripped of the Christian truth and the salvation- and life-giving Word of God. The landgrave’s councilors promised in the name of their prince that all these things would soon take place. | As far as I could gather from the councilors and representatives, I have no doubts about the loyalty, favor and good will in which you are held by him and the other princes and cities. When certain among them expressed uncertainty as to whether your doctrine agrees with the Confession of Augsburg, which very many cities have embraced, and you desire to be admitted to the League, in which many princes and cities are bound in alliance, I replied that on the basis of many indications and factual demonstrations I was sure that your city was

302

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 341

6/6/2007 1:03:55 PM

342

303

the events of 1532

keeping itself resolutely in the truth without any adulteration and had not become tainted with the impious errors of the Sacramentarians93 and Anabaptists. I said that for a long time it had been your genuine wish to join the Christian League but you did not know the best way for you to become signatories to it since you had lost the ability to send representatives here through the blockading of the public roads, as I indicated by reading your letter before the general meeting. I also reported that after the landgrave had intervened to settle the dispute, your prince elect had seized burghers’ goods in transit and blockaded the public roads contrary to the landgrave’s confident expectation, and that those who hate the Truth and Word of God have in the feigned desire for peace allowed the landgrave to act as an arbitrator, so that in the meanwhile they could run riot at their own discretion, oppress the city and strip the burghers of their property, their intention being that once the public roads were occupied, the burghers would labor under an extreme dearth of necessities and in the end be robbed of all movement. When the councilors retorted that the prince elect had indicated to their prince by letter that he would not oppress the city with sequestrations or any other annoyance, I replied that after sending that letter he had nonetheless dragged Caspar Judefeld before a foreign court, despoiled burghers, driven off cattle, and plundered the burghers’ possessions not only in areas close to the city but also in Vechta. Then, after a consultation was held, I received the following answer. They said that since the landgrave had brought about a suspension of this dispute, since he now had a specific mandate from the evangelical princes to finish this matter, and since his councilors had promised to expedite the matter, they wished to refrain from writing in order to prevent the prince elect from being able to say that he had been accused while the task undertaken by the landgrave was still pending. My advice, therefore, is that you should urge the landgrave by writing to complete the matter quickly. There is no doubt | that he will take the steps that befit a pious, Christian prince. In addition, it is the vehement wish of all the cities of Saxony and the coast, which are very eager for your salvation, that the city of Münster should join the Christian alliance, so that it may be saved from tyranny and preserved

93 Those who, contrary to the apparent sense of the term, deemphasized or altogether denied the importance of the traditional sacraments, in particular the eucharist and baptism.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 342

6/6/2007 1:03:55 PM

the events of 1532

343

in the true evangelical doctrine. Though distracted by having been appointed as the commander of the forces defending this league, the landgrave will nonetheless not fail you in this matter. I too will deny you no duty, however burdensome, when the retention of the true doctrine and Christian liberty are involved in it.” After this letter from Wieck had been read out in a full meeting of the council in the presence of the aldermen and guild masters, they were heartened by the hope of assistance from abroad, which made them much more impetuous, and they thought that now they should not retreat from their undertakings, since they understood that they had been strengthened through foreign favor. Hence, they decided that the opportunity presented by the offer to join the league was not to be turned down rashly. The representatives of the commons entrusted the swift completion of this matter to the thoughtful care of the council. In addition, when Wieck received the council’s letter complaining about the messenger’s delay, he immediately wrote back that he had sent Eberhard Fabri from Celle on November 18 with the expectation that he would return directly to Münster as he had promised to do and would deliver the letter entrusted to him to the council and Ummegrove. He said that he did not know what the reason for the delay was but he suspected that the man was unreliable since in disregard of his word he pretended one thing for the sake of profit and did another. Hence, he would send a second copy of his earlier letter, from which the council would learn what had been done for the city of Münster at the assembly in Brunswick. He also noted that the tyranny by which the city was being oppressed because it had embraced the evangelical Truth and rejected the papist abuses had not yet been done away with and no date had been fixed for a meeting to make peace and restore tranquility, and that instead everything was being done as a pretense by the prince. Accordingly, his advice was that they should approach the landgrave with the request that he should deign to accept into the alliance of the Christian League the city of Münster, which was devoted to the Confession of Augsburg and would also adhere to the self-justification, protestations and | appeals submitted in the name of the princes and the other cities, and that this city should enjoy the same privileges and defenses as the others, which were contained in greater detail in the letter of Ummegrove. Finally, he said that he would have come to Münster at the council’s summons on the day requested, but his distractions had not at all allowed this. For the people of Bremen, whose syndic he was, had undertaken a suit against their clergy who

304

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 343

6/6/2007 1:03:56 PM

344

305

the events of 1532

were in voluntary exile since the people of Bremen would not tolerate them within their walls along with their impious ceremonies and foul abuses, and the articles for the defense had to be worked out for presentation in the Court of the Imperial Chamber. There were also, he said, many other reasons that prevented him from coming, especially the dangers caused by the blockade of the public roads, but he would come once he had taken care of his burdens and the fear of dangers had been removed. Later, on December 12, Wieck wrote the same thing to the council. He said that at his own expense he had laid out the case of the people of Münster before Duke Ernest of Brunswick, and asked the duke what he thought Wieck should do in connection with this matter. The duke replied that he had gathered at the previous assembly held in Brunswick that the landgrave had cut the dispute short, and for this reason it seemed useful to him that the landgrave should arrange the settlement of the case, which could be done most conveniently at the next assembly of the allied princes and cities, which was to be held at Höxter on January 1. He said that he would by no means fail the people of Münster at this meeting. In the same letter, Wieck also advised the people of Münster not to reject joining the Christian League. The council introduced Wieck’s advice about joining the alliance of the Schmalkaldic League as a topic for discussion, and after rather careful deliberation it was decided to keep the city free from participation in other people’s factions. The purpose of this was to avoid the possibility that if the council made the city an ally of the Christian League, | the council would turn liberty into slavery, multiply the number of lords, get itself involved in new taxes and exactions, violate the bishop’s jurisdiction and derogate from his rights, in which case it would be said that the council had subordinated rule over the city to foreign control. Nonetheless, on December 13 it was decided to send a delegation in the name of the city to the illustrious princes, the brothers Ernest and Francis, the Dukes of Lunenburg, to Prince Philip of Hesse, and to Count Philip of Waldeck, the bishop’s brother. John of Wieck the doctor, Caspar Schrodercken, a council member, and John Ummegrove, a very clever pettifogger, were appointed to carry out this embassy. The gist of the mission’s pleading was as follows. The city of Münster had received the Word of God from men no less pious than learned, who had criticized and rejected the ancient ceremonies in the churches not only from the pulpit but also in writings which they had made public. These writings had been offered to the pastors and chaplains, and when

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 344

6/6/2007 1:03:56 PM

the events of 1532

345

the latter had given no response to them, the ceremonies had fallen into abeyance. Various discussions about this matter had taken place between the council and the other estates of the diocese. After the council had not, as the bishop and the other estates desired, cast out the preachers or restored the abolished ceremonies to their previous place of honor, the bishop had not only seized the burghers’ goods and the burghers themselves in transit, placing them under sequestration, but dragged them before foreign courts, cut off the burghers by blockading movement on the public roads, and forbidden the payment of incomes, so that they should be subdued by the dire lack of necessities and stripped of their privileges. Although the council had invoked public and private rights, this had not helped the council at all. The council therefore demanded advice and assistance against these acts in the name of the entire city, so that as a result of the princes’ writing the prince should at least concede the cancellation of the sequestrations, the rescinding of the suits, and the abrogation of the harsher decisions and decrees, mercifully allowing the dispute about the preachers and ceremonies to be halted and settled by fair arbitrators. After accepting the task of carrying out this mission and receiving a letter to prove that they had been sent with plenipotentiary power, | the representatives Schrodercken and Ummegrove hastened to Bremen. After being greatly impeded by inclement weather and the blockaded roads, they arrived on December 24. Wieck read the letter in which he was graciously invited to undertake this mission and expressed his great willingness to take on not only the mission but any efforts that would gratify the city of Münster. After he learned that his advice had been ignored, however, and that for certain reasons the council would not join the Christian League, he seemed to get annoyed and was exceedingly amazed at the carelessness of the people of Münster, who had involved themselves in the business of the Gospel and received the Word of God without first acquiring for themselves the protection and defense of the princes or striving to do so even now, when they perceived that the clever and crafty plotting of malicious men and the wars started by them aimed at oppressing the city of Münster with never-ending enslavement to the papists. He said that it was now becoming doubtful whether permission could be gotten under present circumstances for the city of Münster, which was in dissension with its prince, to be admitted to that general alliance. For the princes and cities would hardly make a city from which disturbances and wars were to be feared an allied member of their League, nor would they take up

306

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 345

6/6/2007 1:03:56 PM

346

307

the events of 1532

a war on behalf of someone else at a time when they themselves now enjoyed full peace in the business of religion and the faith. In addition, he said, the lack of substance to the arguments and urgings which had deterred the council from joining the League was clear from two facts. First, this alliance of princes and cities had been formed not to infl ict but to ward off harm and to protect liberty and not to multiply servitude, as the people of Münster persuaded themselves to be the case. Second, the members of the alliance were not worn down with any exactions and burdened with any contributions unless considerations of the Gospel and of eternal salvation so dictate, and this salvation ought to be protected not only by those bound by this treaty but by all those who boast the designation “Christian,” even at the cost of their fl eeting possessions, indeed at the risk of life itself. Next, that this treaty did not violate anyone’s jurisdiction or the Empire or diminish the authority of any ruler was obvious from the fact that the electoral Duke of Saxony and the other princes and Imperial cities94 were not shaking off or violating the obedience by which they were bound to the Emperor more | than the people of Münster were to their prince. Also, membership in the League was held by certain cities that were subordinate to archbishops and to bishops of greater dignity, authority, power and wealth than was the bishop elect of Münster. Finally, he argued, it would be the height of folly to doubt the respectability of the League, as if so many princes and cities had done away with their obedience through membership, had violated anyone else’s jurisdiction, and had imposed slavery and new exactions upon themselves and their people. For the treaty was a part of the Christian religion and the evangelical liberty, in no way derogating from municipal authority or undercutting anyone’s governance or office. Furthermore, if the people of Münster were terrified of joining the alliance, then it was pointless to send the delegation to the princes, from whom they would get no hope, advice or assistance apart from sending a friendly letter to the bishop, which they could have gotten at less expense. If, on the other hand, they changed their mind and decided that the attitude of the princes should be sounded out with a view toward joining, he told them to send authorization to negotiate without any delay to Höxter

94 Free Imperial cities had no intervening overlord and were directly granted selfgovernment by the Emperor.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 346

6/6/2007 1:03:56 PM

the events of 1532

347

on January 1, since the princes and cities belonging to the Christian League had summoned an assembly to meet there. After Schrodercken and Ummegrove dispatched on December 25 a swift messenger who told the council of Wieck’s agitated frame of mind, these arguments moved the council to change its mind, and it immediately sent the delegation members a document authorizing them to negotiate on the day specified. The text of this document follows. “We, the council of the city of Münster, proclaim to each and every one and publicly declare by this document of ours that we have appointed the most honored and learned John of Wieck, doctor of law and syndic of the city of Bremen, as well as Caspar Schrodercken, member of our council, and Master John Ummegrove, burgher, as agents or representatives in our affairs, and that in granting them plenipotentiary authority individually and collectively, we have ordained that in the name of the council and of the entire city they should, given a suitable opportunity, principally aim to have this city enrolled by the princes, cities | and other estates in that Christian League in which the members were bound in mutual alliance, being incorporated and united within that League under the same terms as are the other cities. Whichever of these actions said delegates take in our name we promise without chicanery or deceit to consider valid, fixed and unchangeable. As a sign of good faith and truthfulness, we have certified the present document with the official seal of our city. Issued December 29, A.D. 1532.” This document of appointment as representatives was sent to the members of the delegation, and in a letter to Schrodercken and Ummegrove the council asked them to carry out everything faithfully and to bring Wieck back with them to Münster after finishing the mission, since there was a very difficult matter that the council would discuss with him. The mission was hindered by news of the capture of Telgte that spread in the assembly at Höxter. The town had been captured on December 26, as will be related below. While these events were going on in Münster, the bishop recognized the zealous efforts with which they were striving to acquire both external and internal protection against him, particularly when they schemed to win over the favor of the lesser cities by writing now to their leaders and now to the estates of the commons in them. Fearing the defection of the towns, he summoned a general assembly to be held in Dülmen on the Tuesday after the feast of St. Martin, which was on November 12. The prince, the chapter, the nobility and the burgher masters of

308

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 347

6/6/2007 1:03:56 PM

348

309

the events of 1532

the lesser cities arrived on the appointed day, and after they had dealt with the Turkish tax95 and other public matters for a few days, the representatives of Münster were summoned on November 15, not by the prince to take part in this general assembly but by the estates of the diocese for private discussion. They presented a document from their council in which it complained that while the council had not been summoned to the assembly in the customary way, it did not know the reason for this. They also said that the estates of the diocese were well aware that the cattle of burghers had been seized in transit and sequestered by the bishop’s bailiffs and stewards, that burghers had been dragged before foreign courts to which they were not subject and oppressed with intolerable decisions, as a result of which harsher steps were to be feared, this despite the fact that the burghers had always, but vainly, appealed to their own court to which | they were subject. The council, the document went on, could easily and justly be excused for not coming to this assembly, but it did have one request to make. Those in attendance should remember the letters most recently sent by the council and accost the prince with entreaties, asking him to allow the council’s invocation of the rights and privileges of this homeland, to forget the sequestration and the suits lodged in foreign courts against the burghers, to refer the case involving the ceremonies and preachers to fair judges, to have those preachers’ articles refuted through the manifest testimony of Holy Scripture, and then to have a definite order and arrangement instituted in the business of religion, which both the religious and the laity would embrace and maintain jointly in pursuit of peace and obedience. If the grant of these requests could be achieved in good grace, then the council said that it would not be unmindful of its obligation. This document from the council was offered by certain representatives of the estates of the diocese to the prince, and they energetically strove both to make him placated toward the city and to remove all resentment from his mind. On November 16, they made a report in the assembly of all the estates still in attendance in Dülmen as to what their plea to the prince had been and what concessions they had gotten. Here is a copy of the items set out by the estates of the diocese to the representatives of Münster at the assembly at Dülmen.

95

See n. 43.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 348

6/6/2007 1:03:56 PM

the events of 1532

349

First, the estates said that they had offered to the prince in the most careful and dutiful way possible the document from the council of Münster and its request. It was with the greatest distress that they pondered the discord that had arisen between the prince and the city, and in considering this disagreement in the better half of their minds they definitely foresaw that when feelings were embittered on both sides, it would result in a huge disagreement that would drag the entire city and a large part of the diocese with it into inevitable downfall. All the estates of the diocese were inspired with the equal and concordant desire to forestall this disaster, and have approached the prince with frequent entreaties. Relying in their pleadings before him | upon the claims of law and fairness to which the people of Münster always showed themselves ready to submit, they insistently asked that he mercifully allow the disagreement between him and the city to be halted by the estates. The prince thought that he should not allow this for many reasons, and particularly because they had always contemptuously cast aside both his own and the knighthood’s many warnings. There was no doubt, he thought, that the good services offered by the estates would, if granted, be wasted fruitlessly and bring nothing but new annoyances. In addition, the prince had definitely decided that he would use the aid and assistance of certain princes and his friends in a serious attempt to stamp out the rebellious undertakings of the people of Münster, having also found through their advice a specific method and way in which they could be easily brought back to the obedience they owed and to a fairer frame of mind. The vicars of the diocese spoke about this matter at some length in the name of the prince. When the representatives of the estates would not stop insistently urging and entreating the prince to allow them to halt the dispute, they eventually won this concession from him with the greatest difficulty. Indeed, it seemed that they almost wrestled this from him. They said that the people of Münster had been summoned there to hear with good will the views and deliberation of the estates concerning this matter. The actions that the people of Münster had allowed without any hearing but by their own authority in violation of the edict of his Imperial Majesty, of the decision of the Holy Roman Empire, and of the prince’s friendly warnings and jurisdiction as ordinary bishop were, they said, considered inappropriate, impious and seditious not only by all the estates of the diocese but also by all right-thinking men, and if these actions were not soon done away with or put to rest through

310

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 349

6/6/2007 1:03:56 PM

350

311

the events of 1532

the intervention of good men, it would result in irreparable damage, a lamentable downfall and, in the end, the general destruction of the city, which would be fatal to the inhabitants in particular. The estates therefore gave as their general advice and in a friendly way urged the people of Münster again and again that they should arrange their affairs in a different way than had hitherto been the case, and recognize the Emperor’s edict, the Empire’s decree, the prince’s frequent well-intentioned warnings, the letters from the knighthood, and the salubrious advice of the towns of this diocese. They should above all set their salvation and death before their own eyes at the same time and consider them more accurately, so that they would abandon the preachers and innovations, revive the rites and ceremonies abolished in the parish churches, | replace the objects unjustly plundered and removed from the churches by force, and restore those who had been removed from their offices to their previous state. If these steps were taken, the estates would, with all the zeal they could muster, readily halt the dissension which had arisen between the prince and the people of Münster and, after doing so, get rid of it, and then restore the good will and friendship that used to prevail. If any minor offense had crept into religious practice through the passage of time, the estates would, to the extent possible, plead strenuously with the prince to institute a cleansing and purification of that practice through the removal of the offence and a settlement of the status of the government, and then get him to suspend for the time being the sequestration under which the halted goods of the burghers were being detained and to return the cattle once surety was given. If, on the other hand, the people of Münster ignored this faithful advice from the leading men of the diocese and persisted in their obstinate schism, which was hardly expected, then all the estates had, at the urging of their prince, officially decided as loyal subjects to offer their advice, aid and assistance in this just case and unite their forces against the people of Münster. These declarations were to be set out before the representatives of Münster in the name of the leading men and estates who had authority over the diocese, so that the representative would report them in accurate detail to the council and to the other towns concerned and make no delay in giving a response. A written copy of the declarations was left for the representatives to present to the council, aldermen and other estates in the city for deeper consideration, so that they could learn with greater certainty and clarity both the estates’ severe criticism

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 350

6/6/2007 1:03:56 PM

the events of 1532

351

and their decision, in case the representatives reported the course of their mission in overly mild and relaxed terms. After these events, the representatives of Münster first bandied about ambiguous statements that were sometimes coaxing and relevant, sometimes harsher and uncouth, and then demanded of the delegates from the diocese that they deign to lay out before the prince the following requests in the name of the city and to secure his agreement to them. If this was denied to them on the first approach, they should still not stop asking. The oak is not, they said, felled with one chop but many, and in the end God Himself could be swayed by prayers. Although | the delegates for the diocese took that statement about the oak very badly, since on account of his remarkable stature and height the representatives of Münster seemed to be referring to the prince, they nonetheless thought that the public peace deserved more consideration than did a private insult. They did, however, carry out this mission rather unenergetically. The articles to which the prince’s agreement was to be gotten were the following. 1) The prince should graciously grant a delay to the people of Münster in replying to the demands set before them on November 25 at the assembly at Dülmen. For the representatives needed to seek out a suitable occasion on which to deal with the commons. As for the reply, if they were first given a public guarantee of safety in coming and going, they would bring it to Wolbeck at 9 a.m. on the appointed day. 2) Within the period of time requested for deliberation, the sequestration should be relaxed and abated, so that everyone would be allowed permission to travel safely and freely with his merchandise and cargo. 3) After the production of sureties to give the prince a guarantee for their value, the burghers’ cattle should be released and returned to their owners, since they were deteriorating and losing value as a result of the long detention. Meanwhile, a letter was presented to the representatives of Münster asking them in the name of all the estates of the diocese to attend the new assembly to be held at Wolbeck on December 9 and to come there with plenipotentiary authority. After reading this letter, the representatives used crafty verbal ambiguities redolent with suspicions. Daring to speak openly rather than reservedly, they said that they would prevail upon their people to send plenipotentiary representatives. The later capture of Telgte made it reasonably clear what they had meant with

312

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 351

6/6/2007 1:03:56 PM

352 313

314

the events of 1532

these words. They instilled such fear and trepidation in the hearts of the burgher masters of the lesser cities | that they demanded from the representatives of Münster permission to travel safely through their city and were immediately granted it. Though their other impetuous, ill-advised blatherings and demands prove their rashness, it is better to pass them over in silence. The delegates for the diocese delivered these demands to the prince in the most careful way possible, though they suppressed those whose utterance could only have annoyed him. Then, on November 17, they reported to the council the concessions which they had been granted in the following words. They said that before their most reverend prince, the bishop elect of Münster and Osnabrück and the administrator of the Church of Minden they had both verbally and in writing set out in order the proceedings between the members of the diocese and the people of Münster at the assembly at Dülmen and the requests made of the former by the latter. To the first article the prince had replied that for the purpose of responding he would grant both a delay for the period of time requested and safe conduct. The second one he had said he had to deny for very just reasons. The third one concerning the release of the burghers’ cattle he had granted to the extent that reliable guarantors were provided for paying the value of the cattle. These, then, were, they said, the concessions which they had been able to get from the prince at the present time as a favor to the city. After learning of the prince’s frame of mind, the townsmen deliberated and consulted about everything, turning it this way and that in their minds. Finally, after comparing their views, on November 25 they gave the following reply to the assembly of the vicars at Wolbeck through their representatives. On November 12,96 the estates of the diocese | had given for presentation to the council and the other estates in the city a copy of the demands that had been set out in the assembly at Dülmen specifically regarding the preachers and ceremonies in the churches, so that after a short deliberation they should reply as to what they were going to do, and thus in the name of the city they gave the response that they had often given. Since the articles of the preachers had not been refuted by anyone, they could not yet get any particular answer from their people about repudiating the preachers. If, however, this dispute could be halted through salubrious advice,

96

Rather on November 16 (see 309D).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 352

6/6/2007 1:03:57 PM

the events of 1532

353

the council, aldermen, guild masters and the entire estate of the commons could tolerate that the priests should establish and practice in the parish churches the ceremonies which did not smack of superstition but savored of true piety, and that the preachers should proclaim to the people the Word of God uncontaminated with human filth and dispense the sacraments in the way ordained by Christ until the decision of a general Christian council. The vicars should consider this the townsmen’s well-intentioned reply and report it to the other estates of the diocese. If the townsmen changed their view, they said they would deliver this at the coming assembly to be held at Wolbeck on December 9. In addition, all the estates of the city asked that an attempt be made in a friendly way to persuade the prince through entreaty not to infl exibly pursue the legal action undertaken against the burghers and their property and instead graciously allow anyone to use the public roads in safety and without any fear. To this the prince gave the following response. He had hardly expected such a reply from the people of Münster. Noting their obstinacy, which was the companion of rebellion, he was obligated to entrust the entire matter to the patient passage of time. For if he lent his authority to their acts in violation of the Emperor’s edict and granted what they wanted, they could always shift the blame to him by alleging this as an excuse for their deeds, which would in no small way lessen and diminish his reputation in the eyes of his Imperial Majesty and of the estates of the Empire | and give rise to a suspicion of fickleness. Also, this permission desired by them would produce not peace and tranquility in the city but a desire to disagree, argue and dispute. For some people would think one thing pious and evangelical and other people something else. After a brief deliberation, the estates responded to this as follows. They could not give a better answer than the prince’s or give any other suggestion under the circumstances. The prince was aware, they said, that the estates of the diocese had been summoned to an assembly at Wolbeck on December 9 for consultation about the sum of money imposed on the inhabitants of the diocese for the Turkish campaign, and on November 25 the people of Münster had added to their last reply the statement that if the townsmen changed their mind and made another decision, they would report this at the coming assembly to be held on December 9, it having proven impossible at that time, given the short period of time granted to them for deliberation, for them to extract another response from their people. Accordingly, to avoid any

315

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 353

6/6/2007 1:03:57 PM

354

316

the events of 1532

complaints on their own part about being undeservedly oppressed, the estates asked of the prince that they be graciously granted a delay in giving a more specific answer at the coming assembly in case they could, after considering these matters more fully, give responses that would quash and suppress any reason or motive for later disturbance. When the prince replied to this that it was with the greatest reluctance that he would grant this extension since it would be pointless, and such delay would instead greatly hinder him when he was ready to implement other courses of action, the estates of the diocese pressed on with their demands more eagerly. In the end, the prince was prevailed upon to acquiesce in their requests. He would not, however, cancel the sequestration, which was reported to the people of Münster in a reply directed to them specifically. At the same time, they were warned not to play games with the prince and the estates any longer and instead to come on the appointed day with instructions for a definite reply. They were to give definitive answers that they thought to be honorable, pious and peaceable and not to be obstructive of their interests. Otherwise, they would be accused of rashness and fickleness before foreign populations. On the same day that these events were going on, that is, on the feast of St. Catherine the Virgin, which is November 25, in the Church of St. Maurice a certain monk was giving to the people the customary sermon about the martyrdom of St. Catherine. | From the pulpit he described the tortures infl icted on the young virgin for the sake of Christ and how she was put to death in a terrible and unworthy manner. At the end, the women folk offered small coins at the altar for the support of the monks as the organs soothed their ears with sweet harmony. In their midst not only could Brixius, the priest of the factious, be seen wearing an expression of derision, but he even kept saying overtly with quite confident emphasis that the tale just read out by the monk had been thought up for papist profit. The women folk were upset at this and suddenly surrounded him. Soundly beaten with fists, sandals, slippers and pew benches, he received such a drubbing that the only thing he took away from that sermon about the martyrdom was a martyrdom for himself and bruises on the face that he showed to the council the next day as proof of the event. He complained about the injury and demanded vengeance, but the council thought the whole crowd of women could not very well be summoned for punishment, since the person responsible for the deed could not be discovered amid such a

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 354

6/6/2007 1:03:57 PM

the events of 1532

355

large number. This injury was thus punished with connivance by the council, laughter by the Catholics, and curses by the factious. Next, on November 28, the theologians of Cologne, who had been consulted,97 sent back a retort against the articles which Rothman had made public as an attack on the Catholic ceremonies and handed over to the clergy for refutation. After learning of this, the council sent its amanuensis, Master Derek Hoier, to fetch this retort from the lower clergy. On November 29, four representatives of the lower clergy (the canons Master Gerard Schrodercken, John Vogelsang of the Old Church, John of Meschede, and the chaplain from the Parish Acrossthe-River) presented it to the council and aldermen in the council hall, with Rothman in attendance along with the membership of his faction. The council asked if they were prepared to defend the book offered by them before anyone. Schrodercken answered that its author would no doubt defend it. (This author was John of Deventer, the provincial98 of the Minorite Brothers in Cologne.) | Having received three copies of the retort, which was entitled “Catapult of the Faith,” the council gave two to the aldermen and Rothman, keeping the third for itself. At this point, Rothman gave in the council chamber a solemn speech in which he seemed to embrace this retort with good will. He repeatedly stated that he now had no doubt that as a result of the comparison of many passages of Holy Scripture, the Word of God would recover from the dirty filth of human traditions and from every counterfeit admixture, to regain the pristine splendor of its integrity for the salvation of many souls. After leaving the council hall at the end of the speech, however, he was immediately received by a great crowd of his people, who kept asking about the attitude and hopes he had about the progress of the evangelical business. He confidently told them to be of good cheer, for the squared stone could not be undermined by any battering rams of the papists, however mighty, and no theologians’ darkness could cast the light of the Gospel into shadows. Next, after news of the handing over of the retort spread quickly throughout the city, the factious rushed back and forth in swarms for the sake of the innovations and wore themselves out with various conversations and discussions among themselves. Some people gave the

97 98

317

See 241D. I.e., head of the local province of the order.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 355

6/6/2007 1:03:57 PM

356

318

the events of 1532

palm to the clergy, others to Rothman. Since Brother John of Deventer, the provincial mentioned above, has rebutted Rothman’s articles about abuses at the end of the book entitled “Spear of the Christian Truth, or Catapult of the Faith, a Treatise against many pseudo-prophets and in particular against Bernard Rothman of Münster, a Misleader of the People” and so on, I do not think it worthwhile for me to spend more effort in demolishing those articles than is expedient. I refer the reader to that book in order to avoid interrupting the fl ow of the present work. After Rothman’s departure, the aldermen and guild masters, being worried about the burghers’ benefit (as they put it), remained with the council in the council chamber to deliberate more carefully. | There they once again, just as they had before, used many verbal contortions to misrepresent the cause of all the sedition stirred up between the prince and burghers as being the fault of the lower clergy. For, they said, as the result of the complaints made public by the clergy in recent months, in which the clergy had also made up many accusations, the prince had first been made annoyed at the townsmen and then become so upset that he seized the burghers’ property in transit, blockaded the public roads, forbade the transport of supplies into the city, entangled the burghers whose cattle had been taken from them in foreign lawsuits, and exhausted the city’s wealth in paying for the soldiers’ wages. The city would have no need for foreign protection if the burghers did not see the enemy roaming within the city walls, or fear betrayal at the hands of the clergy, or dread being suddenly overwhelmed by the prince now that they had been cut off from the transportation of supplies at the clergy’s instigation. It was also at the clergy’s urging that the knighthood had been incited to hate the city. Therefore, since the clergy were tormenting the burghers to their heart’s content and were the cause of all misfortune, calamity, dispute, enmity and anger, it would be just for them to be stripped of all their possessions and then either driven from the city or compelled to make good all the burghers’ losses suffered in connection with this case, give a guarantee about future losses by providing real estate and bondsmen as surety, or immediately prevail upon the prince to cancel the sequestration of all the burghers’ property, to stop blockading the public roads, and to allow anyone free movement. In addition, the clergy should pay the wages for the soldiers enlisted by the council to protect the city. Realizing that these actions could not be taken without causing a great disturbance, the council advised that they should be postponed

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 356

6/6/2007 1:03:57 PM

the events of 1532

357

till the coming assembly. The officials of the commons, however, urged their implementation all the more keenly and fiercely, arguing that if they were not implemented, they, the officials, could not in any way maintain the commons’ concordant attitude or keep the people, who were already gnashing their teeth against the clergy, from attacking them. They left it to the council to consider what would happen at such a perilous moment to those who protected the clergy. Finally, to elude the madness feared from the people, the decree against the clergy was passed by the council according to the wishes of the officials of the commons. After 11 a.m., then, four members of the council were sent to the dean of the Old Church, who was the head of the lesser clergy and their orator. Finding him alone, they commanded him | to convene a few members of his order. For their important mission, which had, they said, been entrusted to them by the council, concerned the lesser clergy. After these men had been summoned, the councilmen related the decree of the council and their own mission in the following words. “The council, aldermen and guild masters and the officials chosen from among the entire estate of the commons of the city of Münster order that the lesser clergy should, within two days, persuade the prince to stop seizing the burghers’ property during transit, to cancel his prohibition against transporting supplies into the city, to lift the blockade of the public roads and grant anyone permission to move freely, and to return everything to its original state of liberty. Next, they order that within the prescribed period of time the clergy should contribute a sufficient sum of money to pay the first month’s wages to the soldiers hired to guard and defend the city. If the clergy disregard and ignore these commands, let this happen at their own risk.” This decree of the council instilled unbelievable terror in the lower clergy. No delay or postponement was allowed, and all of a sudden the council, aldermen and elected representatives of the commons compelled them to send a petition to the main clergy before they would consent to end the meeting and leave the council hall. The lower clergy thought that they had to yield to necessity, and on the vigil of St. Andrew, which was November 29, they wrote the following letter to the main clergy in terms that were less harsh than the proceedings before the council had been. On the present day, the council, aldermen, guild masters and elected representatives of the city of Münster met and argued in the most urgent manner about ending the sequestration and oppression of the burghers and unblocking the public roads, so that all fear would be done away with and anyone allowed to travel

319

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 357

6/6/2007 1:03:57 PM

358

320

the events of 1532

back and forth. In the end, the council advised the colleges that if they wished to escape the fear of danger, they should write earnestly to the main clergy, by whose help and assistance the prince could easily be prevailed upon to grant the previous liberty for the burghers’ goods. The lesser clergy said that they thought that the reason why these demands were being made of them in particular and the burden of writing was thrust upon them was the petition sent by them in recent months to the prince in which they had asked for the restoration of the abolished ceremonies and of the worship of God, which had been cast out of the churches. Hence the story that they had denounced the burghers before the prince, | and hence the reason for the lower clergy having offended the burghers and incurred their hatred. For this reason, they said, the commoners were stirring up plans to set upon the property of the clergy both within the city walls and without and to keep it for themselves until all the affl ictions imposed on the burghers were done away with and their expenses repaid. The council, aldermen and guild masters, however, had intervened earnestly and asked for a delay until the next assembly of the diocese on the grounds that they would strive at that time to prevail upon the prince to grant their requests, but they had not been able to attain such a small delay from the commoners, who were now bent on plunder. The lower clergy said that with importunate entreaties they had barely been able to extract the concession of a single day on the condition that both the council and colleges would write to the main clergy before those who were pleading the case of the commons departed. Also, certain councilmen as well as guild members and commoners hostile to the lower clergy had come and rather forcefully set out the decision of their will. Hence it was, said the lower clergy, that they had promised to write. Therefore, since the main clergy could understand well enough from this the great size of the perilous risks in which the colleges were ensnared, the lower clergy asked as emphatically as they could that the main clergy should restore the lower clergy, who were now almost faint with fear, to good spirits and prevail upon the prince to do away with the sequestration and reinstate in all regards the previous situation of security in travel. Otherwise, they thought that they would not be free of fear or safe from being oppressed by the commons. They said they were eager to hear which of these courses of action the main clergy would grant. The council also added the following letter to the main clergy. Certain members of the lower clergy of the city of Münster had handed over to the council certain articles which they had devised over a long period

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 358

6/6/2007 1:03:57 PM

the events of 1532

359

of time. In these they strove to demolish the articles made public some months before by the preachers regarding abuse in the ceremonies. The council had immediately presented these articles to the preachers, who promised that they would respond to them. The council informed the main clergy that these actions had been taken in the council because the prince had, as a result of this case concerning the preachers and ceremonies, detained burghers and their property under sequestration and entangled them in foreign courts, as well as issuing a prohibition against transporting supplies into the city. At the same time, the council requested that the main clergy should prevail upon the prince to let the sequestration, the suits lodged against the burghers, and the prohibition of transporting supplies into the city | lapse into abeyance. If, on the 321 other hand, it was not possible to secure this concession, and any other act that the council could not oppose was taken in the meanwhile on account of this case, the council left this to the chapter for more careful consideration. The main clergy were to be quick in responding as to what fruit this petition from the council would bear. On December 2, the main clergy gave the following response to the lower clergy. They said they had been pained to learn from the college’s last letter of their grievous circumstances. They had immediately sent this letter on to the prince, and at the same time entreated him by letter and delegation to be mindful of the very diseased nature of the times and of the general peace and to give his gracious permission for the sequestration, the suits and the edict about not transporting supplies into the city to lapse. There was, they said, no doubt that the prince would soon give an answer to this petition. On the same day the main clergy also sent the following response to the council. They had, they said, been induced by the letters of the council and of the lower clergy to send the prince a humble supplication about restoring mutual concord, and they would leave no stone unturned in striving to get the prince to grant their requests if this was in any way possible. Since, however, they noted from both the council’s and the clergy’s letter that the clergy was not unreasonably fearful of the worst from the burghers, they, the main clergy, therefore entreated the council, aldermen and guild masters to halt this decision of the commons and keep them from resorting to violence and bloodshed. For if the commons did not refrain from unbridled criminal violence and instead stained their hands with either plundering or killing, | 322 this action would not only anger the prince and overturn the plans for future peace but also pile for them outrage among many people and

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 359

6/6/2007 1:03:57 PM

360

323

the events of 1532

the occasion for countless disasters. All of these things were matters to be avoided with great and diligent efforts. At the end of his sermon on the feast of St. Andrew, which was November 30, Rothman invited the people to his sermon on the following day. He said that he would speak at 3 p.m. in the Church of St. Lambert and show by Holy Scripture how much rash stupidity was contained in the book which the lower clergy had bought from the theologians of Cologne for two hundred fl orins. On the next day, December 1, which was also the first day of Advent, such a large number of various people arrived that the church could barely hold them though it was very big. Some of those who thronged together there were inspired by evangelical spirit, and others were excited by the novelty of the event. Some were eager to learn and others to hear the arguments that Rothman would use in demolishing the articles. Some were enticed by the sweetness of singing hymns and others were attracted by the familiar companionship of their neighbors. After they sang a few hymns in German, Rothman began his sermon with the statement of St. Paul in Romans 13: “Night has passed and the day is approaching” and so on.99 From this text he took the opportunity to fl og the pope and all those who support him. At mind-numbing length, he inveighed against the papist kingdom, calling it darkness and the blackest night of errors and ignorance in that for many years now it had, with the filth of human traditions and the invention of impious ceremonies, polluted the light of day, that is, the knowledge of the true God, and cast such shadow over it that no one was able to see the true light of the Gospel in the midst of so much haze. The pope had never allowed even a spark of true knowledge to emerge into the very bright light. Though it was true that this spark had sometimes shone forth in a few pious men, it had always been smothered by the pope’s tyranny. “Oh, three and four times blessed are we to whom the true light has returned, now that the papal dungeon is broken open! Up until now covered in the foulness imposed by the papists, this light has finally burst forth and escaped the tyrannical chains in which it used to be held fast, becoming much more bright for us. Now, therefore, the night has passed and the day is approaching. The very sweet light of the Gospel has dawned! We now know what God demands of us. | We now recognize what the traps and snares used by the pope and

99

Romans 13:12.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 360

6/6/2007 1:03:57 PM

the events of 1532

361

the devil are. Let us, then, shake off the very clever nets of the papal supporters in which they even now strive to ensnare the unwary among us with the help of the sophists in Cologne! Let us beware of that leaven of the Pharisees,100 and fl ee the papist blathering! Let us shun the erroneous articles stitched together by the people in Cologne in defense of the papists’ hallucinations by which they are, in disregard of the true light of the Gospel, thrusting upon us the darkness of idolatry by means of human enactments and impious ceremonies!” He used these and many other statements to revile the theologians in Cologne and the clergy of Münster, vanquishing the articles not so much with solid arguments as with clumsy aspersions. The ignorant commoners, however, who cannot distinguish eloquence from bombast, thought that he had spoken excellently. On December 4, John of Raesfeld, who had earned the rank of commander through long experience in war, Caspar Smising and Jodocus Korf, noblemen of great infl uence with the prince, came to Münster. They did so at the urging and instigation of certain leading men of the diocese and the city, and in particular at the suggestion of the main clergy, as was reported at the time, in order to do a favor for the colleges and lower clergy, who they had learned were suffering savage oppression at the hands of the seditious. After these men had been received with very great courtesy by the council, a discussion began about the dissension between the prince and the city. These men made a promise to the council to do what they could before the prince if certain patricians who were acceptable to the prince were sent along with them. Herman Schencking the judge, William Clevorn and Herman Buck were therefore brought in, and after undertaking the mission they negotiated with the prince for two days about the terms for peace. They discussed back and forth everything that seemed to contribute to peace. Without a doubt, a way to settle the sedition would have been found if the people of Münster had pulled back a little bit from their obstinate undertaking. Instead, they clung to their position with such impetuous persistence that they made not the least concession to the prince, and in fact Knipperdolling and Kibbenbrock, the heads of the sedition who controlled the entire commons and were viewed by them as gods on earth, said openly in front of certain people that they preferred killing their own children and cooking them into food to abandoning

100

See Matthew 16:6, 11; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 361

6/6/2007 1:03:58 PM

362 324

325

the events of 1532

the preachers or changing any of the practices which they had started. |Accordingly, the whole effort was undertaken in vain. After this, the prince consulted with the representatives of the chapter and of the knighthood, who had come when summoned to take counsel. The topic was what they thought should be done if the people of Münster remained obstinate, as he expected, in their undertakings and if recourse to violence was necessary. The expenses for this he could not bear alone, he said, since he had to pay off the debt contracted by his dead predecessor, and his own confirmation as bishop had to be bought from the pope at a high price. He would very readily and of his own accord expend the strength of his own body and funds on this matter if necessary. To this the representatives (the provost, the school master, the dean of Osnabrück, the suffragan,101 and Bodeswing on behalf of the chapter, and Gerard of Recke the golden knight, Bernard of Westerholt and Godfrey Schedelich on behalf on the knighthood) gave the following answer. It was ancient practice, they said, that under such circumstances the prince should first bear such expenses if his resources allowed. Otherwise, he should mortgage a castle or collect a land tax and extract assistance from his subjects. Since they were now being worn down by the Turkish and the congratulatory102 taxes, however, they ought not to be oppressed with a third burden. The prince thought that the collection of a land tax would hardly be helpful for the reasons already stated. He noted that the mortgaging of a castle to creditors would represent no small detriment to his interests since the revenues acquired by his predecessors for the bishop’s maintenance would be thereby reduced. He said that he would not allow this willingly, since in addition to the disadvantages already related he had to pay two thousand fl orins every year to Frederick of Wiede, the bishop who had resigned, and virtually nothing was left for daily needs in the episcopal strongholds throughout the diocese. He said that he had, however, found another way to see to this exigency. Since the Turkish expedition had been cancelled, so that it was not necessary to spend all the money that had been collected for military needs, | the people of the diocese could divert to this purpose the remainder that had not That is, the man who acted in place of the bishop during the latter’s absence. That is, an obligatory payment to be made upon the installation of the new bishop as a supposed form of congratulations. Such payments were then used to pay off the pope for confirming the appointment. 101

102

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 362

6/6/2007 1:03:58 PM

the events of 1532

363

yet been distributed among the soldiery. He left this to be considered and decided at the discretion of the whole diocese. These and many other topics that were thought to concern the general interest and concord of the entire diocese were put off for determination at the coming assembly. It was also considered useful for the prince to deign to grace that assembly with his own presence and for all the leadership of both the religious and lay estates to be summoned, since this would lend no little authority to the proceedings. The people of Münster did not dare attend this assembly without an official guarantee. When they therefore requested this from the prince by letter on December 6, he wrote back on the next day that he was graciously granting to the representatives of Münster an official guarantee of safe conduct in coming and going. All the estates gathered on the prescribed day and place, and the people of Münster came forward to give their response as they had promised in the previous assembly. First, they thanked the estates for having striven with much effort to halt and then end the dispute between the prince and the city. With great distress, they said, they marveled at the prince’s having repudiated the supplications of the estates and their own submissions and invocations of law and privilege, which had given rise to such outrage. As for his writing that the townsmen had contemptuously cast aside his own and the knighthood’s frequent warnings, they were unaware of ever having contemptuously rejected his and the knighthood’s clement and well-intentioned urgings. Quite to the contrary, they had always accepted and extolled those urgings, just as they were doing now, and as obedient subjects had been prepared to embrace them to the extent that they were in conformity with piety and fairness. In the end, they said, the estates had, after many petitions and with the greatest difficulty, gotten the prince’s consent to halt the dispute on the following terms. All the estates | held the view that the townsmen’s undertaking violated the Emperor’s edict, the decision of the Holy Roman Empire, and the prince’s well-intentioned warnings and his jurisdiction. Therefore, if the townsmen followed the estates’ advice by arranging their affairs in a different, more sensible manner, obeyed the Emperor’s and the Empire’s decisions, and considered more carefully the prince’s and the knighthood’s frequent written warnings and their own salvation by driving the preachers out, by rejecting the innovations, by restoring the abolished ceremonies and rites in the churches, and by reinstating those who had been removed with unjust violence and restoring them to their previous state, then the estates

326

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 363

6/6/2007 1:03:58 PM

364

327

the events of 1532

would intervene in the dispute between the prince and townsmen and negotiate about terms for peace with the greatest care. To this the representatives said they responded as follows. If the townsmen whose mission they were carrying out were allowed to defend themselves and were then convicted of their purported crime by anyone, they would willingly follow the advice of others and take a different route. But since they had not been convicted of and sentenced for the crime of which they were falsely accused, what reason did they have to arrange their affairs in a different, more sensible manner? For the townsmen were convinced of this: what they had undertaken was not impious or seditious, and it would not in the least undermine, much less overthrow, the majesty of the Emperor or the jurisdiction of the prince or the authority of anyone. Instead, they would easily defend it before anyone not only through human justice and reason but also by the laws of God. They therefore asked the estates in the most earnest terms possible to prevail upon the prince to convene within one month another assembly in which the matters under dispute would be set out by both sides before the estates and the leading men of the diocese and then examined in such a way that the reasoning behind each side’s case would be judged according to the truth, and the right or wrong of which each side availed itself would become obvious. If it was perceived and decided in this assembly that the people of Münster had wandered into error and done wrong, they would of their own accord return to the old way and deprecate their fault. Furthermore, since no one accused of brigandry or stealing or any sort of felony is executed unless he is convicted with manifest proofs that are too great for any exception, did it not also seem unfair and unseemly to affl ict the accused townsmen with injuries without hearing the case? Therefore, the representatives also demanded that the estates should prevail upon the prince to suspend the sequestration and whatever other harm | had been thought up against the burghers until the date (assembly) that they had asked for. The representatives said that they would get the townsmen to make the preachers keep silent about the disputed articles in the interim, so that each side would be able to attend the requested assembly freely after setting aside all annoyance and apprehension. In the meanwhile, since with the help of the council, the prince should also aim to bring it about that since the confession of both the clergy and the preachers was about to be issued, men who are weighty in learning and wisdom should calm and settle the tempestuous contention between them after examining it. Since the people of Münster did not know what more

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 364

6/6/2007 1:03:58 PM

the events of 1532

365

they could or should do, they hoped that when this response of theirs was brought to the prince by the leading men of the diocese, it would soothe his currently offended ears. If, on the other hand, this could not be gotten from the prince, which they did not expect, then they had no doubt that their manifold invocations of the law, privilege and all honorable behavior would at least win for them the favor that the estates would refrain from all injury and would not assault the innocent townsmen either with secret plans or open contrivances. Finally, they also requested that the prince should be persuaded with the following reasoning. First, apart from the detriment that both he and his people would have to expect, he should also consider the calamity, the expenditure, the profanation, the losses, the deaths and in sum the destruction that would break loose to the detriment of both those within the city walls and those who reside in various locations outside if the matter turned out badly. Second, he should refl ect upon the fact that in the edict issued at the Diet of Regensburg and promulgated throughout the diocese, the emperor commanded that no one of either the highest or the lowest rank was to be robbed or in any other way affl icted because of religion, since everything was to be remitted to the decision of a general council or to the diet. Third, he should ponder the fact that a similar religion had been accepted in certain kingdoms, principalities, provinces, and regions and in very many Imperial cities, including ones where the Emperor himself was active in person, and yet no such disturbance and no such penalty ensued. After this proceeding, since no specific decision was reached about the dispute between the prince and the city, a deliberation was held about calling a later assembly | to which all hope of concord would be referred. In the end, December 21 was fixed as the date by everyone’s agreement. In the meanwhile, the people of Münster were told to deliberate about giving a fairer and more tolerable answer. In this way the assembly was dismissed without any great success. Then, since they found hostility and unfriendliness virtually everywhere, the people of Münster trained their soldiers and burghers with frequent raids, so that they would not lose heart through long inaction or, being prone to mutiny, plot worse acts within the city. On December 13, six hundred foot and fifteen horse were sent out on a raid, and they brought back with them some carts of fl our and fifteen wagons loaded with wood (though they paid for them) and two prisoners, one the servant of the marshal and the other that of Bernard of Tinnen,

328

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 365

6/6/2007 1:03:58 PM

366

329

the events of 1532

who had been captured near Sonnenbrunn.103 On December 16, a similar raid took place in which armed townsmen intercepted and captured Henry Schencking, who was carrying out an official mission, along with three servants and Arnold Torck, a burgher of Wolbeck, and then brought them into the city. On December 17, the lower clergy were summoned by the council to its chamber, but when only four members of it showed up, the council put off their wishes until the next day, ordering them in strict terms to be present at that time. Thus, on December 18, Master Gerard Schrodercken, the deacon of the Old Church and orator of the lower clergy, Gerard Provesting and John Vogelsang, canons of the Old Church of St. Paul, Reiner Judefeld of St. Ludger’s, John Tulen, the school master of St. Martin’s, John of Meschede and Conrad Boland, canons of St. Martin’s, Master Timan Kemner, pastor of St. Martin’s, and Gerard Tonsoris, chaplain of St. Giles’, came to the council hall. The council, aldermen and guild masters gave them the order that one month’s pay for the soldiers | was to be contributed by both the absent and the present clergy. Otherwise, they would have to be gravely apprehensive of their own and their property’s safety. At first they were terrified by these words, but after moving off a small distance they regained their spirit. Then they deliberated and gave the following reply. Although they did think that they would not be hostile to a contribution that was necessary for the general good, nonetheless, they had no doubt that given the prudence with which it was endowed, the council would take very just reasoning into consideration and graciously exempt the clergy from this contribution at least for two reasons. First, their resources had been exceedingly strained by the Turkish tax, and each clergyman’s means were so exhausted that they had no money left. Next, under the circumstances they could not extract income and payments from anyone, and they barely had anything left to support themselves with, living a wretched and miserable life within the city walls. Finally, they could in no way force the absent clergy, who were more powerful and more wealthy, to contribute. Accordingly, since there were few clergymen in the city, and these the poorer ones, they were certain that they would find the council well-disposed and gracious, especially since they

103 Or so one might guess the German equivalent of K.’s Solisfons to be (Detmer does not list this location in his geographical index, so presumably he too was puzzled by it).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 366

6/6/2007 1:03:58 PM

the events of 1532

367

would not abscond from adversity and instead would experience and endure the common misfortunes in the city with their people. These words did sway the council, but the commons, being incensed with a murderous and more than prophetic hatred against the clergy, clamored that the clergy would not be free from payment since they were the cause of all the burghers’ affl ictions and troubles. In the end, the council, aldermen and guild masters decided that the clergy present in the city should pay five hundred copper marks within one month for the benefit of the soldiers, and the names of any who shirked contributing should be reported to the council. In the meanwhile, the clergy were to urge the prince to cancel the sequestration and the prohibition against transporting supplies into the city. On the same day, the council feared that since the commons were enraged at the clergy, they would riot savagely if not prevented by being kept occupied with some activity, and so the council decided to keep them busy with a raid so that they would put uproar and their hatred of the clergy out of their minds. Not even an egg was to be taken without payment. For the next few days, bad weather and deep snow kept the townsmen from their raid. The matter was not very pressing since the nearby peasants, who were terrified by their raiding, disregarded the prince’s prohibition and of their own accord brought in wheat, fl our, barley, wood and other daily necessities. On December 19, the lower clergy, being worried about the contribution imposed by the council, summoned all the members of their estate to the chapters’ meeting room in the Old Church, but neither the Knights of St. George, nor the Knights of St. John, nor the monks across the river, nor the father of the nuns of Nitzing convent came at the time and place prescribed. Thus, the meeting was ended without any specific decision being reached, though it was resolved that if necessary, they would report the rebellion of others to the council. Not only this contribution imposed on the clergy but many other plans thought up to ruin many people were cut short by a great disturbance, as will be related, and fell into oblivion. Meanwhile, as these events were going on, Bernard Rothman, the chief among the priests in the city, was determined to make good his name,104 and strove not only to spread his faction but to increase its

330

104 Reference to the pun by which the name Rothman was taken to signify “trouble maker”; see 160D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 367

6/6/2007 1:03:58 PM

368

331

the events of 1532

numbers with new innovations. It was not enough for him to bring back into practice communion in both kinds if he did not also abolish the Catholics’ custom of having a communion in fasting. By Christ’s example, he would summon people in the evening, sometimes to church and sometimes to private homes, to have communion. There, after reading out a public confession, he would pick off as many pieces as he wished from a loaf made of fl our, then put them into gaping mouths, and offer a cup to be quaffed, paying no attention to whether the people had come sober or drunk. Furthermore, if someone was prevented by illness or some other reason from coming to this public gathering to take communion, he would console this person after his own fashion, bringing with him the fl our bread in his rather large sleeve (it also handily contained mushrooms, wedges of cheese, and other such gifts from matrons). As a result, people throughout the city began to call him “Stutenbernard” after the bread made of wheat or fl our that the Westphalians call “ein Stute” in their dialect. Then, step by step, this sacrament of the Eucharist gradually began to be devalued among the factious schismatics. | It now reached the point that those taking communion would not allow the bread to be placed in their mouth by Rothman but would take as much as they wanted, washing it down with a full cup. It is said that in the end they would crumble white loaves onto a platter and pour wine over it, and then the people standing around would take it out with knives or spoons and in this way gulp down the wine together with the bread. I leave it to all good men to judge how much piety and reverence there was for the Salutary Name. Things eventually reached the stage that they began not only to depreciate this sacrament and consider it of very little import but also to revile and curse it with foul language and with words insulting to God, calling it Baal105 and Satan. This Rothman was often warned by many men, and in particular by Philip Melanchthon, that he should keep within the boundaries of the Confession of Augsburg and not usurp an excessive amount of license or personal authority, as Melanchthon himself bears witness in the following letter, which he wrote to Otto Beckman, a licentiate in law. “I often warned Bernard of Münster, but he was clearly subject to very many impulses.” The nature and accuracy of Philip’s

105 Chief god of the Canaanites, who often figures as the competitor for the Hebrews’ affections in the Old Testament.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 368

6/6/2007 1:03:58 PM

the events of 1532

369

judgment is known by those who were not only stripped of all their property but had their lives placed at the greatest risk on account of Rothman. For he labored under such a mental illness that the more he was warned of his error, the more obstinately would he devote his efforts to his faction. Philip Melanchthon also wrote to Rothman | in the following words.106 “Nothing so unexpected has ever happened to me as my hearing that you condemn and prohibit the baptism of children, which no one among the learned has done hitherto, although many practices have been disputed. Certainly, it has been the opinion of all of them that the baptism of children is either permissible or even obligatory. Hence, I ask you again and again for the sake of Christ to take thought for the tranquility of the Church and not to abolish the baptism of children. For there is no reason why it is necessary to abolish it. This being so, what sense does it make to stir up both scandals and the greatest disturbances for no reason? You have my judgment, and although I can guess what value you will put on it, nonetheless I wished to write it out for you, particularly since I was also writing the same thing to others. If only we could, by our joint efforts, polish up and illuminate those passages which are necessary for the Church, Bernard! We have enemies enough, as you see. For them no sight is more pleasant than that we should die as a result of being done in by mutual disagreements like the Cadmean brothers.107 May Christ steer your mind to the glory of the Gospel! It seems to be the main aim of certain people to bend what is in Holy Scripture into agreement with the views of burghers, which is not only dangerous but also not very pious. Although I am not the kind of man who is very delighted by ridiculous opinions, nonetheless I see that clever men are sometimes deceived when they wish to transform spiritual views into the views of burghers. I have written this to you with the best good will, desiring that the interests of both you and the Church should be looked after in the best way. Farewell!”

332

106 This letter is not preserved elsewhere, and clearly comes from a later period, since at this point in the narrative Rothman had not yet come out against child baptism. 107 An esoteric allusion to ancient Greek mythology. Eteocles and Polynices, the two sons of Oedipus, killed each other while disputing about control of the city of Thebes after Oedipus’ departure. The adjective “Cadmean” refers to Cadmus, who founded the citadel of Thebes, and thus simply means “Theban.”

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 369

6/6/2007 1:03:58 PM

370 333

the events of 1532

Martin Luther also wrote to the government of this city in the following words. “Grace and peace in Christ, our Lord | and Savior! Prudent and circumspect gentlemen, we give you our sincere congratulations and thank God that God, the father of grace, has mercifully infused into you His loving Word and the knowledge of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, rousing you with His Spirit and illuminating your minds so that you would resolutely and joyously embrace that knowledge. For this reason, since the ancient foe is always laying traps for the pure Word, we are not unreasonably apprehensive about you, fearing that the crafty lying spirit is creeping into your undertakings, as St. Paul warned the Corinthians and Galatians. Accordingly, we earnestly ask you for the sake of the fresh knowledge of Christ that you keep on your guard carefully and with all diligence and protect yourselves against unwarily falling into the false doctrine about the sacrament held by the Zwinglians and other Schwärmer.108 God has punished this doctrine with fearsome penalties in the cases of Thomas Müntzer,109 Tilman Heshaus,110 John Hut,111 Balthazar Hubmaier112 and, more recently,

108 K. leaves this German term in his text in a superficially Latinized form, so I have retained it in the original German form. The word literally means “swarmer” and is a term used by Luther to refer to reformers who he felt went too far in rejecting the traditions of the medieval Church (i.e., who went further than he himself was willing to go). Thus, it can be rendered as “fanatic” or “radical.” 109 A very prominent proponent of the “Radical Reformation,” he both disseminated views that led to the outbreak of the Peasants’ War (1524–25) and actively participated in the uprising at Mühlhausen. Captured by Landgrave Philip of Hesse, Müntzer recanted and took Catholic communion before being beheaded. 110 A peculiar error. The original text read “Hetzer,” meaning Louis Hätzer, who was a learned proponent of Anabaptism. Active in various localities, he was beheaded in 1529 for adultery. The Heshaus with whom K. replaced Hätzer died in 1588 and was born only in 1527, so he could hardly have been referred to by Luther in 1532, and in any case was a staunch proponent of Lutheranism. 111 Another prominent Anabaptist proselytizer of apocalyptic views (normally known by the less formal name Hans), he was arrested in Augsburg in 1527 and examined under torture. He was accidentally killed when a candle left in his cell ignited the pallet on which he lay prostrate as a result of his sufferings. The corpse was nonetheless tried and condemned to be burned at the stake. 112 Yet another Anabaptist proselytizer of apocalyptic views. Active among the many Anabaptists in Austria, in 1527 he was handed over by a noble patron to Ferdinand, the brother of the Emperor Charles V whom the emperor had placed in charge of the Austrian realms of the Habsburg inheritance. As a result of his Spanish upbringing, Ferdinand was a fanatical Catholic and had instituted a fearsome suppression of the Anabaptists. Hubmaier was burned alive in January 1528 and his wife was soon after cast into the Danube with a rock tied around her neck.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 370

6/6/2007 1:03:59 PM

the events of 1532

371

Zwingli himself,113 thereby showing Himself to be the enemy of so monstrous a doctrine. Nonetheless, there are some fl ighty, incorrigible spirits who despise such punishments and warnings from God and rush back and forth leading the people astray by spewing forth their poison. God has, I gather, bestowed upon you splendid preachers, in particular Master Bernard. It is, however, necessary to take into account the devil’s trickery, especially at this perilous time, so that all the preachers would be warned and impelled not to sleep and instead to keep watch and fortify the people entrusted to their care against the monstrosities of such doctrine. | The Devil is a hardened criminal who sometimes ensnares pious and learned preachers, and the examples of this fact now exist in unfortunately large numbers. Be, therefore, advised by the examples of those who have defected from the pure Word of God to the Zwinglians, Müntzerites or Anabaptists, who, being prone to acts of sedition, always involve themselves in the political order and rashly seize control of it, just as Zwingli himself did. Things cannot happen any other way, since the devil is a lying spirit and a murderer ( John 8114). So whoever falls into lying must necessarily eventually fall into murder. Therefore, if you love both spiritual and temporal peace, fl ee the traps of these sorts of spirits! We have given the same counsel to very many cities, and experience has shown well enough what happened to those cities which rejected it. As far as we are concerned, it is our sincere wish to avert the dangers and losses to both body and soul. May our God and Savior preserve the faith uncontaminated through His pure Word until His glorious arrival! Amen! “Wittenberg, on the feast of Thomas the Apostle,115 1532.

334

“Martin Luther in his own hand.” Although the council, aldermen and guild masters showed this letter from Luther to Rothman and the other preachers, adding a stern 113 At first a supporter of Luther, Ulrich Zwingli soon became disaffected. He advocated a more radical form of magisterial reformation among the Swiss cantons, and his activity in the secular government of Zurich was strongly censured by Luther. In 1531, Zwingli served in the army of Zurich in the battle of Kappel against the forces of some Catholic cantons. Left seriously wounded on the battle field after the defeat and withdrawal of the army of Zurich, he was recognized by Catholic troops, who killed him. His body was then quartered for treason and burned for heresy. 114 John 8:44. 115 The traditional date is December 21 (the feast was later transferred to July 3).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 371

6/6/2007 1:03:59 PM

372

the events of 1532

warning, he nonetheless continued to be no less energetic in increasing, defending and strengthening the number of the seditious and their cause. This stock of factious people was increased in particular from the following sources:116 • those who had squandered their parents’ wealth and could not acquire any more for themselves through their own efforts; • those who were unable to maintain their own property through entanglement in other people’s business affairs; • those who had used up their own plentiful resources for banquets and were plotting to seize other people’s; • those who, after learning idleness in their first years, got trapped in the account books of creditors; • those who were offended by the clergy on account not so much of religion as of money, and by the example of the Apostles hankered after common possession of goods; • those who were sick of their own poverty and were scheming to plunder, sack and pillage the clergy and the wealthier burghers; • those who rejected good works and thought that they were allowed to do everything with impunity; and • those who learned to despise other people’s things and to extol their own. After disobedience had, for some months, conceived this useless filth of commoners and nurtured it in its womb with the warmth of rebellion, it eventually gave birth to a spawn that was horrible to look

116 This is one of K.’s few interpretive passages. This analysis is framed in terms of the moralizing categories used in antiquity to explain attempts to overthrow the social order in the Late Roman Republic, especially in Cicero’s Catilinarian Orations and Sallust’s monograph The Conspiracy of Catiline. The general idea was that those who wished to attack the social and political order were motivated by greed. Although some of these “revolutionaries” came from the lower orders of society, the emphasis was placed on leaders who belonged to the upper class. These leaders were considered degenerates who had squandered their resources in high living and sought to recoup their losses through plundering the wealth of respectable society. This analysis is at the root of all the subsequent categories here, which mostly ignores the religious issues that motivated the men (and women) of sixteenth-century Münster, who rejected the traditional ecclesiastical order and in order to change the ecclesiastical order had to change the political order (i.e., the powers of the prince/bishop). Only the fifth and the penultimate categories (respectively, the desire to revive a putatively Apostolic community of property and the rejection of the validity of good works) have a religious motive, but even these are considered to be pretenses to conceal the desire to seize other people’s wealth.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 372

6/6/2007 1:03:59 PM

the events of 1532

373

upon. | Suckled on the milk of wantonness, it soon grew up into the loathsome monster of Anabaptism, which terrified the entire Holy Roman Empire with its movements and wailings. In order to obstruct the countless disasters that they foresaw with sure conjecture would emerge from the birth of the new spawn, the estates of the diocese strove with great energy and zeal to constrain and quash the spawn while it was still in the womb, so that it would not appear in the light of day and grow up to overturn and destroy the entire homeland. Accordingly, on December 20 they gathered in Wolbeck to hold the assembly the next day, and there they awaited the arrival of the representatives of Münster and the solid reply from the whole city, just as had been agreed at the previous assembly. It was not, however, a delegation that was sent on December 21, even though they had received a safe conduct fairly far in advance (on December 12), but a letter delivered by a doorkeeper and by John Schuttorp, the attendant of the council, which went as follows. It was true that they had promised at the last assembly in Wolbeck that they would, after public deliberation, send back to Wolbeck at 8 o’clock on the feast of St. Thomas (which is December 21) plenipotentiary representatives who would, in the name of the entire city of Münster, deliver to the estates a report on the decisions reached in the deliberation. It was also true that they had been quite willing to comply with the resolutions of the assembly, but an interruption caused by an event of unexpected and extreme importance had prevented the sending of a delegation. Nonetheless, they had dutifully had discussions with their people about the terms for peace and about changing their previous reply, but from the start they had been unable to extract a different one. They therefore asked the estates not to take badly this absence on their part and the reply that their view was unchanged. In any case, to do away with the whole dispute, they asked, just as they had done several times in earlier assemblies, that in this case the bishop should allow the appointment by joint agreement of two princes as arbitrators who would halt the dissension, then examine it, then try it, then settle it with fair terms and decisions. They also asked that in the meanwhile | he should allow the sequestration and cases lodged against burghers in foreign courts and the prohibition against transporting supplies into the city to lapse. The representatives of the main clergy, the knighthood and lesser cities of the diocese assembled in Wolbeck gave the following reply on December 21. They had no doubt that on the basis of many proofs provided by actions, accurate indications, and the various terms for

335

336

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 373

6/6/2007 1:03:59 PM

374

337

the events of 1532

peace suggested for this dispute they understood well enough how displeasing they found this disagreement which had arise between the prince and the townsmen. In this matter they would in future spare no active and diligent efforts until they halted and then settled the dispute with God’s help. They would immediately tell the council which of these courses of action was granted to them by the prince, whose arrival they were awaiting. Meanwhile, since the birth of our Savior was fast approaching, many men adhering to the ancestral religion and very respectable matrons were getting themselves ready to share in the sacrosanct Eucharist with fasts, alms giving and the other duties of piety. Since in the parish churches seized by new preachers the participants were only given communion in both kinds, they decided to take just the one kind in the Lords’ Church, where four chaplains from St. Lambert’s and the Parish Across-the-River were also kept very busy hearing the confessions of the Catholics. When this came to the attention of the council, on December 23 they asked the individual burghers and matrons by herald that particularly under present circumstances they and their people should refrain from holy communion in order to avoid the risk of rioting. At the same time, the council forbade anyone to allow infants of his who should have been baptized in the parish churches to be taken to the Lords’ Church. This request and this edict were complied with. On the same day, the prince arrived in Telgte from Lübbecke with a modest escort of cavalry. After entering he bound the townsmen to him by oath and then celebrated his day of installation with a fair amount of solemnity given the resources of the town. | Lübbecke is a large town in the diocese of Minden situated on the banks of the river Weser ten Westphalian (long) miles from Münster, while Telgte is a town of the diocese of Münster situated on the banks of the Ems about one mile from Münster.117 In this place, the vicars of the diocese, the other estates, and the men of greater age and dignity of whose advice the prince was accustomed to avail himself on an intimate basis in connection with difficult matters assembled. After earnestly pleading the case of the people of Münster before the prince and trying everything that they thought conducive to restoring peace, on the same day they asked the people of Münster to deign to send a delegation to them in Telgte

117 A “common German mile” was much larger than the corresponding English unit, equaling 4.6 of the latter (and 7.42 kilometers).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 374

6/6/2007 1:03:59 PM

the events of 1532

375

on the next day (December 25) at 8 a.m. The purpose, they said, was that these representatives should first hear what concession the estates had been able to prevail upon the prince to grant as a favor to the city and then negotiate with him in person about the terms for peace. The estates promised that they would not fail to work for peace. The people of Münster wrote back on December 24 as follows. They had received the letter from the estates by which they were summoned to Telgte and understood their frame of mind from reading it. They gave them this response. Since they were not allowed to negotiate officially without the consent and agreement of their people, it was not unreasonable to forgive them for not having come when summoned by the estates. Moreover, they asked for a response to their previous letter in which the request had been made that each side should by agreement appoint one of two princes to whose arbitration the matter would be entrusted for an honest decision, so that they would end the sequestration and the prohibition against transporting supplies into the city. The people of Münster would then be able to bring their plans and pursuits into conformity with such a response. Also, they had gathered through reliable report that certain cavalrymen were keeping the public roads under guard, pulling down bridges and blocking travel, which they had hardly expected since the negotiations about the terms for peace were even now going on. They were informing the estates of this so that they would not be unaware of it. To this response the estates wrote back on this same day, December 24, on which the prince also moved on to Iburg after having lunch. This letter was delivered at Münster on December 25, that is on the very Nativity of Christ, by a servant of the marshal, the text was as follows. “You responded to our previous letter requesting | that you send a delegation to us in Telgte with the reply that it was not right for you to do so without public permission and authorization to send them, and at the end of your letter concerning the selection of two princes by agreement and the sequestration and closing of access to the city you asked for a response from us so that you could bring your plans and pursuits into conformity with it. Having read and understood these requests, we give as our response to them that we have certainly eagerly awaited the arrival of your delegation for the purpose of restoring peace, and we did not think that we would deny you the smallest services on our part though the matter concerns you primarily. For it was our intention and inclination to plead with you in person in a friendly way about this appointment of the two princes and about

338

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 375

6/6/2007 1:03:59 PM

376

339

the events of 1532

all the other burdens on the city, in the confident expectation that the whole dispute would be done away with when it was referred to the two arbitrators. Be that as it may, since you wished to learn from us what proceedings were transacted by us before the prince in connection with this case, we, who seek nothing in connection with this case but the well-being and benefit of you and of all of us in common, will conceal none of these matters from you. With the greatest effort we strove to get the prince to graciously agree to your requests, and although from the start he denied them to us by adducing the fairest rationales, we nonetheless did not give up. In the end we prevailed upon him with insistent prayers to be prepared to transfer the dispute between you and him for decision by two princes of the Empire, one to be chosen by him and one by you, and to make the appropriate agreement for this. In the meanwhile, the sequestration and the suits lodged against your burghers, and the prohibition against transporting supplies into the city are to lapse on the condition that the ceremonies and the ancient rites in the churches which were abolished by you are to be celebrated in the customary way during the same period of time, the preachers are to refrain from giving sermons and from other innovations, and the captives (Henry Schencking and the others captured by you) are to be set at liberty under fair terms and restored to their previous state without any inconvenience. Since it was only with difficulty that we managed to get the prince to make these concessions, which also seem to be in partial agreement with your petition | and under the present circumstances cannot bring any disadvantage to you and your burghers, it is our advice and request that you judge them all by the standard of fairness and assess more carefully among yourselves the well-being of the city of Münster and of the whole diocese, in this matter conducting yourselves with an eye to keeping the peace and tranquility, so that once all dispute, contention and discord are done away with, good will and concord may be put on a permanent footing. We are fully confident that given present circumstances and your constraints you will implement these measures. Nonetheless, we wish to receive through the bearer of this letter a response as to which of these steps you are going to take. If, on the other hand, you send a delegation to us here, which we think would provide no small help to the present case, we grant them free and safe conduct in coming and going by virtue of this letter with the prince’s agreement.” After the townsmen received this letter, they cleverly held the messenger back for that entire day, persuading him that since it was the Nativity of Christ, they could not deal with profane matters because of

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 376

6/6/2007 1:03:59 PM

the events of 1532

377

the festivities and that the council and the representatives of the commons could not gather to deliberate about giving a reply on account of the particular reverence felt for this day, upon which the whole city’s attention was focused. He should, therefore, let this day pass. By this trick the man was kept in the city unaware of the deceit. Even if a suspicion of future misfortune had perchance induced him to be inclined to leave the city, this would hardly have been allowed. For all the gates of the city were kept under close guard by the burghers, so that while no one was permitted to leave, everyone was permitted to enter. As the shadows of dusk were falling, however, the council summoned the aldermen and guild masters, deliberating on the future until 9 o’clock. In the end they voted for a raid at night, and for this reason heralds hurriedly rushed from door to door ordering the burghers to present themselves in arms at the council hall at midnight. As a result, the city was seized by a terrifying dread, which was magnified by the darkness of the night. Being ignorant of everything, the lower clergy began to tremble and looked for hiding places, | fearing that immediate destruction was being prepared for them and lamenting that they had not paid the money asked of them. The Catholics thought that an attack was being mounted on themselves and their property. The matrons bewailed the coming disasters, feared the death of the ancient religion, and prophesied that everything would be unlucky, unsuccessful and disastrous. In the end, apart from the dregs of the blackguards, there was no one who did not fear a remarkable disturbance in the city, an internal confl agration, and the downfall of the city. Meanwhile, the council ordered that weapons of every kind, the more maneuverable cannons that could be transported on four-wheeled wagons, and the other material considered suitable for this raid be brought out. A certain number of carts were also filled, some with poles, some with lighter-weight ladders and some with gunpowder and iron shot. Some could also be seen empty, from which it was easy to surmise what was being planned. Next, men suddenly thronged together at the prescribed time and place from all corners of the city, some equipped with short matchlocks,

340

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 377

6/6/2007 1:03:59 PM

378

341

the events of 1532

some with arquebuses,118 some with pikes, some with battle-axes, some with halberds, some with grappling hooks, some with crow-bars, some with stakes and other things useful for raiding. Such large numbers streamed together that the council hall and the neighboring marketplace could scarcely hold the multitude. Only six hundred were chosen from them to take part in that raid on Telgte, and to them were added the three hundred soldiers hired by the council as protection and a few armed cavalrymen. The rest were left behind to guard the city in the meanwhile. On there other hand, the estates of the diocese and all the other leading men who were assembled in Telgte noticed that the people of Münster were not sending an answer and were instead detaining their messenger in the city, and keeping such watch on the city gates, as they had learned through scouts, that no one was allowed to leave, with the purpose of preventing the assembly from learning their intention and plan from anyone. They therefore harbored the suspicion that the people of Münster were rearing some sort of monster and setting some deceit in motion, and sent out a few cavalrymen at nightfall to reconnoître. Reaching the bridge over the River Weser on the road from Telgte to Münster, they removed a few planks from the bridge, | thereby preventing the townsmen from crossing. Sensing no offensive movement on the part of the townsmen and fearing nothing untoward, they prepared to return home since they were tired of the bitter cold.

118 In the early fifteenth century it was common practice to equip infantry with two sorts of hand-held guns: shorter ones (“matchlocks”) three to four feet long and longer ones up to five feet long. The former could be carried around by the soldier, but the latter were a bit too cumbersome and had a hook to assist in handling during battle (they were carried in wagons at other times). In some languages, both types were called arquebuses, but Italian distinguished the two, calling the smaller ones sciopetti and reserving the term arquebus for the latter, a practice followed by K. (who uses a Latinized version of sciopetti).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f8_225-378.indd 378

6/6/2007 1:04:00 PM

THE EVENTS OF 1533 Having prepared everything for the raid, the men of Münster left in silence around 3 a.m., with starlight illuminating the path. They carried planks in the wagons, and after repairing the damage to the bridge with them, they left a few men stationed on it as a guard. Persisting in their undertaking to carry out a raid, they hastened straight for Telgte and pursued the mounted scouts, though they never caught up with them since they had a long head start. The scouts came to a broad plain in which a gibbet was erected to instill terror in criminals, and since there was a broad and distant vista from this plain, they looked back. They saw the matches that were kept ready for igniting the guns glittering in the dark1 but took them for will-o’-the-wisps2 dancing around and moving randomly. They expected nothing less than the arrival of the enemy and heard no sound from the wheels or the infantrymen or the neighing of the horses because they were so far off and the commotion of their own horses was closer. Thus, they returned to Telgte and went to sleep. But the men from Münster followed as hurriedly as their arms and burdens allowed. At dawn, they weakened the city gates by applying crowbars and then they burst them open without disturbing the townsmen. They rushed in with the full onslaught of war, seizing control of all the lanes as they had been instructed. At this point, the leading men were snatched off the lanes, being taken completely unawares, and with unbelievable savagery they were captured along with all their servants. The captives were barely given time to put on their clothes and shoes. Soon, the men from Münster set about plundering and pillaging. | They took purses with money, gold chains, both jeweled signet rings and regular ones which they snatched from the fingers of noblemen,

342

1 At this time, the method of igniting gunpowder was to keep a permanently lit match attached (locked) to a movable wheel; hence the term “matchlock” to describe such weapons. To fire the weapon, the wheel was turned so that the match was brought into contact with gunpowder in a pan, and the explosion was transmitted down a small hole into the barrel, where the main charge would propel the shot. 2 Called “foolish fire” (ignis fatuus) in the Latin, this refers to the nocturnal appearance of fl ittering lights, and is now ascribed to the spontaneous combustion of gases emitted from marshy ground. The phrase “jack-o’-lantern” can also signify the same phenomenon.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 379

6/6/2007 9:15:03 PM

380

343

the events of 1533

and sixty-one horses. Unfamiliar riders saddled, bridled and mounted these horses, and poking them at will with spurs to their heart’s content, they wore them out with aimless galloping in order to humiliate the captives. However, some of the leading men (Lord Alexander Morien the provost, Roger Smising the schoolmaster and Henry of Plettenberg the canon) escaped from the hands of the captors across the frozen river Ems wearing only shoes and leaving everything else. The following men were captured: from the main clergy, Philip of Hoerde (the suffragan), Melchior of Büren (the cathedral steward)3 and Adolf of Bodelswing; from the knighthood and the chief councilors of the bishop, the noble Baron John of Büren, Gerard of Recke (a golden knight), Gerard Morrien (the marshal), Herman of Mengersen, and Lord John Merckel (the dean of St. John’s in Osnabrück and the main secretary); and ten patricians from the city, Herman Schencking (a civil judge), Bernard, John and Henry Warendorf from Evinghof, Eberwin and Alard Droste (brothers who were the sons of Eberwin the burgher master), Francis Grael, John Peck, William Clevorn, and Eberhard Buck. They put these captives in carts brought for this purpose | and carried them into the city at about 11 a.m. on the feast of St. Stephen the First Martyr, which was December 26, as if in a magnificent triumph, with a fl ute-player called Knop sitting on the front of one cart and banging away at a drum. When they reached the market place, Knipperdolling shouted out from the middle of the throng of the factious that the cattle were now mooing and lowing remarkably, alluding to the sequestration by which the cattle of the burghers had been seized. Lord Philip of Hoerde, who was protected by popular favor, and the other members of the knighthood were placed, once they had given their word of honor, in the houses of guest friends after the fashion of noblemen. All the patricians, on the other hand, were led off by attendants and public servants to the cells for criminals. The cathedral steward and Bodelswing were believed by the commoners to be principally responsible for the closing of travel and so were completely bereft of favor from the commoners, who bellowed that they too should be thrown in jail. They were thronged by a swarm of armed men when they climbed down from the cart, and they barely got away with their lives. For this reason the council ordered them to be held under guard in the registry until the madness among the commoners gradually died down.

3

See 47D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 380

6/6/2007 9:15:04 PM

the events of 1533

381

Becoming very downcast, the prince took this capture of his people very badly and on December 27 sent a letter to the neighboring princes of Cologne, Cleves and Gelder.4 In it he complained of the injury unjustifiably infl icted on him in the following words. He had no doubt that they had learned by report that the inhabitants of the city of Münster had stirred up baneful disturbances against the Christian religion and the Catholic ceremonies in the churches, against the ecclesiastical and the secular governments, against the decisions of the Empire, against the resolutions of the Diets, and against himself, their confirmed prince, in violation of his many well-intentioned warnings. The main clergy and the other estates of the diocese had halted the disputes which had arisen between him and the city | on account of religion and been willing to do away with them at a meeting for peacemaking held in the little town of Telgte. He had sent a delegation of his councilors and noblemen there to settle the dispute and had expected no hostile move, but at night men from Münster had attacked Telgte with an armed body, though no war had been declared. They had captured Baron John of Büren, Herman of Mengersen his chancellor, Lord Philip of Hoerde the suffragan, Adolph of Bodelswing, Gerard of Recke the knight, and Gerard Morrien the marshal, all of whom had gathered there to restore concord. After stealing their money and seizing their horses and other adornments as booty, they placed these men on carts with their servants and in contemptuous derision brought them back with them to the city. If this outrageous insult was not avenged with a specific plan of action and their wantonness in marauding not curbed, destruction was to be feared not only in this but also in the surrounding regions. He therefore again and again entreated the neighboring princes to take swift counsel to decide what needed doing in connection with this matter, so that the audacity of the townsmen would be smashed and the captives freed. If, on the other hand, the townsmen persisted in this rebellion, the bishop urged the other princes not to desert him in these dire straits. The princes replied as follows. It was with great distress that they had learned of the rebellion in Münster, the stealthy and violent raid, and the capture of good men. They said that they would readily halt the dispute as neighboring princes and arbitrators of peace, and would

344

4 Gelder is now a province of the northern Netherlands to the immediate west of the Münsterland.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 381

6/6/2007 9:15:04 PM

382

the events of 1533

never desert a neighboring prince. To this the prince replied by thanking them for the service they had offered, adding that the landgrave had halted the dispute and was now negotiating for the restoration of peace. The prince did, however, ask that they write a letter to the people of Münster to press them to make sure that nothing untoward happened to the captives. 345 On the feast of John the Evangelist, which was December 27, the council, aldermen, guild masters and the elected representatives of the commons returned to the council hall to deliberate about present affairs. At that point, a huge number of the city’s scum thronged together. The commoners again clamored that it was right for the cathedral steward and Bodelswing to be dragged off to prison, and they did not refrain from such ill-considered bellowing until George of Kyll, the commander of the city’s troops, and some of his fellow soldiers who had long experience in warfare repeated emphatically that the law of war did not allow noblemen of high dignity to be clapped in jail and thrown in chains like commoners. Everyone was shamed by these words and gave in. So after giving their word of honor, these men too were turned over to a guest friend. After deliberating long and hard in the council hall, in the end the council released the patricians from prison at dusk on the same day and allowed them to return to their homes after they too gave their word of honor. Then, on December 28, the council sent two council members to the guest lodgings of the captives accompanied by one public servant. The two were to ask the captives not to disdain to meet after lunch at the house of Peter Friese, who had at that time opened a very famous inn. When the captives arrived, the representatives of the council conversed with them in a very friendly way, at the same time citing many reasons to excuse the government and showing that the captives should blame their capture on the commoners’ uproar, which the council too was at times forced to comply with in order to 346 avoid risk to their lives. The captives replied | that for them to have been captured after their messenger was detained through fraud in the city was a violation of international law and of the law of war. No one had expected this, particularly not at a time when both sides were negotiating about the terms for peace. They complained that after being despoiled and robbed of all their possessions, horses, clothes, money, gold chains, rings and other adornments, which were worth some thousands of gold fl orins, they had been carried to the city in carts, made fools of to the complete satisfaction of the surrounding crowd, treated

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 382

6/6/2007 9:15:04 PM

the events of 1533

383

with many sorts of indignity, and received and handled in unworthy ways. They therefore asked the senate to persuade their people not to put the plunder, in particular the rings, up for sale or to transfer possession of them, which would result in insult and loss to their families. For they could pass down irreparable harm to the descendants of their lineage as a result of some possibly careless guarding of the rings.5 The representatives of the council were forced by the captives’ arguments to ask them to put out of their minds the injustice undeservedly infl icted on them, since it was by the plan of the commons and not by that of the council that the violent raiding and plundering had been carried out. They promised their efforts to recover all those possessions. Then a discussion began about ending the sequestration and the blockade of the public roads, and eventually the council along with the aldermen and guild masters persuaded the captives by entreaty to write a letter of supplication to the prince to try and win him over. A copy of this letter, which was sent on December 29, follows. “Most glorious and merciful prince! By letter we are informing you that the council, aldermen and guild masters of the city of Münster have earnestly entreated us with many prayers not to begrudge attempting to convince you by writing that you should mercifully allow the sequestration and the other inconveniences imposed on the burghers and their cattle to lapse, and deign to restore the previous security in using the public roads and to make a joint agreement about the common dispute, so that any avenue to future misfortunes should be blocked in advance and the occasion for many inconveniences precluded. Accordingly, we request in supplication that if you are convinced by our entreaty, you should, since the circumstances so dictate, end the sequestration without harming the burghers, unblock the public roads, | and finally turn over the decision of the dispute to arbitrators to be chosen by both sides. This will prevent this case from causing the insult to your Clemency, the disaster for the city, and the harm to the entire diocese to boil up more and more every day. In this situation, then, in our name give proof of your Clemency and leave some room for our prayers! In doing us a good turn, your Clemency will find us most willing to respond in kind. We await a reply from your Clemency through the bearer of this letter.

347

5 The point being that the loss of the signet rings might in the future undermine the validity of the documents (particularly land titles) certified by those rings.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 383

6/6/2007 9:15:05 PM

384

348

the events of 1533

May the Almighty keep your clemency safe for as long as possible as a form of protection for the state!” To this the prince replied on December 30. “We have no doubt that you still retain fresh in your memory the reasons why we have struggled for some time with the people of Münster by exchanging letters and how great were the clemency, goodwill and good faith with which we did everything, our sole aim being the safety and salvation of them and the entire diocese. In disregard of all this and at a time when both sides were negotiating about the terms for peace and there was no fear of any hostile action, we unexpectedly received a further insult through this recent act of theirs in taking you captive. Accordingly, it would be very difficult and ill-advised of us to cancel the sequestration of the burgher’s goods and the official prohibition about blocking travel, which would result in bringing us into further contempt. If, however, you inform us by letter as to whether the people of Münster are willing to restore you and the other captives to your previous complete liberty without any other inconvenience during the time of negotiation, we will, if you so request, give a fuller reply, which would be fair. Consider this a well-intentioned reply!” Philip of Hoerde, Melchior of Büren and Adolf Bodelswing also sent a letter of the following content to Alexander Morrien the provost, Henry Hake the dean and Roger Smising the schoolmaster of the Cathedral of Münster. The council of Münster had asked them to prevail upon the prince to grant an end to the sequestration undertaken against the burghers and their goods as well as of the edict about not transporting supplies into the city. They therefore asked that they take thought for the letter writers and the homeland by pleading earnestly with the prince about this matter | so that they would not become entangled in greater misfortunes from which they would not be able to escape. After this letter was presented to the prince as well, he wrote back that in replying to the captives he had given answers that he thought should not be changed under the present circumstances. Meanwhile, the councilors who were in continuous attendance upon the prince as the court retinue also wrote on December 29 the following letter to the council and estates of the city. The prince and they had learned through accurate report that after equipping themselves with both large and small arquebuses and making a raid at midnight between the feast of the Nativity of Christ and that of St. Stephen the First Martyr, the townsmen attacked Telgte with an armed band, and contrary to everyone’s expectation and without a declaration of war

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 384

6/6/2007 9:15:05 PM

the events of 1533

385

had, like military enemies, captured certain principal councilors of the prince, representatives of the main clergy and leading members of the knighthood of the diocese of Münster. These men had suspected no misfortune since both sides were negotiating about the terms for peace. After the capture, the townsmen had hurriedly taken them back to their city with great insult. As for the reason that compelled them to this use of force, neither the prince nor they, the councilors, could discover it. If the townsmen had ever been injured in any way by councilors now held captive, they could easily have expressed their disapproval or avenged it legally by virtue of the prince’s authority. In the name of the prince, then, they, the councilors, warned the people of Münster in a friendly way and at the same time demanded that in taking heed of the future detriment which would break out from this act, they should release the captives and restore them to the previous liberty, prosecuting at law any complaint they have against them. The prince would earnestly undertake to defend the better case. If, on the other hand, they, the councilors, could not win this concession with the full consent of the people of Münster, which they hardly expected, the prince and the other members of the knighthood whose blood relations had been set upon undeservedly with intolerable insult and were being held in the bondage of captivity would no doubt invoke the advice, help and assistance of their friends and form a plan to free the captives, which could not be achieved without a remarkable calamity, as the people of Münster could imagine. Although the councilors had no doubt that the people of Münster would refl ect more carefully upon these detriments and the well-being of the entire diocese and homeland and consider the advice of the councilors, which was both well-intentioned and salubrious, nonetheless, the councilors demanded a response through the bearer of this letter. | The councilors wished the people of Münster to be advised of this in the name of the prince too. Through this successful raid, the people of Münster had won themselves such a fearsome reputation that no one was sure of his safety in locations which were close to the city, however well fortified. With the taking of prisoners, however, they had called down upon themselves the enmity of almost all the princes, nobles and leading men, both evangelical and Catholic. Hence, very many letters were sent by the princes, by the evangelical counts and noblemen assembled at Höxter, and by Philip Melanchthon and other learned men. In these letters the violence used by the people of Münster was condemned and they themselves were warned in a friendly way to be obedient. Citing many

349

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 385

6/6/2007 9:15:05 PM

386

350

the events of 1533

excuses in palliation of their deed, the people of Münster wrote back to individuals with an account quite different from what actually happened, going so far as to claim that they had been given ample cause to use violence. First, the landgrave wrote on December 29 in the following vein. Since they had taken captive members of the knighthood and men bound to him by favors, he demanded that no harsh steps should be taken against them that would undermine or weaken either their bodies or their reputations. As he had long ago promised, he would soon send councilors to halt and then settle the dispute. He therefore advised the townsmen that as lovers of the Gospel they should consider peace and tranquility to be of higher value than war and bloodshed. He had no doubt that the prince was of the same mind. The townsmen replied on January 2 as follows. They gave the greatest thanks to the landgrave for his zeal and for the trouble which he had undertaken on behalf of the city of Münster. As for the captives, it was not for some trivial reason that they had apprehended them and taken them as captives to the city but under the compulsion of the most urgent necessity, since they, the townsmen, were being oppressed with the seizures and sequestrations of burghers’ goods, with intolerable decisions, uncustomary lawsuits and prohibitions against transporting supplies into the city. They had not thrown them into foul cells but permitted them to go to splendid guest quarters and would not treat them in any way other than what befitted their status. Furthermore, the townsmen asked him not to take this obligatory taking of captives badly or to become estranged from them, requesting that he instead plead their case before the prince with the same goodwill as he had towards the Gospel. On January 1, a letter of the following sense was sent by Archbishop Herman of Cologne to the council and to the estate of the commons. He had learned from trustworthy men, he said, that the estates of the diocese of Münster had convened an assembly at Telgte in order to settle the dispute that was raging between the prince and the city, and that after the council had also sent a delegation there out of a similar love of embracing peace, it had led armed citizens and hired soldiers on a raid. Afterwards, on Christmas night these forces had attacked the town and with a band of soldiers taken captive certain members of the main clergy and a large number of the prince’s councilors, who were in attendance there for the sake of peace. They had placed the captives on carts prepared for the purpose and transported them to the

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 386

6/6/2007 9:15:05 PM

the events of 1533

387

city, though they had allowed the representatives of the towns to go home after giving their official word of honor.6 | As their metropolitan7 and as someone devoted to the people of Münster by virtue of being a neighbor, he had learned of all this with the greatest distress. He therefore warned them to be mindful of his previous letter and to commit no act by which they would plunge themselves and their people into disaster and inevitable destruction. Also, understanding that the noble Baron John of Büren, Herman of Mengersen and Gerard of Recke the knight, who sat on his council, were among the captives and thought that they had attended that assembly for no other pursuit but that of peace, he accordingly asked the people of Münster to release them without harm or disadvantage and to treat the others in such a way that they would not pile up for themselves hatred, enmity and, at the least, ill will among many princes and populations. To this the council replied on January 6 as follows. They were not at all sure about the assembly summoned to Telgte to settle the dispute and had never promised to send a delegation there. In order, however, that he should understand the entire matter, which the council had also covered in the previous letter which it had sent to seek his advice and assistance, he should be aware that a certain chaplain named Bernard Rothman of the Church of St. Martin’s, which was located within sight of the city, had taught the Word of God there for some time and attracted the commons to him with his sermons. Next, this Bernard had been summoned to the city of Münster by Derek of Merfelt the bailiff of Wolbeck, and since Rothman was apprehensive of his own safety, he had stayed in the city in reliance on its liberty and taught the doctrine of the Word of God. Then the prince had ordered the council to abandon the preacher and restore to their previous state the ceremonies which had been abolished by him and his colleagues orally and in writing. The council, however, had to the contrary invoked public and private right and asked the prince to refer the decision in the case to fair arbitrators who were partial to neither side and have the articles which the preachers had disseminated demolished. The council, however, had not been able to persuade the prince to grant

351

This accusation of detaining the representatives of other towns is denied in the council’s reply. 7 Another term for archbishop (in his capacity as overseer of the bishoprics subordinate to him). 6

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 387

6/6/2007 9:15:05 PM

388

352

the events of 1533

this. Meanwhile, in the penal edict promulgated on August 3 of the present year at Regensburg and proclaimed in Münster, his Majesty had ordered that no one was to be assailed or inconvenienced by anyone on account of religion. In disregard of all this, however, the prince’s bailiffs and stewards had, with sequestrations and unjust plundering, seized not just certain burghers’ cattle and other property but the burghers themselves while in transit, | overwhelmed them in foreign and external courts in violation of ancient custom, taken possession of the public roads with armed cavalrymen, cut off the townsmen from supplies, forbidden the remittance of revenues and payments to the burghers, and buffeted them with other, harsher inconveniences. In the end, the commons found the situation which resulted from this harassment intolerable, and they had attacked the town of Telgte. Not finding the representatives of the other towns there, they had captured those whom they did find there and brought these captives back to the city with them,8 where they were even now being kept in guest houses after they had given their word of honor, being treated no differently from what befitted their status. Since the estates of the diocese had become involved in the settling of the dispute, they, the council, had always hoped that in making reference to privilege and custom they would have achieved their purpose, namely that no ample cause would have been given for making use of force. Be that as it may, now that the glorious prince of Hesse would soon send his councilors to restore concord, they, the council, would do with the captives what fairness dictated. The archbishop was to consider this a well-intentioned response and plead the case for peace before their prince. Frederick of Twist, the steward of the bishop’s court,9 sent a letter on December 29 to Godfrey Harmen, Corbin of Kanstein, Conrad Haxthausen, Conrad Spiegel, families in Westphalia and Viermünden, and other blood relations of the captives Count John of Büren and Herman Mengersen, urging them to lodge a complain without delay before the princes, counts and noblemen holding an assembly of the Schmalkaldic League at Höxter about their relatives’ having been taken captive by force and to get them to send a letter to the council of Münster asking for the release of John of Büren and Herman

8 Here the council denies the charge that they had captured delegates from other towns (see also 366D). 9 Ger. Hofmeister.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 388

6/6/2007 9:15:05 PM

the events of 1533

389

Mengersen. These men energetically pled the case through a delegation at the assembly in Höxter. Therefore, a letter was dispatched on January 11 and arrived in Münster. Written by eleven counts and all the noblemen gathered at the assembly in Höxter, it read as follows. “We hear tell | that at dawn on the feast of St. Stephen you attacked the town of Telgte in the diocese of Münster and took captive councilors of your prince and in particular the noble John of Büren and Herman of Mengersen, and that you brought your captives to your city and placed them with guest friends there. Considering upon deeper refl ection that this violent act of yours was clearly void of any sane reasoning, and carefully pondering the disaster that this will in the end bring upon you, who gave your tacit consent, and upon your city, we wished that you had not undertaken it against such men. For if you had some complaint against your bishop, it would have been appropriate for you to have lodged it in some other way. Be that as it may, since the noble Baron John of Büren and Herman of Mengersen are bound to us by blood and obligation, we leave it to you to consider the attitude with which we view their being taken captive. We therefore ask that you release everyone from the captivity in which they are held, or if this is not expedient, at least the noble Büren and Herman Mengersen. If, however, you think that this will be disadvantageous to you, let them be released by military custom after giving their word of honor to return at your discretion. If, on the other hand, you ascribe no importance to this letter of ours, which we do not expect, and you do not grant us either request, be advised that we will enter into plans to secure their release. If, in the interim, anything untoward happens to them as a result of being held in detention by you, we leave it to you to refl ect more deeply upon the hatreds and blazing disasters which you will stir up for yourselves and your city, though we wish you to have no part in them.” To this the council gave virtually the same responses as they had to the archbishop in their previous letter, but | they also complained that on account of the evangelical truth which they had adopted they were being affl icted and oppressed, indeed trampled under foot by the bishop. The council promised that they would do anything for the sake of peace, provided that they retained the evangelical doctrine intact. The alliance of the Schmalkaldic League also wrote to our prince on January 7, advising him to free his business agents Büren and Mengersen in whatever way he could. For if, they said, this was by no means done, the bishop could consider by himself against whom

353

354

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 389

6/6/2007 9:15:06 PM

390

355

the events of 1533

the blood relations of both men would act. To this the prince replied on January 11 that the landgrave had sent envoys and councilors to Münster to restore peace. He said that he would strive to secure their release, even at the cost of his rights. If, however, this was impossible through the fault of the people of Münster, he would nonetheless avail himself of the services of his diocese and friends to achieve what necessity would dictate in this affair. I pass over the letters of the others lest the reader become disgusted at my verbosity. At around 4 a.m. on December 30, a terrifying screeching was heard partly inside the city and partly outside. Staggered by it, the guards guessed that the enemy was roaming within the city walls, and so they kept ringing without stop the bell that is used only in the case of a fire or public disturbance. At the sound of this horrible din, the whole city hurriedly rushed to arms. The townsmen gradually discovered that they were being harried not by an enemy but by a groundless fear, and after many gunshots which made the city tremble | they dispersed around 7 o’clock and the whole disturbance died down. Nonetheless, many people had no doubt that this was a harbinger of future misfortune, and therefore, in order to prepare themselves in advance against the future disturbances, on December 31 they sent letters to the various towns asking them to send armed men to Münster to protect the city. But since the towns feared the crazed faction of the people of Münster just as all good men did, the people of Münster received neither a response nor the armed men. On December 31, the council replied to the previous letter from the bishop’s councilors as follows. “We have read your letter about the captives recently taken at Telgte on the feast of St. Stephen the First Martyr and have shown it to the aldermen, guild masters and elected representatives of the commons, since it concerned them. Accordingly, we reply that the facts are as follows. “Certain preachers, who have for some time been proclaiming the Word of God in our city to the people, have drawn up articles laying out a profession of their faith and defending the abolition of old ceremonies which they consider to be impious. They offered these articles to the clergy of Münster for either refutation through Holy Scripture or approval by their judgment, stating that if convicted of error they would not be ashamed at being instructed by right-thinking men. When the clergy contemptuously neglected to do so, the com-

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 390

6/6/2007 9:15:06 PM

the events of 1533

391

mons not only embraced and followed the doctrine of the preachers but became ill-disposed towards the clergy as a result of this doctrine, feeling it to be in conformity with the Truth. Hence, the ceremonies fell into abeyance. “On August 3, his Imperial Majesty issued his command (edict) by which he forbade the use of violence in a case involving the faith or religion, as ours is, until some definite decision is reached either in a general council or in the Imperial Diet, but nonetheless in violation of this edict cattle and other property of our burghers had been seized in transit by the prince’s bailiffs and sequestered, and in addition some rather harsh decrees provided that no revenues or annual income were to be paid to the burghers by anyone and that no supplies were to be transported into the city. The public roads were also kept under guard by infantry and cavalry for days, and we have also learned that this has been done in the last few days to cut off supplies, even though both sides were negotiating about concord, as was our hope. The commons became enraged at this and embraced the unexpected opportunity to take these captives. “It is our wish that since the estates of the diocese, to whose review and judgment we have several times submitted our case, have, with a frame of mind that is certainly pious, involved themselves in this dissension and halted it, they would have settled it in such a way that it would never have been necessary to fear this or a greater disaster. Be that as it may, since we desire nothing but what is in conformity with reason, law and fairness, we ask you in a friendly way to convince the prince that he should finally be assuaged by our frequent entreaties, allow this dispute and all the attendant circumstances to be referred to uncorrupted arbitrators, end the inconvenience of sequestration and the other prohibitions, and make the public roads free in accordance with international law, granting anyone the liberty to come and go. We will embrace whatever seems fair after a just decision. We wish to be informed by you as to which of these actions you could get the prince to agree to. We give this response not on our own behalf but on behalf of the aldermen, guild masters and all the estates of the whole city.” To this letter from the council the councilors of the bishop wrote back as follows on January 1. From the letter sent on December 31, they, the bishop’s councilors, had received the townsmen’s resolution. At the present time, they left this to the townsmen’s reputation and authority,

356

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 391

6/6/2007 9:15:06 PM

392

357

the events of 1533

but they had passed their requests on to the prince. The only answer that they could get, however, was the same response that he had given a few days before to his councilors and devoted friends who were now held in captivity in Münster, which he thought should not be changed before the captives wrote back. In order to forestall the future disaster in good time, the councilors asked, urged and advised the townsmen in a dutiful way that they should restore the captives to their previous liberty without any inconvenience. There was no doubt that the result of this would be that the prince would be assuaged by this act of submission and would give consideration to the townsmen’s requests. As a favor to the burghers they, the councilors, would shirk no efforts if they could achieve anything by giving the prince advice for the sake of peace. The council should consider this a well-intentioned reply. Having plunged itself into a labyrinth of travails with this ill-conceived capture of noblemen, the council realized that it needed the advice of learned and wise men. | It immediately dispatched a letter on January 1 to Wieck summoning him so that the council could avail itself of his advice and eloquence in this matter. While these events were going on, some burghers who feared a siege were busy with the city’s fortifications. Others amused themselves with wandering around like an enemy and taking part in frequent raids. Others indulged in unrestrained thieving and proceeded to use violence against all their neighbors. Others engaged in the collection of wood by breaking down fences in various locations and cutting back trees and hedges. In particular they cut down those buildings and enclosures near the city that blocked the view into the countryside since these could serve as hiding places for the enemy, and in this they paid no attention to ownership. Next, the council issued a decree that imposed the death penalty on those who ignored it, ordering that everyone should give back the spoils taken from the captives during the raid on Telgte. The burghers, who had thought that they had been made rich, were completely terrified by the decree and on January 1, 2 and 3 gave back almost all the booty to the council. The soldiers hired by the city, however, argued that booty taken from the enemy by a military band should not be returned and instead should be kept according to the customary right of military service. Nonetheless, since they had sold their services to the city for a fixed sum, those whom they had despoiled had not been openly declared enemies, and the council had granted them each a bonus of

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 392

6/6/2007 9:15:06 PM

the events of 1533

393

three hornensian fl orins10 on top of the agreed upon pay, the soldiers returned all the plunder to the council. On January 3, the captive Herman of Mengersen, who had much infl uence with the prince, was asked by the council and aldermen to give his word of honor to return and then journey to the prince. He was to prevail upon him to agree to arbitration, since otherwise the captives and the clergy would be exposed to the greatest risk and extreme danger on account of the unbridled lack of restraint. He was not unwilling to undertake this mission in the name of the city (his devotion to peace is sufficiently clear from many factual proofs), and he immediately rode off in a cart of the council’s to the prince in Bevergern, accompanied by John Schuttorp, who was a municipal attendant, and by a servant. He went on the understanding that he would return by January 7, since the council said that it could control the unruly commons no longer than that. Meanwhile, there were various disturbances in the city. Since a rumor had gained wide currency that the prince and some thousands of armed men would seize control of the fortifications of the College of St. Maurice outside the walls and use the location as a base to destroy the city’s liberty, on January 4 the townsmen insisted that the council should give them permission to raze the Church of St. Martin and all its buildings to the ground and in this way rob the enemy of a site for their camp, so that they could, as far as possible, avert the menace of enslavement with timely action. Considering the matter more deeply, the council urged that no one should have his property taken away and be thrust out of his right except for a reason approved by law, and that it was necessary to shun savage injury and a manifest cause of war. The commoners, however, pressed on more insistently, claiming that the liberty of the burghers and the salvation of the entire city were at stake, that the public good should take precedence over private benefit, and that losses caused by the demolition could be made good from some other source. Caught between the anvil and the hammer, the council thought that in order to avoid a greater uproar, some sort of permission at any rate was to be granted to the madness of the commons,

358

“Hornensian fl orins” presumably refers to the coinage of the county of Horn (located in present-day Holland near the German border to the west-south-west of Münster, this small town is now amalgamated with the town of Haelen) rather than the Dutch city of Hoorn (that is, the major port on the Zuider Zee). 10

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 393

6/6/2007 9:15:06 PM

394

the events of 1533

it being feared that if the commoners were constrained within overly close confines, they would cast off all control along with their obedience. Accordingly, the council, though unwillingly, gave permission to the townsmen to cut back the hedges, the trees and anything else that blocked the view so long as they left the church and buildings alone until Herman of Mengersen’s return. But being granted an inch, the commoners took more than a foot, 359 and so at around 3 a.m. on the following day (Sunday, January 5), | they gathered in the market place at the playing of a horn as they had been instructed on a previous day. Some came armed with stakes, some with grappling hooks, some with axes, some with hammers, some with hoes, some with crowbars, some with fairly large sacks, some with guns, some with spears, some with javelins, some with battle-axes and pikes. There was also no lack of cavalrymen and transport wagons in case they came upon any booty. Thus, having procured everything that was suitable for fighting it out with the enemy or demolishing and tearing down churches and houses, they set out with the intention of plundering, devastating and razing the entire College of St. Maurice with fire, iron and hands. (The principal leaders of the sedition were left behind in the city with the filthy rabble of criminals to harass the council and clergy in the meanwhile.) First, they entered the church and colonnade for the purpose not of praying but of plundering, and they took away all the decorations that were left out in the open. Those that were locked away they dug out by breaking open the storage places and freed them from the squalor of long neglect. They did not venerate but violate the altars and images, and they did not admire the painted altar screens and statues cut from local marble but broke and smashed them. Struck not by musicians’ fingers but by carpenters’ and workmen’s hammers and axes, the organs gave out a sound that was now not harmonious but displeasing to the ear. They made holes in the church’s vaults and the colonnade, piling up alternating mounds of straw and wood under them, so that the fl ames would the more easily rush up into the roof. As they were wearing themselves out while engaged in these efforts, a sudden rumor reached the whole crowd that the prince’s cavalry was lurking at the ford across the Weser and awaiting the arrival of very many gun-equipped and other infantrymen, whom the prince had placed in various locations in the country districts to check any sally made by the townsmen. Some cavalrymen who were wandering around on higher ground lent credibility to this report. For when the burghers saw the cavalrymen from afar, they convinced themselves that they were

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 394

6/6/2007 9:15:06 PM

the events of 1533

395

scouts sent out from the cavalry. Accordingly, they now had no doubt about the rumor that had been brought to them, and instead began to be anxious that they might be surrounded unawares. They were therefore less energetic in finishing what they had started. Meanwhile, a letter from Herman of Mengersen was delivered to the council. In it he described the concessions that he had been able to win from the prince concerning the liberty of the burghers and the general peace. | The council felt incredible joy when this letter was read. Hence, through a very fast riding burgher the council summoned those marauders back to the city immediately. He told them that everything was safe and that they should leave the church and buildings alone. They were moved partly by fear and partly by joy to leave the job unfinished and return. There is no doubt that this burning of the church and buildings and the murder which they had conceived were checked and obstructed by the Almighty. On January 6, Herman of Mengersen returned. He was welcomed by the council since he had prevailed upon the prince to grant the liberty of coming and going freely along with the cancellation of the sequestration and of all the inconveniences to the burghers in the expectation of concord. Under other circumstances, these concessions could not have been won through any letters or any entreaties from other people. Dr. John of Wieck, who was endowed with outstanding linguistic talents and singular eloquence, had said goodbye to the people of Bremen in order to get a higher salary and given his services to the people of Münster,11 and while these events were going on, he pled the case of the council of Münster before the prince of Hesse, inducing him to promise that as a favor to the city he would cut short the blazing dispute and then put it out if in any way possible, restoring the previous concord on both sides. (He had also promised to do this unasked a few months previously.) So he sent a peacemaking delegation, | the members of which were men of great learning and authority: John of Taubenheim, John Fischer, who was a doctor of law, and George Nusbicker, who was a licentiate12 and his chancellor. Protected with official safe conduct from both the council and the bishop, they arrived at Münster

360

361

11 This is not accurate. Documents show that his terms as syndic of Bremen and of Münster overlapped. 12 For the meaning of “licentiate,” see “Events of 1532” n. 82.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 395

6/6/2007 9:15:06 PM

396

362

363

the events of 1533

on January 7 to settle the disturbed situation. To win over their goodwill, now the council, now Knipperdolling and certain other burghers welcomed them with magnificent, sumptuous banquets, and then the envoys began to negotiate about the terms for peace in various ways. On January 11, Duke Ernest of Lunenburg, a man inclined to peacemaking, wrote to our prince asking him not to take the arrival of the delegation from Hesse badly, and instead to lend a friendly ear to it for the sake of public concord, since they would certainly act honorably with both sides in negotiating a peace on fair terms. The landgrave made the same request. Our prince complied, but since the people of Münster had no syndic apart from Wieck and they were awaiting his arrival, they postponed the start of business and kept finding excuses for delay. | They complained to the envoys that in the midst of the truce, at the very time when both sides were negotiating for peace, soldiers in the bishop’s employ were gradually coming closer to the city, attacking the peasants and the burghers’ serfs there and marauding at will. They said that this action showed the bishop’s attitude was not simply hostile but completely lacking in goodwill and peace. They therefore asked that the truce be proclaimed throughout the diocese, if this had not already been done, so that both sides could engage in serious peace negotiations without any fear. When the landgrave’s delegation for peacemaking reported this to the bishop, he immediately wrote back on January 14 as follows. He had summoned his military commanders to Iburg the day before and ordered that since the soldiers under their command were taking the peasants’ possessions from them in various locations in the diocese without paying for them, they should remember their military oath and refrain from all violence and injury. To this the commanders had responded that neither they nor any of their soldiers had treated anyone with violence or injury, and instead it was the common soldiers wandering around the diocese in search of military employment | who were responsible for this. The commanders had then said that they would sound the drum and make a proclamation in their camps that such soldiers were to depart immediately from the diocese. In order, then, to avoid giving the peasants any just cause for complaint, to impose military discipline in a stronger form once the common soldiers were removed, and to free the people of Münster from fear, the bishop said that he would billet his troops in towns. Finally, he said, he had proclaimed the truce throughout the diocese on January 9 and given his bailiffs and stewards strict instructions that none of them were to undertake any untoward act against the inhabitants of the city of Münster.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 396

6/6/2007 9:15:07 PM

the events of 1533

397

Realizing that the people of Münster were cleverly dragging things out by introducing these and similar problems, he began to have doubts about the future peace. Thus, in order to strengthen his position with the help of other princes in case there was no possibility of peace, he sent Themmo of Hoerde, chamberlain of the bishop’s court, to the councilors of the archbishop of Cologne and of the duke of Cleves, who had met in Neuss on November 19 to discuss coinage.13 Hoerde carried a letter in which the bishop asked them to hear Hoerde out with patience and goodwill and to put as much credence in him as they would in the bishop himself. After he was brought in for a discussion, Hoerde carried out his charge in the following way. “After Francis, the confirmed bishop of Münster and Osnabrück and administrator of the Church of Minden, was chosen to run the diocese of Münster through the disposition of God, he learned of the following information not only through general report but also through very reliable indications provided by trustworthy men. Certain lowly, insignificant and seditious preachers crept into the city of Münster, and with their sermons they attracted the commons, who were greedy for liberty, to them. | Relying on the support, advice and aid of the commons, they seized the parish churches without the knowledge or consent of the regular government but by their own authority. In those churches, they cast out the pastors and curates and at their own discretion impudently taught unheard-of, erroneous doctrines in violation of the Christian religion. They despised the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ,14 wantonly spread among the ignorant commons views intended to stir up rebellion, hostility and hatred against both secular and ecclesiastical rulers, and, in addition to this, disrupted and cast aside all the pious and respectable ceremonies of the Catholic Church, which have been sanctioned over many centuries, and its praiseworthy customs as well as the tranquility and peace, in violation of the Emperor’s edict and in contempt of their government. The prince took this violence, rebellion and seditious schism very badly. Wishing to obey the Emperor’s commands and sincerely desiring the well-being, tranquility and happiness of his people in the manner of a good prince, he endeavored to preserve the general peace and Christian concord by often warning and asking the people of Münster in friendly letters to

364

13 The suggestion to send the embassy actually came from the archbishop, who wrote to the bishop to this effect on January 13, as is shown by a letter preserved in Münster. 14 That is, the Eucharist.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 397

6/6/2007 9:15:07 PM

398

365

the events of 1533

abandon their seditious undertaking, impious schism and forbidden innovation, to remove the preachers, and to retain in a peaceable manner the ecclesiastical rites adopted in ancient days until such time as everything would be reformed, when any abuses that may have crept in would be laid aside. He said that at that time, if they had any complaint about the clergy or the dogma of the Catholics, he would, once he had attained full authority to administer the diocese, use the aid and advice of the noble canons and of all the estates of the diocese to correct it, so that no one would have any grounds for complaint left. All this is demonstrated to you here in letters sent by both sides. The people of Münster, however, relied on the specious excuse of privileges, though these were hardly able to support their cause, and contemptuously cast to the winds the loyal warnings of the prince and of the knighthood, who strove to halt the dispute. Persisting in their obstinacy, the preachers and the filthy collection of factious men abolished and completely did away with all the praiseworthy ceremonies and the worship of God in the parish churches, | selecting a dissolute, impious, wanton, seditious and riotous form of life that was a capricious one like that of Ashdod.15 From this nothing can be more surely expected than public uproar and the overthrow of every government and of all obedience not only in the city and diocese but also in the surrounding regions. The prince would therefore have had the highest justification in smashing this violence on the part of the people of Münster with similar force if a certain remarkable mildness on his part had not dissuaded him up until now. For this reason, preferring to try out his rights as ordinary bishop against them and their goods, he cut them off from supplies by taking possession of the public roads, confidently expecting that after more careful consideration of the entire diocese’s own wellbeing and the detriment and disaster that would break loose from this, they would repent of their rebellious undertaking and recall all their planning to the better half of their minds. They persisted no less energetically in their obstinacy, however, and contrary to all expectation they captured certain of the prince’s subordinates and servants and dragged them to their city. When all the estates and ranks of the diocese realized that the faction taken up by the people of Münster would

15 After defeating King Samuel in battle, the Canaanites captured the ark of the covenant and put it in the temple of Dagon in the city of Ashdod, releasing it only after God grievously affl icted the inhabitants of the city (1 Samuel 5).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 398

6/6/2007 9:15:07 PM

the events of 1533

399

plunge not so much them as the entire diocese and its innocent subjects into permanent disaster, they yearned to forestall this misfortune, and they were especially induced by frequent entreaties from people in Münster to approach the prince with suppliant entreaties that he should graciously allow the dispute between him and the people of Münster to be halted as a favor to the entire diocese. In the end, this request was granted, though with difficulty. The petitioners therefore used all the zeal they could muster in bringing this matter before various assemblies that were summoned. They often set out peace terms that were tolerable for both sides, but concord could find no place among the people of Münster, who obstinately cast these terms aside. In the end, the desire was to avoid leaving this dissension in wakeful vigor and instead either to do away with the dissension by restoring peace or at least to halt it by calling a truce, so that mutual bloodshed would not break out as a result of embittered feeling on both sides. Accordingly, delegates were sent by the main clergy, the knighthood and the lesser towns to Telgte to implement this plan, and with friendly letters they summoned the prince’s councilors and the representatives of Münster | to come on the day before the Nativity of Christ. Although the delegations performed their mission with the highest good faith, the people of Münster held back the messenger sent to them and gave no reply to the last letter from the peacemakers. Instead, while serious negotiations about peace were going on and neither the prince nor the main clergy nor anyone among the inhabitants of the diocese feared any hostile action against themselves, on the night of the Nativity of Christ the people of Münster armed themselves with large guns and other devices appropriate for storming a city and undertook an offensive raid. Around dawn, they violently attacked the town of Telgte like military enemies contrary to all expectation and without any declaration of war, in violation of good faith. They savagely took captive councilors of the prince’s, peacemakers sent as delegates by the main clergy and the knighthood, and in addition to them, certain other noblemen and the representatives of the towns, whom they immediately released, however.16 They despoiled their captives of their horses, money and all adornments, and brought them to their city, where they are now held under guard, in derisive contempt of the bishop and to his

366

16 This appears to be the explanation of the denial by the council of Münster of the charge that delegates from the towns had been taken captive (see 352D).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 399

6/6/2007 9:15:07 PM

400

367

the events of 1533

never-ending disgrace. From this true account of the events, you and your princes will easily see that the situation is quite different from what the people of Münster claimed in the letters which they sent to the most reverend archbishop of Cologne and to other princes. If, then, this insolent and wanton use of violence is not brought to a stop with timely planning and effective antidote, it is to be feared that it will give rise to the inevitable disease of disobedience, from which first sedition among the commoners, then contempt for all governments, and finally the most certain downfall and complete destruction of states is to be feared. In order to obstruct these misfortunes, the bishop of Münster is fully confident that your princes will be moved partly by virtue of neighborliness, partly by virtue of the hereditary relationship of metropolitan status which Cologne holds with reference to Münster on the basis of a treaty entered into many years ago, and partly because of the compact recently made between the states of Cologne, Cleves and Münster at Neuss, and that they would consequently not fail to assist him with advice and help as necessity dictates, so that if the Hessians’ zealous undertaking on behalf of restoring peace is fruitless, | the captives would be freed and the contumacious rebellion of the people of Münster crushed. The prince promises that he will not begrudge repaying this favor with a similar or indeed a greater one.” After a short deliberation, the meeting of councilors replied that they would report these matters to their princes and had no doubt that the bishop of Münster would not be left without the help and advice of their princes against the violence and injury. While these events were going on, the prince summoned the main clergy, the knighthood and the towns of the diocese to Rheine on January 10. (Reine is a town on the banks of the Ems four miles from Münster.) In their presence he recounted through his councilors the treacherous and deceitful raid of the people of Münster and the violence infl icted on him and his councilors contrary to everyone’s expectation at dawn on the feast day of St. Stephen the First Martyr, complaining that this raid had given him against his will a cause for resorting to arms. He said that if the people of Münster got away with the deed with impunity, their contumacious insolence would affect not just him but also the entire diocese and would result in both of them incurring disgrace, derision and contempt in the opinions of the neighboring princes and cities, and since the estates of the diocese had voluntarily promised their aid against the rebellion in Münster at the assembly in Dülmen, he asked for advice and assistance so that the captives would

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 400

6/6/2007 9:15:07 PM

the events of 1533

401

be restored to their previous liberty and the people of Münster would pay the penalty appropriate for their transgressions if they turned a deaf ear to the negotiations undertaken by the councilors of the landgrave. To this the estates replied that if they could hear the prince’s plan first, they would give a well-intentioned reply. They said that it was fresh in their memory that they had bound themselves to provide the prince with advice and assistance against the people of Münster’s rash and unjust presumption in undertaking rebellion and war, | even at the cost of their own wealth, and that they had not changed their resolve. After certain towns which had been prevented from sending delegates to this assembly because of fl ooding were readily excused, the prince’s councilors were the first to speak and gave the following explanation of the prince’s intentions. The people of Münster had given him cause to take up arms, so that he had enlisted about five companies of soldiers against their insolence. Even if the dispute was settled, these soldiers would demand their pay,17 and if, on the other hand, there was no opportunity for negotiation and instead even worse disturbances were to be feared, a great deal of money was necessary. Since this money could not be suddenly extracted from the subjects, as was in fact necessary, the prince thought it useful that however the matter turned out, a loan should be taken from some source and that the creditors should be guaranteed repayment in a contract bearing the seals of both himself and the estates of the diocese. Also, the individual members of the knighthood should equip themselves with horses and arms according to their financial ability and keep themselves at home in readiness for a sudden summons. After a short deliberation, the main clergy and the knighthood agreed to these requests and promised that they would attach their seals to the contract for the loan. Those delegates who were in attendance from the towns, however, made a public declaration of their devotion to the prince but shirked sealing the contract for the loan on the grounds that they did not have plenipotentiary powers from their people and saw that the delegations from the principal towns were not participating in the assembly. The completion of the matter was put off until February 4, and on that day the delegations from the towns were to announce in the town of Dülmen what they would do. Furthermore, the knighthood and all the vassals of the diocese asked the councilors to report the following information to the prince. If it

17

368

Four guilders in the currency of Emden per month.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 401

6/6/2007 9:15:07 PM

402

369

370

the events of 1533

happened that the knights joined the forces raised against the people of Münster so that the prince incurred less trouble and expense, they would receive eight fl orins in the currency of Emden every month for food and fodder in addition to recompense for losses likely to be suffered by them in this war. | The councilors promised to do so. The assembly was dissolved after these proceedings. Next, the people of Münster, who were looking for other subterfuges, complained that their fellow burgher Arnold Belholt had been thrown by the bishop into a cell full of toads and snakes and kept bound in chains, so that he was bereft of all human solace in violation of all civilized behavior. They claimed that this savagery was exceedingly distasteful to them since they treated their captives in a milder and more benign way. Not only the envoys of the landgrave but the captive nobles, who were afraid of being treated in the same way, informed the prince of this matter by letter, asking that he put Belholt under a milder form of guard after receiving guarantors. This, they said, would no doubt be of the greatest benefit to themselves and the negotiations. Taking Herman Tilbeck and Otto Peck as guarantors, the prince agreed to the request of the envoys and captives, although Belholt had been arrested and incarcerated in the prison of Delmenhorst not merely on account of sedition but also for other capital offences.18 Next, to increase their ability to meet the prince and negotiate with him so that no impediment would result from their being separated by a great distance, the envoys requested that he deign to come to Wolbeck, a location closer to the city. On January 19, the prince immediately complied so that he could not be criticized for causing a delay or considered to have an attitude averse to peace. Meanwhile, in the city the Hessian envoys resorted now to warnings, now to requests, now to exhortations in the strenuous effort to soften the embittered spirits on both sides and to restore the previous friendliness by removing the ill will and resentment. First, their laborious exertions were directed towards getting both parties to the dispute to allow the dissension to be halted and then to agree to fair terms for settling the dispute. Although they thought that it would be very difficult to get the bishop to agree to this, they nonetheless easily succeeded. For this

18 Note K.’s mention (192D) of a rumor that Belholt was guilty of adultery (see 209-210D for further information on him). Contemporary documents show that he was accused of the crime at this time.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 402

6/6/2007 9:15:07 PM

the events of 1533

403

reason, they considered that they had achieved a large measure of the peace, but they began to despair of it when the council, in an endeavor to find subterfuges and to renege, | seemed to shy away from starting to negotiate without the presence of Wieck, whom they looked upon as some god and awaited as the pleader of their case. The envoys informed their prince of both these circumstances, and on January 13 he wrote back to the people of Münster in the following terms. He said that he had experienced no little pleasure when he had learned from a letter written by his councilors that the bishop had agreed to settle the dispute, but took it badly that the people of Münster were postponing this public matter, which could brook no delay, until the arrival of a single man, although many events could intervene either to hinder or overturn the peace. There was no doubt, he said, that these delaying tactics would cause the bishop to have serious suspicions of deceit and under-handed chicanery on their part. It was also to be feared that since he had a well-equipped army close at hand, the city was threatened by some unexpected harm. Accordingly, he advised that they should undertake to deal with the matter immediately, even in the absence of Wieck, whose arrival was uncertain, and not to leave his, the landgrave’s, councilors in suspense any longer. For he had given them instructions that they should give priority to religion and the faith and have it as their principle aim that the purity of the Word of God should not be neglected and should instead be exalted and strengthened with increases everyday. Hence, even if Wieck was absent, it was very much in the interest of the city of Münster to proceed expeditiously with the negotiations, especially since the bishop and the other estates of the diocese were disposed to negotiate. This would prevent the infl iction of a greater disaster upon the city through military raids if they changed their mind. He said that he offered this advice for deeper refl ection by the council. This letter impelled the people of Münster to allow the envoys to negotiate with them. Thus, they hammered out and re-hammered various terms and conditions for peace, some people wishing one thing and others something else. | Before the envoys could come up with terms for peace and secure the release of the captives, however, the people of Münster wished to be recompensed by the bishop for the value of the sequestered cattle and for the losses which they had suffered. The envoys of the landgrave entered into negotiations about this matter with Caspar Judefeld and John of Deventer. Although the people of Münster assessed the value of the sixty-one cattle seized by

371

372

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 403

6/6/2007 9:15:08 PM

404

373

374

the events of 1533

the bishop’s bailiffs and the losses suffered at 685 fl orins, the matter was finally resolved with a payment of 450. Since John of Daventer had a natural inclination towards sedition, the envoys asked the bishop to pay him immediately in order to avoid any new disturbance, adding that Judefeld would allow a delay of payment until March 16. They considered this matter long and hard, making additions and subtractions and changes this way and that and back and forth, and finally, on February 14, both sides agreed to terms for peace in order to avoid many losses, wars, deaths, devastation, plunder and destruction and to preserve peace and tranquility for the sake of increasing the public good. After the peacemakers drew up the decisions of both sides, certain members of the knighthood (these were quite powerful men), who were mentioned by name in the text refused to put their seals to the document, which would have invalidated virtually the entire agreement. | Therefore, Herman Schencking, John, Bernard and Henry Warendorf, Francis Graell, John Peck, Eberhard Buck, William Clevorn, Eberwin Droste and Alard Droste the younger, patricians of the city who had been released from prison but not from captivity, wrote in supplication to the prince and the other estates assembled at Wolbeck, asking them to consider more carefully the inconvenience and calamity of the captives as well as the destruction of the entire diocese and to prevail upon the noblemen mentioned by name in the documents to put their seals on them. On the same day, the other noble captives, Philip of Hoerde, Melchior of Büren, Adolph Bodelswing, Baron John of Büren, Gerard of Recke the knight, Gerard Morien the marshal, Henry Schencking, Herman Mengersen and John Merckel the bishop’s chancellor, made the same requests of the bishop and the other estates by letter, asking first the prince and then the chapter to apply their seals. They explained that the townsmen were hatching some new plot against them, the captives, and thus the completion of the documents had to be hurried along. They said that the nobles would not refuse to apply their seals if this was insisted upon rather vehemently and they saw the documents had been sealed by the prince and chapter. At first, the noblemen did refuse, but in the end they acceded to the entreaties of the prince and the other estates as a favor to the captives and in order to avoid the annulment of the entire proceedings, which had cost much effort and expense. The terms and details of the peace agreed to are as follows.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 404

6/6/2007 9:15:08 PM

the events of 1533

405

“Peace Terms “1) The prince will infl ict no violence on the people of Münster on account of the faith and the Christian religion, and instead will, without offence, allow them to hold and retain the Word of God and to spread it in a pure manner without any admixture of falsehood in their six parish churches (St. Lambert’s, St. Ludger’s, St. Giles’, the Blessed Virgin Across-the-River, St. Martin’s, and St. Servatius’), and to administer the sacraments and to establish and observe the ceremonies in them. | In the business of the faith and religion he will also leave the burghers to the judgment of their city council, provided that everything is in conformity with the Gospel and the Word of God, until some definite decision is made by a free and Christian general council assembled in Germany or by the common and willing deliberation of the princes of the Empire, which the Imperial decrees that were approved at the Diet of Nuremberg in 1532, promulgated at Regensburg, and proclaimed throughout the Empire are clearly seen to demand. “2) On the other hand, the people of Münster will also allow the prince, the chapter and the other colleges, with the exception of the six aforementioned parish churches, their own religion and way of life19 until the Almighty makes a different ordinance. In their sermons, the preachers will not use snarling eloquence to revile among the public the ecclesiastical or secular government or any member at all of the colleges and monasteries who is devoted to the profession of that religion unless the Word of God so dictates. Neither the main clergy nor any member of this faction will, through immoderate speech, offer anyone cause to speak slanderously. “3) Every single person will refrain from slander, insult and revilement in connection with the faith and religion. “4) In their secular legal cases, the people of Münster will obey their prince in particular as their true ruler, | just as loyal and obedient subjects and the governments and communities of other cities do. “5) On the other hand, the prince for his part will look after the well-being of his subjects with the greatest good faith possible, protect their rights and privileges, ward off unjust violence and show himself to be nothing but a beneficent prince towards them.

375

376

19 Here, the Latin religio signifies a religious vow given upon entry into an ecclesiastical order, and “way of life” refers to the restrictions (e.g., poverty and celibacy) thereby imposed.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 405

6/6/2007 9:15:08 PM

406

377

the events of 1533

“6) If, however, anyone, whatever the title or dignity by which he is distinguished, uses the Word of God after his own discretion and does not exhibit the deference owed to the ruler, but instead obstinately strives to obstruct others, he will be restrained by the ruler with lawful penalties. No one will take such a person under his protection and he will instead be handed over to his judge and the appropriate punishment. “7) The people of Münster will also pay to the prince, the main clergy and anyone, whether religious or secular, their taxes, payments, revenues and income as has been the practice since ancient days, with the exception of the sums that were once contributed through the burghers’ munificence for the use of sodalities, calends,20 memorial masses and similar things in the aforementioned parish churches. For all these sums will, along with the revenues of the parish priests, be diverted for the maintenance of the churches and for the support of the ministers and poor, with the proviso that the parish priests who in the old days acquired the administration of the parishes should not be deprived of these payments as long as they live unless the council looks after their support with their willing agreement. “8) The council will not interfere with ecclesiastical benefices that are not in its gift but in that of other people, both those who live in the city and those who live in the diocese. In this way, the council will not be seen as violating in any way the rights of someone else through its presumption. “9) It is also provided that the people of Münster will be allowed, without injury to the prince, clergy or anyone else, to remove the preachers of the six aforementioned parishes and to substitute others whenever this is necessary. “10) In addition, the prince will allow all the legal disputes | undertaken and prosecuted in courts in various places on account of the faith and religion to lapse, and in future he will begin no suit against anyone on account of the faith. Whatever else in the way of exaction has been imposed on the religious or the laity in connection with religion will be void and invalid. “11) The prince will also forget all ill will, animosity and bitter rancor which have perchance been conceived against the city and its supporters and defenders on account of religion, take no thought for

20 I.e., payments made to canons on the first of the month, so called from the Latin term (“calendae” or “the first day of the month”).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 406

6/6/2007 9:15:08 PM

the events of 1533

407

vengeance, re-open the public roads, allow anyone the free right to come and go, cancel the sequestration, and restore seized property belonging to burghers. If any of this property has been ruined by the prince, he will make good the loss at his own expense. “12) Similarly, those who spoke in defense of the prince will fear no harm from the townsmen. If a dispute (as always with the exception of one concerning the faith and religion) will arise among them, whatever the estate or rank to which they belong, it will be decided by the lawful, regular form of justice in accordance with the customary procedure in the diocese of Münster. Every member of the government will take severe steps to ensure that no one is allowed to avoid his tribunal through contumacious boldness. “13) The patricians, burgher masters, councilmen and burghers who left the city will enjoy safety in returning to their possessions, wives and children, so that being granted the right to come and go, they should use the public roads of the city without fear. If the city of Münster or anyone else thinks that he has some case against them collectively or singly, he will prosecute it by law and not with violence. “14) Next, all the captives hitherto detained will be restored to their full previous liberty once they have given sufficient, customary and traditional surety. The possessions taken from them during the time of captivity and handed over to the council will also be restored. As for the goods that the council did not receive, it will by no means be compelled to restore them. Also, the city will release John of Büren, Herman of Mengersen | and John Merkel the chancellor from the expenses incurred by them in their guest quarters during the time of their captivity. The other members of the diocese will bear their own expenses. “15) Furthermore, whereas the people of Münster complain that they have various cases, disputes and lawsuits against the chapter and clergy, both sides decided that men chosen by the chapter (the most reverend bishop, the high-born nobleman Count Arnold of Bentheim and Steinfurt, Arnold of Raese, John of Graes burgher master of Coesfeld, and Nicholas Dickenheim the councilman of Dülmen) and others chosen by the city of Münster ( John of Recke the lord of Drensteinfurt, Francis of Wendt, Joachim Kruse a burgher of Warendorf, and John Selker a burger of Warendorf ) should in timely manner halt the disputes between the litigants and then resolve or settle them with all the good faith and carefulness they can muster. “16) Finally, both kinds of clergy will be allowed to return to the

378

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 407

6/6/2007 9:15:08 PM

408

379

the events of 1533

city in safety, and the townsmen will not take the right to come and go freely from any member of either clergy.” After these terms were drawn up and read out, both sides accepted them, rejecting all deceit, fraud and malfeasance. They confirmed the terms by shaking hands in place of giving an oath, and two copies were made, one to be handed over to the prince and the other to the council.21 Next, in order to ascribe to them greater good faith and authority, Prince Philip of Hesse as negotiator; the bishop of Münster; the chapter on behalf of itself and its successors; Count Arnold of Bentheim, Arnold of Raesfeld, Caspar Korf (also known as Smising), Francis of Wendt, Godfrey of Schedelich, Henry of Münster, John of Recke from Drensteinfurt, John of Büren | from Davensburg, Joachim Droste from Sendenhorst and John Droste from Fischering on behalf of the knighthood; the burgher masters and councils of Coesfeld and Warendorf on behalf of all the towns of the entire diocese ratified and certified the terms with their seals. Once this agreement was made, the captives were set at liberty on February 18, their horses, rings, chains and the other adornments in the council’s possession being returned to them as agreed. The bishop also made a gift of one horse and one hundred fl orins to each of the three peace negotiators as a favor to the landgrave. The peace cost the city the same price. This treaty did seem beneficial from a public point of view, but it would have kept the entire clergy in Münster weighed down under the yoke of perpetual slavery and gradually plunged the political community into the risk of various disasters if the Anabaptism which took its start from the freer evangelical way of life had not broken it, rendering it void.22 For Anabaptism restored the clergy to its previous liberty and titles of dignity once its actor king was done away with.23 It restored the Catholic faith. It gave the council back the authority it had lost. It

21 Neither original survives, but several printed editions of the text were issued at the time. 22 Note how K. blames Lutheranism for giving rise to Anabaptism and bringing about the situation that allowed the Anabaptist takeover of the city. 23 In this and the subsequent statements that seemingly praise Anabaptism for the restoration of the prince-bishop and Catholicism, K. is being ironic in crediting the Anabaptists with results from their actions that were hardly their intention. What he means is that the Anabaptists’ assumption of power from the Lutheran city council allowed the prince-bishop to renounce his agreement with the council and restore the old regime through force of arms.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 408

6/6/2007 9:15:08 PM

the events of 1533

409

reintroduced the rights of the tranquil past and fairer terms for peace. It ordained that vigilance was obligatory and proved that it was necessary to oppose the initial stages of misfortune. It taught the government to give commands and the subjects to obey. Finally, it cleansed our state of the filth derived from many opinions and down to the present day has deterred it from such opinions through the horrifying examples of its savagery. Happy, then, is this state, which has learned from so many great evils to take back as if from exile the worship of the one orthodox faith! Let us therefore thank God Almighty for having mercifully used Anabaptism to remove from the necks not only of ourselves but also of our posterity the calamity of perpetual slavery by smashing that destructive treaty! | Let us therefore maintain that plant of faith which St. Swibert was the first to sow in Münster, which the glorious Charlemagne protected with his arms against the axes of the pagans, which St. Ludger the founding bishop watered with his doctrine, and which God then always granted growth and caused to spread through so many bishops remarkable for their outstanding saintliness of life and their doctrine. Although it has now been greatly buffeted with a bitter wind, God has kept it fl ourishing down to the present day with a continuous succession of bishops, so that like a palm of victory, it has not collapsed in defeat under any weight. To resume, since it had, by the agreement, acquired the right to appoint the preachers in the parish churches, the council wished to entrench this right in a set of regulations with the heading “Brief extract from the municipal regulations concerning matters subject to the authority of the council of Münster.” This extract read as follows. “Since all the principles for living in the fear of the Lord derive from the Word of God and the Word of God is proclaimed to the people through pious preachers, it is necessary for the purpose of saving the state to appoint faithful and pious preachers, who are suitable, as St. Paul puts it,24 to teach others too and to administer the sermon of the Truth. It is also necessary to choose as many of them as are sufficient given the size of the state. Therefore, two will be put in charge of each parish and they will be ordained in the following manner. “First, each parish will designate two men notable for piety and learning whom they judge to be suitable for the office of preaching. Next, out of all the parishioners four will be chosen to present these

24

380

385

1 Timothy 2:2.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 409

6/6/2007 9:15:09 PM

410

386

the events of 1533

designated preachers to the examiners appointed by the council, aldermen and guild masters. Then, with an invocation of God’s will the examiners will carefully test the designated preachers presented to them in accordance with Scripture, and if the preachers are suitable for the ministry of the Word, the examiners will take them back to the people | who chose them. There, in the sight of all the parishioners the examiners will remind them of their duty and faithfully entrust to them Christ’s little sheep. They will also remind the members of the congregation of the benign goodwill which they should feel for the preachers. Finally, they will confirm this avocation of the preachers by publicly invoking God to deign to look favorably upon the ministry which the preachers have undertaken for the greater glory of God and for the common salvation of everyone. “Ordained in this way, the preachers will, in connection with administering the Word and the sacraments as well as their other ecclesiastical functions, establish definite procedures and ceremonies in conformity with Holy Scripture and with the consent and by the authority of the council, aldermen and guild masters, and once they have established these, maintain them without violation. “Also, since it is greatly in the public interest that the youth should be well educated and that they grow up to assume control of society after receiving training which increases their virtues daily, the council will put in charge of the public school an upright, pious and learned man who will, in conjunction with the examiners and by the council’s authorization, establish what policies and procedures are considered necessary and useful for the students’ training. “In addition, two men employed at public expense by the council will read and interpret the Holy Scriptures in both the Old and New Testaments, and a suitable location will be assigned for this. In each parish a treasury will be established and deacons will be chosen. These deacons are to spend on the truly poor the donations made at sermon time every Sunday and the other payments dedicated to pious uses by virtue of the agreement made by the prince and the council.25 “The council, the aldermen and the guild masters will each appoint two intelligent men who will take charge of public beggars throughout the city and make careful inquiry into their homeland, their parents and rearing, the innocence of their lives, their bodily infirmities, and

25

See Article 7 of the agreement (376D).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 410

6/6/2007 9:15:09 PM

the events of 1533

411

the pursuits in which they are engaged, so that those who are worthy of alms should be distinguished with specific marks in order to be supported, while the unworthy and unknown are to be sent back home. For alms are often squandered on shameless beggars. “In addition to these men, the council, aldermen and guild masters will appoint six grave men noted for their remarkable virtue as censors, who will, in a suitable location every Saturday, examine and settle disputes which arise among various married couples. If such disputes are not laid to rest in good time, the state generally incurs a very great detriment from them. “How each person will conduct himself in his functions will be learned from the proper volume of laws. A few notes are made here, however, so that we should be seen as having made a beginning of the measures which serve to shape a Christian community. “There is no doubt that even when the administrators of the Word who will attract the people to sharing in the Christian way of living through God’s doctrine are confirmed in their functions, there will be many obstinate, rash people who, since they will not obey the Word of God, have the greatest difficulty in embracing the pure Christian way of life. Such people are therefore to be compelled to uphold the Christian way of life through just laws and the application of the sword. Hence, there will be established against blasphemers and manifest criminals punishments by law which will be imposed upon them by the council to terrify the rash and to protect the good. “To begin with, all people who are manifestly impious and blasphemers against God will be stricken with a Christian anathema. Those who, in their evil, remain under anathema and do not come to their senses after a second or third warning will be excommunicated through ministers of the Word and will be segregated from the public assembly of Christians, so that those who wish to be Christians will have no intimacy or social intercourse with them. If, however, this has no effect and instead they—God forbid!—persist more obstinately in their evil and offend the community with their base example in living, they will be warned a few times by the council. If these warnings bear no fruit, they will pay a suitable penalty in relation to their deed. It is not worthwhile to ordain new laws and penalties for crimes punished by the secular legal system like brigandry, stealing, treason and the such like, but it is necessary to establish laws and penalties for the crimes which hitherto longstanding custom has unfortunately caused to be viewed as trivial and left unpunished, such as false and rash oaths, curses, dire

387

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 411

6/6/2007 9:15:09 PM

412 388

389

the events of 1533

imprecations, blasphemies against | God, the profaning of holy days with pointless and unnecessary work, impudently neglecting to hear the Word of God, disturbing holy sermons with fl utes and drums and other commotion, the ingratitude of children who bring disgrace upon their parents, adultery, fornication, incest, pandering, drunkenness, the pointless and extravagant squandering of money on high living and gambling, the bearing of false witness, the reviling and besmirching of other people’s reputations, and usury. We judge it to be not only useful but also necessary for the preservation of the community that these crimes should be suppressed through lawful penalties. We will enter into the full written code of laws the other measures pertaining to this purpose, and once they are confirmed by Holy Scripture and approved by the council, aldermen, guild masters and the entire community of Münster, we will have them printed up and offer them to the entire world for judgment by everyone. For the successful completion of this project we have invoked the assistance of God Almighty.” Having acquired more license in the peace agreement than they had ever hoped for and being confident that it would last forever, the commons and preachers grew more than usually insolent. They shouted out here and there that the pope and his shaven crew had been routed in war, that the papist tyranny had collapsed and evangelical liberty had been rescued from the burdensome yoke of slavery by Rothman and restored to its pristine state, being confirmed by the terms of the agreement for concord, and that the darkness of errors had been lit up by the true light. Thinking that everything had turned out in accordance with their prayers, they entertained each other with feasts, parties and bouts of drinking, though never without the presence of Rothman, the man responsible for their license, whom they wished to attend all their entertainments as some propitious divinity. They looked up to him, they admired him, they revered him, they gave him the new title of “superintendent,”26 they honored him with the chief place at the table, they hung from his every word, they kept silent while he talked, and they considered it sinful to speak when he fell silent. Consequently, he gradually acquired a reputation for erudition and wisdom among the ignorant mob. Hence, he became so smug and so swollen with conceit that he despised all learned men in comparison with himself. In the end, he also set such store by the favor of the commoners that he now

26

Not attested in any documentary source.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 412

6/6/2007 9:15:09 PM

the events of 1533

413

dared to imagine that he had a permanent home in the city. Eventually thinking that the only thing he lacked in living an elegant life was a companion for the marriage bed, on February 19 he took as his wife the widow of John Viger, | in whom he is said to have instilled the evangelical spirit and amour while her husband was still alive. This John Viger was the syndic of the city, a man of wondrous eloquence. For rest and relaxation, he went on foot with his wife and the men whom she would bring (she was quite a wanton woman) to a suburban estate which was very pleasant with pools, fragrant foliage and fruitful trees, and was in better spirits than usual. After he had a sudden attack of apoplexy there as a result of jealousy (so the rumor had it), he lost the use of virtually all his limbs and returned to the city in a litter. After being revived with effective drugs, his limbs at first cast off their numbness and regained something of their previous strength, and on the advice of certain physicians he visited the baths at Emden with his spouse. His wife, however, tended to herself more than her husband, and after leaving him by himself for this reason, she later found him drowned in the waters of the baths.27 | A few days after returning, she gave up her grief and married Rothman. The evangelicals eagerly rushed to attend this wedding, eagerly gave gifts, and eagerly drank toasts, praising the marriage of the clergy and at the same time giving the distant pope verbal lashings in an awful manner. (The evangelicals put on no banquet, no drinking party in which the pope was not fl ogged.) Rothman now had what he had been hunting for for so long. He had the favor of the commoners, he had authority among his people, he had control over the six parishes and their preachers, he had the clergy and council in fear, he had a reputation for erudition and wisdom, he had the means to live an elegant and luxurious life. What more did he need? He also had a wife, which is a great aid and assistance for a happy evangelical life. Now he promoted his business keenly, indeed vigorously rather than appropriately. In almost all his sermons, he prayed for the success of the Gospel and for the safety and salvation of the landgrave, by whose assistance concord had been restored among the burghers and the Word of God preserved from destruction. When the commoners insisted that the council should give the landgrave some thanks for the restoration of peace, on February 12

390

391

27 Various hostile sources also accuse her of poisoning, some adding that Rothman was an accomplice. There is no substantiation for these prejudiced claims.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 413

6/6/2007 9:15:09 PM

414

392

the events of 1533

it sent him as a gift in the name of the city two fairly large gilded silver jars that were embossed with great artistry and filled with some fl orins, and two very black horses that were remarkable for their lineage and adorned with trappings.28 (These gifts were brought by two attendants, who each received six fl orins and a cloak as a reward.) Meanwhile, the commons, who are in fact a beast of many heads, as the saying truly goes, dared do nothing against the clergy through respect for the prohibition in the agreement, and to avoid doing nothing they began to disagree with their government, being convinced of their hallucination that the government favored the clergy rather than the burghers. Accordingly, they grumbled through the city that this papist council had to be removed and replaced with an evangelical one. Eventually, they managed to get the assembly for electing the council held prior to the traditional date.29 Thus, | on the Monday after the feast of St. Matthew, which was March 3, the men of great infl uence and authority were removed and Henry Mollenhecke the locksmith, John tom Brincke the tawer, Lucas Gruter the hat seller, Hubert Ruescher the ironsmith, Bernard Knipperdolling, Henry Swedarth, Nicholas Stripe the dress cutter, Bernard Glandorp the tailor, Ludger tom Ringe the painter, and Gerard Pruessen the tanner were chosen in the council chamber to elect the heads of the community, the following men being selected: Caspar Schrodercken, John Langermann, Herman Tilbeck the patrician, Caspar Judefeld, Peter Friese, Peter Mensing, John of Deventer the master of the tailors’ guild, Anthony Guldenarm, Gerard Kibbenbrock the merchant, Roger Hulshorst the peddler, John Windemoller the peddler, John Gruter (also known as Flascamp) the butter seller, Lubbert Lenting the fish seller, Michael Nording the furrier, Goswin Averhagen, Gerard Tuneken the butter seller, John Palck the blacksmith, Henry Fridagh, Henry Jonas the son of Anthony, John Ossenbeck the tanner, John Bastert, Christian Wordeman the foreign butter seller who had, within the last year, come from Wildeshausen to live here, Eberhard Glandorp the tailor, and Henry Roede the goldsmith. The next day Herman Tilbeck and Caspar Judefeld were elected in the customary way from among the councilors to serve as burgher masters. In this election to choose the new council, all the 28 The preserved letter that was sent with the horses is dated March 10. The council also showed its gratitude to Duke Ernest of Lüneburg with the gift of a horse. 29 In fact, the election fell on the date normal at this time, namely the first Monday in Lent.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 414

6/6/2007 9:15:09 PM

the events of 1533

415

members from the previous year were removed apart from Tilbeck, Judefeld, Schrodercken and Langermann. The aldermen were Henry Moderson and Henry Redeker. The nature of this council was demonstrated well enough by the untimely indulgence it showed to many crimes, a policy that was too late succeeded by repentance. | A few years previously, the community of Münster had been governed by intelligent men like the patricians John of Tinnen, Eberwin Stevening, Eberwin Droste, Henry Drolshagen, Berthold Travelman, Albert Clevorn and the commoners John Boland, Derek Münstermann, Wilbrand Plonies, Herman Heerde, John Herding, and Master Derek Grolle, and many other men who were venerable for their great seniority and many years’ experience. In their time, the city enjoyed tranquility. If only they had retained control of the city and not been succeeded by haters of the clergy! With the connivance of the latter, the commons persecuted and scorned first the clergy and then their own government. Under these rulers, the commons, who were devoted to their old faction, began to get their breath back and were confident that they would now achieve what they had long turned over in their minds and hankered after. Hardly a day passed in which the criminals did not commit some act worthy of what they had done. First, on March 17, men were appointed by votes as preachers in the parish churches by virtue of Rothman’s authority. These preachers were lascivious, lecherous, immoderate, and insignificant men and vow-breaking spreaders of error who had contumaciously cast off the yoke of their government,30 who were surpassing in daring and long-windedness rather than in erudition and eloquence, who considered the most heinous crimes as nothing so long as they had been expiated by faith alone, who turned evangelical liberty into wantonness and impunity, who in short thought that nothing which deviated from the wantonness of their doctrine was good or pious. The Christian and evangelical brothers and sisters who were attached to their doctrine but who entered the Lords’ Church for religious purposes they would call obstinate, impious papists, and censure them on various occasions with assorted slanders, in violation of the peace terms. In the beginning, however, they attracted many people to their side with a certain remarkable veneer of saintliness

30

393

I.e., the clerical rule they had sworn to adhere to as priests or monks.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 415

6/6/2007 9:15:09 PM

416

394

the events of 1533

and piety, and gradually plunged those whom they had attracted into horrifying, inescapable errors. Considering the lesser cities’ old-time loyalty to themselves suspect, the people of Münster summoned them to a meeting on March 20, | which was the Thursday after the Sunday “Oculi”31 to renew the treaty, assigning as the place for the meeting a certain inn between Münster and Coesfeld that is called “Zur Wort”32 (the explanation of this name is unclear). The representatives of Münster brought with them various sorts of meat and wine rather than fish. For they considered it sinful to follow the example of the ancestral Church in distinguishing food by days, since they considered the practice of refraining from eating meat on specific days to be a judgment made not by evangelical freedom but by a superstitious spirit which lacked confidence in itself.33 Egged on by the spurs of their instructor, they preferred wandering over the field of wantonness to being kept within the confines of self-restraint through the bridles of the orthodox Fathers. After they had gathered at the inn, John of Wieck, the doctor in law and syndic, who was performing this mission along with Herman Tilbeck the burgher master and other members of the council, had greeted the delegates from the other towns in the name of the community of Münster and thanked them for giving the representatives of Münster an opportunity to speak with them. After a prayer that everything should be tranquil for the benefit of their communities, he began his speech as follows. “The course of life at the present moment is enveloped in dangers whose outcome is uncertain, with human deceits and fraudulent machinations fl ourishing and the ill will of certain people on the boil. The result of this is that under the guise of friendship, favor and benevolence, these people wish all the cities of this diocese to be overturned, once their ancient liberties, immunities and customs are done away with and their intended purpose hobbled. These evils were blocked by our ancestors with a joint treaty ratified by the cities, and if this treaty had been upheld with as much religious punctiliousness by the other cities adhering to it as it was by the city of Münster, the path

31 Named after the first words of the introit of the mass for the third Sunday of Lent. 32 “At the courtyard.” 33 A Catholic interpretation. Clearly a Lutheran would have said that those who followed such practices lacked faith not in themselves but in God’s freely given grace, which could not be “purchased” with good works.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 416

6/6/2007 9:15:10 PM

the events of 1533

417

would have been obstructed for the many distressing, detrimental acts of oppression by which the rights of the towns have been shattered. Noting that this treaty had been violated, | the city of Münster could not fail to enter into serious discussions with the towns about the blame for the violation of the treaty and other matters related to this. The delegates from the cities know that the city of Münster has endured various hardships and affl ictions this year for the sake of the faith and religion. Although the council, aldermen and guild masters, and in short the entire community, begged the people in the allied towns for advice, help and assistance in these dire straits, they could not prevail upon them to grant any protection or succour. In the end, they had to take refuge in the assistance of electors, princes, counts and cities, and by their peacemaking intervention, and especially by the authority and urging of the prince of Hesse, to whom the princes, counts, nobles and cities of the Christian Schmalkaldic League earnestly entrusted the task of facilitating the peace negotiations, the whole dispute was brought to a halt, and as the public records attest, by the grace of God it was also successfully calmed by the representatives of Coesfeld and Warendorf on behalf of the other towns. It is a bad situation, that in so pious, Christian and just a cause, the burgher masters, the council and the entire community were bereft of all the human advice, aid and assistance which they had invoked. And it cannot be cited as an excuse that in the treaty by which the cities are bound to one another exceptions are made for the pope, the Church, the Roman king and our prince, or that the bailiffs and stewards of the prince had forbidden the maintenance of the treaty, as if the people of Münster should have been abandoned even though the case had not been given a hearing from both points of view and examined in court or as if the towns should have been deterred in this way from scrupulously upholding the treaty. For exceptions of this kind are not permissible in a case involving the faith and religion, since this matter is by its nature subject to the determination of a general council. Thus, even in a case involving the faith and religion, the other towns should have defended the people of Münster, who lacked assistance, against violence and injury. No little harm had resulted for the people of Münster from the fact that the towns allowed themselves to be detached from the city, | which had not yet reached such a degree of happiness that it did not in the meanwhile require help, defense and protection. Certainly, the council and city had often been readily moved by punctilious adherence to the treaty to seek the advantage and benefit of the towns, and had

395

396

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 417

6/6/2007 9:15:10 PM

418

397

the events of 1533

always argued with singular industry that all their liberties, privileges, rights and immunities, and all the things pertaining to them should not only be preserved but also increased with salutary additions. Since the good faith of the treaty has been violated by the towns, however, the sense of the agreement would urge that the people of Münster were rightly freed from the bonds of obligation which resulted from their good deeds. For the sad losses should be shared in common by the allies, just as the joyful benefits are. Since it is traditional practice that treaties and peace agreements should be periodically renewed and that they can be modified at the discretion of the signatories in light of present circumstances, it is considered useful for both sides that the content and arrangement of the terms should be agreed to and drawn up in accordance with the immediate situation. Accordingly, the towns have been called here so that they might discuss the provisions which are seen to be necessary for this purpose, and if the good faith of the treaty holds firm, these provisions should either be changed or expressed in narrower or more explicit terms in light of present circumstances. The council and the entire community of Münster will turn a blind eye to the recent violation, but in order that no similar dereliction should be committed in future, they will commit themselves to a new treaty by which they will not deny assistance to the towns if necessary. The result will be that the city of Münster and the other towns will, if the treaty is not broken, be considered as a single estate of the diocese. The delegates should consider which of these courses of action they will take, and soon give a reply in Münster.” To this the delegates replied that they did not need any long deliberation, since they had long since had a considered response. First, they replied that they had not broken the provisions of the treaty entered into long ago by the cities. It was through the fault of the people of Münster that it had been broken, when they had, without consultation, introduced many innovations against the pope, against the Church, against the Emperor’s edict, and against the homeland’s prince, all of these being exceptions in the text of the sealed treaty. The towns had therefore been given much greater cause to complain about the violation of the treaty by the people of Münster, just as had been stated in the reply of October 30 in the preceding year. Next, | they would neither modify nor expand in any regard the original treaty at the expense of the prince and the other estates of the diocese without their consent and agreement. The representatives of Münster took it badly that in their reply the

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 418

6/6/2007 9:15:10 PM

the events of 1533

419

towns dared to disagree with the opinion of their metropolis, but in order that the meeting could be ended without contention, they cajoled the towns’ delegates to take time to consider the matter more deeply among themselves and to give a more prudent reply. Then, after a long interruption and suspension of legal business, on March 21 the clerk of the bishop’s court, who customarily acted in place of the judge in his absence, again opened his tribunal to litigants, and with the intention of giving everyone his just deserts he took up again the cases which had for some time been halted by the political disturbances. At this time, the people of Warendorf also began to disagree manifestly in the business of religion.34 On the Sunday “Laetare,”35 which was March 23, Eberhard Steinman36 and Herman Regeward37 made almost diametrically opposite statements in their sermons, and as a result a great strife arose among the burghers. In public, Steinman, who was a chaplain in the Old Church, taught the old doctrines, while Regeward, the pastor of the New Church, taught the new ones. Steinman said that bread consecrated by a ritually ordained priest was and remained the true body and blood of Christ, even if it was kept enclosed in stone patins for thirty or one hundred years, | that this offering was made at the altar everyday by the priests on behalf of the Church, and that in addition a person needed auricular confession for the business of salvation,38 which he would demonstrate in his next sermon. Regeward, on the other hand, had been taught by Rothman, with whom he had intimacy, being his companion in sport, as many letters exchanged between them indicate.39 His doctrine about the Lord’s Supper was as follows. Christians about to celebrate the Lord’s Supper should do so according to Christ’s ordinance and Paul’s instruction. For those who observed the Lord’s Supper in this way it would become the body and blood of Christ for the remission of their sins. If, on the other hand,

398

The source of K.’s detailed account of the events in Warendorf is not known. The first word of the introit to the mass for the fourth Sunday in Lent. 36 His own signature shows that the name was Steymann. 37 On February 17, 1534, Regeward moved to Münster, and in the fall of that year he was one of the eight Anabaptist apostles dispatched to Coesfeld and eventually executed (see 700–706D). 38 Auricular confession is not attested in the New Testament and was rejected by the more radical reformers as an unnecessary medieval accretion, though Luther himself was more favorably disposed toward the practice. 39 No such letters are extant. 34 35

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 419

6/6/2007 9:15:10 PM

420

399

the events of 1533

they did not observe this practice, it remained bread just as it had been. “It is intolerable,” he said, “that it should be worshipped when enclosed in stone or gold patins, since only God is to be worshipped. Also, since Christ made an offering of Himself on the altar of the cross to God the Father for the sins of those who believe in Him, no other sacrifice will ever be of use in the eyes of God the Father.” When these statements were reported to the council, it summoned both preachers to come before it on April 8 in order to demand an explanation of their sermons. The councilmen feared that concord would come to an end if they allowed a confl ict of doctrine within their walls, and they therefore asked each of them in person for a written confession of his faith. Steinmann replied that his faith was no different from his sermons, | and that if necessary he would defend the assertions which he had made publicly in his sermons before any learned men. When the council asked for a written version of his statement, he promised that he would hand it in on April 10, and he kept his word on that day.40 Regeward similarly promised to defend his doctrine and immediately presented to the council a written version of his confession. The council examined the writings of each quite carefully, but since it was favorably inclined toward Regeward, the councilmen pretended that Steinmann’s confession was obscure and that they could not understand it. Accordingly, on April 15 he was called back to the council to explain it. He refused to do so, and for this reason eight men were sent by the council to extract from him an explanation and a list of the passages from Scripture with which he supported his position. This too he refused to do, stating that he was not subject to the control of the council of Warendorf and would plead his case before learned men and his government and not before illiterates or those who were attached to his adversary’s doctrine. Being unable to get a firm answer from Steinmann, the council sent a delegation to the preachers of Münster and other cities for consultation. When the preachers gave the response that Regeward had preached well, the burghers eagerly embraced his doctrine and eagerly sang hymns in German in the churches. Steinmann was therefore ordered to keep his silence. In reliance on the judgment of the preachers, on the other hand, and under the protection of the council and commons’ favor, Regeward indulged in greater outspoken-

40 The text confessio de sacramento corporis Christi (“Confession of the Sacrament of the Body of Christ”) which he sent to the bishop is dated May 5.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 420

6/6/2007 9:15:10 PM

the events of 1533

421

ness than hitherto and now taught nothing which was at variance with the doctrine of his instructor Rothman. Erpo of Holland,41 who was not just a burgher but a councilor of Warendorf, was impelled more than the others by Regeward’s preaching and by his own authority, which he considered great, and he rushed into the shrine which was dedicated to St. Anne outside town and stripped it bare of its decorations, | bells, wax, linen, and other dedications and offerings. The prince thought that such a priest, who tainted the burghers with the doctrine of the Sacramentarians, was not to be tolerated there, and so by writing he warned Lord Herman Dungel, the archdeacon of Warendorf, that he should restrain the propagator of such, since this was his duty, or remove him if he persists in that doctrine. The prince added that he would not fail to help the archdeacon. In this endeavor, the archdeacon struggled greatly, though not particularly successfully, since Regeward impelled not only the mob but also virtually the entire council to share his views. In the end, after having plunged the whole community into danger, or rather into inevitable disaster, he abandoned this weaker refuge and withdrew to Münster. Meanwhile, the evangelicals in Münster, forgetting the concord which they had agreed to, returned to their natural disposition and ceased to refrain from constant innovation. On March 24, Herman Tilbeck the burgher master, John Kerckering the patrician, Michael Nording, and Magnus Striker along with certain other people belonging to this faction demanded support for their preachers from the abbess of the Convent Across-the-River. After eight days’ deliberation, she replied that as a favor to the members of the parish she would allow them to partake in the common (and frugal) meal of the lords on the feast of Pentecost, so that provision could in the meanwhile be made for them from some other source. On March 27, the priest of St. Ludger’s also broke open the depository for the Eucharist, and in the sight of many people he broke the Eucharist into three pieces which he scattered with his breath, saying, “Here is your God.” With these words he offended the sensibilities of the simple people to an incredible degree and made them doubtful in the business of religion. On the same day, Belholt, the secular judge of the city, was escorted by certain members of the council when he announced to

41

400

Later one of the leading Anabaptists in Warendorf.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 421

6/6/2007 9:15:10 PM

422

401

402

the events of 1533

the Franciscans the council’s decree that they should either voluntarily change their attire and leave the monastery without disgrace or await a more drastic decision at their own risk. The council would not, they said, tolerate within their walls lazy, able-bodied beggars | who were of absolutely no use to the community. In the beginnings of the newlyborn Church, the monasteries had not been eateries for lazy Epicureans or prison barracks for consciences but workshops for honest labor and the most liberal schools of piety and learning which did without the compulsion of any vows, and from them as if from a well-stocked larder, learned men could be fetched to govern the Church whenever necessary. As far as possible, the council would also restore everything to appearance of the primitive Church by abolishing the blemishes of abuses, and it would build a public school in this place. After a short deliberation, the Franciscans were to give a reply as to which course they would take. After eight days, which was the length of time given for deliberation, the guardian42 of the monastery gave the following reply. To begin with, the Brothers had introduced customs for living which were not novel or unusual. They walked in the footsteps of their forefathers, they availed themselves of rights and a location which had been acquired without harming anyone else and had been handed down by continuous inheritance, they lived in the city and made use of the public roads without inconvenience to any burgher, they lessened no one’s wealth by begging, they asked strangers for support for their livelihood, and through their generosity they in no way lessened the burghers’ wherewithal. The council should therefore graciously tolerate what did it no harm and did not lessen the burghers’ liberty. It should without enmity allow the monks to live after their own fashion, to walk in their own attire, to wear their own cloak, to be covered by their own walls and roofs. Let the monks’ home be their sanctuary, let their innocence not be punished with exile. The monastery’s building was spacious and could hold both the monks and a large number of pupils, so let both use it in common. Having nothing else to give, the monks would bestow this gift on the community, though they knew that they owed more and greater gifts. The new school was thus erected at the council’s expense. Putting John Glandorp in charge, | they also gave it a new name and called it the evangelical school, while they called the old school of the main

42

John Fridagh.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 422

6/6/2007 9:15:11 PM

the events of 1533

423

clergy “papist.” Their new beliefs led the townsmen to be certain that the new school would soon surpass the old one in its enrollment of pupils, just as it also had the better name, but the number of instructors more or less equaled that of the students and collapsed within a few months, while that of the old school did not lessen at all.43 On the same day (March 27), Gerard Kibbenbrock and Bernard Knipperdolling along with a crew of their faction tore out all the ironwork from the Church of St. Lambert and its cemetery with the help of blacksmiths. It enclosed a very high walkway with a balustrade, so that guards keeping watch there to protect the city would be made safer and saved from the risk of a sudden fall. On the Sunday “Judica,”44 which was March 30, they celebrated the first Lord’s Supper laid out according to their own rite in the Church of St. Ludger. On April 3, Herman Tilbeck the burgher master, Ludger tom Brincke and Bernard Rothman the superintendent very complimentarily introduced two new preachers to the Church Acrossthe-River as a great throng of burghers accompanied them. There, Rothman gave the people a long-winded sermon about the success of the Gospel and the Lord’s Supper and in praise of the two revelers who had been introduced. On the same day, the prince wrote to the lesser cities as follows. He said that it had been reported to him that certain inhabitants of their towns were intruding into the churches, abolishing the ancient ceremonies and replacing them with new ones involving their novel and unheard-of hymns, leading the simple rabble astray, and fomenting sedition against their governments, both ecclesiastical and secular. The prince therefore earnestly advised the councils in the individual towns to keep vigilant watch to make sure that no such acts were committed within their city walls and to restrain violators with the barricade of specific penalties, so that these transgressors would be less quick to commit such crimes. After his installation, the prince said, he would correct any abuse which may have crept in over the course of time. He wrote the same thing to all the bailiffs and stewards of the entire diocese.

403

43 No documentary evidence survives as a check on the validity of K.’s dim appraisal of the new school’s success. 44 The fifth Sunday in Lent, with the introit beginning “Judica me, deus.”

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 423

6/6/2007 9:15:11 PM

424

404

the events of 1533

On April 5, the council sent word to the prior45 in the Bispinghof monastery through the councilmen Gerard Kibbenbrock and John Windemoller, forbidding him to hear anyone make auricular confession. On the same day, the faction members attacked the Church Acrossthe-River, tearing apart the painted altar screens, smashing the statues, and removing or ruining the other images of the saints by scraping the walls. On Palm Sunday, which was April 6, they solemnly performed the Lord’s Supper after their own fashion at the same time in three parish churches (St. Giles’, St. Martin’s and the Church Across-theRiver). They seemed to be celebrating Easter under the impulse of a certain wanton desire to deviate contumaciously from Catholic practice. Rothman directed this affair in person at the Church Across-the-River. Perhaps he did this because this church had a very large number of parishioners or to applaud the two burgher masters, both of whom lived in that parish and were, as he had learned, enthusiastic with the evangelical spirit, or to assist and instruct the preachers, who were still ignorant of the new rites, in the doctrine. A large number of nuns attended this supper, hoping that a marriage feast would follow. For they were already thinking of changing their habit and considering a freer mode of living. In the church, they alternated with the congregation in singing psalms which had been translated by Luther, and in particular they screeched out through their noses the verse from Psalm 124 “The snare had been broken and we have been set free.”46 On April 7, they sacked the Church of St. Giles, casting down the statues and destroying the images. On April 8, the council forbade the Franciscans to hear auricular confession and the Brothers of the Fountain to sell at retail hosts, which they formed out of wheat fl our for use in the Eucharist. On April 9, when Knipperdolling was passing by the Cathedral accompanied by some of his filthy faction members, he said in a loud voice to a priest who was officiating at the mass, “Hey, starving priest, haven’t you eaten enough of your God yet?” These words turned the faces of everyone towards him. On April 14, Belholt rushed into the Church of St. Ludger with some accomplices and took away all the ironwork. The next day (April 15), they stripped the altars, ruined the painted altar screens, smashed the statues, and white-washed

45 Henry Mumpert. He would be prohibited from preaching later in the year, an event that led to confl ict between the city and the bishop (see 434D). 46 Verse 7.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 424

6/6/2007 9:15:11 PM

the events of 1533

425

the paintings on the walls, pillaging the adornments and profaning everything. Many people ran up to see this sight and shouted that it was an unworthy deed to cast down, ruin and plunder in this way the gifts which their ancestors had made for the purpose of worshipping God. The crowd bellowed that they were sacrilegious thieves bereft of all shame and piety. The result of this was a great altercation and a huge riot. If peacemakers had not intervened to settle the uproar, both sides would certainly have resorted to arms, with loss of life certain. The next day, Belholt and his people reported the affair to the council with much complaint. They objected that an intolerable insult had been infl icted on them by certain burghers, and that they had been unjustly branded with an indelible stigma of disgrace. They said that they would never look upon this defamation with lenience, and instead demanded the appropriate punishment, since it was impossible to characterize as sacrilegious thieves those who had, at God’s command, striven to uproot idolatry and to liberate the worship of God alone from every kind of injury. The accused were driven to recant everything by fear of the prison cells which they knew had been made ready for them. They declared that they had been immoderately carried away with a sudden anger which they had been unable to contain, and therefore requested that they should be mercifully forgiven. With this stratagem, the violators of the churches escaped the punishment which they well deserved.47 In a few regards the council acted in accordance with its duty, but for the most part it turned a blind eye, and for this reason, the factious were emboldened to commit whatever acts they pleased. For they thought that according to the peace agreement they were allowed to do anything in the parish churches so long as they left the cathedral alone.48 An article in the agreement worked out by the landgrave’s councilors provided that the revenues contributed in the past by the generosity of the burghers for the purposes of memorial masses, calends and sodalities were to be assigned to the ministers in the churches and to the poor, and from this the council took the opportunity to demand from all the colleges to which the parishes were attached their adornments and sealed records of income. The council gave as its excuse the claim

405

47 A curious interpretation. Clearly, the council was already on the side of the image breakers. 48 As Articles 1 and 2 of the agreement do in fact indicate.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 425

6/6/2007 9:15:11 PM

426

406

407

the events of 1533

that since these things had been contributed by the burghers, they should not be fruitlessly frittered away and squandered by the clergy, and for this reason the council wished to find out from the documents the foundations for memorial masses, calends and sodalities to prevent the terms of the agreement from being in any way undermined through the council’s carelessness. At the same time, the council took possession of the home of the dean of St. Ludger’s as the residence of the parish priest. The prince wrote to the council that it should refrain from these acts until the next diocesan assembly. The council replied | that they were doing nothing contrary to the provisions of the agreement. The prince contended that such actions were the prerogative not of the council but of himself as ordinary bishop. After this, a new dispute arose between both sides over this affair, and many letters were exchanged about it. In the end, the prince showed himself to be rather relaxed in these matters. On April 29, however, he ordered the colleges by letter not to hand over the decorations of their churches or the sealed records of income to anyone. With the council making frequent demands for these things, the colleges cleverly put the council off with various strategies and assorted excuses, until the things were carried out of the city and the force of other business caused the council to grow tired of demanding them. Since it was thought that everything was ready for the bishop to assume the full administration of the diocese and to bind to him by oath the people of Münster, those innovators in many areas, discussions began about his installation as bishop. After the arrangement of all relevant matters, | on the Sunday “Jubilate,”49 which was May 4, he left Wolbeck, where he had arrived the day before, and with an escort of fully equipped cavalry he headed for Münster. At around 10 o’clock, the main clergy led out a procession of more than one hundred very gallant horses and went to meet him in greeting. Having prayed on behalf of the chapter that the bishop’s arrival would be felicitous, the schoolmaster returned to the city with his people. After forming a certain number of cavalry squads out of burghers, the council left the city at around 12 o’clock to meet the prince and bestow on him official safe conduct in the city. In a very broad plain called Geiste about two-and-a-half miles from the city, the council awaited the prince in a

49

Third Sunday after Easter.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 426

6/6/2007 9:15:11 PM

the events of 1533

427

place where statues of saints are kept in a small shrine by the public road. After the solemn oath was received by him on a little hill there, the council returned to the city and the prince followed slowly with his people arranged in such a way that he was in the middle surrounded by his brothers and by the counts and lords of the diocese. Meanwhile, the burghers first assembled wearing arms in various cemeteries (most of the guild members filled the yard of the Franciscans under their military standards). Next, they all gathered in the Lords’ Field, where they formed a battle array just as if they were about to sally forth for battle. This array was increased in number by a few burghers of the smaller towns who had been invited by the council of Münster. Then, when they learned from the return of the council that the prince was near the city, they rushed out into the marketplace in particular and into the individual lanes, which they also blocked by dragging iron chains across them to obstruct any suddenly charging horses if necessary. The majority of the armed burghers occupied both sides of the Royal Lane (such is the name of the lane by which the prince comes up to the walls) | with a thick formation as far as the Lords’ Field. Mindful of their duty, the clergy of the entire city also streamed to the Lords’ Church wearing their white stoles. Upon his first entry into the city, the prince, who was leading a great crowd of criminals by a long rope that he had cast forth in front of the Gate of St. Ludger, was received with much firing of guns. Arriving at the Church of St. Ludger, who was the founding bishop whom he was about to succeed, he shunned the slanderous insults of the evangelicals, who derided good works. He did not get down from his horse or bring to the city a prayer and gift on behalf of an auspicious beginning after being welcomed in the customary way by the canons of this college. Instead, he satisfied custom through his knightly attendants without screeching from the commoners. Without disturbing the order of the horsemen, he hastened to his court, and there he went underneath the archway whose strong structure of curving blocks supports the chapel of St. Michael the Archangel high up and leads to the Lords’ Field. Getting down from his horse, which the chief bailiff of the diocese ordered, in accordance with his right, to be taken back to Fischering, he mounted the stone steps up to the chapel. There, he made a supplication to God and presented a golden offering beside the altar, which was adorned with burning tapers, colored tapestries and silken cushions. He then entered his court, which was adjacent to the chapel, and took off his outer clothing, which the pastor of the chapel had the customary right

408

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 427

6/6/2007 9:15:11 PM

428

409

the events of 1533

to claim unless it was bought back. Over his garment, which reached his ankles, he put on a white stole and the sacred cope, whose ends are joined across the breast with a golden pin. He then descended down these same steps, preceded by a few pairs of noblemen and followed by four chaplains who were chosen from among the main clergy and wore silk palls over their stoles. In the meanwhile, the clergy left the Lords’ Church in a long procession through the door to the Paradise,50 two gilded crosses and two burning torches leading the way, and as the bishop came down the steps with his escort, the clergy received him. | They then returned to the church through the same door, with many people thronging around (they were held back by the retainers with weapons and by the attendants with batons). While the clergy sang a few psalms in the cathedral yard, the prince threw himself on his knees and poured forth his prayers in supplication to God in front of the altar dedicated to St. Paul, which was decorated with burning tapers, gold, silver, silken cushions and the relics of saints. After the psalms were finished and the golden offering placed on the altar, the cantor thundered out a song in honor of St. Paul, and in the meanwhile the whole clergy entered the choir singing a psalm. Coming to the choir, the prince took off the cope and followed the clergy into the chapter’s conclave to administer the oath to them there. In the meanwhile, the lower clergy silently awaited his return in the choir. When the ceremony in the conclave was finished, the prince returned. Kneeling down at the foot of the High Altar with the dean and chaplains in attendance, for the third time he prayed to God for good fortune in administering the diocese, making an offering here too. Next, accompanied by these same men, he mounted up to the episcopal cathedra, which is magnificently cushioned, while they each took their seat in the choir according to their dignity. When the choirmaster gave him the signal with his baton, the organ player began to play in proclamation of divine praise, and in alternating verse he sang the praise of God. At the end, the bishop was received by the chaplains, his brothers, the nobles, the vassals, the holders of benefices, the retainers, the attendants and the great crowd of servants, and led out through the clock gate to have a sumptuous meal with them. The next day, which was May 5, he returned to the cathedral to hear mass, preceded by a long procession of members of his court and

50

For the “Paradise,” see 29D, 93D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 428

6/6/2007 9:15:12 PM

the events of 1533

429

followed by the chaplains. Meanwhile, the whole city council gathered in the Lords’ Field to swear allegiance. At the end of the mass, the prince emerged through the gates of the Paradise, and after receiving the solemn oath, he received the main clergy and the council with lunch. On Tuesday, which was May 6, after the day-after meal (second table) was finished, desserts of all kinds were laid out in a magnificent spread in the council hall. Along with his brothers, the leading men of the diocese, the members of the court and the nobles’ daughters and wives, the prince delighted himself with these treats and spent a good portion of the night dancing. Then he left Münster and wandered through the other towns of the diocese that had not sworn allegiance, first administering the oath in the western towns and then heading to the eastern cities. Meanwhile, the people of Warendorf, who had followed the example of their metropolis in making many changes in the ancestral religion and the ancient ceremonies, became apprehensive of their well-being, fearing that during this installation the prince would physically avenge this insolence of theirs in the same way that Bishop Herman of Wiede had suppressed the rebellion of Paderborn the preceding year (1532). As the memory of this precedent was fresh in minds of many burghers, they deliberated about bringing in a number of armed cavalrymen and about the ways in which they could protect themselves against the use of violence by the prince if need be. They sent men to Münster to ask for guns, gunpowder and similar things. When these items were denied to them, they gave up all their fear along with any confidence in defending themselves. After further consideration, they decided that they had no cause to fear offensive action on the part of the prince, particularly since the people of Münster, whom they had copied like apes, had representatives in the prince’s retinue, and he would do nothing without consulting his retinue. Therefore, on the Sunday “Exaudi,”51 which was May 25, he entered Warendorf with a small cavalry escort and showed himself a peaceable and benign prince as if he had forgotten all rebellion and injury, though it seemed that he was postponing vengeance to a later date. After experiencing his goodwill, however, the people of Warendorf thought that he had either forgotten all the injuries or did not dare to attack them or the Gospel, especially since they enjoyed the favor of the metropolis on account of

51

410

The Sunday after Ascension.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 429

6/6/2007 9:15:12 PM

430

411

412

the events of 1533

the Gospel. With this impunity in mind, they attacked the churches on June 1, destroying the altars, smashing the statues with axes and throwing them into the Weser along the walls, removing the painted images from the walls with scraping or white-wash, breaking the altar screens, and pillaging the decorations, which they divided among themselves. The man principally responsible for this mad act of despoiling | was Bernard Weppelman the beadle. In order to applaud the seditious, this man had also pulled the sacred pallium off a pastor who was about to celebrate mass on Pentecost, and he often dared to revile the Catholics wantonly with bitter insults. The people of Ahlen and Beckum copied the madness of Warendorf, removing the chalices from the churches, breaking the repositories for the host and the lamps, stealing the bronze candelabra to decorate their own homes, and cutting apart and discarding the crucifixes. The prince took these violent acts of pillaging very badly, and on June 6 he warned these three towns by letter that they should refrain from all innovation in religion and ceremonies, return everything which had been stolen from the churches, and repair what had been broken or damaged. In due time, he said, he would punish those responsible for stirring up this commotion. A few weeks later, these people were unexpectedly captured outside the walls of these cities by the bailiff of Sassenburg by the bishop’s command and taken away to Vechta to pay the penalty for their rash behavior. When the priests in Münster realized that the number of their adherents was being thinned as a result of arrest and punishment, they did at first grieve greatly. This did not, however, cause them to be any less energetic in spreading their schismatic doctrine since they were confident about the city’s defenses and the protection of the council. Instead, they eagerly egged each other on in this endeavor, as if affl ictions and persecution made them more ardent in promoting the business of the Gospel after the fashion of the Apostles. For this reason, as the general report exaggerated everything, they acquired such a reputation for piety and erudition not only in the city among the factious but also among the populations of other areas, that many people were impelled by their love of the Gospel to stream to Münster from other places and hear these preachers. By no means the last place among these people was held by John Bockelson, a tailor from Leiden whom some wondrous fate would, in the following year, raise up to the lofty position of king in this city. After learning that there were excellent preachers in Münster, he secretly

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 430

6/6/2007 9:15:12 PM

the events of 1533

431

abandoned his homeland and wife at the direction of the evangelical spirit and arrived in the city around this time.52 Enjoying the hospitality of Herman Ramers until July 25,53 he first taught not only a public doctrine but also a private one which had been suggested to him by the preachers. Next, he set out for Osnabrück and there spewed out what he had learned. After he began to sow Anabaptism secretly among the burghers, he was expelled from the city. | Returning to Münster, in cooperation with John Matthisson, Gerard tom Cloister and certain others who screeched out the Anabaptist Spirit, he secretly discussed infant baptism, and arguments for attacking it were searched for and written up. This pondering so sharpened and obsessed the intellect of this man from Leiden that he even dared to defend his doctrine extemporaneously, and his hallucinations concerned nothing but Anabaptism. How and when he returned to Münster will be described in the appropriate place.54 Around this time, the people of Ahlen also began to act with wanton madness. On June 2, they entreated the prince to allow them to follow the example of the metropolis and have preachers who would teach the doctrine of the Gospel in a pure way for the glory of God and the salvation of their own souls. The prince gave the reply that they should restrain themselves from innovation in religion and ceremonies to avoid plunging themselves into inevitable misfortune. After completing his installation, binding all the towns of the diocese to him by oath and acquiring full lordship, the prince was forced under the circumstances to call an assembly to meet on June 4 in the location assigned by custom for deliberation. This place is named Laerbrock after some neighboring reeve called Laerkamp. The prince and the other estates of the diocese streamed to this place, and the representatives of Münster arrived with an escort of archers, whom they were accustomed to employ for a sudden raid if necessary. Through his spokesman, the prince laid before the estates for consultation matters that seemed to concern the general good of the diocese. To reduce the large number of men involved in the deliberation, the participants selected a few men to

413

414

See K.’s account of John’s arrival in Münster: 644–645D. For John’s lodging with Ramers, see also 644D. Ramers is attested in 1525 as one of the men dispatched by the city council to demand documents and looms from monasteries (see 131D). He would later fl ee the city and warn the bishop of a scheme to assassinate him (see 609–610D). 54 See 478D. 52 53

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 431

6/6/2007 9:15:12 PM

432

415

416

the events of 1533

proceed to the city of Münster in order to consider more deeply in the customary way the topics under discussion with the prince, the people of Münster and the representatives of the towns. Those selected were wise and important men of particularly noble standing, and to them was delegated full authority to make decisions and resolutions that would be of general benefit. Apart from the delegates of the towns, however, no one | was bold enough to entrust himself to the city walls, since they were deterred by the recent example of the men taken captive at Telgte in case everything did not turn out to the liking of the people of Münster. After a long consultation back and forth, they sat down under the open sky for a meal. After the force of the alcohol which had been brought had stirred up some of the burghers and sharpened their tongues, the discussion about the faith became so keen that the servant of some butcher was stabbed when the arguments became heated and died in the midst of everyone. Many others were seriously wounded and had to be carried back to the city. The separate guilds of the city also held banquets that day, and Ludolf Poeck, a member of the tawers’ guild, cut off the right thumb of Stoeldreier, the master of his guild, with a sword, and he stabbed the palm of a certain harness seller who lived on Salt Road. Next, the prince, who was awash in various worries and cares on behalf of his subjects, was informed that the people of Coesfeld were also plotting innovations, and on June 855 he wrote to them as follows. He said that he had learned through general report that they had rejected the usual ceremonies and instituted unusual ones, and had summoned certain preachers without the authority of their lawful government. From this nothing was to be expected but seditious schism, disobedience, disaffection and the disturbance of Christian concord, not only in violation of his Majesty’s edict and the Empire’s decision but also in violation of his, the prince’s, own sworn word of honor. They should, therefore, drive out those preachers and bring the Catholic rites back into use in the churches. If any abuses had crept in, he would modify them without deviating at all from the splendor and dignity of the Catholic Church. To this the people of Coesfeld replied as follows on July 9. They said that they did not expect that their deeds were consonant with the report which was spread abroad about them and that to the contrary

55

Rather, July 9.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 432

6/6/2007 9:15:12 PM

the events of 1533

433

the report was exaggerated compared to the facts. Although some schismatics had undertaken some secret activity within their city walls, the government was not responsible for this. They had likewise not summoned any foreign preacher apart from the one56 who had been performing the office of preaching among them for about the last fifteen years, and they had given him strict orders not to disseminate any doctrine from which schism and dissension would arise. They would also restrain their fellow burgers from embracing anything that would be contrary to the Christian religion, civil concord and the traditional ceremonies and rites in the churches. If, however, any innovation crept in, they would immediately suppress it, and they would never neglect or violate their obligation under the oath which they had sworn. When the report which had long since spread about innovation in Coesfeld did not die down or fall silent, the prince wrote to them again on July 14, as follows. He said that he had hoped that the people of Coesfeld would make good the promises which they had made in their previous letter and that his request had had some infl uence with them. Now, however, he discovered that their word of honor had been manifestly broken, since they were singing untraditional vernacular hymns in church and were introducing other innovations in ceremony. He therefore advised them again to be mindful of obedience and to reject the preacher. If, however, he could not prevail upon them to do so with their full agreement, he would necessarily resort to other remedies to protect and defend the emperor’s edict and the general peace. At the same time, the prince also wrote to a certain friar57 in Coesfeld, whom he had come to suspect of innovation. The prince told him to stop preaching temporarily, and the monk wrote him on July 15 to give him the greatest thanks for relieving him of the very troublesome office of preaching, which the city council had imposed on him. On July 17, the people of Coesfeld replied to the prince’s last letter, as follows. They said that they were not sure that anyone but the friar had carried out the office of preaching in about the last fifteen years. The parish priests who tended to the congregation’s souls generally had a bad reputation among most burghers on account of their greed, and experience had made individuals quite familiar with the tricks that they cleverly used in acquiring money. Though their ancestors had made

56 57

417

John of Hunse. I.e., the terminary John of Hunse.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 433

6/6/2007 9:15:12 PM

434

418

the events of 1533

ample provision for the parish priests’ livelihood with tithes, incomes, estates, fields, and an extremely large number of other goods, these priests still sold the sacraments, kept the children without cash from the sacred font, prevented poorer burghers bereft of money from marrying, engaged in a similar trade in the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, constrained those without silver by extorting surety, contemptuously rejected the ceremonies purchased for funeral rites as insufficiently opulent, forced the poor to render funeral rites to the dead, and introduced many other abuses which lined their purses. Furthermore, the nuns acted as retailers and engaged in the business activities carried out by the burghers, seriously harming the latter, and although the nuns were protected by the burghers’ fortifications and guardsmen at no cost to themselves, they refused to make a tolerable contribution for repairing the gates and walls. The council therefore asked the prince to suppress these abuses on the part of the clergy, adding that they themselves would perform their civic duty. On July 18, the prince passed this letter on to the clergy in Coesfeld, warning them that in administering the sacraments they should conduct themselves in the way which befits Christian parish priests in order to avoid giving the council and burghers of Coesfeld proper grounds for complaint and involving themselves in very many troubles. He said that if this was done, he would soon carry out measures that would contribute to mutual concord between the clergy and burghers. Around this time, four burghers in Dülmen who, having heard Rothman preach several times, were ablaze with his doctrine, brought back with them from Münster two preachers with the connivance of the magistrates. These preachers were to profess in public the doctrine which they had learned from Rothman and to win over very many burghers of Dülmen to the profit of their Gospel. Being a true examiner of his subjects, however, the prince entered Dülmen on the night of the Nativity of Mary, which was September 8, with a moderate escort of cavalry, and after discovering the seditious teachers, he ordered them to be taken away to Bevergern so that they should pay the penalty which they richly deserved for the sedition that they had stirred up and by their example deter the others from a similar deed. Afterwards, Rothman, who was thinking of spreading Anabaptism, adopted new habits. When about to go out in public, he showed off a greater than usual holiness and innocence in his way of life. He rejected banquets, parties, kisses from girls, and everything else that could increase the suspicion that he was not grave, and he underwent

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 434

6/6/2007 9:15:12 PM

the events of 1533

435

such a transformation that you would not have thought him the same man. Now turned into an angel of light,58 he went around pretending that he was not a man but some divinity in human form, being grave and thoughtful in walk, stern in visage, stoical, unlaughing, sober, uncustomarily restrained, and tinged with a remarkable pallor. To make his doctrine correspond to his habits, he urged the people to perform acts of mercy and clamored in all his sermons that it was necessary to live in a restrained manner. He told them that they should enjoy their property in common, help one another with mutual good turns, | live in a friendly way among themselves, and embrace each other in mutual love. No one was to exalt himself above another. For no one was superior to another, since they were all brothers and sisters and they were all invited on an equal basis to the life eternal. Although the other preachers constantly prattled on about the Gospel, he said, their doctrine was nonetheless not evangelical. Rather, it was some foolish persuasion, since its works are not good fruits. The papist dregs had also contaminated the doctrine of good words with the filth of human enactments and ceremonies. Thus, there was virtually no healthy doctrine and the whole world was corrupt and placed in evil, and for this reason the world would soon be set upon by a horrible and inevitable disaster, which no one would escape except God’s elect, who were marked out with the Sign of the Covenant. To a man, the rest would die of lethal punishments, being uprooted from the face of the earth with cruel death. This would be the end of the world, but the Last Judgment would follow a thousand years later. At the end of the world, once the impious were suppressed, God’s elect who were marked out with the Sign of the Covenant would, for one thousand years, have Christ as their leader and live a new and blessed life on earth (Apocalypse 20)59 without law, without ruler, without marriage. These saints would beget their children without any carnal lust and foul sensual pleasure. They would hold everything in common and lack nothing, and everything would grow for the pious in abundance without toil or trouble. The Holy Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments would not be in force because of the remarkable holiness in living of the pious people marked out by the sign of the covenant, who

419

58 Reference to 2 Corinthians 11:14: “For Satan himself turns himself into an angel of light.” 59 One of the crucial passages for the development of millenarian views about the end of the world.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 435

6/6/2007 9:15:13 PM

436

420

the events of 1533

would of their own accord live well. He kept saying that this destruction of the impious would take place soon, since the Heavenly Father had even now sent out His angels and ministers, whom the people saw in person, and these would roam the world | to mark out with the Sign of the Covenant the elect of God, who were scattered everywhere, so that they should be snatched away from the impending affl iction. Those marked out were to be summoned from the four corners of the earth to a single place, and there their leader Christ would place in their hands the sword of vengeance with which to wipe out the impious. The pious would draw this sword against those not marked out with the Sign of the Covenant, so that the memory of them should disappear from the face of the earth and the pious should live tranquilly. In support of this, he twisted passages from Apocalypse Chapter 760 and Ezekiel Chapter 9.61 Next, to treat more specifically this Sign of the Covenant, he said, “Whoever wishes to be marked with the sign of the covenant will renounce sins, the devil, their own fl esh and the entire world, denying themselves and avoiding the secular trades of men, unrestrained indulgence in food and drink, whoring, gaming, rash oaths, blasphemies, and, most of all, the entering of public churches, so that he will not be contaminated with vain doctrine and that false use of the sacraments and call down upon himself the anger of God after learning the Truth. On this basis are people worthy of being marked with the Sign of the Covenant, that is, being once more dipped in water now that they were grown-up believers filled with the Holy Spirit.” He said that for this reason that only adults who believed should be baptized. To this he also added that the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper did not become the real body and blood of Christ. With his colleagues he gradually taught other dogmas that confl icted with both the Church and Scripture. With this holiness of living and this novel and unheard-of doctrine he enticed the people, who were unaware of the deceit, into a repul-

60 Presumably, Verse 2, where the angel rising from the east tells the angels at the four corners of the earth not to harm the earth and sea until he has marked the slaves of God on the forehead. 61 Presumably, the Lord’s gruesome injunction in Verses 4–6 to murder without pity (“Strike! Let your eye not spare, and do not feel pity”) everyone not marked on the forehead (“Kill to death the old man, the young man and maiden, the little boy and the woman”) with the special sign that the prophet was enjoined to place there (“mark a tau upon the foreheads of the men who grieve and lament about all the abominations that are done”).

421 MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 436

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

6/6/2007 9:15:13 PM

the events of 1533

437

sive labyrinth from which there was no return. Many people followed Rothman’s example and doctrine, and thinking that they were inspired and confirmed by the Holy Spirit and that they lacked nothing necessary for that blessed life of the pious, they had themselves marked with the Sign of the Covenant, that is, with baptism, in the certain belief that infant baptism was useless and that they would not be safe against the impending disaster unless they were rebaptized and marked again with the Sign of the Covenant on their foreheads. Henry Roll had professed the monastic life in Haarlem in Holland, but he rejected it, casting aside his monk’s habit and becoming an apostate. At Wassenberg on the Rur62 in the territory of Jülich, he acted as a preacher and then he taught Anabaptism in Münster with Rothman.63 | After leaving Münster, he was condemned to the fl ames in Utrecht64 for Anabaptism and thus paid the penalty for his transgression. This man expressed in resounding terms what Rothman seemed to express in concealed and obscure ones, counting infant baptism among the adiaphora.65 It was neither good nor bad in his estimation, and neither helped nor obstructed infants in attaining salvation, since it is nowhere enjoined in Holy Scripture. In addition to Roll there was another new preacher called Herman Staprade of Moers. This man far surpassed his teacher Roll in audacity, impertinence and evil. From the pulpit he thundered against the Lutherans and papists equally, so that all the inhabitants of the city

422

A tributary of the Meuse river. A major event in the process by which the anti-traditional views in Münster became more radical was the arrival from Wassenberg of Roll, John Klopriss, Henry Schlachtschap and Dionysius Vinne, an event that is not noted by K. Wassenberg was in the duchy of Cleves-Jülich, whose local church was independent of the archbishopric of Cologne. In the 1520s, Duke John III tried to maintain the traditional church in his territory, while at the same time accommodating some of the objections of the reformers. In Wassenberg, the tolerant bailiff Werner of Pallant, who denied the right of his lord to give commands in the sphere of religion, had allowed radicals to gather in the town since 1528. These radicals are known as the Wassenberg Preachers, and Klopriss sought refuge there after escaping from Cologne. Eventually, the duke had enough of his bailiff ’s contumely, and the latter was forced in 1533 to expel those radicals who had not already decamped for Münster. Roll is first attested in Münster in August, when he was appointed with John Glandorp as the preacher of St. Giles’. 64 K. has confused two similar Latin town names. Roll was actually burned at Maastricht (Traiectum superius) rather than Utrecht (Traiectum inferius). 65 For the concept of “adiaphora” see “Events of 1532” n. 19. Various sources indicate that Roll was the driving force behind the radical tendencies in Münster in 1533, and K. is the sole source to claim that he at first considered child baptism an adiaphoron. 62

63

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 437

6/6/2007 9:15:13 PM

438

423

424

the events of 1533

trembled almost like mice. Bolder and more confident than Rothman, he did not merely count infant baptism among the adiaphora but quite impudently proclaimed that it was an abomination in the face of God. For this reason the factious considered him worthy of having the chief parish church (St. Lambert’s) entrusted to him and Rothman, against the will of the city council. These sermons of the Rothmanites threw all the estates of the city into confusion and terror. This was particularly the case with the council, which first sent a delegation to ask Rothman to leave out the controversy about the two sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) in his doctrine. Next, since he did not yield to the delegation’s requests, he and certain other preachers of his stripe were summoned to the registry. There, he was again warned not to spread this divisive doctrine among the common people, but when he still did not refrain from this, in a full session, the council, aldermen and guild masters upbraided him with rather harsh words for having taught as doctrine that infant baptism was an indifferent matter that was contrary to the Church’s ordinance, neither helping nor obstructing infants in their salvation. He replied that it was not he but one of his people who taught this doctrine, and said that he would make sure that this would not be heard in the future. After departing, however, he was not very mindful of his word of honor and not only counted infant baptism among the adiaphora but followed Staprade in teaching much more confidently the doctrine that it was an abomination in the face of God, and the other preachers did the same. Noting this to its very great grief, the council feared that a grim downfall or a remarkable disaster or an unprecedented revolution would take place and in various ways it considered how to restrain Rothman’s boldness, which was protected by the favor of the seditious commons. | Thinking that his boldness could not be crushed violently without causing a horrible sedition on the part of the common mob and bloodshed, the council decided that a bloodless war was to be taken up against him. Their intention was that he should fall silent through shame when defeated by the force of arguments or that he should cease to be the head of the seditious commons after well trained men took out sharper arrows from the quiver of Holy Scripture and pierced him through before the council in the presence of the aldermen and guild masters. The council thought that the second method of defeating him would not only be safer but would also be most beneficial for the community.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 438

6/6/2007 9:15:13 PM

the events of 1533

439

Accordingly, on August 7 and 8, there was a battle in the council chamber in the presence of the council, aldermen and guild masters, in which Herman of Busch, a knight and a noted poet, John Holtman of Ahaus, the prior and record keeper of the Monastery of the Fountain, and certain other men of outstanding eloquence, erudition and piety fought bitterly against Rothman, who was called the “superintendent,”66 and his adherents. Two short-hand scribes were called in under oath to write down in good faith what was said and argued on both sides. Since the record I possess of the projectiles which were hurled and defl ected in this battle of words | is very long, I cautiously omit this lest I cause disgust in the reader.67 At the end of this comparison of Scriptural passages, the council | felt that the Rothmanites had been defeated in battle and refuted by the stronger arguments of Busch, and through the syndic Dr. John of Wieck, the councilmen halted the disputation with the following words. “The council of this city has understood sufficiently the arguments cited by both sides in the discussion. To avoid opposing his Imperial Majesty’s edict, allowing anyone to resist it within its walls or being said to violate the peace agreed to by the prince and the city of Münster, the council orders and decrees that in their sermons the preachers should immediately leave out these and other articles concerning the two sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper), maintain infant baptism intact in accordance with the ordinance of the Church, not deter or discourage anyone from it, and not introduce any innovation in the business of religion unless they first convict the others of error and more accurately bring their own doctrine into conformity with the Word of God. If the council finds that they have proven their propositions and doctrine with the testimony of Holy Scripture and shown that the Emperor’s edict, the decisions of other rulers, and the peace agreement should not be

425 426

See n. 26. Considering the importance of this disputation and K.’s willingness on other occasions to try the reader’s (and the translator’s!) patience by reproducing rather tedious and inconsequential documents at length, his reticence here is at first surprising. Perhaps, he was disinclined to disseminate what he took to be the baneful doctrines of the Anabaptists. As it turns out, the transcript mentioned here does not survive, though excerpts and summaries do. In addition to Busch and Holtmann, traditional practice was defended by the prior Derek Bredvort, the Augustinian John Brothanxt, Arnold Belholt, John Glandorp, Peter Wirtheim and Brixius tom Norde. The radical position was upheld by the preachers Rothman, Henry Roll, John Klopriss, Godfrey Stralen, Herman Staprade and Dionysius Vinne. 66

67

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 439

6/6/2007 9:15:13 PM

440

427

the events of 1533

upheld, it will take the actions which befit a Christian government. So long as these ideas have not been examined and decided, however, the council will allow no innovation in this city. If this decree is violated or in any way despised by anyone, these preachers will find out through experience that the council takes such action badly, and that they will not be immune from punishment.” In this way the discussion and meeting of the doctors was ended. On the feast day of St. Laurence the Martyr, which was August 10, when a certain Hollander68 devoted to Anabaptism was preaching at 3 p.m. in the Church of St. Giles, John Windemoller the councilman, who was hostile to Anabaptism rather than Lutheranism, rushed up and dragged him from the pulpit, saying, “You branded criminal, what are you doing speaking to the people here, as if we did not recognize that mark which you sport on your jaw and as if your integrity lacked that sign? Having walked up the steps of disgrace a few years ago, you are unworthy of mounting the pulpit. You were held by the neck in the stocks for your disgrace and branded on one cheek with a hot iron by the hangman. Are your doctrines honorable and pious, when you yourself were raised among branded and fl ogged criminals and lived a dishonorable and impious life? Away with you and your doctrine and your burned-on scar! Get rid of that blemish before taking this place, which deserves an upright man!” A woman named Anna, who was the wife of someone called Milling, and many other womenfolk enthusiastic with the spirit of Anabaptism shouted out that it was an unworthy act to shove a man of God from the pulpit, to obstruct him during his sermon and to begrudge salutary doctrine to the burghers, and that he was not indulging in violence who was justifiably warding off the violence which had been infl icted on him by others. They said that this impious crime was unprecedented and should not be left unpunished, that if it turned a blind eye to this, the council should be removed and replaced with another one that would not oppress the evangelical freedom but would instead greatly favor, love, promote and increase it. At these words, there was a great thronging of women folk, with such a confused whirlwind of voices that the whole church shook. Meanwhile, the priest, being terrified by the unusual commotion, disappeared. Windemoller also escaped the mouthy mob of women and

68

Henry Roll?

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 440

6/6/2007 9:15:13 PM

the events of 1533

441

absconded with himself from the church. This female uproar quickly died down in the absence of the antagonists. But the factious kept saying throughout the city that the council had been bribed by the prince and did not favor the Gospel, and that a new one should therefore be elected. To make a long story short, Anabaptism gradually | assumed such strength in the city that when the infants of John Langermann, Peter Friese and other burghers were brought to church on September 7, Herman Staprade of Moers openly refused to baptize them.69 The council took this very badly. It had never expected that this would happen since it had noted from the previous contest that the arguments on which the Rothmanites relied were the weaker and had accordingly forbidden the refuted doctrine about the two sacraments to be disseminated. Hence, when the priests did not admit that they had been defeated in the disputation and did not deviate even the breadth of a stalk of grain from their doctrine in derisive contempt of the magistrates, and instead, like heretics, became much more precipitous and defended their position much more obstinately, gradually making up many new doctrines to add in, the council decided that it was safer for it to adhere to the ordinance and doctrine of the Church regarding infant baptism, and in reliance on the help of the commons’ elected representatives not only forbade the Rothmanites to preach but banished them from the city. When this decree was promulgated contrary to the expectation of the preachers, who thought that they were protected by the favor of the commons, they accosted the council with the following document, being partly enraged and partly distraught. Document sent to the council of Münster by the seditious preachers on September 1770 “Grace from God the Father and true knowledge of Jesus Christ and the illumination of all truth by the Holy Spirit be with you! Amen. We would hardly have expected that in your recent prohibitions in the last few days you would have deterred us from our evangelical office and cruelly ordered us to leave the city. Be that as it may, we ask that | when we write down the replies which we were not allowed to state orally, you should receive them with Christian hearts. Since you are

69 70

428

429

This incident is recorded only by K. This text is preserved only by K.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 441

6/6/2007 9:15:13 PM

442

the events of 1533

sufficiently familiar with the fact that it is our office to shepherd71 the little sheep of Christ who have been entrusted to us and to propound only the things which Christ commanded, we should neither add in or subtract anything and should instead censure, reject and completely eradicate whatever is not straight according to God’s standard or in agreement with it. Similarly, you are not unaware that in the sight of the people we have, with burdensome toil, administered the office which we have undertaken, and that up until now we have not been convicted by anyone of error or of having taught doctrines at variance with the Truth. This doctrine we promised, and still do promise, to defend, even at the risk of execution, though this was not necessary. Accordingly, we leave it to you to consider what you have done and what Christian laws you relied on in removing us from our office. We know what St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14: “The first man should keep silent if a revelation is made to someone else sitting next to him.”72 We know of no one to whom better doctrines have been revealed, and no such person has come forward. We do not wish to keep silent, but it would be fair for us to do so if someone adduced better doctrines. We are also astonished that you who control the jurisdiction over profane matters should usurp the authority to pass judgment in this matter too. If you wish to be Christians, with what propriety do you dare to obstruct or delay the Word of God with your secular prohibitions? Scripture bestows the right to pass judgment on the Church, and since churches of Christians exist and aspire to exist, then if you or anyone else had had a complaint against us, it would have been laid out in church before the congregation of the faithful and in our presence, and if we had not been strengthened with the shield of Truth and defended our doctrine with the manifest testimony of Holy Scripture, it would be right for us to be subject to judgment and punishment. What case do you have against us for having professed that the doctrine about baptizing infants is erroneous? We have decided that we should do nothing in violation of the recognized Truth, but we can accept that in order to indulge the unenlightened those who have acquired less recognition and have not yet professed it should observe this practice until the Truth becomes clearer. Pass judgment on yourselves! Since we

71 Something of a pun in Latin, as a pastor is a shepherd (literally, “one who puts to pasture”). 72 1 Corinthians 14:30.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 442

6/6/2007 9:15:14 PM

the events of 1533

443

have considered infant baptism to be erroneous, and neither you nor anyone else | has refuted us with definite arguments, what thinking or what obligation of the public profession of Christianity has led you to force us to make a recantation of these positions in violation of the recognized Truth and to prohibit us from the office of preaching if we do not do so? Oh, God! Is this what is commanded by the secular laws and the decisions of emperors which your syndic thundered out so splendidly? In fact, divine law gives a quite different order. We ask God to keep you in this recognition, so that you will commit no act in violation of the recognized Truth, just as you wish us to do. May God forever avert this impiety from you! As St. Paul bears witness, whoever sins unwittingly can receive forgiveness for his crime from God,73 but whoever commits a crime knowingly, like Saul in 1 Kings 15 or pharaoh in Exodus 5, and resists the Truth, is made increasingly blind and hardened everyday, so that there is never any place for mercy for him. Accordingly, we again ask and warn you on the basis of the mutual bond of Christian charity to examine and consider this case involving the Gospel more carefully and intelligently and not be to led by human beliefs to follow the sect of those who screech blasphemous and impious words in their long-winded mouthiness, with the result that the Truth of Jesus Christ is cast in shadow. Also, in your presence in the council chamber we responded to the arguments of our antagonists more broadly than you wished at that time, and since they were tired of the length of the meeting, they promised to respond to us by writing, and have spent almost six weeks pondering the matter. We therefore ask that if they cite anything against us and our profession, you immediately make a copy available to us. For this delay in responding is very detrimental both to us and the Truth and to the general peace. In addition, we ask you to interpret this warning of ours favorably and not to disturb us in our office unless we are refuted by the Truth. If, however, you go forward with your plan (God forbid!), we will nonetheless press on with the office entrusted to us by God | and the entire world and profess the Truth before God, even at the cost of our lives and all our property, thinking in the meanwhile that God should be obeyed rather than men.74 We therefore leave it to you to consider how dangerous it is to incur the judgment of God. Yet, we

73 74

430

431

1 Timothy 1:13. Acts 5:29.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 443

6/6/2007 9:15:14 PM

444

the events of 1533

wish you all good things, and may the Almighty illuminate you in the recognition of Himself, so that the community will be governed well. “Your servants and the ministers of the Gospel, Bernard Rothman, John Klopriss, Godfrey Stralen, Henry Roll, Dionysius Vinne”75 They continued with no less energy and diligence to advance their business with the aldermen and guild masters, both by themselves and through adherents of their faction (ones they thought to have infl uence and favor with them). They asked that they not be removed with disgrace and dishonor from the pious offices which they had hitherto carried out faithfully, to the greatest acclaim from the multitude, and that they not be cast out of the city like felonious malefactors, despite the fact that they had served the city well, recalled very many people from the blindness of popery to the evangelical light, and restored the kingdom of Christ to its pristine splendor by vanquishing the papist tyranny. They had, they said, committed no act worthy of exile or been tainted with any crime, unless it was a crime to teach the Word of God in pure doctrine. Yet, if this was a crime, they were, they said, the most hardened criminals and very worthy not only of exile but of execution, so that they should be immediately removed from the community by being punished with various kinds of penalties. (God preserve the council from such impiety!) Let the council, then, be prevailed upon to change this very severe decree of exile. This would avoid the result that if the preachers should be stripped of their offices, this city would be marked out with an eternal blemish of disgrace among the evangelical cities and call the anger of God upon it. Rothman would have had the greatest infl uence with the alderman and guild masters if he had changed his view about infant baptism, but these words roused them to plead the case for retaining him before the city council. The council decided that he should be kept in his office on the condition that in his preaching he should immediately leave out the articles of his about the two sacraments which were in dispute, and Rothman was informed of the council’s decision by the aldermen.

75 The list of signatories is the same as that of the radical disputants at the earlier debate before the council (see n. 66), with the exception of Staprade, whose absence is unexplained.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 444

6/6/2007 9:15:14 PM

the events of 1533

445

Meanwhile, a letter sent to the city by the prince on the feast day of St. Michael, which was September 29, was read out in the individual parishes. This letter ordered that the ancient practice of these two sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) should be retained, since he, the prince, could allow no change regarding them in violation of the Church’s doctrine without risking his salvation. To this was added a decree of the council commanding the same thing. The great majority of the burghers agreed with these commands so long as they were not denied participation in the Eucharist in both kinds, just as Christ ordained it. The council therefore strictly enjoined Rothman to keep completely quiet about infant baptism and the other articles in dispute or to leave the city. They demanded that he should reply in writing as to which of these courses he would take. To this he gave the following reply. “The aldermen and guild masters informed me that I was not to be removed from my office. Instead, since contentious disputes had arisen about infant baptism and the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ and these sacraments were being carried out in various ways, I was to omit those two sacraments in my preaching in the interest of the general peace until this dispute was settled by the judgment of learned men. To them I give the following reply. Since they wish me to take these actions for the sake of the general tranquility, I will steer clear of the disputed doctrine about the two sacraments in my preaching. Indeed, I will not even mention this doctrine, and instead will, with the faith which befits me, teach doctrines that restore peace, excuse the council, and calm the riotous commons, until this doctrine is cleansed of the admixture of filth and God instills a greater recognition of the Truth | in men’s minds. Dispatched on October 3 in the year of our Lord 1533.” Rothman did declare quite clearly what he was going to do in this hand-written document, but the council began to have doubts about his word of honor, which he had violated on several occasions.76 For this reason, it sent a delegation to Reine, where the prince had come on October 6 to hold a diocesan assembly. In the meeting of leading men, the delegation was to review the miserable state of the city and

432

433

76 It would seem that while the council allowed Rothman to resume preaching, the parish of St. Lambert considered him unruly and refused to take him back, so he was granted permission to preach in St. Servatius’, which was located in a distant corner of the city.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 445

6/6/2007 9:15:14 PM

446

434

the events of 1533

of its religion. They said that with the city convulsed with internal dissension and uproar, it was impossible to keep the majority of their commons in their place. Instead, they talked back to the government and defended the doctrine which had been introduced by Rothman and then prohibited, even at the risk of their lives. Everything was ablaze with internal hatred, the true religion and the evangelical doctrine were being buffeted amid schisms, so that nothing was safe in the city and nothing was to be expected but the plundering, overthrow and devastation of the city. Since the sole cause of this was the various contentions about religion, the delegation vehemently demanded that the prince should play his part by using the help of learned men to do away with the erroneous articles and to replace them with ones which agreed with the true religion and the Word of God. The people of Münster would readily embrace such articles if they recognized them to be beneficial to them. To this the prince replied as follows. They should have administered drugs in the beginning when this misfortune was being born and not cast aside very salubrious counsels in order to indulge their mad subjects in derision of those who gave good advice. They should have thought that they ought not to turn a blind eye to the wicked, with the result that the good would be harmed, and they should not have cajoled the seditious so sweetly. For license | and foolish lenience had often either destroyed those responsible for them or eventually plunged them into the fullest disaster. The matter had now reached the stage that it could not be turned around with lenient coaxing or with harsh cruelty. Nonetheless, he, the prince, would not fail the city in his office or in counsel or in action. Instead, he would think more deeply about a future remedy (reformation), to the extent that this was possible. Meanwhile, he asked the cities to refrain from all innovation in the business of religion, which they promised to do. He also asked the delegation from Münster to give the customary permission to Henry Mumpert, the prior of the Bispinghof monastery and a doctor of theology, to preach the Word of God in the Lords’ Church.77 The delegates replied that they would report this request to the council for its discussion and decision, and that the council would reply soon. 77 Mumpert had been prohibited from hearing auricular confession back in April (see 364K). Subsequently, he was prohibited from preaching in the cathedral, and the bishop was already writing to the council to complain about this on June 7 (not noted by K.).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 446

6/6/2007 9:15:14 PM

the events of 1533

447

After this assembly was ended, the prince was not worried at all about innovation in the lesser cities, but on October 8 he was unexpectedly informed that the people of Coesfeld had let in a seditious preacher. For this reason he sent them a letter on October 8 in which he dissuaded them from their undertaking in the following words. He said that he had been told the preceding day | that some unknown vagrant spreader of error had snuck into the city of Coesfeld and hidden himself there for a few days, and that after finally being summoned, he had seized the office of preaching in the Chapel of the Holy Spirit without the permission of the lawful government or those78 whom this concerned. Among the commons, who are always eager for novelty, he had spread an erroneous and seditious doctrine from which the usual result was schism, dissension, sedition, disobedience, contempt for the government, and the disturbance and corruption of the Christian rituals hitherto observed down to the present day because of the choices made by our ancestors in ancient days. Since he thought that as the lawful ruler he should by no means tolerate this situation, lest his lenience should result in harm to his subjects, he warned them in the name of the allegiance which they had sworn to him that they should immediately remove and banish this preacher and not allow themselves to be alienated from the ancient rites in the churches and the ceremonies of the Catholic Church. They wrote back to say that they would obey the prince in all matters. While these events were going on, the council sent a delegation to the landgrave to ask for evangelical preachers who | would fight it out with Rothman and the whole Anabaptist crew. As a favor to the threatened city, he urged two men whom he knew to be particularly fervent about the Gospel to undertake this assignment. These were Derek Fabricius, who was remarkable for his eloquence and boldness, and John Lening of Melsing, who was a learned man to be sure, but also a timid and not very well-spoken one. Not daring to say no to the landgrave about such an important task, they promised that they would go to Münster after arranging their own affairs and would carry out the burden imposed upon them to the best of their abilities. After committing themselves to this perilous journey, however, they deliberated about the future events for a few weeks within their homes and armed themselves keenly with Holy Scripture against the Anabaptist monstrosities.

78

435

436

I.e., the legally appointed incumbents.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 447

6/6/2007 9:15:14 PM

448

437

the events of 1533

The nuns of the Convent Across-the-River79 were also ablaze with the spirit of the evangelicals. In the meanwhile, they randomly sang hymns in German in church, despised their vows and their established way of life, considered their profession to be worthless, cast off the bridle of the abbess, made no distinction among foods, muttered about changing their habit, and had hallucinations about a freer way of life. The abbess, Ida of Merfelt, along with a very few others, bore witness with her many tears and laments that she was greatly displeased by this wantonness on the part of her nuns. When this situation was reported to the prince, he wrote to the entire convent on October 10 in the following words. He said that he had heard that many nuns of the Convent Across-the-River had been so stirred up by a certain worldly fickleness and vain | sensual urges that they were plotting rebellion in violation of their vow and the profession of their rule and in violation of the long-established custom of the convent. He therefore advised them to be mindful of their noble birth and not to commit any act that would smack of fickleness or be considered unworthy of their lineage in any way. Afterwards, on October 15, the council sent back its reply to the prince as the delegation had promised80 to do at the assembly in Reine. They said that they would in no way violate the terms of the agreement by allowing preachers who were not in conformity with the Gospel in their doctrine, way of life and behavior to teach doctrine publicly in their city against the council’s will. At the time of the agreement, the office of preaching in the cathedral had been taken away from and denied to the friar of the Lords’ Church. The records of the agreement did not, they claimed, dictate that this custom was to be revived, and instead resolved only that the chapter of the Lords should live undisturbed in their vows until God Almighty made a different ordinance. Hence, they thought it not to be a matter of doubt that the prince was manifestly undermining the sense of the agreement. They therefore asked not to be oppressed in violation of the agreement. The prince replied to this on October 19. He said that he had not violated the terms of the agreement and was not unaware that he had to preserve those terms. He had not, however, expected such an illconsidered and ungenerous refusal of his request by the council since

79 80

For earlier confl icts between reformers and this convent, see 280–282D, 403D. See 434D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 448

6/6/2007 9:15:14 PM

the events of 1533

449

the Lords’ Church belonged to him and the entire diocese | and was not a parish church, and while the agreement explicitly granted to the Lords’ Church all its ancient ceremonies and customs without interference from the council or its burghers, it gave the council control over only the parish churches. Accordingly, he again asked that they not disturb this man while he was preaching in the cathedral or allow him to be disturbed, and that they not violate the agreement by engaging in any plot on the basis of the feeble reasoning of their words, lest they give him cause to resort to other remedies. On the same day the prince indicated to Mumpert by letter that he should rely on the authority of the prince alone to give sermons and go about the customary ancient stations in the cathedral on the next Sunday, which was October 26, and on the other subsequent feast days, since he needed no other authority. Mumpert did obey the prince, but he very seriously offended the council and all the evangelicals. On October 21, the council replied as follows. They said that although they had, in their previous letter, cited legitimate reasons as to why they should not tolerate permitting any monk or friar to preach again in the cathedral, and call the burghers away in droves from the council’s evangelical religion, and although the terms of the agreement explicitly stated that while the cathedral would retain its ancient ceremonies and rites without interference from the council, the council was granted control over the parish churches, nonetheless this could not be construed to mean that after this agreement the cathedral was to be ruled by the sermons or stations of any terminary monk, since the sermons, stations and other such practices had been abolished before the agreement. Accordingly, any provisions which were not included in the sealed record of the agreement could not be added in at a later day by someone’s personal authority. The following words were contained in the text of the agreement without any long verbal ambiguities: the chapter is to be left undisturbed and to be allowed its own professed way of life. Hence, it could not be inferred that a monk of some other vow should be allowed to preach in order to spread errors and schisms and to stir up sedition among the burghers. | The council therefore would not allow the community to be harmed by a situation which would create dissension, schism and sedition. Since they therefore considered that by virtue of the agreement it was right not to tolerate the sermons of the monk in the cathedral, they had no doubt that they had given a legitimate reply.

438

439

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 449

6/6/2007 9:15:15 PM

450

440

the events of 1533

On October 28, the prince wrote81 that he was leaving the council’s letter to its own authority and estimation, if it had any. As for his having ordered the preacher to proclaim the Word of God to the people in a pure way, he expected that no one would disturb him in the office which he had undertaken, and that the council would obey his last letter. On the same day, the prince wrote to the council as follows. He said that he had heard through reliable report that certain spreaders of error who were wandering, unknown criminals who had been branded had intruded into his city by their own authority without having been legally summoned, that these men had stirred up the commons with erroneous and seditious doctrine, and finally that they had disseminated the condemned and intolerable dogma of the Anabaptists and Sacramentarians, polluting virtually the entire city with their impiety. Since these criminal spreaders of error were still being kept in the city, and it was to be feared that with this poison they would dupe, lead astray and infect the unwary and uneducated commons, by virtue of the authority of the emperor’s edict he again warned the council not to harbor such teachers of false doctrine and instead to banish them from the city, so that the council should avoid the outrage and punishment of the emperor and the Empire. This letter from the prince did not delay the council in implementing its resolve by revoking the prior’s official safe conduct. Hence, on October 30, the prince wrote the council as follows. He said that he had been informed that contrary to his hope and expectation, the council had revoked the safe conduct of the prior of the Bispinghof monastery, who was the preacher in the cathedral, on the grounds that he maintained the customary stations and sermons in the Lords’ Church at his, the prince’s, command. He demanded | that the council should therefore rescind its prohibition and not in future presume to pass such prohibitions against his devoted ministers. Otherwise, he would be forced to use other remedies from which many other detrimental consequences might arise, a course of action which he had shunned as a favor to the city. He wrote to Mumpert on the same day, telling him that he should return to the city and to the office entrusted to him without fear of any harm since the prince had no doubt that the council would obey his letter.

81

Apparently to the friar.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 450

6/6/2007 9:15:15 PM

the events of 1533

451

Meanwhile, Fabricius and Melsing, who knew that Mumpert was a learned man with very much experience in the study of theology, were apprehensive about themselves for fear that they would have no run-ofthe-mill opponent of their doctrine, but a very keen one. Accordingly, they sent the following supplication to the council. Since the monk Mumpert, who previously preached in the Lords’ Church, had taught impious doctrines and given great cause for sedition and disagreement among the burghers, he should not be tolerated in the city any more than were those who despised infant baptism. They therefore asked that the council not tolerate him with the city walls, so that he could not overturn their doctrine with his impious beliefs and spread illegal schisms and factions among the burghers. The council gave the prince no reply to his last letter and would not allow Mumpert to take up his office, so the prince grew impatient at this delay and wrote to the council as follows on November 27. He said that although he had previously asked the council to let Mumpert teach the Gospel in the Lords’ Church in safety, he now learned that the council had not obeyed his letter but had even revoked Mumpert’s safe conduct and banned him from the city. By what right this was done he left to anyone, including the council itself, to consider in the better half of their brains. | He therefore warned the council again to let him preach, just as the ancient practice had been. On December 3, the council replied as follows. The councilmen said that they had received, read and understood the prince’s letters of October 30 and November 27 and gave the following reply. While certain preachers were causing them great difficulties in their city, they had not expected that the prince would exacerbate these. As for his thrusting upon them against their will a friar who would stir up sedition with his impious sermons, as had already happened twice, they would in no way tolerate this, since they had definite reasons why this monk’s sermons were not to be tolerated among the council’s people. They therefore invoked all their legal protection against violence in this letter. It was only after the monk had not stopped stirring up dissension that they had revoked his safe conduct and banned him from the city, and they would have to endure with patience whatever legal action the prince wished or was able to take against them. They did not, however, expect to come into new dissension and confl ict with the prince for the sake of an impious monk. They would defend their position before any princes.

441

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 451

6/6/2007 9:15:15 PM

452

442

443

the events of 1533

Meanwhile, Rothman forgot about his handwritten pledge and returned to his natural disposition. Being overwhelmed with fear, the council did not dare to disseminate Anabaptism openly, but by sneaking off separately and making suggestions in clandestine conversations, they brought it about that | the number of Anabaptists was no less actively increased and their business was advanced among the ignorant mob, all the while pretending to be innocent, upright, pious, religious and angels of lights.82 For they stitched together some articles about baptism and the Lord’s Supper which they presented to the landgrave and the theologians of Marburg for examination. When it was declared by the judgment of the theologians that Rothman had erred, he refused to acknowledge his error. Instead, he not only defended his articles more obstinately before the ignorant commons but was persuaded by his belief in his own erudition to have them published and set out before the eyes and judgment of men. With these articles he so impressed his error on the minds of men in various places and with the help of Satan | so bewitched and deranged the populations of many regions, that they abandoned their homelands, children and property and streamed to Münster from everywhere. People of both sexes gathered here from Westphalia, from Saxony, from Holland, from Brabant, from Gelders, from Frisia, from Lüttich, and from many other areas as a result of their eagerness to see and hear Rothman. The council was greatly offended by this fickle reliability of Rothman’s by which he disgracefully broke his pledge, but because of the protection he received from the commoners’ favor the councilmen did not dare to persecute him with prison or any other penalty, however well deserved, for fear that they would call down upon themselves the swords of many men. First, they closed all the churches in the city and forbade him to preach. Next, on November 3, they consulted with the aldermen and guild masters about how they could also banish him and his people from the city without causing a great uproar. After nightfall broke up the meeting without any definite decision having been made about expelling the preachers, however, it was thought to be useful to call the patricians and other wealthy and respectable burghers in the city the next day and to consider the matter more deeply with them, so that a matter which concerned everyone together should not be handled by the council alone. This way, the council would not be unable to share

82

See n. 58.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 452

6/6/2007 9:15:15 PM

the events of 1533

453

the responsibility with others if things turned out badly. Accordingly, on November 4, these people convened in the market place, and when the topic for discussion was the suitable means to restrain the preachers’ unbridled impertinence, perfidy, rebellion, impious doctrine about baptism, and wantonness in doing whatever they wanted, | virtually everyone shouted that they should be expelled from the city. In order that the council should have no doubts about the reliability of the patricians and other burghers present, the latter declared their names publicly and let them be written down in the record, pledging their help and promising armed assistance if necessary. The preachers could have objected that no refuge was available to them, and that since they would fall into someone else’s jurisdiction outside the walls, they would plunge from one danger to another, being cast from Charybdis to the Syrtes, which they could not cross without disaster or at least fear.83 To forestall this possibility, on November 5 the council sent a sudden delegation to ask the prince and chapter to issue the preachers official safe conduct to travel through the diocese in order to facilitate their banishment, and they were readily granted their request. Indeed, in a letter sent on November 10, the prince gave an order to all the stewards and gaugrafs84 of the entire diocese that no one should hinder the preachers expelled from Münster in the journey which they would undertake by blocking their journey or obstructing their fl ight. In order to prevent the preachers from having any excuse for delay, the bailiffs and stewards were to assist the preachers in removing their children, wives and furniture by providing carts and horses. Next, on November 5, the council, aldermen, guild masters, patricians and respectable burghers returned to the market place as had been agreed, their purpose being to free the city of the stain of Anabaptism and to restore the pristine enjoyment of peace once the preachers were expelled. But it was not only those who wished to uphold the council who thronged here. So did their adversaries, who were upset at the news about this situation. When the previous day’s decree about banishing the preachers was repeated, there was an immediate shout, first from

444

445

83 More showing off of Classical learning. Charybdis is the whirlpool mentioned in the Odyssey; it was later erroneously associated with the Straits of Messina and became a byword for danger. The Syrtes is the ancient name for the treacherous shallows and shoals at the edge of the continental shelf to the north of Libya; this body of water was suitably notorious for its perils. 84 I.e., bailiffs.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 453

6/6/2007 9:15:15 PM

454

446

the events of 1533

a certain man of Ahlen, and then here and there from the confused crowd, that not only the Anabaptist preachers and those tainted with this dogma but those at whose instigation they had been invited into the city and who had done them any good turn should be banished. Understanding that these words were directed at him, Herman Tilbeck, one of the burgher masters who was responsible for many innovations, said, “Do you think that this will happen, burghers? Is this the thanks that you will show to your burgher master for his outstanding loyalty to you and his careful administration? A different plug must be found for this size, and your wantonness in marauding against the blameless and the good must be suppressed.” At this statement from the burgher master, Albert Wedemhave, Bernard Knipperdolling, Herman Krampe, Hubert Ruesscher the smith, and many others who were aboil with the spirit of Anabaptism were stirred up with such anger at the body of councilors that they broke their alliance to them and drew their knives and daggers as if they were on the very point of assaulting them. They also did not cease to upbraid the council with bitter words. “You impious men,” they said, “your plan will not succeed today, nor | will you slaughter us or cast us from the city, as you decided. For we have both strength and arms!” Suddenly, each side rushed away, fetched their arms, and returned to the market place. The servants of the main clergy and some of the lower clergy rushed up in arms to protect the council, and each side fortified their position. While the councilmen took their hall, the Rothmanites, who were certainly weaker but relied on the strength of the immigrants, seized the wall of St. Lambert’s cemetery as their stronghold. Each side set out a night watch, felt apprehension about themselves, and held their position under arms until the following day. The council was particularly apprehensive about the strength of the immigrants, noting that a lamentable uproar and the bloody murder of many burghers threatened if it did not intervene in good time and mollify the embittered feeling on both sides. Hence, at dawn on November 6, a discussion about restoring peace was conducted by grave men chosen from the council and commons who had great infl uence with both sides. At this point, Wieck strongly advised both sides as follows. They should, he said, think that they are burghers of one city, limbs of one body, enclosed within the same walls, and bound by the same legal oath. How rash it was that those who were subject to the same laws should don arms on the pretext of the Gospel and religion! How different from ancestral custom, how contrary to nature it was to

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 454

6/6/2007 9:15:15 PM

the events of 1533

455

conspire to destroy each other, to befoul the paving stones with related blood, to aim for one’s own guts and to taint one’s own hands with base parricide, while disregarding the veneration owed to neighborliness and friendship, casting aside blood-relationships and breaking the closest bonds of blood! Hence, they should consider more thoughtfully what was dictated and commanded by nature, by right reason, by the well-being of wives and children, by the safety of the homeland, by the Christian religion, and indeed by God Himself, the promoter of concord. At these words, the passion roused by arms and anger gradually died down, and the ardent desire for loving concord eventually took possession of everyone’s spirits, so that both sides yearned for nothing but peace. The Rothmanites would neither willingly leave the city or allow their preachers to be exiled, while the councilmen argued that they should by no means be allowed to preach, | since Derek Fabricius and John Lening, the outstanding heralds of the Word of God who had been sent by the landgrave as a favor to the city, would soon arrive and teach the evangelical truth in the city. Peace was thus restored on the condition that the councilmen would tolerate the Rothmanites in the city without letting them preach, and in addition that anyone would have permission to embrace the faith that he thought would help him to salvation.85 Upon this agreement, both sides went their own ways and after setting down their arms, they feigned the old harmony. Though the office of preaching in public had been taken away from him under the terms of the recent peace agreement, Rothman did not stop his private and surreptitious teaching of the doctrine of Anabaptism in the homes of certain burghers, first in the night time, and then more boldly during the daylight after the number of his followers increased. | The time for the sermon would be announced with the shot of an arquebus, and only those ablaze with the spirit of Anabaptism were admitted. His doctrine was as follows. 1) Infant baptism was an abomination in the face of God. 2) The sacraments, the mass, vespers, vigils, chrism, oil, fronds, water, plants, salt, candles and all the other such things that were marked

447

448

449

85 Other accounts indicate that the ban of the preachers (apart from Rothman) was in fact enforced, but they merely hid among their supporters in the city, reemerging on St. Stephen’s Day (December 26).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 455

6/6/2007 9:15:15 PM

456

3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 450

8) 9)

the events of 1533

with signs by priests were thought up for profit by the devil and Antichrist, that is, by the Roman pontiff.86 The churches of the impious were to be avoided by Christians. The sacrament of the Eucharist, which the priest displays above his head,87 is a great Balaam. There should be no commerce with the impious and the pagans. Saturday, which was established by God, should be celebrated, and not Sunday, which was made holy by human decision.88 The papists and Lutherans, who feasted, got drunk, whored around and opposed the Word of God, were impious. | (The rebaptized upbraided and disagreed with not only the Catholics, but also the Lutherans, who bore the responsibility for them as their parents. On the day before Pentecost in 1533 Rothman wrote in a letter to Herman Regeward, the pastor in Warendorf, “It’s amazing what a great business the Lutherans are plotting against us, but we have no fear that the Lord will make this matter prosper.”) The burghers and peasants who believe in the lies of the priests are simple pagans without deceit. In the past 1500 years, there had been no true Christian in the world, and in the period after the time of Christ, there were no priests and the Apostles themselves were not priests but ministers of God who proclaimed His Word. Christ was the last priest.

86 Luther soon began to attack the traditional “good works” of the medieval church which involved the payment of money to the church by the laity as a confidence trick by the ecclesiastics for their own monetary benefit, and this became a standard charge in anti-Catholic invective. 87 In the Catholic rite, the consecrated host was held up for adoration by the congregation, a practiced condemned by many reformers. 88 The Old Testament injunction to rest on the seventh day (one of the Ten Commandments) was equated by the Jews with the day of the week known as Saturday (the modern names are based on the planets associated in ancient astrology with the days of the week). The early Christians worshipped God on Sunday (which they called the Lord’s Day, as is refl ected in the word for Sunday in the various Romance languages) because the resurrection of Jesus is said in the Gospels to have taken place on the day after the Sabbath. Soon, the Christians transferred their day of rest to this day (already in the early third century Tertullian referred to this as a traditional practice), and after his adoption of Christianity, the Roman emperor Constantine began to legislate an obligatory cessation of certain official activities on Sunday. By the later Middle Ages, it was taken for granted in Latin Christendom that Sunday was the religious day of rest, though strictly speaking the sabbath itself had never been officially transferred. With their usual literal-mindedness about biblical injunctions, many radical reformers wished to revive the situation that had been explicitly ordained in the Old Testament by restoring the day of rest to the sabbath (i.e., Saturday).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 456

6/6/2007 9:15:16 PM

the events of 1533

457

10) The government of the pagans was not to be obeyed.89 11) The pagans were not to be taught doctrine before a date preordained by God. For the world would first suffer grievous affl iction on account of sin, and the impious would fall upon the face of the sword. Then, the survivors would be called in sermons to the Kingdom of God. 12) Christ did not take on human nature from Mary. 13) The marriages of Christians were to be rescinded, since there were no marriages before the second baptism. 14) Christians were those who first believed in Christ and then were baptized in His name. 15) Wives should call their husbands “lord.” 16) Believing male or female servants were not to contract marriages with pagans or to serve them, but only with other believers. 17) No Christian was to contest with the impious in court. 18) No Christian was to engage in any sort of lending at interest, and accordingly he should neither demand nor make interest payments. For everything would be held in common by the example of the Apostles. 19) Any Christian should finish and complete the race that he began without looking back, lest the door be closed in his face.90 That is, Rothman said, if his father, mother, brother, sister or any other blood relation did not adopt this doctrine and the Sign of the Covenant, this would not affect a true Christian, who will persevere in his faith.

451

This doctrine was first embraced by the indebted and the poor and by those who pursued leisure and those who considered it a sin to lay a finger on honest labor. Such people were attracted by the joint possession of property and the freedom from interest. Next, wealthier people were affected by the feigned appearance of gravity and saintliness that Rothman put on. They contributed their goods to the common fund, tearing up or burning their sealed copies of documents that proved

89 This article in the middle is rather unobtrusive, but it stands at the heart of the Anabaptists’ rejection of the (Christian) secular world around them, a rejection that was in part responsible for the extreme hostility that they aroused among not just Catholics but also magisterial Protestants. 90 Finishing the race is a reference to 2 Timothy 4:7. The shut door is perhaps a reference to Apocalypse 3:7–8.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 457

6/6/2007 9:15:16 PM

458

452

the events of 1533

debts, or forgiving their debtors their entire debts. It is acknowledged that this was done not only by men but also by women, who are usually more careful about business. Brandeschen, Knipperdolling’s motherin-law who was quite wealthy, was so enthralled by the spirit of God that she restored to her debtors not only the sealed contracts proving the debts but also they interest they had paid.91 The result of the spread of these furtive sermons and articles among the mob was that the number of Anabaptists received no minor increase as burghers and immigrants fl ocked together. Indeed, they almost equaled the number of good men, especially since many good burghers | who rejected the disastrous appearance of the city preferred voluntary exile and emigrated. Among these there were even some whose indolence, advice and assistance had first allowed schisms to creep into this community. Among the leading men there still survive some who used to sing hymns in German in the churches along with the common rabble and attended the sermons of the seditious with great zeal. Now, you can see that these people are endowed with outstanding piety, and that the knees and lips of those who once despised prayers are covered with calluses from the large number of their prayers.92 Those who used to reject and shun holy water and all things marked with signs like some great plague now think that they will not live to see the next day unless they cross themselves one hundred times every day and sprinkle themselves with lustral water every day and eat consecrated salt every day. Fabricius fought keenly against this Rothman and his faction. He not only deterred from Anabaptism those who were wavering in their religion or faith but recovered those who adhered to it, revived the lapsed, and healed the infected, strengthening them with the antidote of Holy Scripture. He did this by himself, since his comrade Lening, who had undertaken this same campaign with Fabricius, saw that he would have

91 Note that K. ascribes once again the spread of radical doctrine to motives of greed (see “Events of 1532” n. 116) despite the fact that his own report about the destruction of documents concerning debts seems to discredit his own analysis. Also, he appears to imagine that the spread took place only at this point, though again by his own account Rothman (and his increasingly radical positions) clearly enjoyed a substantial support earlier in the year. 92 K. is referring to previous adherents of radical religious thought who managed to survive the city’s eventual downfall and became good Catholics after the restoration of the bishop in 1535.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 458

6/6/2007 9:15:16 PM

the events of 1533

459

to undergo various risks to his life and thought about returning to his homeland, preferring to die as a confessor than as a martyr. Next, the council discussed with Fabricius the manufacture of a reformation of rites and ceremonies so that everything in the churches would not be carried out in a disorderly manner. Fabricius honestly admitted that he was not equal to the task imposed upon him and complained about the feebleness of his colleague. Therefore, to complete this project in a quicker and wiser manner, not only was Fabricius given Wieck, Brixius, Wirtheim, Glandorp, Belholt and Langermann as assistants but a delegation was sent to fetch John Westerman, the doctor of theology who had been in charge of the pulpit in Lippe. After Westerman’s arrival, on November 23 he preached before noon in the Church Across-the-River and after lunch in the Church of St. Giles, displaying his eloquence and his Wittenberg theology. After the pamphlet by Rothman in which he led very many astray into his error was seen in print in various places, | the suspicion arose that he had a hidden printing press in his house. For this reason, on November 27 the two burgher masters, the two court assessors and the two building superintendents93 entered Rothman’s house escorted by some servants. While his wife denied that he was home and one of the burgher masters insisted that he was, Rothman came out of hiding and made himself available, greatly fearing that the leading men would take a manifest lie badly. Asked whether he had a printing press in the house, he said no. Ordered to look for it, the servants found it and then took it away to the council registry. Meanwhile, Fabricius cooperated with John Westerman and the other learned men mentioned above in manufacturing a new reformation in religion which would conform to the Confession of Augsburg, and on November 28 the two burgher masters, John of Wieck the syndic, John Langermann the councilor, and Arnold Belholt the judge presented it to certain well-trained monks for judgment and examination. Among these monks was Lord John Holtmann, the abbot of the Monastery of the Fountain, a man of outstanding piety and erudition whom both Anabaptists and adherents of the Confession94 looked up to. Perceiving that this reformation made many changes which violated the institutions and rites of the Catholic Church, they referred the examination of

93 94

453

454

See K.’s Introduction n. 122. That is, Lutherans.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 459

6/6/2007 9:15:16 PM

460

455

456

the events of 1533

the outline which they had been shown to the bishop on the grounds that it was hardly their role to judge such matters. Fabricius, however, rejected the bishop’s examination and judgment, thinking it sufficient for his purposes if he would at least have approval for this reformation from those who would consider it valid. Having learned that the landgrave had sent preachers to Münster, our prince wrote to him on November 18 in the following words. He said that he had learned that the landgrave had sent to Münster | certain preachers for the purpose of a definite order and plan in the business of religion. Since he, the prince, had promised in the last diocesan assembly at Reine that he would, at the request of the estates, draw up some definite ordinance in the business of religion which his subjects would obey until the decision of an ecumenical council, he was by no means pleased that these preachers were forestalling his own activity and undermining in advance the reformation which he was planning. He therefore asked the landgrave to send them a letter forbidding them to presume to interfere in the prince’s affairs. To this the landgrave replied on November 27 as follows. He said that it had been at the request of the council of Münster that he had sent preachers there, and not | because of any desire to prescribe the method of reformation. Since the preachers of that city were introducing the schism of Anabaptism by which they were leading the people terribly astray, he had, as a favor to the city and the entire people, sent to Münster two preachers who would teach the Word of God in a pure manner, freeing the people from the blemish of Anabaptism with the remedy of Holy Scripture and fortifying them against it with this antidote. He thought that he had not deserved ill will because of that good deed. On November 29, Derek Fabricius and John Lening the parish priest of Melsing, who were the two preachers sent by the landgrave to the city, wrote to our prince as follows. They said that a few weeks before they had been sent by their prince, the landgrave, to the city of Münster in order to suppress a certain error, and at the same time to arrange peace and tranquility and to weave together a Christian reformation in ecclesiastical ceremonies and rites, all of which they had, they hoped, successfully completed with God’s assistance. Now, however, they understood that the prince had arrested certain burghers of Dülmen on account of the Gospel, on whose behalf they, the two preachers, grieved very greatly. They therefore asked that these burghers be released lest what they had piously undertaken for salvation should be cast in their teeth as something impious.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 460

6/6/2007 9:15:16 PM

the events of 1533

461

To this the prince replied on December 3, as follows. Since the landgrave had not sent any messenger or letter in advance to announce their arrival, and they had no command from him to ordain the reformation, he left their previous letter to their estimation. Therefore, just as the landgrave would have no patience with the intrusion of someone else’s reformation into his jurisdiction without his consent, so too would he not tolerate among his people a reformation stitched together by foreigners unknown to him. He therefore vehemently warned them to refrain from weaving together a new reformation in the city of Münster or in other places | subject to his jurisdiction, since he would not put up with this. Furthermore, even without any warning from the preachers, he would do with the burghers of Dülmen who had been arrested what the considerations of fairness dictated. On November 30, the prince wrote to all the cities of the diocese to say that he was busy with the zealous pursuit of arranging a reformation just as had been agreed to at the previous assembly at Reine. He therefore asked that they refrain from all innovation in the business of religion until what he wrote should be made public. After the assembly at Reine, however, the people of Warendorf had made many innovations, and the prince criticized them severely for not living according to the dictate of the assembly and for forgetting their obedience by letting seditious preachers into their community and changing the ancient ceremonies. On December 2, they replied by saying that they had banished the seditious preacher. As for the one whom they did have, they had, they said, received him on the urging and advice of the people of Münster. They said that he had a mind completely opposed to sedition, taught the Gospel faithfully, did not impugn the sacraments, and instead baptized any infants offered to him, and kept no one from the communion of the body and blood of Christ. They therefore asked that the prince turn a deaf ear to those false denouncers and always allow them, the people of Warendorf, a proper defense. For they had never committed an act by which the obedience owed to the prince was violated. All the other cities wrote back that they would obey the prince, and only the council of Münster stood out, replying in the following terms on December 3. | They said that since they and the prince had entered into an agreement in the business of religion, they would not tolerate any regulation or reformation from him in violation of this agreement. For they had, they said, drawn up and made public a Christian enactment in the business of religion. This had been approved and accepted by the unanimous agreement of all the estates of the community, and

457

458

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 461

6/6/2007 9:15:16 PM

462

459

460

the events of 1533

by it they had sought God’s glory, Christian concord, peace and the burghers’ salvation. The prince’s very frequent warnings did no good with the council, and instead it was made more impetuous in the matter of receiving Mumpert. Nonetheless, on December 12, the prince pled the case for Mumpert for the last time, as follows. He said that he was sure that Mumpert, whom he had appointed as preacher of the cathedral, had faithfully taught the Word of God in pure doctrine without any attempt to stir up sedition and schism. He was therefore surprised that the council had banished him from the city, and he again warned the council to allow him to carry out his duties in the city. If, however, he could not gain a favorable answer to his request with their full consent, he would have to leave this to the passage of time. In an appendix, he stated that he had previously asked the council to banish from the city the seditious preacher Bernard Rothman along with his colleagues so that peace and tranquility could be gained and preserved. Since this had not yet been implemented, he again asked them to do this. On November 30, Fabricius made his reformation public in the Church of St. Lambert despite the objection of the prince, commending it to the people and threatening divine vengeance against those who would violate it. This | reformation was approved to the applause of virtually everyone. After the sermon, however, which he had attended with certain people of his stripe, Rothman did not refrain from his impulse to revile and publicly attacked Fabricius in the church and cemetery with intolerable insults and disparagements. It did Fabricius no good to say that he was doing everything at the command of the council. If Rothman had not removed himself from the crowd of people who rushed up, he would have received a good thrashing from the surrounding multitude. Fabricius was in no way downcast by this uproar, and on the next day, December 1, he again mounted the pulpit to deliver a sermon with greater vivacity. For almost an entire hour he complained of the unworthy manner in which he had been received by Rothman. The unbridled | wantonness of an impudent spirit was not to be tolerated in a free city were it not the case that the Gospel forbade taking vengeance on contumely, and everything had to be overcome through meekness and leniency by Christ’s example. It was easy to see from this rashness, he said, what nature was in Rothman, by what spirit he was driven, from what his doctrine derived, and by whose suggestion and urging he was carried along. Fabricius left it to the people to consider more deeply what sort of doctrine and disciples

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 462

6/6/2007 9:15:16 PM

the events of 1533

463

he had, that is, disobedient, impetuous and seditious rebels who were fond of insults. These men were no different from the character and piety of their teacher, whose deeds they refl ected just as apes do. With these and similar words, Fabricius inveighed most bitterly against the Rothmanites. Since Peter Wirtheim opposed the Rothmanites very bitterly, on December 6 he received the administration of the parish of St. Ludger with the council’s permission, though at the instigation of Rothman he was shoved out of the pulpit by the rebaptized on January 11 of the following year. John Schroder of Werne worked for Henry Walraf the ironsmith, who lived by Lilienbeck on Horst Lane. On the feast day of the Conception of the Virgin Mother of God, which was December 8, this Schroder, who had been employed as a smith for some years, learning to beat the iron after putting it on the anvil and to force it into various shapes, was inspired by a sudden gust95 from the bellows and was illuminated by the glow from the white-hot coals, so that in the cemetery of St. Lambert, he gave a sermon of miraculously mind-numbing length. This whole sermon consisted of nothing but an invective against the council and Fabricius which he arranged in such a way that he almost moved hammers and stones. With great confidence, not to say stupidity, he promised to have a debate against Fabricius at the risk of his own life. But what statements about the faith and religion could be made by a man who had constantly heard the sound of hammers on the anvil, who had studied not in a school of theologians but in the workshop of smiths, and who had often trained in a collegial gathering not of teachers but of drinkers? On account of the sound of the hammers he would have been much better advised to spar with Pythagoras, the inventor of music. The council ignored this madness and contumely until December 15. It did, however, wish to avenge the most recent rashness on Rothman’s part, when he had harassed Fabricius after a public sermon, not by punishing him with arrest or one of the other penalties which are rightly infl icted on the seditious but by exiling him, and so on December 11, the city revoked his official safe conduct in the city and its protection

461

95 A pun in Latin: the Latin word spiritus means “breath” literally and “spirit” metaphorically, so that he was inspired by the spirit of the bellows. The punning continues with “illuminate,” which literally means “lighten up,” but metaphorically refers to intellectual or spiritual enlightenment.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 463

6/6/2007 9:15:17 PM

464

462

the events of 1533

of him. In contemptuous derision of the city, Rothman gave the messenger who reported this to him a gift, and with great confidence he made the following reply. He said that he feared no man and had no particular need of anyone’s protection if he was defended with the assistance of God and his people. Protected by God’s help, he was not afraid of the empty word “exile,” and no threats, however savage, from men would deter him from his vocation of spreading the Gospel. For it was necessary to obey God rather than hostile men96 who ordered banishment and despoiled the people of the Word of God. When these events were reported to the Rothmanites, they rushed in droves to their teacher to console him, since they believed him to be despondent at the council’s decree. They bade him to be of good cheer. The Heavenly Father would, they said, test the steadfastness of Christians, succouring His people with gracious consolation in their straits, confounding the plans of the impious, and saving the pious from all disasters. They told him that he should therefore exercise his office in a fearless, manly way, and they promised that they would protect and defend him against the violence of the impious till the last breath in their bodies. Relying on these pledges, on the Sunday after the feast of the Conception of Mary, which was December 14, he headed for the Church of St. Servatius under escort from Knipperdolling and other adherents of this faction. He intended to preach, but after finding the church closed, he refrained from smashing in the doors and gave a very short sermon in the cemetery under a linden tree. At the end of it, they went their separate ways without disturbance. On the same day, Fabricius celebrated the Lord’s Supper in the Church of St. Lambert according to the evangelical rite. There were seven participants in this: Fabricius himself, John Westerman, Brixius, Wirtheim, Glandorp, Langermann and Belholt, and for this reason they received various rebukes from the Rothmanites. On December 15, the new-fangled preacher, who had suddenly been made out of a blacksmith on December 8 and run riot against the council and Fabricius with more license than sense, got carried away with himself again and gave another sermon. This time, the council had him arrested by its attendants and thrown into the public prison. | At 2 p.m. the next day, December 16, however, a large crowd of smiths gathered on behalf of the arrested man and accosted the

96

Acts 5:29.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 464

6/6/2007 9:15:17 PM

the events of 1533

465

council, demanding the release of their colleague. At this point, there were various contentions on both sides. The council contended that as a factious and seditious reviler of his government he justly deserved the death penalty. The smiths, on the other hand, held the view that he was innocent of all faction and sedition and of the crime of reviling, since he had been driven by the spirit of God to teach good things as doctrine and to criticize bad ones. To this the council replied that the jobs in the community were distinct and not interchangeable, and that the general peace could not last long if the jobs which ought to be distinguished were mixed up in confusion, with one man rashly interfering with another’s sphere and field. For no one had ever crossed over the boundaries of his calling without causing a disturbance and a rupture of tranquility. Everyone should therefore be restrained within the limits of his job. The man under arrest had been called upon to forge iron and not to give sermons, yet he had disturbed the entire city with his unusual preaching, he had stirred up the people against their government, he had despised the careful doctrine of Fabricius, who had been sent by the landgrave, enjoyed the official authority of the government, and taught the Word of God without contamination from foreign filth, and he had rejected and condemned what he did not understand, substituting his own hallucinations, urging the people to adopt unheard of practices, and introducing schism. Accordingly, examples of the punishment of sedition and rebellion had to be set at times, so that everyone else would live in peace. To this the smiths replied that the man under arrest was not naturally evil-minded, since he had, under the impulse of his love of virtue and piety, openly criticized vices and had, in the zealous pursuit of spreading the Truth, made himself hoarse teaching pious doctrines in conformity with the Gospel. He had not handed out weapons to the people for use against their rulers, but instead sought peace. He had not censured Fabricius’ doctrine but certain indecent habits, offending him not undeservedly. He had not besmirched himself with stealing, treason, rapine, brigandry or any other heinous crime, or committed any act worthy of death, unless doing good and seeking the salvation of the burghers with salutary warnings deserved to be categorized as a crime. It was not the case that the names for things had changed along with the habits of this period of time or that the liberty of Christians had ever been so restricted that it had not always been permissible to do good, | even without the permission of the government. Thus, the

463

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 465

6/6/2007 9:15:17 PM

466

the events of 1533

council should restore the innocent smith to his previous liberty and stop thinking in vain about executing him. For they would not abandon their blameless colleague. At these words the council’s resolve crumbled, and the mob of smiths pressed on more urgently with their demands. The council grew timid, and as dusk was now coming on, they thought that the matter should be postponed until the next day, since the intervening night would suggest useful advice. The mob replied that it had deliberated enough, that no one was to be wrongfully harmed, and that an innocent man’s blood was not to be shed, lest they call down the greatness of God’s vengeance upon themselves. Therefore, they said, the poor wretch was to be released from the foulness of the prison. The council gave up all hope of the penalty for sedition which the man under arrest would have paid if the smiths had not intervened, and so they promised that he would be released the next day. At this point, the entire mob shouted that if the man was not released at the council’s order, the bars of the prison should be broken down and the man snatched from jail, not “the next day,” or “tomorrow” or “the following day,” but right now. At this inarticulate bellowing on the part of the smiths, the council in its chamber grew terrified and they feared for their lives. Hence, they thought it would cause no great harm if what would happen the following day took place immediately, and they ordered their attendants and servants to open the prison. Thus, after giving surety about not seeking revenge for his arrest,97 the man was set free. Welcomed by the mob of smiths, he was led off to a tavern, where they egged each other on throughout the night with so much drinking from pewter steins that most vomited out all grief which they had experienced on behalf of the arrested smith along with their beer. On December 21, Rothman forgot about the council’s decree, and from 7 o’clock until 8, a large number of Anabaptists heard him preach in the Church of St. Servatius, which was located in a trackless area along the open area behind the city walls. Many of the evangelicals also participated in the Lord’s Supper in the Church of St. Lambert, with Fabricius officiating. The Catholics, however, who were downcast at the large number of schisms, grieved in silence.

97

A standard legal procedure when a suspect under detention was released.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f9_379-466.indd 466

6/6/2007 9:15:17 PM

THE EVENTS OF 1534 After completing his job of weaving together a reformation, Dr. John Westerman returned home to Lippstadt on December 28. On the feast of the Circumcision of the Lord, the Rothmanite Henry Roll1 gave a sermon in the Church of St. Giles. When the council learned of this, they sent attendants there to take the keys from the beadle at the end of the sermon and close the church, so that no one of that faction would have any ability to preach there. On the other hand, when Brixius was mounting the pulpit in St. Martin’s to give a sermon, he was shoved down by the Rothmanites. At the instigation of Rothman, Peter Wirtheim was also kept from preaching when he was driven away from the Church of St. Ludger. | For this reason, the church was closed by the council to avoid commotion. Fabricius, who stood out among the evangelicals for the outstanding authority and favor which he enjoyed and who eclipsed the others by virtue of his tongue, was the only one whom the Rothmanites had to tolerate against their will. All the preachers were viewed with contempt, and he alone was valued; all the others were rejected, and he alone was allowed to teach doctrine; all the other churches were closed, and only St. Lambert’s was open for him.2 For this reason, he gained for himself such a reputation for erudition in the eyes of most people that no one seemed to know anything that he did not, and hence he began to acquire no little smugness and to swell up with arrogance, though he tempered this with such moderation in words and character that among the people of his stripe no one seemed humbler, no one milder, no one gentler. At the end of a sermon that he gave from 6 a.m. till 7 on January 4, Fabricius publicly attacked Rothman’s doctrine. Since Rothman was assuring the people on various occasions that he would defend his doctrine in a public debate against anyone, even at the risk of his life,

464

465

1 We do not know how the edict of November 6 that banned the preachers affected Roll or when he returned to public life in Münster (see “Events of 1533” n. 82). According to a report from August of 1534, he was in Holland and Frisian around Christmas time in 1533. 2 Recall that St. Lambert’s had also refused to take Rothman back after the council allowed him to resume preaching (see “Events of 1533” n. 73).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 467

6/12/2007 3:32:39 PM

468

466

the events of 1534

and also said that the evangelicals were shirking and refusing to face him, Fabricius too offered to debate against all the Rothmanites and Cerberus3 himself at his own risk before any fair and uncorrupted judges at all. Learning of the wishes of the disputants and of their mutual eagerness to debate, the council thought that there would now be an end to the wrangling. The councilmen therefore gave their approval and advised that it was necessary to employ the services of certain learned and pious men | who were to be designated by evangelical princes and entrusted with the judgment of who was victorious. The council promised to attend to this with municipal funds. Everything was agreed to by both sides, but when the council discussed a specific date for the debate, Rothman began to make excuses, to quiver, and to prevaricate. He said that even if, as he was certain would happen, he defeated his adversaries with manifest Scriptural passages from both the Old and the New Testaments, the world had deviated from the path of truth to such an extent that it was unwilling to recognize the truth even when it recognized it. While some people had been led astray by the enactments of the popes, others had been bewitched by Luther’s ravings and made deranged through the views of other heretics and schismatics, all of them clinging so obstinately to the opinion adopted by them that they would not allow themselves to be defl ected by any reasoning or arguments. Everyone was so hostile to him, he said, that he knew that when he brought forth the truth into the light of day, no judge would decide in his favor. It was therefore safer for him, he argued, to entrust the decision of his case not to a court of men, since such courts can be subverted through bribery and favor, but to the Supreme Judge. Thus, this debate, which the council and many others had been awaiting, came to nothing.4 On January 4, certain womenfolk who were not so much bold as impetuous approached the burgher masters at 3 p.m. when they were making themselves available in the customary way in the marketplace.5 Through their spokeswoman, they asked for the removal from his office of Fabricius, an unknown foreigner who did not know the Westphalian

3 Mythological reference to the three-headed dog that guarded the exit from the underworld. 4 Apart from the fact that one of the learned disputants was going to be Herman Kothe, who had been a chaplain at St. Lambert’s, nothing else is known about this abortive debate. 5 This event is reported only by K.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 468

6/12/2007 3:32:39 PM

the events of 1534

469

dialect and hissed in foreign idiom and who was rash, foolish and driven by some evil spirit. They then asked that he be replaced with Rothman, a wise man | who was eloquent in the local tongue, pious, and trained in every sort of discipline. They said that they would show their thanks in the prayers they poured out to God. To this the burgher masters replied that they should not interfere in such matters in violation of womanly decorum, and that these matters did not concern the feminine sex. Fabricius would not be removed unless he was defeated in debate, and Rothman would not be accepted unless he was victorious. They said that the women should therefore be mindful of feminine bashfulness and decency by returning to their homes and looking after their families. They, the burgher masters, would make sure that the public good was not neglected. Angered at this reply, the womenfolk said, “You are not burgher masters, since you do not plan what is helpful to the public good. You are not fathers of the homeland, since you neglect the homeland. Instead, you are worse than murderers, since you cheat not only bodies but also souls of their sustenance, cruelly killing them with starvation from a famine in the Word of God.” They left pouring out these and similar words. On January 5, these same womenfolk added to their number six nuns from the Convent Across-the-River, who become unbridled renegades through an excess of material goods and cast off all shame along with their habit.6 This group accosted the entire council, which was gathered in the council hall, and harangued it at length about accepting Rothman in the Church of St. Lambert. Their demand was not received favorably, however, and for this reason they awaited the departure of the council to seek a more favorable response. At the end of the meeting, the burgher masters left and, when asked by the womenfolk, they did not change the council’s view. Their womanly shame immediately turned into fury, and as they followed the burgher masters down the lanes with various rebukes, they spewed out unspeakable insults against them and the entire council with such clamoring that many people ran up from various houses to view this unusual spectacle. These people marveled at the savagery and impertinence of these women, particularly the ones who had been cloistered for some years and learned to sing the Psalms of David, to converse with God and to lead a mild

467

6 The departure of these nuns was reported to the bishop by the abbess on January 10 (see 472D).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 469

6/12/2007 3:32:39 PM

470

468

469

the events of 1534

life. When certain people tried to get them to moderate their language, these women, who had now lost all sense of propriety, became more keenly enraged than is the custom of women | and said, “You used to be evangelicals and advocates of our cause, but now you have changed your mind and turned back into papists. You gobble the Hessian God7 as Fabricius officiates and you suppress the Word of God and do not let it be spread. Soon you will repent of this impiety. Soon you are going to pay a penalty worthy of your deeds. Be hanged, never to return alive! Ha, ha, ha, ha, you papists! Ha, ha, ha, ha, you gobblers of God!” There was virtually no restraint in their rebukes, and they spat out whatever was suggested by fury. The burgher masters would nonetheless have put up with this verbal insult more patiently if the women had not hurled at them cow, pig and horse dung, which they found scattered in the lanes. In this way, they made fools of the burgher masters and the entire council with impunity. Meanwhile, the people of Warendorf summoned a seditious preacher and increasingly introduced all the innovations after the example of the metropolis, disregarding the obedience that they had promised to the prince at the last assembly. This preacher attracted to him the majority not only of the burghers but of the inhabitants of the surrounding countryside. He so imbued them with his doctrine that in contempt of their own parish priests they brought their children to Warendorf for baptism and considered no marriage legitimate at which the preacher of Warendorf did not officiate. The prince was offended at this unheardof thronging of the peasants and wrote as follows on January 7.8 He said that he had several times warned the people of Warendorf in a friendly way that they should refrain from all innovation and tenderly embrace the rites of the Catholic Church, it being safer for them to press on with their ancestral customs, but now he was finding out through experience that contrary to expectation they were lapsing from disobedience into rebellion. To avoid anything worse happening to them, he ordered them either to drive out the preacher or to come to terms with him, the prince, regarding their disobedience. The people of Coesfeld also broke the promise which they had given the prince, once again letting in new preachers. Hence, on January

7 A rather offensive way of describing the taking of the host during the eucharist as prescribed by Fabricius, the representative of the Landgrave of Hesse. 8 Rather, January 17.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 470

6/12/2007 3:32:39 PM

the events of 1534

471

13, the prince wrote to them as follows. He said that a few months previously he had vehemently requested that they should not only not let new preachers in but also expel them from the city. Now, however, he was finding out that in fact they were disregarding his warning and everyday pressing on more and more with their previous innovation, to the great detriment of both government and commons. He therefore again ordered them to obey his previous letter and banish the seditious preachers from the city. If, however, they could not be prevailed upon to do so, he would punish this disobedience as it deserved. Then, since they were still not very obedient, he commanded his bailiffs to keep a careful watch on the burghers of that city who were the leaders of the seditious faction and to arrest them if they left the city walls and lead them off to jail for being seditious. Next, being anxious to settle the disturbances among the burghers and strengthen their own party, the council of Münster met on January 8. Henry Redeker the furrier was an alderman, and rumor had it that during the taking of prisoners at Telgte, he had seized possession of the cathedral steward’s9 wallet, which contained 500 fl orins, and brought it back as his captive. When the topic of expelling the preachers again came up for discussion, this Redeker raged like a bacchant against the city council and especially | against Wieck, the city’s syndic, on the grounds that he was responsible for many acts of sedition and innovations. To this the doctor replied, “Go home, good sir, and guard your wallet!” From this comment a great battle of words ensued between them. They butted against each other like yearling goats, but the burgher masters cut this strife short. Then, the councilmen discussed the common good and decided that over anyone’s objections certain preachers should be expelled from the city, not including Rothman, who was protected by the commons’ favor. They thought that if this plan succeeded, it would be easier to expel Rothman too, who was the chorus leader of all the seditious people. The Rothmanites (Klopriss, Roll, Stralen and the preacher from Moers)10 had no such fear for themselves, and with the advising, urging, persuading and scolding that they constantly employed to derange the adherents and wealthy matrons of their faction, they caused them either to sell all their possessions and contribute the money to the common

9 10

470

471

Melchior of Büren. I.e., Staprade.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 471

6/12/2007 3:32:39 PM

472

472

the events of 1534

fund or to bring this property to the homes of the preachers.11 They asserted that no one could partake in the covenant and eternal salvation who did not renounce the entire world by throwing away the adornments of their rotting bodies or selling them for the maintenance of their poor brethren and of the preachers. “Woe, woe,” they said, “to haughty Münster! Woe, woe to you who wear gold, silver, jewels and splendid and exotic wimples for decoration! Cursed are you who put a higher value on the adornment of your bodies than that of your souls! So strip off the old person along with all forms of lust, and put on new armor!” These sermons, which were a mixture of honey and vinegar, caused not only people of lesser fortune to be moved but also more respectable ones. On January 11, the wife of Christian Wordeman the councilman was rebaptized by Rothman, and when she was returning home, | her husband learned of this from a servant girl and so confirmed her in her new faith that she could barely crawl, much less walk.12 On the same day, seven nuns from the Convent of St. Giles and a certain number from the Convent Across-the-River were rebaptized by Rothman along with a very large number of burghers of high standing. Certain matrons brought Rothman their rings, their belts decorated with silver studs and golden pins, and their other adornments, but they were forced by their husbands’ beatings and threats to ask for them back. Certain others went off surreptitiously to the houses of other preachers to drink wine and receive doctrine secretly, convincing their husbands in the meanwhile that they had been busy outside the home with profit-making business activities. After the truth was revealed to the husbands by certain people, they not only greeted their returning wives with blows and punches but made dire threats against the preachers if they did not refrain from familiarity with their wives. On January 10, Ida of Merfelt, the abbess of the Convent Acrossthe-River, complained to the prince that contrary to any concern for the reputation of their families and in violation of their vows, her nuns

At this point K. fails to note a crucial event. Bartholomew Boekbinder and William de Cuiper (“the cooper”), who were proselytizing the views of John Matthisson throughout northwestern Germany and Holland, arrived in the city as representatives of the Dutch Anabaptists, and on January 5 they (re)baptized the radical preachers, who in turn began to (re)baptize others in large numbers. 12 As the rest of the paragraph shows, this is an ironic way of indicating that he beat her. 11

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 472

6/12/2007 3:32:39 PM

the events of 1534

473

were being led astray by insignificant people.13 She said that with God’s help she, along with the majority of the nuns, had lived according to the manner laid down by their rule, and in order to comply with the prince’s last letter she had hitherto not allowed any innovation in either religion or ceremonies. Now, however, certain nuns had, contrary to her expectation and in disregard of their profession, changed their habit, left their monastery, listened to the sermons of the seditious in the city, and kept themselves among lay burghers, refusing to let themselves be restored to obedience unless they were allowed to return at their discretion. Since these nuns were clearly resisting their monastic vows, their professed calling and their obedience to the bishop, she said that she could not fail to inform the prince of these matters, though it caused her great distress to do so. She said that she would not readily complain of her own nuns if it were possible to omit to do so without violating her honor and vows and if she could with her own resources restore everything satisfactorily to its previous state. Since, however, | she neither dared nor was able to remedy these misfortunes without the prince’s authority, she accordingly asked him as a suppliant to succour her with his help and advice and to indicate by letter his counsel about what should be done with the nuns who had left and those who intended to leave in future, since she wished to avoid doing anything that might offend the prince. To this the prince wrote back on January 16 to say that she was not to receive among the other nuns those who had contumaciously cast off the yoke of their rule. Otherwise, the others would also follow the example of their impunity in plotting a similar rebellion and prevarication about their vows or advocate a greater sedition among the obedient. To this the abbess replied on January 28.14 She said that she had not been able to prevent or hinder the nuns from leaving the monastery with entreaties, supplications, tears or threats. Since the majority of the nuns had now changed their habit, she said, if she followed the prince’s advice by completely excluding the rebels and not taking them back, she would stir up either a fresh cause for disturbance or, if they had perchance suffered the complete loss of their shame, very severe

473

13 At the start of the letter she began by defending her initial failure to do anything to stop the rebellion among the nuns. 14 Rather, January 18.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 473

6/12/2007 3:32:39 PM

474

474

475

the events of 1534

criticism of her from not only their blood relations but anyone at all. She left all this for the prince’s deeper consideration. To this the prince replied on January 26,15 saying that she should summon the parents and relatives of the rebel nuns and explain the whole situation to them. If they could not restore the nuns to a saner frame of mind and to the vows of their profession, she was to turn them over to the relatives’ power and authority, so that they would take the nuns back home to avoid any violation of the convent’s previous decorum. Then, to comply with their earlier decree, on January 15, the council of Münster | ordered their servants to conduct Klopriss, Stralen and Vinne16 out of the city. A great throng of the rebaptized, who set as much store by the council as they did the prince, led them back into the city through a different gate as if in a great triumph, to the perpetual disgrace of the council. This event was the harbinger of the community’s destruction through the most savage uproars. For nothing is more dangerous for a community than the refusal to obey a lawful command, since this opens the window to private authority, which gives birth to every misfortune in the community. After learning what had happened, the prince grieved at the downfall of the community. Having been unable to make it abandon its impious designs with his salutary warnings and friendly letters or with sequestrations and lawsuits, he wished to avoid the appearance of having failed to do everything pertaining to the salvation and safety of his people by deterring the townsmen from their impious faction and restoring them to a sane frame of mind in an edict made public throughout the diocese on January 23. Its text17 was as follows. “We, Francis, by the grace of God bishop of Münster and Osnabrück, administrator of the Church of Minden etc., proclaim that we find as a certainty that the condemned, forbidden and seditious faction and doctrine of Anabaptism | which has been spread by certain fraudulent preachers, who have not been lawfully summoned, namely Bernard Rothman, Henry Roll, John Klopriss, Herman Staprade, Dionysius Vinne, Godfrey Stralen and their adherents, has also begun to take root in our city of Münster along with many other dangerous innovations

15 16 17

Rather, January 24. These men had also been r(e)baptized on January 5. Known only through K.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 474

6/12/2007 3:32:39 PM

the events of 1534

475

which set a bad precedent. This we have learned to our very great distress. Hence, if we allow this evil to go around marauding without punishment, we will pile up not only the outrage of his Imperial Majesty and the entire Empire for ourselves but also unending discord and irreparable loss, or rather destruction, for our subjects and the entire diocese. In order, therefore, that our subjects should be deterred from this doctrine, which has the spirit of sedition, and restrained by the loving bond of Christian concord, we have quite often and earnestly written to the burgher masters, council, aldermen and guild masters of our city of Münster, asking them to cast this seditious doctrine and pernicious error from the city and not to allow it within their walls in any way, as many letters attest. Nonetheless, however, we find that the spread of this condemned schism creeps further across the city everyday. In order, then, to block this evil with salutary remedies and punishments as befits a prince, by this letter we revoke and take away the security, liberty, public defense and safe conduct of the aforementioned preachers and of each and every one of the burghers and inhabitants of our city who openly or secretly defend, protect, harbor, tolerate and suffer them or who intervene to prevent these preachers from being arrested by the government and subjected to the punishments which they deserve because of their impiety and disobedience. We therefore command each and every one of our bailiffs, stewards, judges, servants and subjects to stop and seize the aforementioned disobedient, factious and seditious rebels where they are and can be found, arresting their persons and turning them over to the government so that they can be subjected to the penalties of the law in accordance with the Imperial edict and the recesses of the Empire, in order that we and our subjects should not win for ourselves the Empire’s outrage. It is our vehement wish and command that our bailiffs and subjects should faithfully carry out these duties if they wish to avoid punishment and outrage. In witness of this our will, we have impressed our seal in the space below. | Issued on the Friday after the feast day of Sts. Fabian and Sebastian the Martyrs,18 1534.” The extent to which this edict of the prince’s moved the townsmen is demonstrated well enough by the events of the following period of time. On the feast day of the Conversion of St. Paul ( January 25), Rothman gave a sermon from 8 o’clock until 10 in the Church of St.

18

476

January 20.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 475

6/12/2007 3:32:40 PM

476

477

478

the events of 1534

Servatius, and unexpectedly seeing not only the rebaptized who were members of his faction but also evangelicals and Catholics, he added at the end of the sermon as a colophon that pearls were not to be cast before swine19 but only to the elect, who were enrolled on his list. After this time, he did not preach openly, but only privately in the houses of certain burghers. With the number of Anabaptists growing, however, so that they could not be contained in a single house, there began to be houses in the individual parishes in which the Rothmanites would either listen to a sermon or be rebaptized at specific times. These houses were open to no one but the rebaptized or those who had proven to the doorkeeper with a fixed sign that they wished to be rebaptized. For they had certain signs, both verbal and silent, by which they recognized each other even in a great crowd of people, and whenever these signs were betrayed, the old ones were replaced with new ones. Next, at around 7 o’clock in the evening on January 28, the rebaptized were driven by some spirit or other to rush up and down throughout the city, closing off all the lanes in the city with chains and setting up night watches. Our people, who feared the worst and did not know what the rebaptized had in mind, did not dare set foot outside of their homes, and they barricaded them on the inside to make it difficult to burst in. It was not lightweight proofs which led us20 to harbor the suspicion that these arms were being made ready to kill us, but God Almighty mercifully turned them away from our necks.21 | The rebaptized remained at their posts under arms until the following day, closing the city gates in the meanwhile. While these events were going on, two men showed up clad in unusual foreign attire. They had arrived in Münster on about January 13 and were staying at Knipperdolling’s house. Considered by the mob to be Enoch and Elijah,22 one was John Bockelson of Leiden, who later seized the throne of the city, and the other John Matthisson, who, at the beginMatthew 7:6. K. now begins to speak from personal experience. 21 In fact, the cause of these preparations was a rumor that the bishop was collecting his forces in order to enter the city. Supposedly, a fire was to be set outside the Horst Gate to distract the burghers, and in the meanwhile the bishop’s troops would be admitted though a different gate by treachery. It is true that in the previous December the bishop had told the loyal knights of Münster and Osnabrück to keep themselves ready for action, but there was no such attempt on the city at this time. 22 Apocalypse 11:3–8 speaks of two witnesses who would give testimony against the Antichrist, and in popular medieval eschatology these two were identified as the Old Testament figures Enoch and Elijah; see General Introduction n. 20. 19 20

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 476

6/12/2007 3:32:40 PM

the events of 1534

477

ning of the siege, was killed by the enemy about the time of the feast of Easter in front of the Gate of St. Ludger and whose widow John of Leiden married.23 Feigning remarkable piety, they took counsel in Knipperdolling’s house with Rothman, Roll, Klopriss, Staprade, Vinne and Stralen about present circumstances, and indicated to the armed men what they wished to be done in the meanwhile. They disagreed among themselves, some wishing to cleanse the city of the filth of the impious, others asserting that the day of vengeance had not yet arrived and that therefore the slaughter of the impious was to be postponed, being put off until the Lord’s Day. Since everyone was convinced that these two were prophets sent down from heaven and that nothing should be done without consulting them, they awaited their decision. After much sighing and meditation, the two replied that it was not yet time to cleanse the threshing fl oor.24 They said that more people were to be won over as profit for the Lord, and that once they had been won over, they were to be confirmed in the heavenly doctrine, not of course in the churches of the impious, which stank of idolatry, | but in the private homes of Christians. The two told them that they should therefore not yet stain their hands with the blood of the impious, so that they would not themselves make the Heavenly Father angry with them. They were to await the day of the Lord, which was almost at hand: He would then cleanse His threshing fl oor of all impiety. The others acquiesced in these words as if they had come from some divinities. Hence, at around 4 o’clock on January 29, the armed men dispersed to go home, and in this way all that uproar died down. From these events the council realized that its plan to expel the Anabaptist preachers had been the cause of the savage disturbances, since the preachers had relied on the protection of their people in their unwillingness to be expelled. In order, then, to free themselves and the burghers from the daily fear of slaughter in which they were ensnared, on January 30, the councilmen summoned the aldermen and guild masters to deliberate not about banishing the Rothmanites but about maintaining peace within the city walls in any way at all. After they had deliberated for a long time back and forth, in the end they decided that once all the anxious worry had been put aside, no one

479

23 John of Leiden did arrive on January 13, but his companion was Gerard tom Cloister (as K. himself later correctly relates; see 645D). John Matthisson did not arrive until February 9. 24 Matthew 3:12; Luke 3:17.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 477

6/12/2007 3:32:40 PM

478

480

the events of 1534

among the burghers or the inhabitants was to fear anything untoward from his fellow burgher, and that no one was to harm someone else or strip him of his possessions. Instead, they were all to live with each other in a friendly and peaceful way, with no one provoking anyone else with rebukes or bitter words and no one disturbing another in his faith. Faith was to be a free concern, determined according to the dictates of each individual’s conscience, until God in His mercy bestowed unity in religion and the faith through His Holy Spirit. It was accordingly decided that those who violated this decree, which had been issued for the sake of the general peace, were to be subjected to lawful punishments. When this decree was being proclaimed throughout the city by the council’s attendants at its command, the Rothmanites girded their loins, laughing in their sleeves that their intimidation of the council had brought it about that they could do anything with impunity. In the meanwhile, the prince decreed that an assembly was to be held at Wolbeck on February 2. All the estates of the diocese were summoned to it, and with timely counsel they were to discuss the situation in religion and any other necessary business concerning the good of the homeland. | The people of Münster sent to this assembly Caspar Judefeld the burgher master, Henry Redeker, who they say took possession of Melchior of Büren’s wallet with 500 gold pieces during the raid on Telgte, and a certain person called Tile, who was the commander of the arquebuses. An expert at sharp shooting, Tile was a tall cyclops of fearsome height, and being one-eyed, he did not have to close one eye as sharpshooters do. Good men spoke ill of him because at Rothman’s urging he had attempted to cast aspersions on the good name of the excellent burgher master Eberwin Droste, who was a good man in everyone’s estimation, but he had been compelled to sing a palinode in public court and recanted everything. When the prince learned that these men were present as the representatives of the community of Münster, he refused to grant them an audience and kept them away on the grounds that they were unworthy. Through his councilors, however, he had word sent to the burgher master, whom he understood to be a good man, that in this assembly he had been going to deal with matters which were not trivial ones but rather important public issues involving the safety of the homeland and the salvation of souls, and that he did not wish the seditious men of poor repute whom the burgher master had brought with him to participate. Thus, nothing was accomplished in this assembly. For the prince immediately departed because of the presence of infamous and seditious men to make sure

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 478

6/12/2007 3:32:40 PM

the events of 1534

479

that nothing bad should happen to him from the close proximity of the men from Münster. To conform more openly with his name now,25 Rothman no longer refrained from causing uproar. | He thought it necessary to fan the fl ames lit by certain nuns of the Convent Across-the-River, so that the fervor of his Gospel, which was now fixed in place, should not grow cold. Accordingly, he took along certain of his colleagues and entered the convent on February 6. He gave a sermon in praise of marriage, and with the wondrous battering rams of his oration he broke open the barracks within which their virginity was enclosed. He seemed to be urging the virgins to propagate the human race, an act to which they were not particularly averse. Next, to make them completely crazy instead of merely stupid, he convinced them that the tower of the convent along with its entire structure and all those living in it would collapse at midnight on the following day, claiming that this event had not only been foretold by certain prophets present in the city but disclosed to him personally by God through divine revelation. This oracle brought the nuns not so much distress as joy. For their spirit, which was ablaze with lust, hated the monastic life, and now they thought that they had been given a suitable opportunity to shake off their yoke. Therefore, at dawn on the following day they carried out virtually all their possessions, | and since they thought that there was no place safer to keep them than with Rothman as a man of God, they took most of them to his house. They likewise entrusted themselves to the safe keeping not of the convent but of the houses of Rothman or other burghers. On the other hand, Ida of Merfelt the abbess, Ludgera of Linteloe and Sophie of Langen, who surpassed the others in age and judgment, perceived that everything had been made up by Rothman for his own profit and for this reason tried to hold back with many tears those who were yearning to leave, but in vain. For they had been so deranged, so bewitched by Rothman that in disregard of their families’ good names and of the sense of shame which befits women, they rushed through the lanes after casting aside their vows and changing their habits, and did not let themselves be admonished. Accordingly, these three nuns did entrust themselves to the Lord God without abandoning the place and habit which they had professed, being ready for any fated outcome. After this story spread among the mob, | incredibly large crowds

25

481

482

483

A reference to the supposed etymology of Rothman’s last name; see 160D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 479

6/12/2007 3:32:40 PM

480

484

the events of 1534

remained awake all night in expectation of the collapse. But when the time predicted for the collapse by the prophecy was at hand, they heard nothing but the voice of a night-raven fl ying over the city. The next day confirmed the falsity of the prediction. To avoid a complete loss of his reputation from this sooth-saying, Rothman defended himself with the example of Jonas, who had foretold the overthrow of Nineveh at God’s command, but this did not happen.26 Yet Jonas, he said, should not be considered a false prophet, since such oracular predictions did contain a condition, namely “unless they repent.” Destruction, he said, had certainly threatened the nuns, but since they earnestly repented, God the Father had mercifully averted this disaster. Realizing that Rothman’s authority was lessened in the eyes of many people because of this false prophecy, Roll was seized with divine possession in the manner of bacchants and rushed through the lanes. With horrifying shouts and insane bellows, he called upon the impious people not marked with the Sign of the Covenant to repent. The day of the Lord was at hand, he clamored. Creating a new situation through this stratagem, he made everyone forget Rothman’s previous oracle and reclaimed large numbers of people who had become disenchanted with Anabaptism. Rumor had it that this sort of madness was induced in the rebaptized with a drug. For Rothman was said to have learned the skill from his parents | and to have mixed the drug in a bottle for those rebaptized by him. It was from this very bottle that the daughter of George tom Berg had been seized with a similar insanity when at about 2 p.m. on February 8 she preached before a large gathering of people of both sexes in the house of Bernard Swerthen under the arch, speaking with amazing impudence (she was mentioned above in the chapter on omens).27 At about 3 p.m. on the same day, Knipperdolling and John Bockelson the prophet from Leiden rushed through virtually all the streets of the city, demanding with sorrowful and terrifying shouts that people should correct their previous lives. With heads bare and eyes fixed on heaven, they bellowed nothing but “Repentance! Repentance! Repentance!” Some of us remembered the sorrowful wailing and the grim voice which foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, and in tears they 26 See Jonah 3. The prophet threatened the city with destruction, but God was moved by their supplications to refrain from carrying out the destruction, much to the prophet’s annoyance. 27 Chapter Nine of K.’s Introduction.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 480

6/12/2007 3:32:40 PM

the events of 1534

481

prophesied the downfall of this community too. When certain people here and there in the lanes would make fun of this unheard-of madness of the part of these bacchants, | Knipperdolling and Bockelson said, “Woe, woe, woe to you! Woe, woe to you, who make fun of those who are driven by the spirit of God, who do not accept the healthy word ‘repentance,’ who look down on our Covenant. Repent! Come to your senses! Do not call down upon yourselves the vengeance of the Heavenly Father!” Then, returning to the marketplace, in the midst of all the people who had gathered from virtually all the corners of the city out of curiosity about the event, they rushed forward to embrace and kiss each other. After the madness died down and they gradually regained their previous mental health, George tom Berg, the tailor whose daughter had preached a little while before, was seized with a new madness, and he immediately rushed up, throwing aside his headgear and raising his palms towards heaven. “Look up, brothers! Look up and lift your heads now!” he shouted. “I see the God of Glory fl ashing in the clouds of heaven and carrying the Cross of Victory in His right hand! Woe to you impious people who are obstinate in your evil! Come to your senses, come to your senses! I can see the Heavenly Father with many thousands of angels making dire threats against you on high. Woe, woe to you impious people! Repent, repent! That great and terrifying day of the Lord is here. Come to your senses, come to your senses! The punishment of eternal damnation and never-ending torment await you who believe that Christ assumed human fl esh from Mary.28 Come to your senses, come to your senses! God is just about to cleanse His threshing fl oor, and He will burn away the chaff with unquenchable fire.29 Repent, and if you wish to avoid God’s vengeance, take the Sign of our Covenant!” The gesticulations with which he proclaimed these and other things can hardly be described. Now he danced upon stones, elevating himself up in his dancing as if about to take fl ight and clapping with raised palms. Now he shook his head, rolling it around frequently. Now he lifted his eyes to heaven, now he lowered them. Now he grieved; now he threw himself on the ground

485

28 Here the traditional Trinitarian doctrine that Jesus partook of both a human and a divine nature is denied. In the radical view, Christ’s divinity had completely supplanted his human nature. This view was included above as item 12 of K.’s list of the radicals’ beliefs (399D). For the tendency to emphasize the divinity of Christ in radical thought, see MacCulloch (2003) 186–187. 29 Matthew 3:12, Luke 3:17.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 481

6/12/2007 3:32:40 PM

482

486

the events of 1534

in the shape of a cross and rolled in the mud. In short, he accommodated the configuration of his body to suit the individual words. All of us who in our youthfulness decided to attend were fl abbergasted at this unusual bellowing and gazed up quite carefully at heaven, but we perceived none of the things that the rebaptized saw or even any unusual appearance to the sky. Thus, these bacchants were laughed at by the surrounding youths for fun, | and together they withdrew to their houses with Knipperdolling. There, Knipperdolling was driven by a new madness, though one milder than the first, and in one corner of the house he turned to the wall and pretended to speak to the Heavenly Father as we watched and heard (the door was open). Now in clear speech, now in furtive muttering, he said very many things which were not proper connected phrases suited to general understanding but instead were disjointed words like a madman’s. Eventually worn out, he withdrew into the inner recesses of his house with his frothing mouth, and brought this spectacle to an end. There was a certain tall, fat man who had been born in Scotland and brought here by some twist of fate. Being a poor man, he used to seek his livelihood in various streets, and by bribing him with money, the criminals also put this man up to shouting for repentance through the lanes at night time. Being blind, he fitted tall raw-hide boots onto his feet to keep from being befouled with the mud of the lanes. Then, he ran around as if inspired with the goad of Anabaptism, shouting for repentance and bellowing that the heavens showed a wondrous, terrifying face. In this way he induced many people to come see the nighttime spectacle, frequently repeating the same words. In the end, when he came to the Royal Road and said again that the heavens were right about to fall, he fell into a big pile of pliant mud and immediately fell silent. After that time, he could not be induced to put on a similar performance for any promises, however fine. Jodocus Kalenburg was also driven by the same spirit. Riding on a horse made to gallop, he was carried back and forth through the streets, announcing that the heavens would fall and shouting that he was seeing wondrous things and beholding many tens of thousands of angels. Next, a certain woman was driven on by a similar madness, rushing through all the streets of the city and calling upon everyone to come to their senses with such clamoring that she went completely hoarse and could not utter another sound. In order that the spirit should not fail the prompting, however, she tied a goat’s bell to her back with a belt, and when it was shaken by her trembling movements, it made a

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 482

6/12/2007 3:32:40 PM

the events of 1534

483

constant noise. In this way, she attracted attention here and there, and achieved with nods and signs what she could not with speaking. Also, a certain woman called Timmerman’s wife shouted “Repentance” and “Come to your senses!” through the streets, | claiming that the King of Zion was just about to descend from heaven and restore Jerusalem.30 Very many burghers were terrified by this new stratagem of going insane. First, they were brought to doubt their religion and began to be of uncertain faith, and these people Rothman approached with his coaxing speech. Now it was easy for him to lay the wavering low and to lead them astray to adopt his own view. In this way, he increased the number of his people, so that now, after shaking off the bridles of the government and breaking down its barricades, they competed not secretly but openly for control of the city. At about 8 a.m. on February 9, more than 500 men armed with offensive weapons seized the marketplace and the neighboring council hall, in which there was a large supply of weapons of every variety, their purpose being to take sole possession of the city after either killing or expelling us.31 When this bloody plan of the rebaptized was betrayed to us, however, certain councilmen immediately | sent their attendants to summon the nonrebaptized burghers, both evangelical and Catholic, to the Cemetery across-the-River, which the Aa fl ows past. Since the rebaptized had already seized the marketplace, our people had no more suitable location in the city for the purposes of either warding off attack or protecting themselves. So our people quickly thronged there under arms, so that they easily surpassed the mob in the marketplace both in numbers and in strength. Certain of them had not dared to leave their houses in arms because of the proximity of the rebaptized, and they ordered their servant girls to hide their weapons in their long dresses and bring these to them in the cemetery. Some of these girls were betrayed and caught en route by scouts, and being armed in this way they were, amidst intolerable insults, brought to the cell that is underneath the stocks which are kept in readiness for blackguards who roam the night.

487

488

30 The Germanic form of the name is ambiguous and the woman could be the daughter of this Timmerman, but his wife seems more likely. 31 The immediate cause for the military preparations was that a man from Dorpmund had arrived with news that 3000 men had gathered outside the city and would attempt to enter. Previously, the bishop had given an order on February 3 that his officials were to arrest everyone suspected of Anabaptism, instructing the knighthood to assist them, and on February 8 he ordered his officials to provide him with a written list of suspects.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 483

6/12/2007 3:32:40 PM

484

489

the events of 1534

One of these girls was Assola, the servant of my host John Wesseling, a very respected and learned gentleman and very experienced doctor of medicine. After being dragged to the marketplace by the Anabaptists and driven forward with many insults, she alone escaped imprisonment through the intervention of certain men whom she had served, though she was stripped of the weapons. When the rebaptized men in the marketplace learned through scouts that they were unequal to the forces across the river, in fear of a sudden and unexpected assault they first filled the Chapel of St. Michael, the tower of St. Lambert’s, the council hall, and the houses abutting the marketplace with guns and shot. They also fortified the marketplace with chairs and pews taken from St. Lambert’s, and with containers, planks, stones and rubble quickly transported from all over the place, placing arquebuses at short intervals along the barricade, so that they had no misgivings about an attack by even the best equipped army. Replacing the previous guards, they also turned over all the keys to the locked gates of the city to members of their faction | in order to prevent our people from improving their strength by letting in a foreign force. From all these actions our people easily grasped what the rebaptized were attempting to do and what they had in mind. Accordingly, our people took thought for their own situation, and to secure their own safety by making sure that they were not taken unawares, they placed larger arquebuses in positions to block all the lanes or approaches against an enemy assault. To ward off any attack by the rebaptized, they occupied the towers of the Lords’ Church and the Bogey Man’s Tower near the open ground behind the walls with armed burghers. In order to impede any approach to the cemetery or the western section of the city, they tore down the wooden bridges apart from the arched walkway leading downhill from the Lords’ Field and the eastern section of the city down through the little tower named after a mirror32 to the Cemetery Across-the-River. This tower and walkway they held with a strong force armed with large and small arquebuses. They did not, however, think it good enough to be superior in domestic forces if they did not also reinforce themselves with foreign strength and counsel in case this was necessary, and so they strove with remarkable energy to acquire the keys to one of the city gates without heavy losses. When scouts reported that the keys were held by John Palck the councilman

32

“Spiegelturm.”

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 484

6/12/2007 3:32:41 PM

the events of 1534

485

and Conrad of Coevorden, both of whom were said to cherish the cause of the rebaptized, they sent some armed men who captured not only these two men, on whose persons the keys to the Gate of St. Mary were found, but also the Anabaptist preachers Vinne and Stralen and other men of this stripe. They placed all of them in the tower of the Church Across-the-River, which was fortified with quite strong doors on both sides. | All good men were amazed that Anabaptism had also crept into the council, and many members of the council now fell under the not unwarranted suspicion of favoring Anabaptism, though they pretended that they were upright and blameless. Now that the keys had been taken and Palck and Coevorden, who had been guarding them, thrown into prison, our people immediately placed a strong garrison at the Gate of St. Mary and the Jews’ Field Gate to make sure that no problem should arise through delay. Control of the other gates that had been seized from our people remained in the hands of the rebaptized, however. Certain leading men among the burghers considered the council suspect and immediately informed the prince of this disturbance and of the great danger faced by the city, requesting advice and assistance against the rebaptized. They said that now that they had been attacked by the rebaptized, they would finally put an end to all the troubles and rescue the community once and for all from constant turmoil. After learning of this, the prince wrote back to say that he would not fail to provide advice and assistance, even beyond his means, to the city in its travails and to the good burghers who had always advocated the suppression of the sedition. In order not to reveal his plan to many people, which tends to obstruct success, the prince sent a letter to the burgher master Herman Tilbeck, thinking that since he was quite a prominent patrician, he was not an adherent of the faction. He said that he understood that the internal dissension and sedition among the burghers had been stirred up by the rebaptized, so that the burghers were in arms and the whole city was ablaze with fierce uproar, and that horrible bloodshed | was to be feared, if the violence of the rebaptized, who had been the first to take up arms and had on several occasions broken the concord among the burghers, were not restrained. Accordingly, he asked that when he arrived with a moderate escort of cavalry, one of the gates should be opened to him, without any suspicion of derogating the city’s privileges. He said that he would not violate the rights and liberty of the city of Münster in the least. To the contrary, he would increase them by defending the peaceable

490

491

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 485

6/12/2007 3:32:41 PM

486

492

the events of 1534

and blameless burghers against attack from the rebels, suppressing the undertakings of the factious, and freeing the city from the threat of a disaster that would plunge the entire diocese with it into destruction. The burgher master, however, concealed this letter from the prince, to the great detriment of all the burghers and the entire city. He did not present it in the customary way to the council, aldermen and guild masters for examination, because it was his considered opinion that kindred blood should not be shed, or perhaps because he feared the death of himself and his people, that is, the rebaptized. Accordingly, since he perceived that while the rebaptized had little strength left, our people retained a great deal, he directed all the strength and effort of his mind to bringing about a discordant, false sort of canine concord that was destructive to the burghers.33 Despairing of their forces, the rebaptized took refuge in the large supply of weapons with which they strengthened themselves as far as a possible in order to strike fear into the men across the river. Accordingly, they sent a few armed men and horses yoked in pairs to the armory by the Gate of St. Giles in order to fetch some larger arquebuses, and they stationed three soldiers beside the Cemetery of St. Giles in the place where one goes through an alley to the Lords’ Field. When this was revealed to our side, they immediately armed fifty men to retake the arquebuses by force and sent them to meet the enemy by a circuitous route from the cemetery through the privileged Bispinghof area.34 Meanwhile, the physician John Wesseling and Wintercamp—both of them very bitter enemies of Anabaptism whom I followed in arms, being covered in chain mail—sought a shortcut from the Cemetery Across-the-River and hastened through the Lords’ Field and the alley mentioned above to the Giles Lane in order to join the other men of their side. When they unexpectedly ran by accident into the three men on guard duty, they gained courage in their very dread (they dared not retreat), and with rather harsh words they accosted the three just as if | they had an army following them. The three were terrified by our sudden arrival and noise and turned to their heels. They told their

33 The source of the reference to “canine concord” is not self-evident, but since K. soon alludes to a fable of Aesop (497D), perhaps he is thinking here of the story of the “Wolves and Sheepdogs.” In this story, the wolves make a pact with the sheepdogs to cooperate in attacking the sheep entrusted to the latter’s care, but in the end the wolves devour their comrades in crime. 34 See 61D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 486

6/12/2007 3:32:41 PM

the events of 1534

487

people that the enemy had arrived at the marketplace, declaring how fearsome the armed men were, adding many quite daunting lies at the prompting of fear, and shouting that armed men should be sent immediately as reinforcements. While this was going on, the fifty men sent out by our forces arrived after advancing along the little stone walkway in the place where the public latrine is and the stable boys at the Cappenbergs’ house water their horses. Near the Cemetery of St. Giles, our men came upon the enemy, who had two arquebuses. Sensing an attack from our men, they fl ed to the marketplace by a diagonal alley there and increased the fearful confusion. In the midst of this uproar, the horse transporting one of the arquebuses happened to get shot and collapsed, but our men seized the other one after driving off the guards. They turned its horse around and brought the arquebus back. The rebaptized rushed from the marketplace in groups without any proper battle order and vainly shot after us in the distance. Meanwhile, since I was still a boy, I was unused to the kind of buzzing sound made by gun shots, which resembles the sound of hornets, and was terrified by the threats of the Anabaptists, so I hid in the Cemetery of St. Giles behind the charnel house. I remained concealed there, and after the commotion settled down, I timidly crept out again. After returning to our side, I found that they had returned safely to the cemetery with one arquebus. Next, our men had a careful discussion of present circumstances. It was unanimously decided to launch an attack on the crowd in the marketplace, so that all the disputes would finally be put to an end and their descendants would thus not have to fear further uproar. There was a long debate, however, about the best way to achieve this without great losses. Some advised a direct assault on the men in the marketplace from all sides while they were still demoralized. Others urged that mantelets should be driven forward from all the lanes leading to the marketplace, and then an assault could be mounted once the barricades had been battered down with larger arquebuses and the enemy repelled. Since it seemed that both these options would cost much wounding and bloodshed, certain men thought that while the mantelets should be driven forward from all the lanes in an operation that as far as possible gave the appearance of an assault with full force, the enemy should be assailed with frequent shooting and worn down through constant toil without being given any opportunity to recuperate. | Then, while they had their attention fixed on this battle, a fresh force should break through the vaulted houses of the noble canons and

493

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 487

6/12/2007 3:32:41 PM

488

494

the events of 1534

burghers and rush upon the marketplace obliquely in a surprise attack. Such a victory would, they said, be less bloody. Most people seemed to support this third plan, but since they thought that a larger force was needed to carry it out, at nightfall they sent John Wechler, Jerome of Busch and certain other burghers on a mission to the surrounding country districts to fetch the inhabitants as reinforcements. By virtue of the authority of Derek of Merfelt, the bailiff of Wolbeck and escorted by his servants, they rang bells in wagons in the various districts and called upon the peasants to help. Meanwhile, as nightfall came on, both sides set out night watches and gave out passwords, ours being “Christ” and that of the rebaptized being “Father.”35 Our side also had non-verbal symbols. They carried straw wreaths on their weapons and ordered that such wreaths should be hung from all the houses of the non-rebaptized as a sign of innocence to make sure that no house belonging to an innocent burgher should be accidentally burst into during the coming attack. From this the rebaptized got an opportunity for slander, shouting at the tops of their lungs all over the place along the lanes that after rejecting the true God, we invoked gods of straw and placed our confidence and hope in them. Thus, with the Aa fl owing in between, both sides remained at their posts, talking in low voices, till the next day, one side in the eastern section of the city and the other in the western. The men across the river encouraged each other through the night, | urging one another to fight hard. Fabricius, the priest from Hesse, also made the rounds and strengthened their resolve with examples of bravery and steadfastness. He did, however, ask them to refrain as much as possible from shedding the blood of kinsmen and burghers and not to allow the papists to be restored to their previous position of honor or authority after the victory, since they were responsible for all the sedition and disturbance in the city. On the other side, Bernard Rothman and the prophets in the marketplace, John Bockelson of Leiden and John Matthisson,36 roused the rebaptized, convincing them that victory was in their hands. They said that the Heavenly Father would defend His people who were marked with the Sign of the Covenant against every attack from the For the significance of the watchwords, see n. 37. K. repeats his error of thinking that Matthisson was present at this time as John of Leiden’s companion (see n. 23). In fact, he did not turn up in Münster until after the end of the present strife. 35 36

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 488

6/12/2007 3:32:41 PM

the events of 1534

489

impious. Very large numbers of Anabaptist women also entered the Bakers’ Hall in the fish market to pray to the Father. There they spent the entire night, now muttering to themselves silently or in words that could not be understood, now calling upon the Father in loud voices (they made no mention of the Son).37 They made their prayers now on behalf of their Christian brothers who occupied the marketplace, asking that He give them strength and courage against the enemies and oppressors of His word, now on behalf of the impious, that is, on behalf of us, asking that He mercifully grant us a different frame of mind. Some women were also driven by the goad to rush away from the others. They jumped onto the fl agstones, gesticulated with their hands, clapping frequently, shook their heads around, and looked up at the heavens. In fearsome voices, they shouted that the Father with all His heavenly host and countless multitude of angels was standing in heaven and was right now preparing to descend to earth. Then they returned to the group and sang hymns translated by Luther into the vernacular. In addition to the women, there were men | seized with the same madness as the women and perhaps deranged by them. Without pause they sang hymns in the marketplace wearing their arms. Both groups passed the night with these pursuits. At daybreak, Knipperdolling was again driven by unbridled Furies.38 After running through all the streets of the city like a crazed madman, shouting for repentance for the previous life, eventually at 7 a.m. he even dared to accost the men across the river with this same call for repentance. “Repent,” he shouted, “you impious men! Repent! Come to your senses, come to your senses! For the wrath of God hangs over your heads. O Father, O Father! Annihilation, annihilation!” He would have been shot by Caspar Judefeld, his old colleague, if certain people had not intervened to pull him away and throw him as a prisoner into a tower, where he occupied himself with wondrous bellowing to the point of hoarseness along with the other priests and twenty-five rebaptized people who were detained there. Then, at around 8 a.m. a virtually countless multitude of country dwellers arrived. Armed after their fashion, | they increased our forces in no small measure. Our side was also encouraged by the

495

496

37 A paradoxical result of the emphasis on the divinity of Christ (see n. 28) was that he tended to be subsumed into God the Father. God the Father was in turn equated with the vengeful God of the Old Testament, which tended to undercut the peaceful aspects of Jesus’ teaching. 38 The Furies were avenging spirits whose visitations drove their victims insane.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 489

6/12/2007 3:32:41 PM

490

497

the events of 1534

arrival during the night of the bailiff of Wolbeck and the noble canons along with cavalry and peasants, and especially by their knowledge that the prince would soon arrive with properly equipped cavalry. At this point, the noble canons and the bailiff immediately offered their help and efforts against the rebels. For this Herman Tilbeck thanked them and replied that he did not need outside assistance to restore peace in his own city, and that this goal could be achieved without bloodshed or any harsh commotion. The noble canons and the bailiff, however, preferred to await the outcome of the story. In their desperation, the rebaptized began to lose all confidence in their situation, and so they sent Knipperdolling and Swedarth to visit our side as envoys. Let in under safe conduct by our side for a parley, they first made an energetic attempt to clear themselves of blame on the grounds that they had taken up arms not against fellow burghers but for the sake of training, so that they could, if necessary, be proficient at turning them against foreign enemies. They said that they had also been about to make a raid into the nearby country districts for grain, | since they feared being besieged by the bishop, but this raid had been hindered by the men across the river, to the detriment of the city. The men across the river had undertaken divisive factionalism and considered peace and good faith suspect, and while it was true that their own side had put on arms first, the other side was to remember how they had been first in declaring the men in the city enemies. Be that as it may, since they understood that the men across the river had undeservedly and undutifully summoned the bishop against their fellow burghers and would allow him into the city with his hostile cavalry, they, the envoys, left this circumstance to the deeper consideration of the men across the river. They bade the men across the river ponder what would result from this. If the enemy was received within the city walls, what would the city look like? If the burghers’ rights were oppressed with the harsh yoke of slavery and tyranny, what liberty, what autonomy, what privileges could remain? They were to consider this by themselves, and with unprejudiced reasoning they would realize that once liberty was lost, there would never be any hope left of recovering it. They, the envoys, could certainly atone for everything with their own throats which they had brought, but their audience should instead strive not to be unworthy of following in their forebears’ footsteps, not to become degenerate compared to their ancestors’ virtue and piety, and not to plunge their children, grandchildren, and all the descendants of the community into perpetual slavery through this betrayal, as they endeavored to put their

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 490

6/12/2007 3:32:41 PM

the events of 1534

491

opponents at a disadvantage. If they were going to let the wealth and riches which they would bequeath to their children fall in escheat, they should at least be unbegrudging in a matter where they had control and leave them the possession of an inheritance that was priceless and could not be compared with gold or jewels: liberty. They were also to think to themselves that the buzzard’s peace not only brought destruction to the mouse and frog but also transferred rule over the swamp.39 They would learn that a peace that was purchased at the cost of blood and slavery was not a genuine or useful one. Accordingly, they, the envoys, and those whom they were representing sincerely urged concord, the cost of which was less. After they had finished and left our people, the latter deliberated about this matter, some giving one sort of advice, and others a different sort. The burgher master Herman Tilbeck said that the arguments laid out by the delegation from the marketplace did not seem unreasonable to him. | For once the prince was let into the city, he would do everything at his own discretion, to the great disadvantage of the city and the loss of liberty, which was what he had always aimed for. The burgher master asked what they thought would happen if they received within the city walls the man who had villainously affl icted burghers, seized and sequestered their property, terrified them with arrest, ensnared them in foreign lawsuits in violation of the city’s privileges, cut off the supply of provisions and taken extreme steps against our community to make them give up the Word of God. It was not his considered advice that the burghers should shed each other’s blood or that one burgher should rush like an enemy against the other, father against son and son against father, with brothers and other relations by both blood and marriage finishing each other off with mutual wounds. It therefore seemed more useful and in conformity with Christian piety that this dissension should be settled without any foreign arbitrator, who was also stronger, and that concord should be restored in whatever way possible. This proposal of the burgher master displeased many men since it left kindling for future disturbances and kept the city bound in mutual suspicion and perpetual fear. Nonetheless, since he seemed to

498

39 In Aesop’s fable of “The Mouse, the Frog and the Hawk,” a mouse foolishly enters into friendship with a thoughtless, mischievous frog, who ties the mouse to himself as a joke and accidentally drowns him by jumping into the swamp. The carcass fl oats to the surface, and when a hawk makes off with it, he also captures and eats the frog, who is still tied to the mouse. The story does not really talk about control of the swamp.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 491

6/12/2007 3:32:41 PM

492

499

500

the events of 1534

be giving his sincere opinion, and the other burgher master, Caspar Judefeld, approved of this opinion as being well and helpfully spoken, no one dared to oppose the burgher masters on account of their great authority. Therefore, the delegation was given the reply that the men across the river were not averse to Christian concord if it could be arranged on fair terms. Thus, arbitrators to whom the settlement of the whole matter was to be entrusted were chosen by both sides. After hostages were given and received by both sides40 and the prisoners released, the whole dispute was resolved on the understanding that the business of the faith | would be left to the unhindered discretion of both sides. Each individual was to believe what he wished and to the extent that he wished, so long as he restrained his hands. For no one was to be disturbed in his faith and possessions, and everyone was to obey the government in everything else.41 After these proceedings, the noble canons and the bailiff of Wolbeck left the city with tears and laments, openly bearing witness that this concord would be the seedbed of destructive discord, and that this peace would be the seedbed of a horrifying war and of the overthrow of the entire city. The country dwellers, who had no foreboding of future disaster since they had refreshed themselves with beer provided by the council, were joyous at seeing once more the wives whom they had left at home, as if returning from a long period of military service. Both sides then went their separate ways to return home. They fired the guns that they had prepared and loaded to kill one another into the air, and the whole city rang with the sound as if struck with fearsome bolts of lightning. The prince himself, who was not far off from the city with his cavalry, shed tears when informed of the concord that had been agreed to, and he turned his horse around, departing in outrage. After the rebaptized had gone their way, a great multitude of women entered the barricades abandoned by their men, and were seized with a wondrous madness and unheard-of lunacy. | The pagans could not have depicted greater insanity on the part the Bacchae, Thyades, Maenads, Mimallonides, Aedonides, and Tryaterides42 at the rites of The hostages given by the opponents of the radicals were Wilbrand Plonies the burgher master, Herman Heerde the chamberlain, John Kerckering from Bispinghof, and Everet Ocken; those given by the radicals were Claus Stripe, Claus Snider, Bernard Pickert and Everet Gestemer. 41 This agreement came into effect on February 11. 42 All variant terms, of greater or lesser obscurity, for the Maenads or crazed female revelers at the Bacchanalia, the riotous festival of the god Dionysus. 40

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 492

6/12/2007 3:32:41 PM

the events of 1534

493

the Bacchanalia than was that of these women. Nothing was more fearsome to behold, nothing more tawdry, nothing more idiotic, and nothing more laughable. They were so deranged, so unbalanced, so driven by frenzy that they also surpassed the Furies described in poetry. They rushed about the marketplace in quite a shameless manner, some with their hair streaming, some with their clothing loose and fl owing, some with their wimples blowing in the wind. Some lifted themselves up in crazy dances as if about to fl y with the help of their mania. Some collapsed face down on the ground, forming the shape of the cross by sticking out their arms. Some lay on their backs gazing up at the sky and invoked the Father with outstretched hands. Some remained upright, raising their clasped hands to the stars and clapping frequently. Some lay in the soft mud, rolling themselves over and over. Some fell to their knees and bellowed. Some howled with gleaming eyes. Some frothed at the lips. Some made threats while shaking their heads and gnashing their teeth, and some ostentatiously uttered lamentations while striking their breasts. Some cried, some laughed. We, on the other hand, did not so much laugh at their crazed madness as grieve. They wore themselves out by shouting various things just as they did so by contorting their bodies into various gestures. All of them invoked the Father, not the Son. While this group prayed for our destruction from the Father, that group prayed for our salvation. While one group desired misfortune for us, the other desired clemency and mercy; while one group desired blindness for us, the other desired our enlightenment, so that we would be marked with the Sign of the Covenant and serve as soldiers under the same leader. While one group shouted that they saw the Father with many thousands of angels, and that He had grasped a rod and was brandishing it to destroy us, the other shouted that the Father was descending and would judge their case. While one group called upon the Father in His mercy to protect them and His city, the New Jerusalem, the other hallucinated that it was raining blood and showed us their wimples, which were splattered with blood, adding dire rebukes.43 “You impious people,” | they said, “why do you still wallow in your impiety? Now is the time to repent! The axe has been applied to the roots of the trees. Come to your senses, come to your senses! Do you not yet recognize that in His anger at you the Father is

501

43 This omen is mentioned in K.’s list of omens foretelling the city’s demise (124D).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 493

6/12/2007 3:32:41 PM

494

502

the events of 1534

threatening destruction and final extermination?” They also claimed that they saw a huge fl ame of blue and blackish color coming down from the heavens and covering the entire city.44 It was so thick, they said, that sight could not pass through it, though the sun emitted rays of such brilliance through it that the faces of all the people standing in the marketplace seemed to be gilded, and above this fl ame they saw a man riding a white horse who was brandishing a sword to kill the impious and impenitent people who spurned the Word of God. But none of us could see any of these things. The devil had so bedazzled and bewitched their eyes that they thought they saw what they did not and thought they heard what they did not and thought they understood what they did not. There is a house beside the marketplace that used to have on its roof a gilded weathercock to indicate the direction of the wind. Turned periodically by a light breeze, it refl ected the rays of the sun that landed on it with great brilliance into the eyes of those who were looking at it, | blunting and bedazzling their power of vision to such an extent that they thought their wimples to be splattered with drops of blood. Those who saw this extreme brilliance appear on the weathercock through the sudden refl ection of the rays of the sun also thought that the gates of heaven were opening. Accordingly, at the moment when these gleaming rays appeared, they all jumped up at once, filling the heavens with horrifying shouts. Clasping together their hands at the same time and stretching them up on high, they bellowed without stop, “O Father, O Father, O glorious King of Zion, spare Your people!” This inarticulate shouting and bellowing from the women gradually increased, heightened and multiplied to such an extent that you would have thought you were hearing the voices of a thousand pigs grunting at the same time. Eventually, one of the burghers perceived this delusional enchantment, and after he knocked the gilded weathercock over with a gunshot, it fell to the ground. Then, all the commotion suddenly died down and the women withdrew, being overcome with shame. Next, the burgher master Tilbeck was rebaptized along with his entire family by Rothman.45

44 The description of what was said to be seen is taken almost verbatim from a confession of Jacob of Osnabrück (who says that this was seen twice). Rothman also refers to this vision in his Restitution. This omen too appears in K.’s catalogue (124D). 45 On February 16, Tilbeck categorically denied this in a letter to the bishop (see 507D).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 494

6/12/2007 3:32:42 PM

the events of 1534

495

After the peace had been made through the exchange of hostages and the terrifying commotion on the part of the woman had taken place, many good and wealthy burghers were terrified, and in their consternation they left the city, realizing that the concord which had been agreed to would not last long. On February 12, | they also carted away their household goods—apart from provisions and weapons— in full wagons. For the rebaptized, who feared that they would be besieged, established the strictest guard to keep the provisions and weapons within the city walls, and they would not allow even a loaf of ground wheat bread to be taken out. My companion and fellow in literary studies, Hercules Herford, being terrified by these frequent disturbances among the burghers, yearned to leave. In particular, during the last uproar a certain student46 of literature had been shot fatally in the temple without his body being returned to his parents, so in fear for his own safety, Herford hastened to go back home. After he placed in the knapsack containing his books two very lightweight wheat loaves to ease his hunger on the journey if necessary, we approached the Horst Gate. There, two armed guards immediately stopped and searched us. Having found the loaves, they prevented us from leaving until we took them back into the city. We preferred to place them in our bellies in the sight of the raging guards. Having eaten up the loaves, we asked if we were allowed to leave now. “Go be hanged, you criminals,” they said, “never to return!” After escorting my colleague to the road, I returned to the city through the Gate of St. Maurice, thinking that it would not be a good idea to come back by the same gate. The guards were not so sharp-eyed, however, that they were not deceived | by women who carried out sides of pork concealed under their animal-skin outer clothing and over their linen undergarments. Sunderman the furrier discovered this trick for the first time with an indecent touch when one of these women was overly bloated. Hence, like a comedy the rather indecent and obscene story spread throughout the city that the women were carrying fat over their pussies.47 As a result, the guards

503

504

A young man from Burgsteinfurt. Here K. uses the word cunnus. Mainly appearing in poems of sexual content written by Horace and Martial, this is a strong word in Latin, and presumably K. intentionally chose it in place of the numerous euphemisms that Latin had for this part of the body (e.g., muliebria or inguen). Perhaps, the word was intended to highlight the comical nature of the ruse. In any case, a word like “vagina” or “vulva” would be too medicinal for the context. “Pussy” may be a bit too vulgar in tone, but it is probably the best that English with its squeamishness can provide as a translation. 46 47

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 495

6/12/2007 3:32:42 PM

496

505

the events of 1534

became more careful, and within the gates they violently examined all household goods, whether contained in boxes or in vessels, unless the owners quickly opened them up, and they unrolled bedding that was bound up with rope, and prodded them with swords. All these actions were taken by the authority not of the lawful government but of the prophets Rothman, Knipperdolling and Kibbenbrock, which shows the scrupulousness with which the terms of the recent agreement were kept by the rebaptized. When the landgrave learned that a dispute had again arisen between the prince and the city, he sent to our prince envoys who were to halt it like the earlier dispute and then settle it.48 The prince replied to them that since | the people of Münster had rashly cast aside the peace agreement which the landgrave had arranged and which had not been very advantageous to the prince and his people, they would not in future uphold any other agreement. On February 12, Eberwin Droste, his son John, and Herman Schencking the city judge reported to the prince as a fact that the burgher master Herman Tilbeck had been rebaptized along with his entire family, that the majority of the burghers had eagerly lapsed into that heresy, and that the innocent men had left the city with their wives and children to escape the dangers to their salvation and were lodging at great cost to their wealth in various towns and country districts or with blood relatives or strangers, leading miserable lives. For they preferred to die or suffer extreme poverty rather than pollute themselves with Anabaptism or lose their eternal salvation. Therefore, on behalf of them, the writers humbly pleaded with the prince for advice, consolation, assistance, and aid during this common calamity, so that this exile would not go on any longer and those in exile should instead be graciously restored to their previous liberty. The prince replied that he was sincerely displeased by this misfortune suffered by the burghers and by the contumacious behavior of the Anabaptists. He said that he now understood why the burgher masters had not permitted him to act as arbitrator, why they had rejected the help and advice which he had offered, and why they had virtually closed the gates to him when he was nearby. By the grace of God, he would make sure to the absolute best of his abilities that the good burghers learned through experience that they mattered to him.

48

There is no trace in the documentary record of such an embassy at this time.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 496

6/12/2007 3:32:42 PM

the events of 1534

497

To avoid | undertaking any action in this public affair and calamitous situation without the advice of the main clergy, the prince explained by letter that he had to deliberate seriously about these issues by having them hold a consultation with him about what needed to be done in this regard. On the same day, he issued a written order49 to all the bailiffs and stewards of the diocese that they were to protect and defend those who had left Münster in rejection of Anabaptism and kept themselves scattered all over the country districts and towns of the diocese, and that they were to give these people safe conduct in the prince’s name. On the other hand, the bailiffs and stewards were to arrest and imprison the Anabaptists, and to subject them to the due punishments and penalties. On the same day, certain noble maidens who were also nuns of the Convent of St. Giles and the Convent Across-the-River and had become tired of the philosophical life of monasticism cast off the habit and vow of their orders. They apparently desired the halter of marriage under the pretense of begetting children, not understanding the extent of the difficulties, miseries and calamities with which that way of life is beset. Their parents rode there as noblemen in covered wagons and attempted to make them come to their senses with coaxing words and to lead them back from this impious way of living. Some of these nuns said, “Go home and don’t be worried about us. You are not our parents since you handed us over to be burned with eternal fl ames. We are choosing a life that is honorable for us and acceptable to God. So go home with my full consent!” Some who were being carried away were even forcibly snatched from their parents’ wagons by certain rebaptized individuals who had been put up to this (they say that the force was unnecessary). Some whose sense of shame was still intact were moved by their parents’ tears, and by acceding to their salutary warnings were rescued from the Anabaptists’ (monstrous) wantonness. Many nuns of other convents also took advantage of this graciously granted opportunity. Meanwhile, to avoid idleness, the people of Münster had decided to attempt on the night of February 15 an attack on the defenses of Schönefl ieth, a stronghold of the noble canons located on the banks of the Aa, which was the residence of Melchior of Büren, the cathedral

49

506

507

No longer extant.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 497

6/12/2007 3:32:42 PM

498

508

the events of 1534

steward.50 All the necessary preparations were carried out in secret. When this plan was betrayed to us, the inhabitants fortified themselves against the coming attack with guns and powder hurriedly fetched from the prince, but perhaps because they changed their plans or because some other reason turned up, the people of Münster did not implement the scheme which they had conceived. Nonetheless, the threat of war was beneficial to this stronghold, in that the emergency work strengthened it to such an extent that it could endure a moderate attack without great losses. Realizing that they had become suspected of Anabaptist madness in the eyes of the prince, the burgher masters Herman Tilbeck and Caspar Judefeld wrote to him on February 16 to clear themselves. They said that they had always been displeased with the Anabaptism undertaken in the city and with the other ill-omened disturbances, and that they had, to the extent possible, fought against these things with their counsel and intelligence. Nonetheless, Anabaptism had first crept in in violation of their command, consent and volition, and then become predominant despite their plans and intentions for this year, it being their wish to stamp it out without bloodshed. They claimed that they were therefore clear of all suspicion of wrongdoing since they were innocent, and asked the prince not to harbor any suspicion of wrongdoing on their part since they were not the instigators of any disturbance and schism and were instead suppressors of it. They bade him let them give a fuller justification if necessary and not to change his previous attitude of goodwill. Instead, he was to send a gracious reply to let them know what to expect. An appendix from Tilbeck included with this letter stated: “As for the spread of the common rumor that I have been rebaptized along with my entire family, this is completely false. Wherever the prince wishes, I will clear myself of this accusation before God, the entire world and all men. Do not, then, turn away from me your previous attitude, I pray.” To this the prince replied on February 17. “I have received and understood your self-justification that you were responsible neither for the Anabaptism which has now become strong in the city nor for any ill-omened disturbance. From this we have received no little distress, having no doubt that if you had suppressed the seditious men from the

50

This abortive attack is reported only by K.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 498

6/12/2007 3:32:42 PM

the events of 1534

499

beginning and not indulged them in the least, they would have been less quick to commit these acts, and you would not have involved both us and yourselves in such difficulties. Be that as it may, we will lodge your letter and self-justification deep in our mind, and at the appropriate moment we will reveal our frame of mind more clearly.” To this the burgher masters replied on February 20. They said that having, in their previous letter, cleared themselves before the prince regarding Anabaptism and the other ill-omened disturbances that had been conceived and stirred up in the city of Münster, they had hoped that they would receive a benevolent reply, since it was very true that they had always resisted these events and expended much vigilant energy in the attempt to prevent that criminal faction from creeping into the community of Münster, but the steps which they had taken down to the present day had been in vain. If, then, they undeservedly had to fear for themselves though they were innocent and guilty of no crime, they asked that they be given safe conduct to travel through all the areas subject to the prince to avoid the possibility of being attacked and overwhelmed by his bailiffs and stewards. They asked that he graciously reply to indicate which of these courses he would take. While this was going on, Rothman, in order to avoid idleness, wrote, at the urging of the prophets and at the instigation of Knipperdolling, to members of their faction who, for fear of punishment, were hiding in various nearby cities like Osnabrück, Soest, Hamm, Wesel, Coesfeld, Warendorf, Ahlen, Dülmen, Schöppingen and other places. He knew them just as a general knows the troops enlisted in his service. He said that God the Father had sent to them in Münster two prophets who were remarkable for their outstanding piety and saintly way of living | and with a certain incredible eloquence and sweetness taught the Word of God in pure doctrine without any admixture of human filth. If, then, they wished to make provision for their salvation, they should come to them in Münster with their wives and children, leaving behind their earthly goods, and with the people of Münster restore their new Jerusalem and Zion and the true Temple of Solomon and worship of the eternal God, rejecting all idolatry. He said that apart from the heavenly treasure they would have enough wealth. When word of this spread all over the place in the towns and country districts, such a large number of people were set ablaze with enthusiasm on account of the novelty of the names and events and came rushing from everywhere, that they not only made good the loss in population caused by the emigration but surpassed it.

509

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 499

6/12/2007 3:32:42 PM

500

510

511

the events of 1534

Men with their wives and children, widows, maidens, women who left their husband at home, and husbands without their wives rushed here. The highborn and the lowly arrived here, soldiers and civilians thronged here, people from Holland and Frisia, from Brabant and from very many surrounding provinces, towns and country districts streamed here. Henry Krechting, the gaugraf of Schöppingen, hastened here with his wife and children, bringing along with him a large number of burghers from that town.51 On February 14, when he was about a mile from the city with a certain number of well-loaded wagons, Krechting was captured en route near an inn called “The Willow Stand” by John Senden, the gaugraf of Nordwalde. Krechting would have paid the penalty for his rashness if his son had not escaped the hands of the captors during their attack and quickly brought back one hundred rebaptized men from the city to help. That night, he broke his father out of his chains, the prison guards being severely wounded | and John Senden himself taking to his heels. When Krechting arrived in the city, he made our house a more than joint possession, seizing for himself the main hearth and the more desirable rooms.52 On February 17, Herman Regeward, the pastor of Warendorf, brought many people here with him. Lord Bernard Krechting, the parish priest of Gildehaus, arrived here with a number of his parishioners,53 as did Peter Swering of Coesfeld with his wife and money (he was rich) and no few burghers of that town, as did Werner Scheiffert the nobleman,54 | as did the wife of John of Recke from Drensteinfurt. She abandoned her husband, and did not think it sufficient to instill this impiety in her two daughters, who were nuns of the Convent Across-the-River, if she did not also bring along the third and youngest daughter (she was betrothed to Conrad of Doerloe) and herself to be destroyed as well.55

51 John of Leiden had previously met Krechting (1528–1607) in Schöppingen (645D), and Krechting would become his chancellor (647D). After the fall of Münster in 1535, the bishop granted him the return of most of his remaining property. He moved to Bremen, where his son Henry would become burgher master. 52 I.e., he was billeted in K.’s house and took over the better quarters. 53 A brother of Henry, Bernard Krechting had been a chaplain of the Count of Gelder, who gave him a parish in the county, but he was forced to leave after his preaching displeased the count. He had been to Münster several times in the preceding year. 54 He apparently arrived only in May. 55 Other sources differ over the exact number of daughters involved, but the mother came to rescue one or two daughters in the disturbed monastery. Instead, she and they

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 500

6/12/2007 3:32:42 PM

the events of 1534

501

Around this time, the prophet John Matthisson gave free rein to every sort of wantonness, secretly summoning rebaptized people of both sexes to Knipperdolling’s fairly large house at night. | After their arrival, the prophet stood under a bronze candelabrum that hung from a beam in the middle of house and supported three lit candles. He taught doctrine to the crowd, which had gathered around him in a circle, and with his prophetic spirit he kindled and set ablaze the fl ames hidden within the many people standing around. Then he added the first chapter of Genesis, and after reading the words “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth,”56 he put out the burning candles. What acts were then committed promiscuously during the night without any sense of shame was made clear by the prophet’s being caught rather immodestly in the embrace of a girl.57 They called this event the “baptism by fire.” You should not think this account false. For when the baptism by fire began to be mentioned everywhere in the city without anyone understanding what it meant, a certain woman was hired by my host Wesseling to find it out for the price of a loaf of fine wheat fl our. Having learned the password of the rebaptized, she fooled the doorkeeper and surreptitiously entered that house. She saw everything and related it to us. John of Wieck, the city’s syndic whom most people claimed to be responsible for the many disturbances and in particular for the rebellion against the prince and clergy, noted that after the leading men and wealthier burghers had left the city, their place had been taken by useless, insignificant people, and he realized that the community was done for. His opinion was that after it was ruined by seditious counsel, the community could not be restored to its previous position of dignity. For this reason he made off with himself, too. | The prince had ordered the bailiffs, stewards and gaugrafs58 throughout the diocese to keep a careful watch on the roads to make sure that Wieck did not escape, and so he was arrested. First taken to Bevergern and then to Iburg, he

512

513

became involved in the radical religious enthusiasm, and after the fall of the city to the bishop, male relations had to ransom the mother and her three daughters. 56 Genesis 1:28. 57 This is a standard medieval calumny told about heretics. At their nocturnal assemblies, the devil himself was thought to preside as heresiarch. After his speech to his acolytes, the lights would be doused and they would engage in promiscuous (often incestuous) sex. This revolting fabrication was transferred in the fifteenth century to the beliefs held about witches. For the whole topic, see Cohn (1993), esp. 35–78. 58 This German term has slipped in along with the Latin word usually used to translate it ( praefecti = “bailiffs”).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 501

6/12/2007 3:32:42 PM

502

514

515

the events of 1534

was eventually turned over to the reliable custody of Eberhard Moring in Fürstenau. Learning that its syndic had been arrested, the council pressed for his release in a letter of supplication sent to the prince on February 20, arguing that he was not devoted to Anabaptism, | which had unfortunately grown strong and numerous in the city. The prince replied that he had been arrested not for being a devotee of Anabaptism but for being seditious. The prince said he was displeased that Wieck had, in his hostility toward the clergy and all Catholics, emboldened the city council against him with his counsel. Wieck was possessed by such blazing hatred for the clergy that he was misled by his false belief into giving much counsel against the clergy and the bishop, though eventually this counsel unwittingly and unexpectedly redounded to the detriment of the burghers and council. Relying on his eloquence and legal knowledge, he abolished what was ancient and usual, replacing it with what was novel and unusual, and roused envy not only in the council but also among the commons, creating division and stirring up factions and dissensions. By his own example, he taught that once such mercenary jurisprudence is allowed into the council hall, it begets nothing but conspiracy, | sedition and hatred among the subjects. He taught that it has to be contentious about trivial matters which are often like goat’s wool,59 and to gain its wealth from the sweat and guts of the burghers. It is therefore in the interest of the common good that no mercenary lawyer should be allowed into the council hall to practice such servile, mercenary jurisprudence, making a profit by prostituting it. In his blindness caused by insatiable greed, such a man throws divine and human matters into confusion for the sake of gain, considers all courts and laws subject to his wanton desires, and pollutes justice, overturning it among posterity with his evil precedents. When asked his professional opinion, he counsels lawsuits just as a soldier counsels war, since a prolonged suit is his vintage. The ambiguities and obscurities with which he delivers everyone to his millstone alive are so clever and sly that not even water remains for other people.60 Self-serving men of this sort pray for anything but repose for the burghers. Sometimes they egg burgher

59 A reference to Horace, Epistle 1.18.15, where the phrase “to quarrel about goat’s wool” signifies pointless contention. 60 This apparently means that he squeezes his living clients dry with his legal chicanery. The somewhat obscure phraseology suggests that it is based on some aphorism, but if so, I have not been able to track down the source.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 502

6/12/2007 3:32:42 PM

the events of 1534

503

on against burgher, sometimes they provoke them with their writings, which are filled with every sort of slanderous impudence, and arm them for mutual destruction with their very cunning suggestions. As a result, these mercenaries are often responsible for great calamities in the community. Chilo declared that that community is best which listens to the laws most and the lawyers least,61 and for this reason such men should be excluded not only from the council chamber and deliberations but also from the cities and states themselves. For just as many diseases run amok in a place where there are many physicians, so too is it plausible that there will be many lawsuits in a place where there are many legal experts who basely prostitute the sacrosanct figure of justice for the sake of gain. A few days later, Moring was playing with the prisoner at a dicing table to while away the time, when a messenger, who had been quickly dispatched by the prince, arrived with a letter and a hangman. Having read the letter, from which he learned that the legal doctor was to be beheaded, Moring immediately grew very pale. When the doctor inquired as to why he was so terrified by the letter, the bailiff groaned but could not utter a single word. The doctor persisted in asking the reason for his paleness, since he too was perturbed, being apprehensive for himself. At this point, Moring said, “Lord doctor, it deals with your life. The prince has sent a hangman and orders that you be decapitated at once,” and at the same time he gave him the letter to read. | After reading it, Wieck was immediately struck dumb with terror and could not move a limb. After he shook off his initial dread, his heart began to beat again and his limbs regained their previous strength. Then, he burst into tears, and with deep sighs and complaints he bewailed, blamed and condemned his life, eloquence and haughtiness. He declared that although he had offended the prince and clergy, he ought not to be killed in secret but should be tried and convicted in open court. He said that as for his having emboldened the council against the prince and clergy, urged entry into the Schmalkaldic League and given many other pieces of advice, this had been dictated by the evangelical liberty, which he had undertaken to defend against Satan’s crew, even at the risk of his life, at the time that he accepted the position of syndic.

516

61 Chilo, Spartan magistrate of the sixth century B.C., was considered one of the Seven Sages of Greece. His apophthegm about legal practice is preserved by Plutarch (Banquet of the Seven Sages 154F).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 503

6/12/2007 3:32:42 PM

504

517

518

the events of 1534

Interrupting Wieck’s words, Moring asked that he not shift the blame for his death to him. He was bound by oath, he said, to carry out the prince’s command and had to comply with his letter. To this Wieck replied that the bailiff would obey God rather a prince giving impious orders.62 He told Moring to consider that he would, along with the bishop, give an accounting of this stealthy and calamitous act of murder not to man but to God, the just judge. In vain did he pour forth these words, and in vain did this man who was unprepared delay with his plethora of words men who were prepared. Here was the order of the prince, who was not rash in his command, here was hangman ready to draw his sword, and here was the parish priest to console a sad conscience. Wieck alone was unprepared, desperately looking for ways to elude death, rejecting the parish priest in contempt, and complaining that force was being used on him. Seeing that his objections and lamentations did him no good and that no hope for escape was left, he decided that he had to yield to necessity. Entrusting his soul to God while spurning the priest, he fell to his knees and clasped his hands together, holding his neck straight out for the hangman’s blow. The corpse was buried in a rampart. Although the burgher master Caspar Judefeld had earned the prince’s ill-will because of his negligence in ruling, he was more open in leaving the city and the Anabaptists whom he had vigorously opposed, and he moved to Hamm. Herman Tilbeck, on the other hand, no longer concealed his frame of mind and instead brought it forth into the light of day, remaining in the city and giving himself entirely over to Anabaptism. Some of the factious gave free rein to every sort of wantonness, celebrating their Bacchanalian rites with such lack of moderation that they not only wore themselves out with hallucinations, bouts of drinking, and hangovers, but put on various sports and spectacles in public in order to show their derisive contempt for the Catholics.63 They placed a hardened criminal with a feigned illness on a stretcher. They then placed the stretcher on a wagon, and at his feet another clown sat imitating a priest with vestments and stole. He raised an aspergillum in one hand and a book in the other, and pinching his nose with a pair 62 A variant on Acts 5:29, a verse often cited by reformers to justify their disregard of the legal hierarchy. 63 According to Gresbeck, these shenanigans took place on Shrove Tuesday (February 19).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 504

6/12/2007 3:32:43 PM

the events of 1534

505

of glasses, he read out many ridiculous things in a mumbling voice. Six blackguards yoked together like horses dragged this wagon through all the streets of the city, two dressed like Franciscans, two like Teutonic Knights, and two like Knights of St. John. They dressed the driver up like the bishop. Also, a certain tall blacksmith called Hubert Ruescher, who was dressed like a Black Monk,64 was joined to a plow, with certain fellows employed to force that two-footed nag down all the lanes with lashings as a farce. In the neighboring country district of Hiltrup, a certain witty scoundrel called Caspar Borchardes, who had been banished a few years before after being exposed for a while in the stocks as a disgrace, rested on a bundle of rods, and with crucifixes leading the way and all the bells ringing, followers of his stripe who bellowed hymns carried him around the cemetery in a public procession as if they were carrying relics in reliquaries with the greatest veneration. I pass over in silence the other sorts of nonsense performed in various places by such scoundrels worth of triple fl ogging, it being better to ignore them than to offend simple people. Next, on February 21, the rebaptized dispatched Henry Roll with full authorization to enroll soldiers in Holland, since they feared a siege. Arrested not far from Utrecht,65 he was fined and then discovered to be an Anabaptist. Condemned to the fl ames, he paid the penalty for deserting the Catholic Church. The prince came nearer to the city with fully equipped cavalry in order to discuss future events and the siege with the leading men of the diocese, and on February 23 he entered Telgte. Mindful of the earlier taking of prisoners, he set up more careful watches by day and night to avoid being set upon by the people from Münster. On the same day, the elections for the new council were held, and at them Henry Redeker the alderman advised the people that while the council had up until then been chosen by the urgings of the fl esh, it should now be elected by the instigation of the spirit. First, the ten electors were chosen by wards in the customary way in the council hall: from St. Martin’s, Herman Boemer and Andrew Werden the tanner; from St. Lambert’s, Bernard Boentruppe and John Lepper; from St. Giles’, Albert Geisthovel and John Redeker, from St. Mary’s, Anthony

519

64 Because of the color of their habit, Benedictines were referred to as “Black Monks.” 65 See “Events of 1533” n. 61 for K.’s mistake in identifying the place of Roll’s execution.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 505

6/12/2007 3:32:43 PM

506

520

521

the events of 1534

Grotevader; and from the Jews’ Field, Herman Foecke. Entering the council chamber, these electors chose for the city’s government twentyfour men who were not merely completely disreputable but absolute criminals who were hardly worthy of being entrusted with the oversight of the city’s gates or prison or the horses and dogs of the old council, who yearned to end their term of office at sundown. The next day (February 24), the new members distributed the various offices among themselves as follows.66 Bernard Knipperdolling and Gerard Kibbenbrock, both clothing cutters, were appointed as the burgher masters; John of Deventer and Christian | Wordeman the butter seller as the building superintendents; Christian Kerckering the patrician and Henry Xanten67 the coppersmith as the assessors to the chief judge; John Palck the blacksmith and Henry Roede the goldsmith as the wine sellers (superintendents of wine), Conrad Kruse and Nicholas Snider as the financial officials (superintendents of the “Grute”); John Ossenbeck and Bernard Boentruppe the butcher as the superintendents of beer; John Koening and Gerard Reining as the superintendents of the hospice for foreigners; Lucas Gruter and Gerard Pruessen the tanner as the superintendents of lepers; Stephen Kopperschleger the wine seller and Hans of Borstel (also called Menken) the goldsmith as the superintendents of St. Anthony’s alms-house; the younger Nicholas Stripe the cloth cutter and Engelbert Eding as the superintendents of the brick yard; Bernard Picker and Albert Geisthovel the baker as the superintendents of alms; and Bernard Olieschleger and Henry Pothgen the tailor as the assessors of the “Friegraf.” Under this government, which was more criminal than the preceding one, it was not permissible to take out any household goods or money, though it was permissible to commit any crimes at all, however heinous, with impunity. For on February 24, they were set ablaze with an incredible madness and eagerness to do harm, marauding throughout the city. One group terrified the nuns of the Nitzing Monastery, while the other assailed the brothers of the Fountain Monastery. One group | attacked the brothers of the Monastery of St. George, while others made a raid on the Knights of St. John and the other monasteries and holy houses of the city. They plundered vestments, money, household 66 See 89–90K for a description of the city’s traditional magistrates and their duties. 67 The original MS has “Pantes,” which is apparently a mistake (see “Events of 1532” n. 79).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 506

6/12/2007 3:32:43 PM

the events of 1534

507

goods, and whatever they thought would be useful to themselves. Nor did they leave the churches alone, taking away silver, gold, sacred surplices, chalices, and all adornments consecrated for the worship and service of God and diverting them to clothe and pay fl ogged criminals, whores and soldiers. Nothing was safe from being despoiled as plunder. They smashed the images which had survived the earlier disturbances or desecrated them by scraping the walls. They pulled down the Chapel of St. Anthony outside the Gate of St. Maurice after making off with all the moveable goods. No harm could be infl icted on the Chapel of St. Ludger, however, though this was often attempted. Next, at about 4 o’clock in the evening on the same day, Bernard Mumme led a column of fl ogged criminals | and accosted the beadle of the Lords’ Church, from whom he extracted the keys by force. First, they rushed into the Chapel of the Blessed Virgin and the other chapels one after the other, despoiling, smashing and ruining them. Next, they stripped the Lords’ Church of all its decorations, which they took away, profaning the inner sancta and stripping the altar clothes. With hammers and axes they smashed the clock, a creation of exquisite workmanship, and with particular hatred and madness they broke the baptismal font and the reliquaries. Entering the chapter’s chamber, they smashed the windows and benches that were very artistically adorned with the coats of arms of the Lords. For use in the latrine, they cut holes through a diptych that had been painted very skillfully with images of the Blessed Virgin and of John the Baptist by Franco the monk. They placed the diptych over the inner ditch of the city’s fortifications near the cemetery of the Jews for those on guard duty. They pulled down the marvelously painted images of the Sibyls, which were placed at fixed intervals on the outer wall around the choir. They mutilated images cut with rare skill in local marble | by breaking off their heads, arms and legs, while they broke apart the wooden ones with axes and threw them into a fire which they started there. With the use of ladders and crowbars, they knocked down the statues of the Fathers, Prophets, Apostles, and other saintly men that were affixed to the columns and walls in various places. They trampled the bones of saints and the sacrosanct body of Christ68 under foot. They destroyed the organ by taking away the pipes, and smashed the painted-glass windows, particularly the very outstanding and remarkable gift of Bishop Eric. Smearing human excrement on

68

522

523

I.e., communion wafers.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 507

6/12/2007 3:32:43 PM

508

524

525

526

the events of 1534

the insides of them, they piled up the books in a heap for burning. They tore into pieces the library of the very learned gentleman and very important poet Rudolph Lange, which was furnished with many hand-written works that had been composed with great effort and were not yet published. Taking off the silver plates, they reduced the famous large cross into ashes. They plundered and removed the sarcophagi of the bishops and noble canons, using them to bolster the outer defense works after smashing off the coats of arms. They spent the entire night in these impious pursuits, having no fear of the government. Meanwhile, since the people of Münster were not putting an end to their obstinacy, and he could not in any way restore them to their earlier obedience, the prince acquired everything deemed necessary for a proper campaign and siege. | First, he appointed as the main commanders of the whole expedition the highborn Baron John of Büren, Gerard Morrien the marshal of the diocese, Herman of Mengersen the vicar (suffragan) of the diocese of Paderborn, and John of Raesfeld. Frederick of Eller, Henry of Schönebeck, Gerard of Recke, John of Korthe, John of Senden, and John of Dincklage, all of whom were very experienced in their knowledge of cavalry, were made the generals of the cavalry, while men reputed for their knowledge of warfare, Wilkin Steding, a member of the knighthood, and Gerard Münster, who had the nickname The Smoker and later defected to the townsmen,69 | were made the principal generals of the infantry. Each of these generals was given the task of enrolling cavalrymen and infantrymen. After collecting some thousands of armed men, the generals distributed the other military tasks on the basis of bravery and experience. The following men were the captains of companies of 500 men: John Coritzer of Reine, Pilgrim of Ysselmonde, Andrew of Lübbecke, Egbert of Deveren, Derek of Grolle, Eberhard of Ovelaker, Herman of Sittard, Laurence of Horst, Derek of Till, Albert of Beltzig from Schwerhaus, Augustine of Deventer, George of Schimmel, John Hake, Godfrey of Utrecht, Bernard Kettel, George of Kyll, Nicholas of Utermack, Jodocus of Muiden, George of Wulframsdorf, Michael of Effurt, and Leopold of Wulframsdorf. The entire force, both cavalry and infantry, was enlisted for a term of three months, at the end of which all the generals and officers swore to serve the prince, if necessary, until the end of the campaign which

69

See 612–613D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 508

6/12/2007 3:32:43 PM

the events of 1534

509

they had begun with further pay. Individual pay was determined on the basis of military function. A cavalryman’s pay was fixed at eight Emden fl orins per month, while that of a private in the infantry was four, each fl orin being rated at 25 solden in Münster currency and a military month containing 28 days.70 For each captain, the pay was five times a private’s pay plus single pay for a batman; for a lieutenant, double pay plus single pay for a batman; for an ensign, quadruple pay plus single pay for a batman; for a sergeant, quadruple pay plus single pay for a batman; for the corporals appointed by the sergeant, double pay each, for the military judge, pay equal to a captain’s; for the three servants of the judge, double pay each; for the provost, single pay multiplied by the number of companies plus single pay for his drummer; for the provost’s six subordinates, double pay each; for the commander of the watch, pay equal to a captain’s; for the quarter master, double pay plus single pay for a batman; for each of the captain’s two pages, double pay each; for a man-at-arms, double pay without a batman; for any other heavily-equipped men, | six fl orins without a batman; for a priest, double pay; for attendants, drill masters, pipers, drummers, barbers and scribes, double pay each. This pay was to be calculated starting March 3. The Articles of War: “1) After taking the soldier’s oath whenever necessary and in whatever place they will be paraded, the soldiers will bravely fight it out with the prince’s enemy without any shirking and will ward off harm from the prince and his subjects while protecting their interests to the extent that they can with human industry and arms. “2) They will uphold all the customary articles of military discipline as befits proper, upright soldiers. “3) The prince will claim any captured cities, strongholds, guns, gunpowder, shot and whatever else pertains to guns. “4) The prince is not obligated to provide any special pay for siege action, so long as he allows them to plunder the city. “5) The council hall is not to be plundered or in any way violated by the officers or soldiers, and instead is to be preserved intact for the prince. The prince also makes a stipulation for one half of all other plunder.

527

528

70 This was the standard figure in northern Germany, a month of thirty days prevailing in the south.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 509

6/12/2007 3:32:43 PM

510

529

530

the events of 1534

“6) The noble canons and the other burghers who left the city are to be given preference before any third parties in the purchase of their goods which they left behind in the city. “7) Nothing attached to the walls or ground of houses is to be detached by the soldiers after the capture of the city. “8) Once the city is captured by the grace of God, the soldiers will turn over control of all the city gates and fortifications to the prince or to those appointed by him. “9) After the recovery of the city through the grace of God, the soldiers will leave it within eight days at the drum signal, in the meanwhile dividing up the plunder and retailing it. Whatever pay the prince will owe the soldiers he will discharge in a generous, princely fashion. “10) The officers and soldiers will not kill the leaders of the sedition who will be seized and captured during the storming of the city (their names will be drawn up in a careful list), and instead will, as far as possible, spare them, taking them to the prince in expectation of no mean reward from him.” Next, in order to suppress this horrifying schism, the archbishop of Cologne, the duke of Cleves, the count of Lippstadt and Bentheim, Deventer, Bielefeld, and the other neighboring princes and counts and surrounding cities sent various sorts of guns to aid the campaign (at great expense to the bishop). One group sent iron shot, the other bronze shot or saltpetre. Mary the regent of Brabant71 sent 400 barrels of gun powder, the Duke of Cleves 12, and Duke Eric of Brunswick 3000 pounds of it. Among the guns brought from all over the place, the longest and most powerful was the one that the people of Zwolle had sent, which was named “Serpent.” Those sent by command of the landgrave were terrifying just by their names, one being called “The Devil” and the other “His Mother.”72 Hooks, shovels, axes, and ladders | were made in such large numbers that they even filled several wagons. Osier was cut down for mantelets. Weapons covered with old dust were polished up. Swords and daggers were sharpened on whetstones. Lances, spears and breastplates were cleaned of aged rust. Horses were fitted out, broken in, and made accustomed to handling by humans and warfare. Nothing relevant for a siege was overlooked.

71 72

Charles V’s sister, who ruled in his name. For the names of other cannons, see 529D, 615D, 676D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 510

6/12/2007 3:32:43 PM

the events of 1534

511

A certain number of men were dispatched to cities and fairs to acquire by purchase the necessities for this war. John Henssenbrock bought 122 barrels of gunpowder in Brabant. John Heerde brought 150 from Amsterdam. Herman Tegeder transported 40, Melchior Bodegen 36. Others were sent to buy gunpowder to Cologne, Trier, Frankfurt, Neuss and Kaiserwerden. Frederick Wetter brought 189 pounds of saltpetre from Erfurt, and many others transported a great supply of both saltpetre and sulfur from various cities. A certain number of mills and workshops for pounding and finishing gunpowder were also set up in Iburg and Osnabrück. Conrad Prange the judge of Arnsberg and John Swerthen saw to making some hundreds of thousands of pounds of iron in ironworks in the hill country. Egbert Kaerbuck and a large crew of helpers turned unshaped lumps of stone that were dug out of quarries into cannon shot. The archbishop of Cologne, the duke of Cleves, the landgrave, the count of Bentheim, Osnabrück and other cities all around sent commanders of siege equipment. Men were also sent to buy many thousands of iron nails, | some tens of thousands of pounds of iron and lead, a countless multitude of arquebuses, smaller arquebuses and falconets, a few mortars, some thousands of lances and spears, rope of every kind, straw, hay, horse fodder, very thin cotton for military standards, and the leather from which are made the bags and sacks to carry gunpowder in. Many blacksmiths and carpenters were hired after being given a down payment on their salaries. It is easier to conceive theoretically than to list explicitly the amount of money that all this cost. Then, since the rebaptized awaited the danger of the coming siege as a certainty, on February 25, five hundred armed Anabaptists made a raid on the canons’ notable college of St. Maurice, finally executing their long-held plan to deprive the enemy of lurking places. First, they plundered the houses of the canons who had looked after themselves by fl eeing. They stripped the houses of all their goods, carting away in specially provided carts grain, beds and bedsteads, colored bedclothes and wood, while women and boys put household goods, ox meat, sides of ham, loaves of bread, and anything else they found there into large sacks and took them to the city. Once the buildings were stripped in this way, they put them to the torch. Next, they took apart the roof of the church by hauling off the lead, and after putting wood and straw at the foot of the lofty tower, | they set fire to it. After the integrity of the tower’s wooden framework was weakened from base to tip, it fell onto the church with a great crash, the bells being melted. From this,

531

532

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 511

6/12/2007 3:32:43 PM

512

533

the events of 1534

the wood and the spikes stripped of lead caught fire, and the vaults collapsed under the weight. Nothing was left of the church and tower but the shattered stone shell. Where shortly before the remarkable structures of the canons could be seen, there now remained only the chimneys. They also demolished and burned all the fences in front of that part of the city, creating a single open plain through the removal of all obstructions. They returned to the city exulting in these acts as if they had bravely won a victory. At around 3 o’clock in the afternoon on the same day, John Matthisson73 of Haarlem, the prophet, gave a sermon in the house of a certain rebaptized burgher beside the fish market, after his people had been summoned with a gunshot. At the end of the sermon, he explained to the whole multitude that amidst so many sects, schisms and views, this Christian community, which had been successfully started through the Father’s divine providence, could not remain intact for long or fail to experience quarreling and constant sedition, and therefore the Father wished this new Jerusalem, along with the sanctuary, | to be cleansed of foulness. He therefore thought it useful that a single body and a single community should be established by killing the papists, Lutherans, Sacramentarians and all those who disagreed with his doctrine, and that this community should be made strong and stable with new rites and Christian laws, so that those initiated into the new Covenant might serve God in peace, since they could be kept pure from the filth of other sects and from the contagion of the impious only if the impious were killed. He said that this would not be a difficult task since the rebaptized had a fortified city and a plentiful supply of everything, and their side held the majority in the city, so that there was not much fear of dangers from inside and outside. Almost everyone agreed with this proposal from the prophet without a long discussion. The following day they would have killed us all if Knipperdolling had not changed this proposal, which spelled our doom.74 He said that it was more than barbarous to spill the blood of people by whom they had not yet been harmed, and that otherwise they would call down upon themselves the princes and peoples of all

73 Matthisson was now in the city, and would be very infl uential until his death in a few months. He is already attested as intervening in the election on February 24, when he urged obedience to the newly-elected council and advocated the expulsion of those who would not allow themselves to be (re)baptized. 74 John of Leiden is also recorded as having opposed the proposal.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 512

6/12/2007 3:32:43 PM

the events of 1534

513

nations in vengeance for the shedding of innocent blood. He urged that accordingly the impious should be expelled from the city the next day unless they were immediately rebaptized and professed the same religion as the rebaptized. In this way, he said, it was possible for the threshing fl oor of the Lord, the house of the Father, and the New Jerusalem to be cleansed of impiety. Even the prophet himself and all those present unanimously adopted this proposal. In order to comply with the Emperor’s edict and the sanctions of the law, harsh punishment was dealt out to the rebaptized people lurking in various locations throughout the diocese. Around this time, five women of Wolbeck along with one man were drowned, while in Bevergern four women | were condemned to water and two men to the fl ames. Many peasants who had been secretly rebaptized by the Rothmanites in the city also suffered the penalties which they deserved. Goods and burghers from Coesfeld and other towns were seized as if by a military enemy because they had allowed the preachers in and introduced innovation in religion. These were sequestered until they drove out the preachers and became reconciled to the prince, who granted them forgiveness for their wrongdoing on February 26. The property of the burghers who had entered Münster after abandoning everything was confiscated by the prince. If the country districts and towns had not been cleansed by the prince’s remarkable foresight and vigilance, and preserved by the example of the harsh punishments meted out against malefactors, virtually the entire diocese would have been thrown into chaos and destroyed by the error of the Anabaptists. On the following day, which was February 27, the Friday after the Sunday “Invocavit,”75 the sky grew red after cock-crow and the sun had a pale appearance at dawn. Saturn, which was in retrogression through Cancer and was struck by the face of the moon, stirred up a combination of rain and snow, which fell in a mixture from scattered clouds in the sky. With the cave of Aeolus opened up, the northwest and west winds seized control of the air,76 and a rather uncommon configuration of the upper planets stirred up the cold. Thus, a grim, deplorable storm that was a mixture of rain, snow, wind and cold arose in the air, and the dawn of that day instilled fear even in the dumb

534

The first Sunday of Lent. An allusion to the scene in Virgil, Aeneid 1.52–91, in which Aeolus, the king of the winds, releases some of them from the cave in which he imprisons them in order to destroy Aeneas’ fl eet at the behest of Juno. 75 76

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 513

6/12/2007 3:32:44 PM

514 535

536

the events of 1534

animals, with the fields and paths everywhere awash with condensation | and rainwater. On that day, the rebaptized broke the peace terms agreed to on February 977 by taking possession of the marketplace with gleaming weapons as they had previously been instructed. Taking place as this event did in a closed city in which no refuge was available anywhere, it struck such terror in us that we gave up all hope of life. While they were arming themselves against us in this fashion and were occupied with the process of drawing up ranks, John Matthisson the prophet rushed throughout the city, wearing himself out with shouting. “Repent!” he said. “Come to your senses, come to your senses! Don’t you see that the elements are hostile to you? Don’t you notice that the natural world has been disturbed by your crimes? Don’t you tremble before the punishment which the Father has prepared for you? Don’t you perceive by the manifest tokens that the Father has been offended? Don’t you recognize that God’s vengeance is hanging over your heads? Oh, you stupid, senseless band of impious people, come to your senses, come to your senses, so that you will be marked with the Sign of our Covenant in order not to be excluded from the people of God!” Worn out by his panting run and fatigued with bellowing, this seer returned to the council hall. Received into the middle rank of the armed men, he collapsed to the ground | invoking the Father. In imitation of the prophet, the whole multitude fell to their knees, invoking the Father in supplication and awaiting the seer’s command. Then, as if springing up out of a deep sleep, he said, “This is the Father’s will, His command, His order: unless the impious are willing to be baptized, they are to be immediately driven from the city, since they are always obstructing our pious endeavors. Since the people of God are being polluted through interaction with the impious, let this saintly city be cleansed! Since this place, this saintly city, this house, this inheritance is owed to the sons of Jacob and the true Israelites, drive away the sons of Esau!”78 Instantly, they were all set ablaze with enthusiasm at these words. Seizing their weapons and rushing from the marketplace into all the lanes, they obeyed the prophet’s command. Reveling riotously like madRather, February 11. In Ezekiel 25:12–14, God threatens the destruction of the Edomites, the descendants of Esau, at the hands of the Israelites, who were descended from Esau’s brother Jacob. In Romans 9:13, Paul cites the fact that even while they were unborn, God indicated his love of Jacob and his hatred of Esau as an illustration of the fact that some are simply chosen to be God’s elect without this choice being affected by their works. 77 78

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 514

6/12/2007 3:32:44 PM

the events of 1534

515

men, they went about marauding and bellowed, “Away with you, you impious man! Run away and don’t come back, you enemy and foe of the Father! Off with you, you disturber of everything good! Remove yourself from the good men! The threshing fl oor of the Father must be cleaned, and the tares must be pulled up by the roots to prevent them from overwhelming the good crop.79 This inheritance which has been granted by the Father belongs to us. Flee, then! All of you, fl ee at once and free us of our long-standing fear!” Some people were struck with terror and asked what they had to do to stay in the city. The rebaptized said, “Go to the marketplace to be rebaptized.” For Rothman was awaiting them in the council hall and rebaptized them as they arrived.80 Whenever anyone stayed in his house to pick up his children or anything else necessary at a time of fl ight and exile, the doors resounded with blows and came crashing down, pulled off their hinges. | They beat upon the backs of those who frequently looked back and caused delay in the streets. They chastised the halting steps of old men leaning on walking sticks with quite harsh words and sometimes with blows. They carried off those unable to walk in two-horse carts, rolling them off into the snow. A certain number of those who completely rejected Anabaptism remained, some terrified by the bad weather, some held back by illness, some broken down with old age, some to protect their property in the expectation that things would improve in a few days. These people were later unwilling to be rebaptized. I think that the extent of the tyranny and of the savagery can be gauged from the fact that at a time of such unsettled weather they drove out a countless multitude of men and women, of maidens and boys, of religious and laity, of youths and old men, without making any distinctions.

537

The image of tares (that is weeds) growing in a planted field comes from a parable of Jesus (Matthew 13:24–30). Jesus himself is asked to explain the meaning of it, and states that the field is the world, the good crop represents God’s people, while the man who sows weeds is the devil and the weeds are his followers. Jesus then states that at the end of the world, the son of man will return and have his angel tear out the weeds to cast them into the fl ames. The indication that God himself will destroy the ungodly at the end of the world was used by the opponents of the suppression of heresy to argue that the ungodly should be left to God (and not the secular authorities). (The additional argument was made that the weeds should be left in with the crop until the harvest lest the tearing out of the weeds harm the crop, that is, lest the godly be inadvertently killed along with the heretics.) Here, only the element of the parable involving the destruction of the godly is noted, and the implications of Jesus’ explanation are ignored. 80 According to Gresbeck, three or four of the preachers performed the (re)baptism, and a list was drawn up of those who had undergone it. 79

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 515

6/12/2007 3:32:44 PM

516

538

539

the events of 1534

Whoever rejected their impious sect—those distinguished in office and dignity, the rich and prominent burghers of both sexes—these they cruelly expelled after violently and villainously defrauding and stripping them of their ancestral seats, of all their property, and indeed of their clothing and travel money at the very city gates. Snatching their naked babies from their cradles, mothers left in fl ight, abandoning their homes with many tears. Beloved little boys clung on both sides to their father’s hands, being dragged barefoot through the snow and rain and tearfully calling on their mothers to ward off the cold, while others followed behind with unequal steps.81 They also did not spare pregnant women and those who were weak and fatigued from the pangs of recent childbirth and could scarcely move their limbs. The result was that some—horrible to say!—gave birth outside the city walls in the snow, and some of them, bereft of human solace amidst the snow, rain, cold and wind, carried in their arms their recently born infants | wrapped in diapers and blankets. These women likewise lacked the evening’s lodging and the means to live, since apart from the naked baby they did not even have a farthing. I can express neither by voice nor by writing the extent of the shouting in the city, the clanging of the weapons, the sound of the doors being pounded on, the crying of children and women, the wailing, the lamentations and the plaintive sounds, while the Anabaptists laughed. Oh, glorious metropolis among the cities of Westphalia, would that you recognized the reason for this most wretched affl iction and exile! Without a doubt you would then reject haughtiness and high living, and you would not become bored with tranquility or forget the old occasions for novel, self-destructive disturbances and so zealously seek new ones. With the rebaptized insistently pressing us forward from behind, we poured out in groups from all the city gates and scattered into a thousand journeys over the earth in the snow and rain, suffering from the wind and cold. Fabricius, who had brought many back from Anabaptism with his sermons, barely escaped with his life from the clutches of the rebaptized, who hated him, by changing his clothes. | Convinced that the siege would not last long, he stayed for a while at Warendorf. He even advised those of us who were ready to travel and many oth-

81 The phrase to “follow with unequal steps” is meant to call to mind Virgil’s famous description of young Ascanius struggling to keep up with his father Aeneas in the escape from the fall of Troy (Aeneid 2.724).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 516

6/12/2007 3:32:44 PM

the events of 1534

517

ers not to go far from Münster since the surrender would take place soon. Other advice prevailed, however, since our Lord Wesseling sent a letter summoning his wife and our family to him in Herford. The city council asked the prince by letter to be gracious enough to grant Fabricius to them if he would not tolerate the preacher whom they now had, even though this preacher was administering the Sacraments in the legitimate manner. The prince wrote back to say that the council should remember the pledge which it had made. At the same time, Lord Herman Dungel, the provost of St. Maurice’s and a canon of the Churches of Mainz, Münster and Xanten, a man venerable both for his piety and for his advanced years, mounted his wagon with four servants and hastened to emigrate, having obtained safe conduct from the burgher masters.82 By a meat seller’s store in about the middle of the city, the prophet John Matthisson ran into Dungel and placed the tip of the spear with which he was armed on Dungel’s chest. “You’re not getting away from here scot-free, you professional cheater,” he said. “You’re going to puke out either your life or the money you’ve got and leave it for us.” After Dungel invoked his official guarantee, repeatedly mentioning the safe conduct for emigrating that had been given to him by the burgher masters, the prophet along with his gang replied that they had made no promise and did not much care about the safe conduct of the burgher masters. | They immediately rushed upon the man, who was prostrate with fear. They robbed him, pulling the rings off his fingers and stripping him of all his money and adornments, and then they let him go. A few days later, he had his servant Jodocus Boemeken deliver a letter about the violence infl icted on him and the goods stolen from him in violation of the public guarantee. In particular, he asked for the return of his signet rings, asserting that if they were not returned, he would damningly narrate this insulting attack to the princes of the Empire, the well governed cities, and the good men. The servant brought back nothing but disgraceful words hardly worthy of jesters. The wife of Godfrey Werneken was in charge of an inn called “The Rose,” and she was so impeded by obesity that she could neither walk nor get into a cart, and for this reason she remained in the city.83 Rothman was sent to rebaptize her, and he preached to this woman at

82 83

540

This anecdote is recorded only by K. Another anecdote recorded only by K.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 517

6/12/2007 3:32:44 PM

518

541

the events of 1534

length about the Sign of the Covenant without which no one could be saved, insistently urging her to allow herself to be rebaptized and to be marked with the sign of Christians. She shouted that she was baptized, and that she had no desire for any baptism other than the one with which her ancestors had been purified. He replied that that baptism was no good for salvation unless a second was added. She said that it was as good for her as it had been for her ancestors, and told him just to let her live after her own fashion. “If,” Rothman said, “you don’t stop resisting the spirit of God so obstinately, you must be removed from associating with the pious through death, so that you won’t call the Father’s anger upon us with your impiety, and make us participants in your crime.” Upon hearing the reference to death, she grew fearful and said, “If, then, you want to rebaptize me, rebaptize me in the name of one hundred devils, since I was baptized the first time in the name of God.” He rebaptized her after his manner, however. Rothman strove to convince everyone that this calamitous fl ight of burghers had happened through God’s will. This way, he said, God the Father had saved His people from the fear of the enemy in which they were entangled. Indeed, | He had saved them from slaughter with this remarkable favor of His. With such arguments he enticed many people in various places to this sect and city. He wrote to Henry Schlachtschap and to other preachers of his stripe in the following terms.84 “Bernard, the minister of Jesus Christ in His Church in Münster, to Henry Schlachtschap, his brother. The grace of the Lord in the bravery of the Spirit be with you and all the faithful! So many and so great, my brother, are the wonders of God that if I had one hundred tongues, I still could not express them, and so I cannot write of them either. The Lord has performed glorious works with us. He freed us from the hands of our enemies and not only freed us but also cast out our enemies. For they were stricken with some fear or other and streamed out in swarms. The Lord has borne witness to us through His prophets that the saintly people of God will be congregated together in this city. For this reason, they have ordered me to write to you that you should order all the brothers to come here quickly, bringing with them everything they have handy like money, gold and silver, and leaving the rest to the sisters, so that they can make arrangements about the rest and follow. All of you should make sure that you follow the Spirit of

84

This text is recorded only by K.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 518

6/12/2007 3:32:44 PM

the events of 1534

519

God and make no decision according to the fl esh. This brother85 will give you more details in person. Fare well in the Lord!” Having gained sole control of the city by driving out these people, the rebaptized divided up the housing of the religious among the immigrants. As residences they assigned the house of the Brothers of St. George to the people from Coesfeld, the house of the Brothers of the Fountain to those from Lüttich, | the house of the Nitzing nuns to those from Frisia, the house of the Minorites to those from Gildehaus, and the house of the Knights of St. John to those from Warendorf. Julius Friese, who had been made bishop in the city and who alone conducted baptisms, lived in Ring’s Convent. The Rosenthal Convent became a prison for women who did not obey their husbands. Next, they first examined the houses of the noble canons to see what was left in them, and certain burghers moved into them as homes. Knipperdolling, Kibbenbrock, Nicholas Snider, | Gerard Koening and many others who lived under the vaults broke holes through the walls of the homes of the Lords and made them a common residence. In the garden of Melchior of Büren the cathedral steward, where the palace86 later was, they cast guns and other war equipment. Erecting a hand mill in the Old Church of St. Paul, they pounded gunpowder there. In many other locations in the city, they made saltpetre out of water that was purified with earth dug out of various cellars and brought to the boil with fire. Entering all the homes of the lower clergy and the émigré burghers, they hunted out all their most secret possessions. Now that their masters were expelled, the male and female servants were the masters in the very houses in which they had been servants, and they made use of their masters’ goods as they pleased. Whatever had been left untouched in the churches during the previous uproars was spoiled. They piled up the books from all the churches in the Lords’ Field and burned them along with sealed documents. | The tore up the account books and records of lawsuits, scattering them down the streets. With sticks, fists and slings they smashed the stained-glass windows in which they found either the coats-of-arms of ancestors or images of patriarchs and saints. The could tolerate no images of Christ on the crucifix, the Virgin Mary, the Apostles, or the martyrs without destroying them, but the rebaptized never laid a finger on portrayals of devils, Jews and

85 86

542

543

544

I.e., the bearer of the letter. I.e., of John of Leiden as king (see 660D).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 519

6/12/2007 3:32:44 PM

520

545

the events of 1534

impious tyrants. After breaking open the reliquaries and stealing the gold, silver or pearls with which they were decorated, they villainously threw the bones of the saints into the avenues and trampled on them. They knocked down the double-faced image of the Virgin Mother of God that was surrounded with what looked like gilded beams of sunlight and hung from the vaulted ceiling in the Convent Across-theRiver. They demolished the marvelous new organ, and they smashed all the pews, altars and pulpits in the city’s churches. They plundered the Convent Across-the-River and the Convent of St. Giles. In the Monastery of the Brothers of St. George, they found in a box made out of unplaned planks like a sarcophagus two gilded containers for the Eucharist commonly called monstrances, four chalices, a silver censor, seven spoons, a few silver cups, a dish with every sort of silver coin, and a little box filled with minted gold. Smashing the locks in the council hall and the registry, they shattered the splendid great seal of the city, which has an image of St. Paul’s head on it. They dug out the council’s secret documents going back many years and tore into pieces the records of the city’s privileges, laws and decisions.87 | They knocked down the portraits of old bishops which were affixed to the council hall for decoration and as a memorial. They ruined and destroyed all the statues and images of God and of pious men, so that nothing of this would cling in the memory of the youth reaching adulthood. Removing the bishop’s coat-of-arms from the Bishop’s Hall, they trampled it in the mud. Whenever they found in the houses fl utes, zithers, mandolins, lutes, harps and other stringed instruments, sheet music containing both figurative chant and plain song,88 dice and dicing tables, cards and anything used to fight off boredom, they smashed these things so that no one should be occupied with or intent on anything but strengthening the city’s defenses. Violating all civilized behavior, this savage brutality that was employed by the rebaptized in expelling the citizens was worse than that of the

87 This act illustrates the extent to which those who had taken control of the city’s government did not share the traditional pride in the city’s autonomy that would have characterized the ruling class and the regular burghers. 88 “Plain song” refers to traditional, comparatively simple Gregorian chant, while in the context “figurative chant” must mean the more elaborate polyphony that developed in the Lowlands and France during the fifteenth century, though strictly speaking the term ought to signify the complex style of composers like Ockeghem, in contrast to the more restrained musica reservata of composers like Josquin des Pres.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 520

6/12/2007 3:32:44 PM

the events of 1534

521

Cyclopes,89 and it forced the prince, whom I saw at that time in Telgte, to hurry off to put the city under siege. For this reason, he summoned the infantry units, cavalry squads and bands of peasants which had been posted to various distant towns and brought them closer to the city. Scouts and those who lay out camps were sent ahead to select suitable locations for the camps, and at around dusk on February 28, which was the last day of the month, | armed peasants were summoned from the nearby towns to bring shovels, axes and hooks in a few carts and dig the initial fortifications for the camps with hurried emergency labor. Drillmasters were assigned to them to teach them the rudiments of military service, especially the things that were necessary for the present campaign, and after setting up military standards, these peasants started the first steps of the siege. After the customary camp watches were set out, the soldiers followed the peasants at midnight and took possession of the fortifications which the peasants had constructed with their swift labor that evening. Seven infantry camps were established. | The first was in the midst of the smoldering ruins of the college of St. Maurice, and Wilkin Steding was in command of this camp in particular, though he was also the main commander of the entire infantry force. The second was in a reed field in front of the Ludger Gate, its commander being John Coritzer of Reine. The third was in a low and swampy spot along the public road by the Giles Gate. It was called the Meissen camp after its soldiers, who came from Meissen, and its commander was Albert of Beltzig. While conducting the first campaign against the city, these troops became groundlessly enraged at the clergy, and in their wanton desire to harm them they set fire to the estate of Gerard of Plettenberg, which was located in the Sendenhorst parish, and burned it down completely. In their arrogance, they also put on such airs of boldness that when they were looking into the city from afar, they shouted that there was no need for such numbers and siege equipment to take such a hamlet by storm, since they would subdue it with less trouble and more quickly than they would a loaf of bread drenched in warm juice. From there, the fourth camp was by the Maurice Gate, not very far from the Telt, a very broad and fertile pasture. The river fl owed through this camp, and its commander was Herman Sittard. The fifth camp

546

547

89 In Book 9 of the Odyssey, the Cyclopes are characterized as violators of all civilized practice.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 521

6/12/2007 3:32:44 PM

522

548

549

the events of 1534

was by the Jews’ Field Gate, along the watering place for pigs. It was named the Gelders camp after its soldiers, who came from Gelders, and its commander, Egbert of Deventer, who was also from Gelders. The sixth was by the Cross Gate and was named the camp of Cleves. Its commander was Laurence of Horst. The seventh was across the river by the Eninging mill and was commanded by Schwerhaus. The seven infantry posts and camps were arranged in this way around the city and occupied with strong garrisons. Then, on the morning of March 1, the commanders of the mercenary cavalry followed the infantry forces and stabled their horses closer to the city, though still out of the townsmen’s range. Frederick of Eller and his troops set up camp to the north in Evinghof, Henry of Schönebeck to the west in Kucklenburg, Gerard of Recke to the northeast in Hacklenburg, | John of Korthe to the east in Wöste, John of Senden to the south beside the house of Eberhard Bischoping near Geiste, and John of Dincklage to the southeast in Lukenbeck and Kaldenhof. The cavalry and infantry had set up their camps in such proximity that if necessary, they could bring each other assistance. Over time, they strengthened each camp with ramparts, ditches, guns and other necessities, and watches were kept both day and night. The prince also summoned the beneficed subordinates in his three dioceses who are called vassals, telling them to appear well equipped with arms and horses at Telgte and Wolbeck on March 1, the purpose being that they should join his mercenaries and, if necessary, reinforce his cavalry.90 Next, in addition to the frequent exactions and payments which were wearing down the diocese to support the war effort and which were imposed now on the clergy, now on the knighthood, now on the exiled burghers, now on the peasants, now on estates, now on cattle, now on plows, the decorations were removed from the churches throughout the diocese, though the parishioners redeemed them by paying their estimated value. From all this, many disturbances were stirred up in various places, particularly in the cities. When the people of Bocholt took the assessment on the decorations consecrated to the honor of God by their ancestors rather badly, a serious dispute arose in which George of Diepenbrock and the judge | of the town, who took the

90 Apparently, the knights went to Wolbeck and the patricians of Münster to Telgte.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 522

6/12/2007 3:32:44 PM

the events of 1534

523

side of the prince and his order, were almost killed when the burghers intervened.91 Noting that the city had been put under siege on all sides by the bishop, Knipperdolling and Kibbenbrock suddenly summoned all the townsmen, who were disheartened in no small measure by the hurried appearance of the troops, and Knipperdolling addressed them as follows. “It is not the judgment of insignificant, impious papists and Lutherans but the uncorrupted agreement of all of you at the specific urging of the Heavenly Father that has raised us up, even against our will, to the pinnacle of honor and dignity, my very Christian brothers and true descendants of Abraham, and we would, therefore, have been struggling against God’s own ordinance if we had rejected the burden placed on us by the Father for the sake of His people, even though we thought it a difficult one that surpasses our abilities. Thus, we preferred to let the blind papists and pseudo-evangelicals whom we expelled from the city lambaste us with any rebukes according to their wishes rather than oppose God’s arrangement and the customs of our ancestors. For this reason, we have readily—though in your name—allowed every sort of burden to be placed upon our shoulders. For it is apparent that along with this office we also took on the measures without which it cannot be performed, and it cannot be performed unless vigilant care is taken on behalf of the subjects to ensure that they suffer no harm. Recognizing that this duty applies to ourselves as well, we have summoned you here, particularly at this time of general fear, so that through the presence of all of you and through the solace of words we might calm the unexpected trepidation which certain of you may have conceived as a result of the sudden siege at the hands of impious enemies. | An additional reason for summoning you is that we have the task of forming, through general consultation, a plan of action by which we may make use of the strength and weapons which the Father has granted us against our enemies. “As for the fear, who among you will there be who will be fearful or apprehensive when there is no fear in the city? For we put that fear to fl ight along with the filthy mob of criminals who were constantly sharpening their sword against us. We cast out those who were secretly plotting to slaughter us, and we banished feuding, expelled treachery, and threw out danger. The internal enemy has departed, and we belong

91

550

This event did not take place until August.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 523

6/12/2007 3:32:45 PM

524

551

the events of 1534

to one religion and one faith, being the kind of people that we ought to be. We therefore fear no foe within the city walls, since everything is now safe, intact and peaceful in the city. What then do we fear? A hired enemy who is an impious soldier and thief who is taking up arms against the Father and His elect, who are marked out with the Sign of the Covenant? This foe whom in the distance we see marauding, worshipping idols, abounding in excessive living, frequenting whores, and polluted with every sort of vice? But that fear is on the outside and fortifications intervene between it and us. There is a sufficiently strong wall, a steep rampart and a precipitous embankment, very deep ditches, and other defensive works. Indeed, our weapons protect us against all fear unless we let it back in by our fault through cowardice. “In addition to this, nothing that relates to defense is wanting. We have very many weapons of every variety. We have such a large number of guns that not only can the outer works, forts and rampart all around the city be strengthened with them at short intervals but so can individual streets and lanes. There is shot, and there is an abundance of lead in the roofs of churches and towers to cast them from. We have a supply of gunpowder that will last a few years, and we do not lack sulfur and saltpetre. The impious foe driven out at the Father’s command left us vast quantities of gold and silver. The entire city is awash in grain and every sort of supply. All of this the Father has granted us without distinction, pouring it into out lap, so to speak, without any sweat on our part, and all that is required of us is steadfast bravery. God will give the rest! “Consider whose business is being conducted and whose glory sought! Think who our general and standard-bearer is, and what our cause for war is, and, on the other hand, who the enemies’ general and standard-bearer is, who their soldiers are and what | their cause for arms is! Set the Heavenly Father against the pope or Luther, set Christ against the fat bishop, set brave men marked out with the Sign of the Covenant against a shaven, womanly gang, set the Word of God which we are defending against human inventions and enactments! Which of these two do you think has the army of greater strength? Here there is modesty, there impertinence! Here the true faith fl ourishes, there vain opinion and fraud! Here piety, there crime! Here steadfastness, there madness! Here respectability and self-restraint, there turpitude and wantonness! Here fairness, piety and the other virtues, there unfairness, impiety and the stain of all vices! Here sanity, there insanity and guilty conscience! Ponder more deeply about what general we depend

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 524

6/12/2007 3:32:45 PM

the events of 1534

525

upon, which one gave us these arms against those crimes, and which one ordered us to undertake the defense. Is it not the case that if our arms were faltering, the Heavenly Father would undertake a war with countless varieties of incurable diseases, both against us for disobedience and against them for their crimes and obstinacy? Isn’t it better, then, to obey God’s command without fear and trepidation than to plunge into the disaster of the impious along with them? The Father makes use of our weapons, directing and aiming them at the guts of the impious. “Whom, then, do we fear? So long as God alone fights for us, let all the papists and pseudo-evangelicals fight for the bishop! So long as God grants us His aid, let the enemy boast of human aid! So long as the Heavenly Father does not leave us bereft of His assistance, let them invoke the hollow name of the Holy Roman Empire! Will the bishop long endure the vast expenses for this war or storm our walls with his resources, when he himself is poor and needy and has borrowed many thousands of gold coins at the start of the war, mortgaged almost all the strongholds of this diocese to creditors, and snatched gold and silver from the churches in a final attempt to support the waging of war? Will princes and peoples take up arms at their own expense for him? Will they squander their wealth to do him a favor for which they will never be repaid? Will the mercenary soldiery serve at their own cost when they are persecuting us for the sake not of religion but of money? Is it not then the case that once the treasury is drained and the diocese reduced to abject poverty, the soldiery will abandon the city and will either drift away and remove their camps or follow their standards?92 If, on the other hand, there is to be a struggle with human resources, on our behalf the Frisians are preparing war, the people of Lüttich are arming themselves, the people of Brabant are sharpening their swords, and the Hollanders are at the ready. Watches are being kept for us | by all our brothers scattered across the entire world, by all those people in the furthest corners of the world who are enlightened with the recognition of the Father and who are marked out with the Sign of the Covenant. “Oh, blessed is our community for having been considered worthy of taking up arms in the service of the heavenly general and for being affl icted in the name of God! Oh, unhappy are our enemies, who

92

552

That is, individually or en masse as units.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 525

6/12/2007 3:32:45 PM

526

553

the events of 1534

provoke the Father with their crimes in assailing the people of God and deriding His Word! Who, I ask you, has ever fought with success against God? Haven’t the smallest bands of the pious often defeated the strongest armies of the impious? Since we are following the better banners, let us imitate the Apostles, Prophets and saintly Fathers of Israel, who never quaked before the threats of any tyrant, however great his savagery, and who emerged victorious amidst the ploy of affl iction and celebrated a glorious triumph! By the example of the people of Israel, it is only through dangers that the peaceful resting place can be reached, and before that it is necessary to fight confidently without fear. Shake off all hesitation, then, and prepare your arms against our foes, the enemies of God! This is what the situation dictates, what necessity compels, and what the Father demands and orders. With watches by day and night defend, protect, and preserve this most saintly shrine of the Father, this most pure seat of God, the inheritance of Israel which is never to die, these most strong fortifications, these homes of ours that will never collapse! Save them from violence and the enemy’s assault! Repel the impious swords from your throats, and rescue your children, your wives and yourselves from the eternal misery of slavery! If you do this, you will pile up for yourselves salvation, immortal glory and eternal honor. “As for us, while the blood fl ows hot in our veins, while our shoulders can carry weapons, and our arms can hurl spears and ply swords and pikes, we will not hesitate to endure the uttermost dangers on your behalf so long as our vigilant efforts can remove every harm from you and your wives and children. We will take these actions, indeed greater ones than our positions in government demand, under the command of God, whom you ought to worship, pray to and implore to save His people from all injury for the glory of His name and to preserve them unharmed. “For the rest, my most Christian brothers, you should adopt a plan of defense and appoint men of outstanding military training, of whom we have no small number, to teach us to act as soldiers | and to command us as generals, sergeants and corporals, so that the enemy will not find us unprepared. Deliberate carefully as to which of these courses you will take.” The extent to which the downcast rebaptized were emboldened and encouraged by this speech given by the burgher master was made clear enough by the enthusiasm with which they all hailed it, contrary to their habit. Then, as the burgher master had bidden them, they selected

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 526

6/12/2007 3:32:45 PM

the events of 1534

527

with calm deliberation officers, standard-bearers, sergeants and other leaders to command them in the present emergency.93 Furthermore, in order to establish a suitable method of keeping the watches by day and by night in relays, they first distributed the whole crowd into squads and then into platoons.94 They even included the councilmen in these units and did not relieve them of watch duty, so that all suspicion of treachery should be removed. There was no one in the city who did not have an assignment. Each individual was entrusted with a position in the city’s defenses, being enjoined in the strictest terms to hold it to the death. The explanation for this was that the enemy would cleverly launch a rather strong assault on one area of the city, so that when the townsmen were summoned in that direction, the enemy would overwhelm the fortifications that were stripped of defenders in another area. Certain men were equipped with fresh cattle hides and leather pitchers, and assigned the task of smothering or extinguishing any fires which the enemy might start on roofs with ignited projectiles. A large number of armed men were also assigned the job of quickly reinforcing, wherever necessary, any weaker sector in which the defenders were hard-pressed. Certain people were given the task of bringing up gunpowder. They trained boys in the skill of sharpshooting, | with the result that they did not take second place in protecting the outer works in comparison with the men. Women were entrusted with the job of heating lime and pitch on the ramparts, and some were also employed with weaving crowns and wreaths out of linen and oakum. When the enemy attempted to scale the walls, the women would dip these wreaths in the fl aming pitch and use them to repel the enemy. They built hidden fortifications and secret defense works with amazing skill within the ramparts, secured underground tunnels and passageways with guns, and erected watch stations all over. Whoever thought up a novel stratagem to bring disaster to the enemy won himself great praise. In this way, John Uldan built an outer work between the Gate

554

93 According to Gresbeck, the preachers at first prohibited the use of drums and pipes in the army, and at this time there were also no officers. Later, after the preachers discovered through consultation of the Old Testament that drums and pipes were permissible, officers were also selected. It would seem to have been a felicitous happenstance that upon more careful consideration the Bible did after all validate standard military practice. 94 K. calls these units “centuries” and “maniples” respectively, and in Roman military practice a maniple was formed of two centuries. By etymology a century would contain 100 men, though in Imperial practice the number was likely to be 60.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 527

6/12/2007 3:32:45 PM

528

555

the events of 1534

of St. Servatius and that of St. Ludger with such pain-staking skill that even down to the present day it celebrates its designer with the name “Uldan’s Fort.” Very much effort was expended in strengthening the city’s defenses inside and out by squads, and so within a few days, Münster, which had previously been a city with strong defenses, was transformed by this emergency work into a city with the strongest defenses. In front of each of the gates, they raised earthen mounds with the greatest energy. For the foundations of these mounds they used the sarcophagi of bishops, canons, noblemen, priests, and matrons and the polished fl agstones which they had dug out of churches, and propped these up on the inner side with wood which they had seized all over the place with no regard for the property owners. To make sure that the enemy did not imagine that they were dealing with effeminate or terror-stricken men, the townsmen launched frequent raids and often fought with the soldiers in minor contests. On March 6, they went out armed through the Horst Gate. | They burned down two mills and brought the soldiers down upon themselves, killing no few of them. On March 13, they set fire to two estates in the Jews’ Field at noon. In this skirmish, the townsmen cut down a few soldiers but lost thirty-five of their own men. They were not disheartened by this misfortune, however. Instead, it made them bolder, and at around 10 o’clock in the morning on March 14, 500 townsmen sallied forth with more daring than sense, and burned the Potterhaus along with some brick huts. When the enemy fell upon them from all sides, they came close to being cut off, but escaped to the city unharmed on a road unknown to the besiegers. During this withdrawal, they captured the enemy’s drummer and brought him back with them. They cut off his head and hung it with his drum from the top of the Bischoping Gate to scare the enemy. While this was going on, Eberwin Droste, Derek Münsterman, Wilbrand Plonies, Herman Schencking, and Herman Heerde, men of hereditary faith and integrity who were leading men among the burghers, issued a letter summoning to Telgte, where the prince also was, their fellow burghers who had been driven out by the Anabaptists and remained in exile in various locations.95 In Telgte, they held a consultation about their affairs which concerned the burghers’ liberties and the city’s privileges, and on March 9 they addressed the prince

95

The following event is reported only by K.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 528

6/12/2007 3:32:45 PM

the events of 1534

529

in the following terms in the presence of the Lords of the chapter. They said that the prince was no doubt aware of how wretchedly and cruelly the burghers of Münster had, along with their wives and children, been stripped and despoiled of all their possessions in violation of all civilized behavior and then cast out of their ancestral homes, and that in order to avoid polluting themselves with most foul heresy and | offending the prince with similar obstinate rebellion, they had abandoned all their fortunes. Accordingly, they asked first that he be touched in some way by the misery of the burghers and refl ect upon the exiles’ inescapable calamity, and then that he punish this virtually unprecedented use of unjust violence, wreak vengeance on the rebellion, stamp out and completely eradicate the heresy along with those responsible, and restore to the burghers their hearths and the property which had been taken from them, recalling them from their melancholy exile. They burghers added that they would repay this favor with any duties, even at the cost of their lives. Through Themmo of Hoerde, the court chamberlain, the prince gave the following reply to the burghers. He said that it had long since been his considered resolve to suppress the baneful, destructive and impious heresy which was going around marauding in the city, even at the cost of his life and of all his property, and that other princes and his friends and blood relations would not fail to assist him. The Lords of the chapter, he said, and the knighthood of the diocese of Münster had promised him their help in crushing those errors and restoring the rebels to obedience, and if the exiled burghers made him the same promise, he would, by the grace of God, restore them to their hearths and property. After a short deliberation, the burghers gave the following reply. They said that they would vigorously assist the prince in recovering the city and subduing the seditious monstrosities as their resources and strength allowed, suffering, if need be, the loss not only of their lives but also of their wealth as a favor to the prince. This reply of the burghers and their goodwill greatly pleased the prince, and since no one was more familiar than they were with city’s defenses, he asked them not to disdain to give advice to his councilors and officers so that they would know the areas in which the city was weaker and easier to take by storm. They promised that they would readily do so. Then, since most councilmen, who were occupied with military training in the city, did not spend much time on legal cases and other matters involving the burghers their authority in the city was gradually

556

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 529

6/12/2007 3:32:45 PM

530

557

558

the events of 1534

undermined. Moreover, John Matthisson the prophet usurped control of both sacred and secular affairs, thereby acquiring very great infl uence and repute in the eyes of the people and becoming more important than the burgher masters. For nothing was done at home or abroad without consulting him. He | preached that it was the Father’s will that the property of all the émigré burghers should be held in common among all the Christians, not, however, according to the individual’s voluntary discretion but by necessity. Therefore, he chose men who were to transport in good faith the goods of those whom they had driven into exile in the various parishes, bringing them in carts to houses designated by the prophet for the benefit of all. | In compliance with the prophet’s decree, they took away the clothing, beds, blankets, quilts, bedsteads, grain, copper ware, jars, pewter trays, steins, cups of every variety, linen, linen cloth, and whatever sort of household goods they found, stripping the walls of both rich and poor. They tore up documents of income after ripping the seals off, they burned receipts, sureties, account books, and records of various contracts, to the great detriment of the exiles, and they brought the gold and silver jewelry of the women, rings, and money to the registry. Next, again by order of the prophet, for three days a supplication was made that the Father should, by His divine will, select seven men to oversee these goods that had been conveyed and to dole them out in a reliable way to the individual Christian brothers according to their needs. On the third day, he declared that the following men had been made known to him by divine revelation: Leeden the reeve,96 Albert Heitter, who had married the daughter of Herman Foecke, Bernard Havichhorst the reeve, Herman Alberting, who had a nickname derived from a key,97 Herman Reining, John Katerberg of Berg, also called tor Heyden, a swordsmith, and Herman Bridorp. These men he called “deacons” after the ministry which they performed. Those named by the prophet were taken to Julius Friese the bishop and the other preachers and were confirmed in their office by a laying-on of hands. It was their job to minister the household goods as well as the houses of the émigré burghers to their needy fellow brothers, since all these things were held in common. Whoever needed clothes and

96 This man, who is given the same name (Leddanus vilicus) on 775D, is apparently described as the reeve of Leeden (a small town to the southwest of Osnabrück), though conceivably he was called “something von Leeden” and K. did not know his first name. 97 He was called “In dem slottel ” (“in the key”).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 530

6/12/2007 3:32:45 PM

the events of 1534

531

other necessities or was tired of his own humble lodgings and desired grander ones got his wish from the deacons. After this, certain native men, seeing that an unknown foreign immigrant was usurping such authority that he was running both sacred and secular affairs in the city according to his own lights, grumbled among themselves that this was intolerable. One of these was Hubert Ruescher the blacksmith, who shouted out, “Is this remarkable madness that a stupid crazy liar does not blush at calling himself a prophet, that he presumed to teach others doctrine though he is himself unlearned, that this man rashly seizes control of the civil government though he knows nothing of the custom of this homeland, and that he advances himself in front of those who are known when he himself is unknown? It is we who are the stupidest since we take him to be prophet who is so often proven wrong in his predictions! My judgment is that as a prophet he gives shit!” He spewed out many other words under the force of anger.98 In fear of their own lives, those who were present did not dare to blurt out so much as a word at all these statements of Ruescher’s. Instead, they kept silent and bottled their complaints up within themselves, to their great distress. Certain informers revealed this event to the prophet, who immediately ordered his attendants to arrest and constrain this man and called upon the entire crowd to come in arms to the Lords’ Field. Not only the commoners but also the burgher masters and councilmen went there, not knowing what this summoning of the people meant. Once they had gathered, the prophet had Hubert dragged before them and said to the crowd, “Brother Christians, Hubert the famous blacksmith here has been led terribly astray by an evil spirit, | reaching such a pitch of madness that in public he dared to despise the prophet sent to you by the Father for your salvation and to revile him with unspeakable, bitter and scurrilous jibes. From this it is clear that he is an impious disturber of the general peace.” He taught that it was necessary to set examples of what happens when covenants are broken, so that one man’s crime should not be ascribed to the entire people, since many people had often been punished for the fault of one. “For this reason,” he said, “this man must be quashed, he must be pulled up by the roots from the midst of the pious and removed from Israel. For it is written: it is time for judgment to start with the house

559

560

98 Gresbeck claims that Ruescher’s outburst took place during a stint of nighttime guard duty.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 531

6/12/2007 3:32:45 PM

532

561

the events of 1534

of God.”99 Herman Tilbeck and Henry Redeker, of whom the latter had been alderman the previous year and the former, burgher master, intervened, being disinclined to allow a fellow burgher to be killed at the discretion of one man, since it was not allowed by the law that the same man should act as accuser and judge. They argued that the man should be brought before a court and convicted in the customary way. At these words, the prophet lost patience with being contradicted, and becoming virtually insane he ordered that Tilbeck and Redeker should immediately be constrained and taken off to prison. For he had no small number of attendants and other helpers, and no one dared resist them. While this was going on, the other famous prophet, John Bockelson of Leiden, suddenly jumped out of the crowd and raised up his voice, saying that this Hubert was an impious malefactor who would receive no forgiveness or remission for his crime from the Father. “With death,” he said, “shall he be killed, and he is not going to live for a single day more. From on high the Father has granted me the power that everyone who opposes this divine command will fall by my sword, which is plied by this hand!” At the same time | he brandished the sword, to the great consternation of the bystanders. Thus, no one dared to mutter a word or open his mouth against these men of God. Made more obstinately determined to commit murder by these words of the man from Leiden, John Matthisson used all the force he could muster to thrust a sturdy double-bladed axe into Hubert, who was lying prostrate at his feet. Since the man did not, as he expected, die immediately, he also shot him with a handgun which he seized from a bystander. The death of Hubert, who was thus the first victim among the people of God, warned the entire multitude that none of them should pollute himself with a similar crime of such heinous sinning. Then, after a hymn was sung in praise of God, they all dispersed. Tilbeck and Redeker, who had undertaken Hubert’s defense, were readily forgiven by the prophet, being considered leading men in the city, and were thus released from prison. After this event had turned out successfully and terror had been instilled in everyone by this spectacle, this same Matthisson made all people of both sexes subject to the death penalty in a decree commanding that they should bring to the registry their gold and silver, both coined and in bullion, and their women’s ornaments, since there was

99

1 Peter 4:17.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 532

6/12/2007 3:32:45 PM

the events of 1534

533

no use for money among true Christians. Most people, being terrified by the example of Hubert and fearing their own death, | complied with the decree and contributed their rings, studs, necklaces, pins, sleeve buttons and money. There were also many who buried their wealth in the ground or preferred to guard it themselves by hiding it in the walls of old houses (pretending in the meanwhile that they had none) rather than toss it into that strong box the keys of which they could have no access to. As the guards of the treasure that was contributed in this way the prophet appointed Conrad Kruse, Gerard Reining, Magnus Koehus and Lucas Gruter.100 These men were given the task of freeing from their debt those Christian brothers who owed money to infidel creditors by repaying their loans. Next, the prophet noted that many people had remained in the city who had not genuinely accepted Anabaptism, and that they had instead done so insincerely or unwillingly or under the compulsion of fear or for the sake of protecting their property, from which they could not be torn away, in the hope that things would soon improve. For this reason, he again summoned everyone of both sexes to the Lords’ Field.101 After curiosity enticed them to gather there, the prophet gave a long speech in which he inveighed against the false brothers and pseudo-Christians whom they still had in their midst, saying that such people could hardly be tolerated among true Christians. He therefore ordered that those who had been rebaptized after February 26 should withdraw from the rest and go to the Church of St. Lambert to beg for the Father’s pardon in case they might be forgiven their sins in being marked out with the Sign of the Covenant not voluntarily but unwillingly, in having offended the Father with their counterfeit saintliness and sham religion, and in polluting the sons of God with their impiety. If, he said, the Father did not receive them into His grace or mercifully remit the crime which they had committed in wishing to deceive the Holy Spirit, they would fall by the sword of the pious. A great multitude of wretched people, both men and women, complied, being terrified and downcast by Ruescher’s recent calamity, and withdrew to the Church of St. Lambert. Locked

562

563

The position of these men is mentioned below in the regulations of the new constitution (see 584D). 101 In Gresbeck’s account, John of Leiden also played a prominent role alongside Matthisson in this and the subsequent events, and the preachers Schlachtschap, Klopriss and Krechting are also mentioned. He also notes that about 300 men had been (re)baptized on February 27, and the next day about 2000 were compelled to undergo the rite. 100

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 533

6/12/2007 3:32:46 PM

534

564

the events of 1534

in it, they groaned, sighed and lamented, bewailing their disastrous lot in their fear of the worst. In the church they wore themselves out for several hours with their groans and tears, so that they scarcely presented a human appearance on account of their sorrow and fear of death. When the prophet, escorted by armed attendants, finally unlocked the church, they all fell to their knees at once and with joined hands and disordered sobs pleaded with him that since he was a man of God, a saintly prophet, and the chosen of God, he should pour out prayers to the Father on their behalf, so that they would receive forgiveness for their crime. On bended knees he pretended to pray to the Father on behalf of the captive people and after a short time he suddenly sprang up, | claiming that his prayers had been heard and the Father, who had previously been offended, was now placated by these prayers, and that Heaven had inspired in him the news that they would live. Then, after singing a hymn in praise of God, they were released in peace from that prison with the injunction not to sin again, and thus, as if cleared of the charge, they were received into the society of the other Christian brothers. Around the Sunday “Laetare,”102 which was March 15, this same Matthisson ordered that no one in the city was to have, handle or read authors or books of any variety apart from the Old and New Testaments, and that since the latter alone were sufficient for salvation, they were to bring all the other books to the Lords’ Field immediately. After an incredible number of books, which were worth even more than 20,000 fl orins, was brought there, these were cast into a fire that had been started there and were reduced to ashes. In this way, hurried fl ames did away with an incomparable treasure for the city, the lucubrations103 of many years. I have no doubt that this was done with the intention that the expositions of the Holy Fathers, which argued against his doctrine, should be gradually removed from the minds of his subjects, so that the interpretation of Scriptural passages would be sought from and depend upon him alone. He thought that this was the best means of imprinting his erroneous doctrine on the commoners and of then confirming them in it with his false interpretations.

The fourth Sunday in Lent. K. means that the authors had worked hard on their compositions, even toiling at night. 102 103

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 534

6/12/2007 3:32:46 PM

the events of 1534

535

At the beginning of the siege, the soldiery began to experience difficulties in the camps because of a shortage of provisions, since an insufficient supply of necessities was being transported there. Neither foreign merchants nor the surrounding peasants would travel there, since they feared not only for their goods but also for the lives, imagining from rumor that the soldiers were quite ferocious thieves and plunderers. When he realized this, the prince erected gibbets, wheels104 and others instruments of military discipline beside the camps to terrify the criminals, and ordered that they should refrain from all acts of insult, harm and theft, so that the merchants could, without fear or danger, travel to the camps with their cartloads of goods and sell the necessities at a tolerable retail price. The result, he said in his order, would be that everything would be available in the camps. At the same time, with letters sent on March 15 to the foreign populations and cities, he enticed them to come by granting the liberty to buy and sell under official safe conduct, so that they would deliver the necessities for human existence and bring aid to the camps in their difficult situation. Then, within a few days, the very high cost of food was succeeded by unexpectedly low prices. On the Tuesday after “Laetare,” which was March 17, when the prince was holding a diocesan assembly not far from the city in the country district of Hiltrup to deliberate with his people about the expenses of the siege and other unfortunate affairs, the exiled burghers made the following request of the prince through Lord Roger Smising the school master of the cathedral in Münster, a man | renowned for erudition and piety. Noting that the prince had graciously promised on March 9 that he would restore the exiles to their homes and return to them their property which had not yet been used up or dispersed by the rebaptized, they asked that after the capture of the city, the ancient privileges and liberties and the old rights which had been upheld in the ancient days and granted as favors by the continuous succession of bishops should not be taken away from the city. They also asked that since many people had been unable to leave the city because they

565

566

104 A particularly gruesome form of execution that involved smashing the criminal’s limbs with a large wagon wheel. In an extreme form of this punishment, an effort was made to keep the criminal from dying of this savagery, and after his now pliant limbs were interwoven into the spokes of the wheel, it was raised up with a pole inserted into the hub, and the criminal was left to a prolonged and painful death up in the air as a warning to others of the dire consequences of breaking the law.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 535

6/12/2007 3:32:46 PM

536

567

the events of 1534

were enfeebled by old age or illness and thus had not been willingly implicated in Anabaptism but only under compulsion, the right to the sword105 should not be carried out against these people since they were innocent. The prince replied that since it was unfair for the innocent to receive the penalty of the guilty, he would not in the least violate the privileges of the city, and instead would increase them by adding new ones as a favor to those who had preferred to abandon their ancestral hearths and all their property and to impose voluntary exile upon themselves in order to avoid polluting themselves with monstrous schism, and who had followed his arms or assisted them with the support of their money. He added that once the city was captured, he would not act with cruelty against those who had been unable to leave the city for specific reasons, and instead would treat them in the manner that befitted a gracious prince. Next, in order to indulge the burghers, whom he genuinely favored, the good prince also ordered that after the capture of the city no third party should buy the goods of burghers which had been pillaged by the soldiers, indicating that otherwise these goods would be subject to being re-auctioned. Amidst all the tumult, however, this edict was by no means obeyed. Around this time, links by land and sea were made by the Anabaptists with various disturbances in Holland, Frisia, Brabant and other surrounding areas.106 A great crowd of Anabaptists of both | sexes who were heading for Münster suddenly appeared around March 18 in Holland, but George Schenck cut them off and drowned them. Pilgrim of Ysselmonde, who had been sent by the bishop on a reconnaissance mission even though he was exercising the functions of a captain, wrote that five ships pregnant with Anabaptists had put to shore from Holland but were intercepted before they could give birth. He added that there were another twenty-one still at sea, and that on March 24 16,000 were going to take violent possession of a monastery named after a mountain107 not far from the town of Zwolle. They were to be received there by a certain prophet and led to the new Jerusalem, that is, 105 In Latin, ius gladii, which is a term from Roman law signifying the right of a provincial governor to pass the death sentence. A more idiomatic English translation would probably be “power of life and death,” but since “the sword” frequently figures in Anabaptist discourse as a symbol of this power, it seemed best to translate the Latin literally. 106 As part of the effort to gain outside assistance, Henry Roll was sent to Holland on February 21. 107 Presumably, it was called Berg.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 536

6/12/2007 3:32:46 PM

the events of 1534

537

to Münster. On March 24, the duke of Jülich also wrote to our prince, saying that it had been reported to him as a fact that in the diocese of Utrecht near Vollenhove and Hasselt many rebaptized people had attacked the monastery of St. John called “The Field.” Their numbers were increasing daily, he said, and they were eventually going to liberate Münster. Thus, the duke advised the prince to look out for himself. All these disturbances were, however, restrained with the greatest foresight and bravery by George Schenck the free lord108 of Tautenburg, who was also the Emperor Charles V’s representative in Overijssel and his lower territories.109 He subjected the rebaptized to the lawful penalties, | condemning them variously to drowning or burning. The neighboring princes also took possession of the roads in all directions, holding them on the specific understanding that they were to allow no gatherings of soldiers or of anyone at all for the purpose of raising the siege of the city. Instead, they were to disperse, banish and rout them. Next came Good Friday, which was April 3, the day on which Christians especially ponder the fruit of the bitter passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and allow no frivolity or gaiety. Instead, they all focus their attention on the salutary Passion and Death of the Lord, and for this reason they do not permit the ringing of bells. The Anabaptists, on the other hand, treated it as a holiday. Snatching tapers and torches from the churches, they took these out through the city gates, and at the same time, to make fun of the practice of the Catholics, they rang all the bells in the city just as if they were celebrating the day of the Lord’s resurrection. They also attached their copy of the sealed agreement between the bishop and city which had been concluded by the representatives of the landgrave to a yearling mare’s tail, and as a signal insult to all the princes and noblemen whose seals were appended to it, they drove the mare out of the city to the camp of St. Maurice, though it was not the bishop but the people of Münster who disgracefully broke the agreement. Next, around Easter, Matthisson the prophet was inspired with wondrous enthusiasm, and conceived such a sense of being immune to death that | he convinced himself and others that at the Father’s urging he would, together with a few soldiers, drive away all the soldiers

568

569

108 German Freiherr (a nobleman who owed direct allegiance to the Emperor and was thus “free” of any intervening loyalties or obligations). 109 I.e., he was the stadtholder in Frisia.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 537

6/12/2007 3:32:46 PM

538

570

the events of 1534

and free the city from siege.110 Confident of certain victory, he snatched a double-bladed axe and he, along with only a few comrades, sallied forth through the Ludger Gate.111 With more boldness than sense and certainly with more courage than if he had a vast army following him, he dared challenge the enemy and expose himself to danger. There was no lack of spectators who, though doubtful of victory, marveled at the man’s temerity and anxiously awaited the outcome on the rampart. The enemy, on the other hand, were stirred up in droves. From all sides, they attacked this new Samson and his column from the city, surrounding them with arms so that they could hardly escape. In vain did he ply his axe. In vain did he strive to turn to fl ight. In vain did he call for assistance from his men, some of whom had taken to their heels, some of whom were dead. In vain did he invoke the urging of the Father. For he was stabbed with a pike by a certain soldier from Meissen and fell to the ground. When the cavalry recognized that this was the man who had, in violation of international law and official guarantee, robbed Herman Dungel, a man of ancestral piety and venerable old age,112 the enemy rushed upon him from all sides, slashing at him with such butchery that all the joints of his body were severed with frequent sword blows, and his guts spilled out with a gush of blood. Certain very bold scoundrels also cut off his genitals,113 and the following night affixed them to the revolving gateway of the Giles Gate. Thus | was the prophet quashed along with his prophecy and those whom he had taken with him, apart from a few who escaped through fl ight. Matthisson was succeeded by John Bockelson of Leiden, who carried out every undertaking with greater acuity and seemed to conduct his business more wisely. Since the commoners were bewailing the fact that Matthisson had been disgracefully killed and cut up by the enemy and had some lurking doubt about his piety since God had abandoned him in this way amidst his danger and allowed him to be killed, Bockelson 110 Most sources are vague about the exact date (they too place it around Easter), but in his confession of July 25, 1535, John of Leiden specified the date as Easter itself (April 5). It has been argued that Matthisson was attempting to fulfill a prophesy that the siege would be lifted on Easter (in particular, see the groundlessly emotive presentation of the events in Kirchhoff [1985] 39, from which later views are mostly derived), and indeed Matthisson’s foolhardy attack is described as if it were intentionally suicidal, but the lack of any direct attestation of his intentions undercuts the plausibility of this interpretation (and even John’s memory about the date may not be exact). 111 Gresbeck places the number of Matthisson’s escort at ten to twenty. 112 For the robbery of Dungel see 539–540D. 113 This detail is recorded only by K.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 538

6/12/2007 3:32:46 PM

the events of 1534

539

consoled the people, counseling them to give up their astonishment at his having been removed with such a death. The Father had indeed, he said, ordered him to drive off all the columns of the enemy with a small band, and this would certainly have happened if he had ascribed this power to God alone and not to his own strength, if his aim had been the praise and glory of God alone, if he had followed the example of Judith114 and impelled the people to fast and to pray for forgiveness. As it was, since he had failed to do any of those things and had, under the compulsion of arrogance, stupidly pursued his own glory without recognizing whom that victory depended upon, he had been punished by God. Bockelson asserted that this manner of death had been revealed to him a week before by the Father through the Spirit. While making himself ready to go to bed in Knipperdolling’s house and | deeply pondering the Law of the Lord before sleep, he had, he said, seen a vision that Matthisson had been stabbed with a pike by an armed soldier, so that his guts spilled onto the ground. He had been terrified more than could be said at this bloody spectacle, and the armed man had replied, “Do not fear, man of God, or be in any way terrified! Instead, press on with your calling and plan! For this specific judgment of God concerns not your life but that of Matthisson, whose wife you should marry.” At this statement he had, he said, experienced great amazement, since he had a lawful wife whom he had left behind in Leiden, and he had related the whole story to Knipperdolling, so that when these things came true, he would have a witness to what had happened. After the prophet said all this before an assembly of the people, Knipperdolling immediately jumped to his feet to declare that everything was true, and described how the prophet had predicted the death of Matthisson to him. (Shortly before his execution Knipperdolling admitted under torture that he had lied as a favor to the prophet.)115

571

114 Strange reference. The widow Judith did have a reputation for constant fasting ( Judith 8:6), but her fame derived from her counsel and behavior at the time of the Assyrian siege of the Jewish city of Bethulia (see n. 197). She advised against surrender and took it upon herself to insinuate herself into the good graces of the enemy general, whom she got drunk and then murdered. This story was popular in the Middle Ages as an example of unexpected female courage, but it does not appear to involve any element in which she enjoins fasting and praying on the populace as a way to military victory. 115 Actually, this misrepresents what Knipperdolling said. His confession made under torture on January 20, 1536 reads as follows. “Confesses that the king [i.e., John of Leiden] told him how he had had a vision and seen John Matthisson being stabbed. Thereafter, this took place in front of the Gate of St. Ludger. Then the king says to

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 539

6/12/2007 3:32:46 PM

540

572

573

the events of 1534

After this, the entire people called him not only “prophet” but also “friend of God” and “man of God,” believing that it was sinful for anything to be sanctioned in this saintly community without consulting such a great man. He was therefore convinced that he was grander and more saintly than Matthisson. Everyone now hung on his every word, respecting, worshipping and revering him alone after God. Knipperdolling was also inspired with the spirit of prophecy on April 9, declaring that what was lofty would be made lowly and what was lowly, lofty, and as a result he ordered that the steeples on the towers should be knocked down onto the churches and all the churches razed to the ground. He said that the Father had proffered this plan to him through the Spirit and would be seriously offended if these actions were not taken. To | complete this task in order to satisfy the prophecy, Eberhard Kribbe, Derek Trutling116 and John Schemme, superior carpenters compared with the rest, were summoned. Having nearly cut the steeples off at the base and attached them to rather sturdy jacks that they placed underneath them, they sent them falling onto the vaults of the churches, destroying the labor of many years in one fell swoop. The sudden, horrible, dusty crash of these collapsing towers not only terrified even the soldiers stationed in the more distant camps but completely astonished them as to the method, execution and tools (they had no idea about the jacks) with which they had, with one blow, knocked down intact such great masses of wood and their lead sheathing. By screwing the jack they winched up the steeple of St. Martin’s tower on the west side and were trying to make it collapse onto the church, but a mistake was made by chance. It was held back at the stone base on the other side and did not at all crash, though it did tip out of kilter. Pointing to the east, it threatened to crash down without actually falling. After it hung there for some days, tipped at an angle over the church towards the east, | Trutling convinced the crowd that in a dream he had been divinely inspired by the Father with a plan to demolish the tower, and he was strongly encouraged by them to carry out this task. Accordingly, since the tower was covered with very light copper, he fitted him, ‘See? What did I tell you?’ But the king did not previously tell him that he was supposed to marry John Matthisson’s wife.” (Bekent, das im der konningk gesacht, wie er ein vision het gehabt und gesehen, das Johan Mathis erstochen wurt. Und sulchs geschagh dar nach vur sunt Ludgers porte. Do sacht der konningk zu in: “Sehet, was hat ich uch gesacht?” Aber der koningk en het im nit vurhin gesacht, das er Johan Mathis frouw haven solt.) 116 These names are given only by K. Trutling was the man who had been employed back in 1525 to dismantle the nuns’ looms (see 131D).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 540

6/12/2007 3:32:46 PM

the events of 1534

541

steel spurs to his feet and knees and very sharp hooks to both hands to keep him from falling, and he carried around his neck a rope which he was going to tie to the top underneath the cross and globe, so that when the tower was pulled by this rope, it would fall down. Equipped in this way, he began to creep along a sloping path like Phaethon’s117 and had barely reached the middle when the steeple was pulled loose from the base by his weight and collapsed with a great crash onto the vaulted roof of the church, crushing Trutling, who had aspired to goals that exceeded his abilities and had been deceived by the Father. After the rubble was cleared away following the recovery of the city, his steel spurs and hooks were found in the church, as well as his now fl eshless bones. After throwing down the steeples from the towers, they equipped their stone bases with guns and often affl icted the camps from there. For they had expert sharpshooters so that whenever they caught sight of anyone taking a short rest outside of the mantelets, they instantly shot him. Thus, bullets often scattered men playing a game of dice along with the spectators, causing many casualties or the loss of limbs. For this reason, it would have been better for the soldiers not to rest outside of the mantelets and camp fortifications or remain in one place, and instead they should have constantly moved back and forth. Around this same time, John Bockelson, the prophet and man of God, handed over the sword to Knipperdolling by virtue of Knipperdolling’s own prophecy in order to strike terror into the malefactors, and in a public assembly the prophet coined a neologism and declared him the “swordbearer.” He explained that since everything high was to be made low and Knipperdolling had until now been the head of the city as burgher master, the Father now wished him to perform the job of a completely debased hangman.118 For his part, Knipperdolling did not

117 Phaethon is the mythological figure who represents the potentially disastrous consequences of aiming too high. Given the reins of the sun’s chariot, he found himself unable to control the horses and crashed to the ground. 118 The exact relationship between Knipperdolling’s appointment as judge on the one hand and the appointment of the twelve elders and the concomitant abolition of the traditional magistracies (see next paragraph) on the other is unclear. In his confession of January, 1535, the preacher Klopriss mentions an event involving the elders and continues: “and at the same time, Knipperdolling was burgher master, and after being stripped of this office he was appointed as bailiff or criminal judge, which he obediently accepted” (. . . und zum selbigen maill sy Knipperdolling burgermeister gewesen und des Burgermeistersambtz entsatzt und zum budell oder scharpfrichter geordent wurden, welches er gehorsamlich angenommen). Like K., Klopriss indicates that Knipperdolling exchanged his traditional office for the new post, but neither source overtly connects this exchange

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 541

6/12/2007 3:32:46 PM

542 574

575

the events of 1534

reject the office offered to him, but seemed eager to undertake it, enlisting four attendants ( John Schulte, | Nicholas Schmalkaldic, George Avenhovel and John Suren)119 to protect the new ruler. Having such great authority among his people, the prophet thought that there was open to him an easy path to establishing himself as king, something that he had long been hankering after in silence. Thus, in order to change all the ancestral institutions, | laws and customs and to introduce a novel form of government, one foggy night he rushed through all the streets of the city, shouting out in disordered speech: “You Israelites who inhabit the saintly walls of Jerusalem, fear the Heavenly Father and repent of your prior life! Come to your sense, come to your senses! The glorious King of Zion is at hand with many thousands of angels and is preparing to launch a campaign against the earth at the sound of the horn. So come to your senses, come to your senses!” Having worn himself out with terrifying the entire city by shouting these fearsome words at night, he returned to his host Knipperdolling, who had in the meanwhile become driven with a similar madness. The prophet immediately pretended to be bereft of the power of speech, and when those around him were stricken with fear and anxiously inquired what misfortune had befallen him, he indicated that he was mute by nodding his head. When they asked the reason, he wrote that his mouth had been shut and his tongue bound by the Father, and that it was a sin for him to say anything until three days later. He ordered that a general assembly of the people was to be convened on that day, and the entire multitude eagerly awaited that day, being agog with curiosity. On the appointed day, he came before the assembly of the people and declared that it had been revealed to him by the Father that there would be a new form of government among the new people of Israel.120 New magistrates and new laws were therefore

with the overall modification of the city’s constitution. In any case, it should be noted that the disparaging characterization of Knipperdolling must be K.’s. Executioners were traditionally considered disreputable, but presumably the new post was intended as an honor. 119 These names are preserved only by K. 120 The exact chronology for the change in government is unclear. K. implies that John of Leiden’s ranting and the three-day interval until he revealed God’s desire for a new form of government took place after Knipperdolling’s prophecy of April 9 which resulted in the demolition of the steeples (571D). Yet a document written by “the elders and the entire community and association of Christ assembled in Münster” which K. preserves is dated April 8 (494K). The first original document preserving this titulature (“the elders and entire community of Christ in Münster”: de oldesten und

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 542

6/12/2007 3:32:46 PM

the events of 1534

543

to be introduced by divine ordinance: while the previous magistrates had been established by men, now they were to be appointed by the Father’s instigation and by His express command. At the same time, he selected twelve men who were especially devoted to him. Among them he also included some councilmen in order not to entirely alienate those whom the commoners looked up to | and held in honor or provoke rioting. He called these men the twelve elders of the tribes of Israel, and they were supposed to possess not just the right to judge all matters, both public and private, but also the power of the sword and the supreme control of the government. These men were: Herman Tilbeck the patrician, Gerlach of Wullen the nobleman, Henry of Xanten, Henry Roede the goldsmith, John Ossenbeck, Lambert Maperting, John Eschman of Warendorf, Lambert Bilderbeck the burgher of Coesfeld, Peter Simonson of Frisia, Lambert Lüttich, Bernard tor Moer, and Anthony Guldenarm.121 After the appointment of these men, Bernard Rothman gave a sermon about this new form of government, saying that it had been ordained by God and was to copy the image of His beloved people of Israel. He also read out in public the names of the twelve. Once the sermon was over, the prophet brought these men into the sight of the people in order, and into the hands of each of them, one after the other, he placed a drawn sword, reciting the following formula: “Take the power of the sword, which God the Father has entrusted to you through me, | and cut with this sword according to God’s command!” Then, at the prophet’s order the entire people poured out suppliant prayers to the Father that they should govern the people of Israel with wisdom. Herman Tilbeck was driven by the spirit of humbleness to shout out tearfully, “Oh, my Father, I am unworthy of so great a task. You, then, grant me the wisdom and strength to govern!” After these events, the entire multitude sang the “Gloria in excelsis,” with the prophet leading the chorus. Now divided into factions, the council did not

576

577

gantze gemeine Christi binnen Munster) is dated May 20. Unless the date of K.’s document has been garbled at some point (Detmar suggest that “April 8” may be a mistake for “May 8”), John of Leiden’s initial ranting must have taken place immediately after John Matthisson’s death on April 5 and the document preserved by K. must have been issued directly after the selection of the new government, but such chronology seems to be too compressed (and note that K. seems to imagine that John of Leiden’s “pep talk” on the meaning of John Matthisson’s death was the sole topic discussed after his death: see 570–571D). 121 K. alone provides a full list of the elders.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 543

6/12/2007 3:32:47 PM

544

578

the events of 1534

resist the prophetic spirit and the new form of government, willingly allowing itself to be removed from office. Now, without incurring the council’s rancor, the elders assumed the power to govern, both absolute and partial,122 and the power of the sword, abrogated old laws and passed new ones, issued decrees as they pleased (after consulting the prophet), and did everything at their own discretion. They were not slow to put into practice this license to sever with the sword, as will later be narrated. General edict of the twelve elders.123 “Grace and peace over all those who fear God and obey His will, and peace over all Israel, God’s people! Amen! Having the Highest One’s law and will inscribed on our hearts by the finger of God, all of us in this saintly community of Münster rightly fulfill this law with words and works, so that from now on there is no need to place our Lord’s written law | before our eyes and to delineate it in advance. Nonetheless, since God Almighty has graciously granted His people a new government, we, the elders of the people, will briefl y draw up as if in a writing tablet what Scripture relates at length in various passages for our instruction in doctrine, so that man in his unhappiness may be perfected in every good work, and we will set this out before men’s eyes, so that they will know what to do and what to avoid. In so doing, we will strengthen the new polity by making sure that the impenitent will be unable to make any excuses in palliation of their crimes, and by seeing to the needs of any weak or careless people who perhaps exist among us. The law exists not for the just but for the unjust and disobedient.124 In this way, the ruler who plies the sword is established by God in order to terrify the wicked and to protect the good. Those, then, who wish to be free of the laws and the fear of them should hold God before their eyes and uphold all His commandments in exactly the manner noted below on the basis of Holy Scripture. Such people will attain praise, glory and honor before God, before His servant, the ruler, and before all pious men, and in the end he will gain eternal life 122 The terms here translated as “absolute” and “partial” power to govern are taken from the ancient Roman jurist Ulpian in his discussion of the powers of provincial governors, the former term signifying the possession of the power of life and death, while the latter designates the possession of a more restricted mandate that allows only jurisdiction in civil cases. 123 Another source mentions the printing of these regulations and K. must be translating a copy of this printing, but no original seems to be extant today. 124 1 Timothy 1:9.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 544

6/12/2007 3:32:47 PM

the events of 1534

545

as his profit. May God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, grant such intention and spirit to us and to all believers. Amen! “The Kingdom of God is not in speech but in virtue and deeds.125 It is not all those who say ‘Lord, Lord’ that will enter the Kingdom of Heaven but those who do the will of My Father who is in heaven.126 The will of God is that we should be made saintly, so that each individual knows how to possess his vessel in saintliness and honor, without the emotion of lust as is the case with the pagans, who do not know God.127 Let us love not with word or language but with deeds and truth.128 Therefore, while the Kingdom of God consists in our carrying out His will in deeds with our full intent and in our being the true sons of God and the brothers and heirs of Christ Jesus if we imprint what He commanded into our deeds, the kingdom of the devil consists of the instances when we commit sins and carry out his will (far be this from us!). If, then, we have become the sons of God and have been baptized in Christ, every residual evil must be eradicated from our midst, and this aim is tended to by the ruler in particular, | as is written in Romans 13: Let every soul be subject to superior authorities. For there is no authority but from God, and the authorities that exist have been ordained by God. Therefore, whoever resists an authority, resists God’s ordination, and those who resist will receive judgment for themselves. For princes are a cause of terror not for those who do good but for those who do evil. If you do not wish to fear an authority, do what is good and you will receive praise from him, but if you do what is bad, fear for yourself ! For he does not wear the sword in vain, since he is the servant of God, an avenger in anger for the one who has done what is bad. For this reason we ought to be submissive not simply on account of the anger but also for the sake of conscience.129 By the sword will die all those of my people who will say, ‘No evil will approach or take control because of us.’130

579

1 Corinthians 4:20. Matthew 7:21. 127 1Thessalonians 4:3–5. 128 1 John 3:18. 129 Romans 13:1–5. K.’s Latin text deviates noticeably from that of the vulgate and presumably refl ects a retranslation of German back into Latin without reference to the original Latin. 130 Amos 9:10. Here K. appears to be translating into Latin a German translation of the biblical text. Certainly, his Latin does agree with the Vulgate, whose text would translate into English as: “By the sword will die all the sinners among My people who say, ‘Evil will not approach and come over us.’ ” In the prophetic passage from which 125 126

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 545

6/12/2007 3:32:47 PM

546

580

the events of 1534

“Here is a list of some sins covered in Scripture on account of which those who are disobedient and do not come to their senses will be punished by the sword. “1) In the first place, whoever curses God and blasphemes His holy name or word. ‘Whoever curses God will bear the penalty for his sin. Let him who blasphemes the name of the Lord be killed with death’ (Leviticus 24).131 ‘You will not take the name of your Lord in vain, since the Lord will declare him who takes His name in vain guilty’ (Exodus 20).132 “2) No one will curse the ruler: ‘You will not curse the judges, and you will not blaspheme the prince among your people’ (Exodus 22,133 1 Peter 3,134 Acts 23).135 On disobedience: ‘That man who acts impudently and who is unwilling to listen to the priest who stands in the face of your Lord God to serve you or to the judge—let that man die, and you will banish evil from Israel. All the members of the people ought to be obedient, so that they will be fearful and no longer act impudently’ (Deuteronomy 17).136 “3) Whoever curses his parents and will not heed them and instead obstinately rears up against them: ‘Honor your father and mother, so that your days upon the earth should be lengthened beyond what your Lord God grants you!’ (Exodus 20).137 ‘Let whoever curses | his father and his mother be killed with death’ (Exodus 21,138 Deuteronomy 5,139 Ephesians 6).140 ‘If a man has a perverse, rebellious son who is unwill-

the quotation comes, God seems once more to be cross with his people and is threatening them with destruction. Apparently, he is here marking out for destruction those who (presumably arrogantly) imagine that they are immune from calamity. 131 Verses 14–15. 132 Verse 7. 133 Verse 28. 134 The relevance of this chapter is not self-evident. Its topics are the varying obligations of spouses to one another (vv. 1–8) and the need for Christians to lead a moral life and remain meek and humble in the face of oppression (vv. 8–22). In particular they are enjoined not to repay curse with curse (v. 9; cf. 17), but if such is the reference, this seems rather inapposite given the implications this has for the conduct of the new elders. 135 Verse 5: “For it is written: you will not curse the prince of your people.” 136 Verses 12–13. 137 Verse 12. 138 Verse 17. 139 Verse 16. 140 Verses 2–3.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 546

6/12/2007 3:32:47 PM

the events of 1534

547

ing to listen to the voice of his father and his mother, all the men of his city will stone him, so that he dies’ (Deuteronomy 21).141 “4) On the husband’s right to command and the wife’s obedience in a marriage: ‘Husbands, love your wives! Wives, be subordinate to your own husbands as you are to God’ and so on (Ephesians 5).142 The wife should likewise fear her husband. “Regarding the family’s obedience to the male head of the household and his obligation to his family: ‘Slaves, in fear and trembling obey those who are your masters according to the fl esh with simplicity in your heart as you obey Christ, not serving the eye like those who strive to please men, but doing what God wants like slaves of Christ, serving not men but the Lord sincerely with goodwill, knowing that whether he is slave or free, whatever good each individual does he will receive back from God. And you, masters, should do the same toward them and relent in your threats, knowing that the Lord in heaven is your master too, and that He has no respect for status (Ephesians 6).143 “5) Regarding adultery. ‘You will not commit adultery’ (Exodus 20).144 ‘He who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife should be killed with death, both the adulterer and the adulteress’ (Leviticus 20).145 ‘Whoever looks at another’s wife to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart’ (Matthew 5).146 “6) Regarding fornication and uncleanliness of every kind. ‘If a man finds a girl and after catching her’ and so on’ (Deuteronomy 22;147 cf. Exodus 22).148 Similarly with the unchaste, homosexuals and those who commingle with their sisters and other blood relations which are in Scripture (Leviticus 20;149 similarly 18).150 ‘He who lies with a woman

Verses 18, 21. Actually, the full text indicates that if the disobedient son refuses to see the errors of his ways, his parents should bring him before the elders, and they will have him stoned. 142 Verses 28, 22. 143 Verses 55–9. 144 Verse 14. 145 Verse 10. 146 Verse 28. 147 Verse 16. Both passages cited here refer to a man who seduces an unbetrothed maiden, and the result is that with her father’s consent he should marry her and otherwise pay monetary recompense. The death penalty is not sanctioned. Perhaps the unsatisfactory nature of the citation results in the incomplete quotation. 148 Verse 28. 149 Verse 13 covers homosexuality, and Verse 17, incest with female blood relations. 150 Verses 22 and 9 are parallel to those cited in the preceding note. 141

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 547

6/12/2007 3:32:47 PM

548

581

the events of 1534

having her period’ and so on.151 Whoever practices a form of depravity prohibited by Scripture commits abomination and will die with death (1 Corinthians 6;152 Galatians 5;153 Ephesians 4,154 5;155 1 Thessalonians 4).156 Let fornication and every kind of uncleanliness not be named among you, as befits the saintly people of God. “7) Regarding greed and stealing: ‘Greed is the root of all evil’ (1 Timothy 6).157 “8) Regarding theft: ‘You will not commit theft’ (Exodus 20;158 cf. Deuteronomy 5,159 1 Corinthians 6).160 Also, ‘Cursed be he who covets the land of his neighbor’ (Deuteronomy 27).161 “9) Regarding acts of trickery and deceit: ‘No one should take his brother by surprise through deceit in business, because God is the avenger of all such acts’ (1 Thessalonians 4).162 “10) Regarding lies and disparagements: ‘The mouth that lies kills the soul’ (Wisdom 1).163 ‘As for the fearful, those lacking in belief, the accursed, murderers, those who frequent whores, poisoners, idolaters and all liars, part of them will be in a pit blazing with fire and sulfur, which is the second death’ (Psalm 21).164 ‘Do not denigrate one another, brothers!’ ( James 4,165 1 Peter 2,166 Matthew 7).167 “11) Regarding obscenity and idle words: ‘For every idle word that they will have spoken men are going to give an account in the day of

151 Leviticus 18:19, 20:18. The method of citation in the text is rather clumsy, and it is not entirely clear if the two chapters from Leviticus are meant to go with what precedes or what follows them (the citations are relevant to both). 152 Verses 13–20 contain a general denunciation of fornication. 153 Verse 19 categorizes fornication and uncleanliness among the sins of the fl esh. 154 Verse 19. 155 Verse 3. 156 Verse 3. 157 Verse 10. 158 Verse 15. 159 Verse 19. 160 Verse 10. 161 Verse 17. 162 Verse 6. 163 Verse 11. 164 Actually, Apocalypse 21:8. 165 Verse 11. 166 Verse 1. 167 Verse 12.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 548

6/12/2007 3:32:47 PM

the events of 1534

549

judgment’ (Matthew 12).168 Also, ‘Let no foul speech come forth from your mouth’ (Ephesians 4).169 “12) Regarding instances of strife and sedition, anger and rivalry: ‘The works of the fl esh are obvious, being the following: hatreds, litigation, rivalries, angers, competitions’ and so on. ‘Those who perform them will not be heirs to the Kingdom of God’ (Galatians 5).170 ‘Whoever rashly becomes angered at his own brother will be subject to judgment’ (Matthew 5).171 ‘Whoever hates his own brother is a murderer’ (1 John 4).172 “13) Regarding slanders, mutterings and divisiveness among the people of God: ‘There will be no slanderer or whisperer among the people.’ (Leviticus 19)173 ‘You should not mutter the way that some of them muttered’ (1 Corinthians 10).174 “Summation. Whoever contaminates himself with these and similar sins that are contrary to the wholesome and salutary doctrine of Jesus Christ will, unless he truly repents, be subject to the law and will be eradicated from amidst the people with excommunication and the sword by the ordinary ruler appointed by God. ‘Blessed are those who uphold His commandments, so that they will have power on the tree of life and enter through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, poisoners, lewd people, murderers, idolaters and everyone who loves and commits lying’ (Apocalypse 22).”175 “Ordinance recently introduced by the twelve elders for the political government in the city of Münster.176 “Those called upon through the grace of the highest, all-powerful God and established as the elders of the community of Christ in the saintly city of Münster wish the following duties and articles to be

582

Verse 36. Verse 29. 170 Verses 19–21 (abridged). 171 Verse 22. 172 Actually, 1 John 3:15, though 4:20 harkens back to the earlier passage. 173 Verse 16. 174 Verse 10. 175 Verses 14–15. 176 An abridged version of this document, which must have been printed like the previous one, is preserved in another source, but once again no copy of the original printing is extant today. 168 169

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 549

6/12/2007 3:32:47 PM

550

583

the events of 1534

upheld faithfully and without violation by the individual inhabitants of Israel and of the house of God. “1) Whatever Holy Scripture either orders or prohibits each Israelite will obey through fear of punishment. “2) Each individual will devote himself zealously to his own calling, fearing God and the ruler established by Him. For the latter does not wear the sword in vain, being the avenger of crimes. “3) Each of the elders will employ the services of one attendant to carry out his commands. “4) Five of the elders will be in command of the day and of the night watches and will conduct a personal inspection to make sure that the community receives no harm through the carelessness of the watchman.177 “5) Every night, one more of the elders will, with a few armed attendants, carefully examine the watchmen on duty on the ramparts and walls and at the gates in order that they should be kept to their duty and that God should keep watch with them. “6) Every day from 6 until 8 o’clock in the morning and from 1 until 3 o’clock in the afternoon, six elders will sit in a place assigned to them in the market and settle all disputes with their decisions. “7) Whatever the elders will decide by their common judgment to be beneficial in this new community of Israel, John of Leiden the prophet will, as a faithful minister and ruler of the highest and sacrosanct God, announce and explain this to the community of Christ and to the entire assembly of Israel. “8) To make sure that no manifest crime which confl icts with the Word of God is tolerated among the sincere and by no means fraudulent Israelites, and that the transgressor (criminal) who is caught in a crime red-handed should be subjected to the worthy punishment, Bernard Knipperdolling the swordbearer will punish such a criminal in accordance with the crime which he has committed. If, on the other hand, he is not caught red-handed, Knipperdolling will refer the matter to the elders, and their decision will be complied with, so that every evil will be eradicated from Israel. “To protect and defend his office Knipperdolling will go forth in public with an escort of four attendants.

177 Presumably, the sense is that five each were to take command of the day and the night watches, but the Latin is not unambiguous on this point.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 550

6/12/2007 3:32:47 PM

the events of 1534

551

“9) In order to preserve the lawful order in serving food, every day those superintending this matter will, with due regard for their duty, set dishes of the same kind (as has generally been the practice hitherto) before the brothers and sisters as they sit modestly and with all decorum at separate tables. The diners will not have the discretion to ask for anything beyond what is set before them.” (In front of each city gate they had a house in which those working on strengthening the defenses would have their meal at their assigned time. There were both men and women among them, and they would sit in silence at the table while eating as one of them read from the Old Testament.) “10) Those who in the meanwhile keep the watch during the day will have their meal when the others have gone their way, so that the necessary keeping of the watch is not neglected. “11) No one will fish apart from the superintendents of fishing, Christian Kerckering and Herman Redeker, and their attendants, who will also not deny fish to the sick and pregnant in accordance with their needs. “12) Bernard Boentruppe and Gerard Pruessen will have control over slaughtering, curing and selling meat, so that there will be no shortage of fresh meat at appropriate moments. “13) Herman tor Nate, John Redeker and Henry Dumkuster will, with their six servants, sew shoes for the use of the Israelites. “14) The blacksmiths John Palck, Henry Pothof, Henry Stolte, Conrad Pothof, Herman Berning, and Arnold Rodtland will deny their services to no one. Mollenhecke and Steinkamp, on the other hand, will serve only the government in forging iron. “15) John of Coesfeld will, with his servants, forge iron nails. “16) Bernard tor Moer, Bernard Glandorp, Henry Edelblot and John Northof 178 will be the superintendents of clothes menders, and will see to it that no new and unusual varieties of clothing are made. “17) No one will wear torn or rent clothing. “18) Henry Krechting will, as notary and secretary, write down the secret counsels and the public and private decisions of the elders. “19) Henry Mollenhecke and Bernard the clothing cutter will make sure that nothing required for the guns and artillery and their usage is lacking.

178

584

Last name given as Vlenthoff in another source.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 551

6/12/2007 3:32:47 PM

552

585

the events of 1534

“20) In order that wine and other varieties of aged drink should be preserved for the use of the sick and those in mental distress, Stephen Kopperschleger will undertake a careful accounting of this matter. “21) In order that gold and silver, both minted and not, should be put to proper and lawful use, Magnus Koehus, Conrad Kruse, Gerard Reining, and Lucas Gruter will make sure with extraordinary care that none will be spent uselessly and that it will be put to use for the general good through the planning of the elders.179 “22) Andrew the tanner and Herman Ribbert will superintend the preparation of tanned hides and whatever pertains to shoe making in this saintly community. “23) Eberhard Follen and John Krechting will be veterinarians and will oversee the horses assigned to public service in order to make sure that fodder is not used up without benefit. “24) Gerard Kibbenbrock, Christian Wordeman, John of Deventer, and John Uldan will see to strengthening or building anew the public defenses of this saintly city. They will, however, build nothing without consulting the elders. “25) John Krechting will convey any turnip seeds that he finds in the city to the oil press and will faithfully keep the oil pressed from them for necessary uses. “26) Bernard Menneken will bring the spices and loaves of sugar to one house and superintend them, making sure that they are distributed properly. “27) Whenever beer and bread are necessary, the elders will, by the grace of God, see to it that no harm comes to the community.180 “28) Whenever earth is needed to repair the ramparts, Derek Schloschen will acquire two- and four-horse wagons for this purpose, and he will order the copper, lead and pewter to be removed from the thrown down towers and conveyed to separate piles for each. “29) If a foreigner not belonging to our religion, whether he is a brother or a fellow burgher of the same homeland or an acquaintance, has come to our saintly city, he will be turned over to Knipperdolling

The position of these men was already mentioned above (562D). The specification about “no harm coming to the community” is derived from the phraseology of the so-called “final decree of the senate” (senatus consultum ultimum), which was in effect a declaration of martial law that took the form of vaguely enjoining the magistrates to make sure that no harm came to the Republic. Perhaps, what is meant is that the elders are to take steps to prevent rioting if beer or bread are in shortage. 179 180

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 552

6/12/2007 3:32:48 PM

the events of 1534

553

the swordbearer for examination, so that Knipperdolling will engage him in conversation, which will be revealed to no one but the elders. “30) In order to avoid any suspicion of conspiracy, no baptized Christian will have a conversation or discussion with any foreign immigrant pagan or take any food with him. “31) No one will engage in fishing through any craft at all, subject to the penalty laid out for disobedience.181 “32) Under penalty of death no one will, without the consent and decision of the elders, change military standard or transfer from one platoon to another at his own discretion.182 “33) If, by God’s ordinance, someone dies in the Lord by being shot by the enemy or for any other reason, no one will, by his own authority, assume the property that he leaves behind such as weapons, clothing and so on. Instead, the property will be taken to Bernard Knipperdolling the swordbearer, who will present it to the elders, so that it will be assigned to the true heirs by their authority.”

586

Next, the rebaptized in the city drew up certain texts both publicly and privately, and disseminated them in the camps by throwing them in either tied to stones or affixed to projectiles, the purpose being to persuade the soldiers that the rebaptized had not been the first to begin hostilities, and that instead hostilities had been started against them without cause. They said that they would either avert the war with prayers or ward it off with lawful defense, protecting the Word of God, which was fl ourishing among them. They did this with the clever intention of making the soldiery desist from besieging so saintly a city and of deterring them from oppressing such pious men. A copy of the text follows.183 “To all the people, of whatever age, who are crushing Münster, the Christian city of the All-highest God, with siege. “On behalf of all the pious, benevolent lovers of the Christian Truth, we pray for grace, mercy and peace from God the Father through Jesus Christ, the sole savior of us and of the entire world! Listen and hear,

181 Presumably, the original specified the penalty, but K. did not think it worthwhile to go into the details. The purpose of this seemingly blanket prohibition of fishing is not clear to me. 182 Presumably, “change military standard” is simply another way of saying “transfer to a different unit.” 183 Preserved only by K.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 553

6/12/2007 3:32:48 PM

554

587

the events of 1534

you people, both young and old, who are encamped around our city! Since we genuinely desire to have not only peace but also brotherly love in Christ with certain people, in what way will you defend before pious men (not to mention God) the fact that we are being crushed with violent siege and killed by you in violation of the expressed, sealed terms of peace without any war being declared? Yet, God will help the just. As for our sending you this letter, learn the reason for this! We hope that there are still among you pious men who love their God and Creator, preferring to meet their death rather than | undertake war for the sake of money in violation of right, God and the lovely Truth, when no war has been declared, and whom lies have induced to hate us, so that they expect that if they persecute us with arms, they will perform a service that will be pleasing to God. “In order that each of you should understand and consider more carefully what he is doing and against whom he is taking up arms, we will briefl y explain the system of our faith and the method of our way of life. Our faith and confidence is in the one true and living God, the creator of heaven and earth, just as Holy Scripture explains at greater length (it would be too long to go into details here). We also know and believe that the eternal God loves those who fear Him and walk in His path and feels immense hatred for all evildoers on earth. Since we believe in God and know that He will recompense those who seek Him with all their heart and walk in His paths, our life is arranged in such a way in the face of God that we do not leave anyone among us who is guilty of crimes unpunished, much less do we tolerate the commission of such crimes and heinous sins as are impudently made up among you about us. Also, if we were convinced that we had cheated anyone apart from Satan and his gang of slaves, we would readily make fourfold restitution. Such is our faith and way of life. God is our confidence, hope, protection and shield, and it is our desire to obey Him, whether we are to live or die. Accordingly, we are not afraid of what the Antichrist, the priests, the monks and the devils are cleverly plotting against us together with their whole crew and with the very gates of hell. Our hidden life in Christ first begins when this fl esh lays down its mortality. At that time, the enemies of God will be put to shame, being broken and thrown back after running into the goad of Jesus Christ. Come to your senses, then, and while you can, recognize the error of your ways to avoid digging a ditch for your own destruction! For we hope that all men will come to their senses in order to be saved along with us. God be the judge of what you wish for us!

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 554

6/12/2007 3:32:48 PM

the events of 1534

555

“Consider this a friendly warning and make sure that you do not offend our ancient, experienced general! We consider all God’s enemies to be just like chaff and tares, and we will fearlessly resist them in our reliance on the help of our general. Certainly, it will be hard for them to kick against the pricks184 and entangle themselves in the judgment of God. | If you do not think that this acknowledgement of our faith is true, we will be able to allow a certain number of your comrades (to be chosen by us) to examine everything through first-hand experience. For God knows that we seek and hope for nothing but the Kingdom of Christ. “This was written in Münster, the city of the All-highest God on April 8, A.D. 1534.185 “(Signed) The elders and the entire community and association of Christ assembled in Münster.” Each side then made up various sorts of derisive jokes. Sometimes drunk, sometimes sober, they would provoke each other in a boisterous spirit, making challenges with bitter insults. In great confidence, certain of the soldiers would often rush up to the city and affix worn shoes to the gates, shouting, “Cobbler, fix these worn, mangled shoes for me!” Sometimes they got away, sometimes they fell shot. In turn, the townsmen sewed together an effigy out of linen rag, filling it with hay and attaching letters of indulgence and papal bulls all around it, and then they put it on a yearling mare. At the gate they lashed it hard and drove it and its silent rider towards the Maurice camp. Tricked by the effigy into thinking that some townsman was being carried away over the fields by an out-of-control horse that he could not rein in, the soldiery ran up in their eagerness to gain plunder, seizing the horse and halting its nimble gallop. After the trick was discovered, a large multitude of soldiers were enticed to come see this spectacle, being unaware of the ruse. From various sections of the fortifications, and in particular from the tower of St. Maurice’s, they fired such a quantity of shot and bullets into tight-packed gathering of many soldiers that the majority were killed, and only a few escaped without injury. Soon after, they filled a barrel with human excrement, stopping it up very tightly, and then after putting it on a two-horse wagon, they sent it into the camp without a driver. They thought up countless other

184 185

588

Acts 26:14. For the problems with the dating of this document, see n. 120.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 555

6/12/2007 3:32:48 PM

556

589

590

the events of 1534

ways to insult the soldiers. Both sides reviled the other with the most foul reproaches, the rebaptized calling the soldiers impious idolaters, servants of the pope | and the shaven crowd, slaves of crime, and so on, while the soldiers in turn shouted: “Father, my spirit has a hankering for your fl esh!” At times, they pulled down the pants and revealed their buttocks, and after a certain boy took to doing this frequently, almost always in the same location, the townsmen aimed a gun at that place and fired with such effect that his limbs, which were torn apart and scattered all over the place throughout the fields, could scarcely be found, much less gathered. While these events were going on, the prince gave an order in April for assorted preparations to be carried out by the commanders. Wicker hurdles eight feet broad and twelve long were woven, and with beams placed underneath them they were to be set up in various locations along the Aa, which fl owed among the camps. Baskets (mantelets) were also woven, and these would serve as obstructions against gunfire. For the coming assault the commanders procured a large number of carts, shovels, grappling hooks, and ladders fitted with hooks. The peasants were also summoned in gangs to dig entrenchments for the camps in relays. Some of them were ordered to bring loads of wicker and broom shrubs in worn-out wagons that they would leave in the camps, while others were ordered to bring stronger wagons laden with bundles of wood and bush, which they would take back home with them after unloading these wagons. Meanwhile, in order to maintain discipline in the camps, the prince issued a command on May 3 to all the bailiffs and stewards throughout the diocese, ordering that those who left the standards without getting leave from their commanders and were attempting to decamp were to be seized en route as deserters and kept under arrest to await their punishment. The bailiffs and stewards were also to keep an eye on the roads in all directions so that no soldier who was not enlisted among the prince’s soldiers should be allowed to travel to the camps without official permission. Next, when a chimneysweep named Bastwilhelm was performing guard duty at night in the location on the rampart between the Horst Gate and the Gate of St. Maurice that had been assigned to him by the commanders, he was impelled by a sudden vision and voice to destroy the cities of the impious | with fl ames all over the place. After receiving official authorization and permission to leave, he departed with the intention of setting fire to Wolbeck, Telgte, Ahlen, Dülmen and other

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 556

6/12/2007 3:32:48 PM

the events of 1534

557

neighboring towns. In Wolbeck there was a large quantity of recently brought gunpowder and of other supplies acquired for the siege and fighting, so he first tried to implement his plan for arson in that little town. Putting torches to roofs, he burned down a good deal of the town without destroying the gunpowder and other military supplies.186 A large number of peasants rushed to the town from all sides, and thus the fire was put out before the powder magazine could be ignited. The arsonist secretly made off to Drensteinfurt, where he was apprehended on the basis of a mild suspicion and confessed to what he had done. He was then brought back to Wolbeck to pay the penalty for his crime. Tied to a stake, he died through being smothered and burned by the fire with which he had harmed others, | paying a worthy penalty for his deeds. In prison, he also convinced Derek of Merfelt, the bailiff of Wolbeck, of something, perhaps to postpone the punishment for a short time while the bailiff was occupied with the matter. In any case, he told the bailiff that treasures were buried in a nearby forest called the “garden of beasts” or the “grove” (he specified the location) and in a hut where he regularly performed watch duty on the rampart at Münster. With much care and effort he searched both places, the former before the capture of the city and the latter after it, but since he had been duped, he found nothing but dirt. Meanwhile, the townsmen kept themselves busy with almost daily skirmishes to terrify the enemy. In particular, on May 16, they launched an unexpected attack on the enemy camp, cutting many soldiers down (at great cost to themselves), and capturing Clymner of Voerde,187 Artz of Lith and Hans of Beckum, whom they took back with them to the city as captives. The next day the captives sent a letter to their comrades in the camp asking them to get permission from the townsmen to talk with John Bockelson and negotiate about an exchange of prisoners, the captives explaining that it would be very oppressive for them to be kept any longer in the prison. The necessities for the larger ordinance and the assault had now been acquired and made ready, and in order to avoid letting | time pass without practice in arms and to prevent the soldiery from losing morale through any disreputable use of their free time in the camps,

591

592

The arson was carried out on April 16. A letter sent by this man indicates that he came from “Woerden” (in the Netherlands), but K.’s form shows that he took this to be Voerde (presumably, the town near the confl uence of the Lippe and Rhine rivers, to the west-southwest of Münster). 186 187

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 557

6/12/2007 3:32:48 PM

558

593

594

the events of 1534

on the Friday before the feast of Pentecost (May 22) they began a frequent bombardment of the city’s walls, gates and outer defenses to shatter and knock them down, seeking to open a path for the impending assault, which was set to take place at dawn on the following Tuesday. Whatever part of the fortifications was brought down during the day, women trained by certain instructors repaired during the nighttime, restoring it by piling up earth and mud. At the same time, the men armed themselves for the coming day of assault, which they had learned from deserters, | not omitting anything that seemed useful for repelling the enemy. With similar zeal, the soldiery in all the camps prepared themselves for the assault. Their commanders reminded them of the oath which they had sworn and of their previous bravery, and they encouraged one another with the hope of rich plunder. The men from Gelders fortified their courage not only with words for each other but also with by gulping down frothy cups full of liquor. With plentiful wine and beer they cast off all terror of death, not realizing that this stamps out rational thinking and increases not bravery but rash impetuosity. Spending all of Monday over their cups, they kept drinking so energetically that they could not distinguish one day from another or dawn from dusk, and before sunset the hope of being the first to seize the plunder and their greed for vain glory, for which most were thought to yearn, induced them to undertake a premature storm on the town without the knowledge of the other camps.188 They raised a great screaming and shouting, and to the extent allowed by their drunkenness, they attacked the town with arms, ladders, and other military equipment. When the assault launched by the men from Gelders was announced through the other camps, the troops there were at first amazed that they had forgotten the time set for the assault, but then the troops sallied forth from all the camps to bring reinforcements, so that the men from Gelders would not sustain the attack by themselves. Drawing the fire of many townsmen upon themselves as well, the new troops divided and dissipated the unity of the enemy’s reply. When nightfall intervened, however, the commanders sounded the retreat and recalled their surviving troops to the camps. Very many of them had been lost in this futile attack, | while among the townsmen

188 In a letter to the councilors of the landgrave of Hesse in Cassel dated May 26, the bishop reported that the drunken assault had begun the previous night at around 11 o’clock. He numbered the casualties about 200 dead and wounded.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 558

6/12/2007 3:32:48 PM

the events of 1534

559

only Anthony Guldenarm and Henry Mersch died along with eight common soldiers. If all the camps had undertaken the attack together with full preparations at the designated time, the affair would perhaps have turned out more successfully. Having made a successful trial of their strength, the townsmen were made more daring as a result of their fresh victory and conceived many clever stratagems to kill the enemy. First, from the city by the Jews’ Field Gate they extended a mound of earth along a raised road, propping up the mound on the inside with quite strong timber to prevent the collapse of the raised road and spanning the ditch on either side with walkways. Along this road, which was unknown to the enemy, a certain number of townsmen with more boldness than strength went out from the city, dividing the work among themselves: some brought steel nails, others iron hammers, others larger-sized axes, others drawn swords, and yet others double axes. They crawled on their bellies up to the watch post of the enemy’s daytime pickets and launched an unexpected attack.189 Being themselves armed, they overwhelmed men who were unarmed, some playing dice, some drinking, others engaged in anything but their duty. The townsmen attacked before the soldiers could take up their weapons, cutting down and slaughtering those who had not sought safety in fl ight. There were nineteen guns in the mantelets, and some of the townsmen fixed the steel nails in the small holes through which the fire is transmitted to the powder,190 others drove the nails home with the iron hammers, applying as much force as possible, and yet others cut up the wheels to the gun carriages and their emplacements with the axes, smashing, ruining and destroying everything to the extent allowed by time.191 Also finding gunpowder there, they scattered it all over the place across the sand. Meanwhile, throughout the rampart | and outer works of the city, guns were positioned on iron gratings which had been taken from the portico of the cathedral and broken into pieces in order to await the enemy’s arrival and infl ict serious losses on them. When this slaughter was reported in the camps by one or two soldiers who had sought safety in fl ight, the troops in the camps burst forth in full force and pursued the townsmen, but they did not dare

595

189 Contemporary letters date this sally to May 16, which places it chronologically prior to the unsuccessful assault of May 25. 190 I.e., they spiked the cannons. 191 The contemporary letters reporting the assault give varying figures for the number of guns spiked, but the loss seems to have been ten or a few more.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 559

6/12/2007 3:32:48 PM

560

596

597

the events of 1534

to advance closer than gunshot range through fear of the townsmen’s crafty ingenuity. By provoking them, the townsmen led the soldiers, who were unaware of the trap, to the spot where the gunpowder was scattered over the sand, and immediately set light to it. At this point, the astonished soldiers standing in the middle of fl ames were horribly burned, and the rest of the soldiers stopped in terror at the very gruesome spectacle presented by their comrades. They thought that the fire was the work of God and did not dare to pursue the townsmen, wishing to avoid falling victim to a similar or greater misfortune. They therefore returned to their camp to await the arrival of their half-burned comrades. Now safe from enemy pursuit, the townsmen withdrew with laughter to the city through the tunnel by which they had arrived. The loss of the guns would have been without its equal if it had not been for a remarkable skill with which | a certain man used a small auger to unplug them. During this raid, very many soldiers were lost, but only a few townsmen. About forty paces from the Gate of St. Maurice, there is a hill on which a windmill was located, and the rebaptized fortified this hill, often attacking and slaughtering unaware soldiers from it by ambush. The soldiers, who took it very badly that the townsmen were not content with their walls and had erected defensive works on the outside of them, decided to evict them from this hill. Attempting this in force, they gained control of these works with much sweat and great losses, killing to a man all the rebaptized whom they found there.192 Coritzer fought bravely as the commander during this assault, and a rock thrown by the enemy cost him one of his eyes. Now one-eyed, he gave up soldiering and returned to Reine, spending the rest of his days there without any further military service. His place was taken by Hans of Tecklenburg. Finding the daily losses of his soldiers and the townsmen’s underhanded raids intolerable, the prince entered into daily consultations, both in public and in private, with the individual commands, discussing not only how to capture the city but also how to check the townsmen’s impudent audacity. Some gave one sort of counsel, and others, different advice, but a certain soldier named Offerkamp, | who was the commander of the mantelets in the camp of St. Maurice, came up with a novel method of assault, convincing the commanders that a certain

192

This fight took place on June 19–20.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 560

6/12/2007 3:32:48 PM

the events of 1534

561

number of strongholds, towns and forts had been taken by it. He said that a rampart was to be raised in the empty fields and gradually extended by the efforts of the peasants in the direction of the city so that the ditches could be filled in. The result would be that once any difficulty in scaling the walls was removed, the soldiers would have no trouble in spreading out in an extended battle formation and entering the city. Although some disagreed, the commanders judged that this plan of Offerkamp’s offered a useful method of shortening the war and the prince’s authorization was quickly secured. He ordered that for the work to be done the peasants of the diocese were to be distributed into gangs so that they could be summoned by these gangs and work in relays.193 They were to come equipped with knapsacks on their shoulders containing sustenance for three days and with shovels for digging and piling up dirt. During the night, | a small, low mound was raised between the Horst Gate and the Gate of St. Maurice at just about gunshot range, and with the large amount of dirt that was piled up by the peasants’ constant efforts this mound became larger and taller. Offerkamp, who was in charge of this operation, arranged the peasants in ranks of three, four, five or more according to the height of the pile. In this way, the diggers in the lowest rank would quickly pick up dirt from the base of the mound and heave it to the second and so on, with the lower diggers always passing it on to the next rank. The top rank would throw the dirt given to them by the lower rank onto the top of the mound, always making sure that a sufficient height of the mound remained above them to cover their bodies, so that gunfire from the town would not harm them. Nonetheless, some people stuck their heads up too high above the ramparts out of curiosity, and as they stared fixedly at the city to see what the enemy was doing, they were shot and fell. Perceiving the besiegers’ plan, the townsmen erected piles of dirt as huge as mountains in response. They fortified the tops of these piles with sharpened stakes that pointed downwards to ward off an assault from below, and lower down they used beams and | the

598

599

193 On June 3, the bishop ordered all peasants capable of work to be enlisted, and soon detailed commands were issued. On June 7, 2800 men from six districts in the upper bishopric were mustered, 265 from fourteen small towns on June 8, 2600 from five districts of the upper bishopric on June 13, and 3800 from six districts of the lower bishopric on June 14. The peasants had to work for ten days, and the townsmen for three weeks. Many men were reluctant to comply, and further demands were made of five districts on June 23 and of five more the following day. Several thousand men were also mustered in Francis’ other bishoprics, Minden and Osnabrück.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 561

6/12/2007 3:32:48 PM

562

600

the events of 1534

stone statues plundered from sarcophagi194 in various churches to prop up the mounds in such a way as to leave passageways and tunnels underneath. These mounds rose up so high and extended so far beyond all the fortifications that the townsmen could easily ward off any force of the enemy, even from the first trenches. Nonetheless, through unfl agging labor that used up most of the summer, Offerkamp’s raised roadway rolled forward to the first trenches, and the furthest rank of peasants threw dirt down into those trenches. Pretending not to notice, the townsmen put up with this for some time in order that their lack of response would entice the enemy closer, within gunshot range. Thinking that this harm was no longer to be tolerated, they first placed heavy artillery opposite Offerkamp’s mound and used it to shake loose what was often a large amount of stones, which then scattered over the peasants. Then, from the oblique bulwarks and newly raised mounds they fired such a quantity of shot that no one was able to stand on top of the raised roadway and virtually no shot fired from the higher ground was in vain. With some killed, some wounded and others knocked down from the new construction, Offerkamp’s plan not only bore no fruit but it wore out the peasants with vast toil and expenses, bringing death to many and throwing the ownership of the pastures into confusion. In order that there should be a fixed method of keeping the watch in the city, on June 13, the elders ordered by common decision that old men, schoolmasters, tailors, | carpenters, blacksmiths, shoemakers, tanners, fishermen, bakers, brewers, butchers and those entrusted with the administration of official jobs should be exempted and freed from the obligation to serve on the watch. On June 17, they selected the four most experienced surgeons—Nicholas of Luxemburg, Albert of Sneek, Conrad Noest, and Matthew of Jülich—to heal wounds. They were to see to the wounds by consulting with and assisting one another, but the sick were left the right to ask for whichever surgeon they wanted. Noting that this war was being prolonged contrary to his expectation, and that his treasury was being exhausted by the drawn-out siege, the prince decided that he should first seek help from the princes of Cologne and Jülich. When they gathered at Neuss to hold an assembly on June 16, partly for the sake of their own affairs and partly for the sake of our prince, an embassy was also sent there from Münster, since it would have been very problematical for the prince to leave the siege.

194

See 554D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 562

6/12/2007 3:32:48 PM

the events of 1534

563

The gist of the envoy’s pleading was as follows. First, in the name of their prince they gave thanks in the most dutiful terms possible to the two neighboring princes who were present, those of Cologne and Jülich, for their favor, zeal, advice, and good will. They said that from various letters and embassies the princes must be aware of the unavoidable necessity by which their prince of Münster had been forced to take up arms against those who held the city of Münster and their horrific, criminal, impious, seditious and violent sect | and its doctrine, and to place the city under an inevitable siege in the hope that when they noticed the prince’s serious resolve, they would abandon their impious and violent undertakings, give up their blindness and sedition, and free themselves, their wives and children, their hearths and altars, and the entire city from death and destruction. Nonetheless, being led astray and blinded, these seditious and violent enemies of God, who attacked Him in complete disregard of all respectability and Christian piety, obstinately clung to their undertakings and did not in the least come to their senses, and for this reason their prince had, the envoys said, by the advice and at the urging of his commanders and of the councilors of the neighboring princes who were present in the camps, bombarded the city in preparation for an attack by storm. Having everything necessary for this, he had no doubt that the city would have been taken if the agreed-upon plan for attack had not been thrown into confusion, as was later learned from deserters. The storming of the city had been hindered through the drunken and contumacious disobedience of certain soldiers who disregarded the time fixed for the assault, and contrary to their faulty expectation, these soldiers’ impudence had caused the prince great losses, cheated him of victory and thwarted him to the present day. The other soldiers were so discouraged by this slaughter that they could not be induced to attempt another assault unless the inner ditch of the city was filled up. The city of Münster was so strongly fortified through its natural topography and through the ingenuity of man with ditches, walls, ramparts and bulwarks, it was so well equipped on the inside with guns, artillery, arms and other defensive weapons, and the walls, towers, gates, and bulwarks that had been thrown down by bombardment had been repaired and restored in such a way, that the soldiers were intimidated about storming them. Therefore, the envoys said, their prince had determined through consultation with members of the diocese, councilors sent from elsewhere, and the military commanders, | that without aid and support from neighboring princes and friends it was impossible for him to bear any

601

602

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 563

6/12/2007 3:32:49 PM

564

603

the events of 1534

longer this difficult and intractable siege with his own strength and resources. If it was necessary to give up the city, leave the seditious inhabitants alone, tolerate them in their impiety, and squander vast expenses without profit, then in this confident expectation of impunity, they would win over first the soldiers, then the surrounding peasants, next the towns and cities of the entire diocese, and finally the neighboring regions. Then, once they had won these over, they would make them engage in the same sorts of impiety and plunge them into the same ruinous misfortune, becoming responsible for many calamities. In the end, they would infl ict a remarkable disaster on all of Germany and bring chaos to all the princes. To make sure that if the situation deteriorated—which God forbid!—no one would think that the initial impetus to such a disaster had been given by their prince or that anything should be blamed on his carelessness on the grounds that he had not fully informed the neighboring princes of a situation so fraught with danger, their prince, they said, entreated both the prince of Cologne and the prince of Jülich in the most friendly terms possible to ponder with the native judiciousness with which they were endowed the future dangers that would burst forth in unspeakable calamities if this sect received impunity, and to succour him and the diocese swiftly with their counsel and with notable aid and assistance, so that once the impiety and rebellion of the people of Münster was crushed, they would be restored to the ancestral religion and to their previous obedience, and the neighboring populations would be saved from disaster and ruin. If any of these requests was granted, their prince would give thanks with the greatest zeal and alacrity and would, at the appropriate moment, make recompense to some extent. After a short deliberation, the princes of Cologne and Jülich replied as follows through a spokesman. He said that on account of the obligations of both the treaty and neighborliness, particularly in this very just cause, they would never withhold their counsel, help, resources and support from the bishop of Münster, but unless this seemed irksome to him, they would in part bear the cost of the siege. They said that they would contribute 40,000 Rhenish fl orins | for the purchase of gunpowder to support the expense of the war in the coming month, though on the condition that the prince and his diocese should place themselves under the obligation to pay back both the principal and the interest payments. In the name of their prince and of the entire diocese of Münster, the envoys gave the greatest thanks for this benevolent decision. They did, however, inquire about what would happen and

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 564

6/12/2007 3:32:49 PM

the events of 1534

565

what hope of further support was to be expected if he did not take the city within one month, asking both princes to state their intention as to what they would do in order to avoid being burdened with later meetings. To this the princes replied that it was their advice that the estates of the province of Westphalia called a “circle”195 should be requested to give assistance, just as is the custom in Imperial Diets. If help was refused by the estates, they, the princes of Cologne and Jülich, would not abandon the prince of Münster. Also, the advice was given that in order to maintain military discipline and to make sure that nothing | pertaining to the war was lacking, a man of the greatest experience in warfare should be appointed by the common decision and authority of the three princes to be in charge of the entire force, and each of these three princes should give him two councilors for difficult, troublesome situations. In addition, since amidst the dregs of humanity constituting the soldiery in the camps heinous crimes are often committed, so that in His great offence at them, God either postpones victory or shifts allegiance to the enemy, infl icting great losses on the men in the camps, these princes decided that the prince of Münster was to make a serious effort to ensure that the camps were not bereft of piety and military discipline. The envoys solemnly pledged that the prince would carry out all these proposals. Bernard Buxdorp, a very daring man, often left the city alone armed with a triple handgun, just about always at noon, and would challenge the quite drunken soldiers.196 | Being made more daring in pursuing him through drink and acting incautiously, they would be cut down by the sober Buxdorp. He let virtually no day pass without shooting some soldiers. When he saw many soldiers rushing for him, he withdrew through hidden paths unknown to the enemy and eluded the danger. Then, a few arquebuses were aimed at the place where the corpses lay spread on the ground, and the incautious soldiers who saw to the burial of them were shot. Between the Horst Gate and the Gate of St. Maurice, there was in the open ground behind the walls a very tall nut-tree with thick limbs covered in foliage that hung down everywhere, and on its stronger branches a blind was built from which very many soldiers were shot

604

605

195 The Holy Roman Empire was divided into a number of regional districts called “circles” (German Cerise). 196 This story is related only by K. I have no idea what he means by “triple handgun” (triplex chyrobombarda).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 565

6/12/2007 3:32:49 PM

566

606

the events of 1534

and killed. For some time the soldiers did not notice this ruse, since the thickness of the branches and the foliage prevented the gun smoke from blowing away immediately. Eventually, however, people discovered the trick by peering carefully, and with large arquebuses the sharpshooter, John Nochle, was knocked down lame along with his blind, and he never appeared again. It was not only men who thought up various underhanded methods of deceitful trickery to kill their enemies, the besiegers, but so did women. When Hille Feicken, a woman of outstanding beauty and peaceful disposition who had been born in Verdun (an important country district) between Leeuwarden and Sneek, happened to hear in a public sermon that Judith had freed Bethulia, a town of the Israelites, from siege by killing Holophernes,197 she became enthusiastic to perform a similar feat, and the thought of this event took root so firmly in the woman’s mind that she considered nothing else both day and night. Indeed, she dreamed of nothing but the death of the prince and the liberation of the city. | Feeling that the thought was not lessening but increasing daily, she had no doubt that she was being divinely impelled, and she devoted herself entirely to carrying out the deed. She let first one or two women from the same homeland in on the plan and then Bockelson the prophet and Knipperdolling, who egged her on to such an extent with prayers and rewards and instilled in her such desire for eternal fame and repute, that she had no doubt about a successful outcome.198 She was so convinced of the certainty of victory and became 197 This story forms the main narrative of the Apocryphal Book of Judith. When Nebuchadnezzar’s general Holophernes attacks the Israelites for disobedience, he puts the town of Bethulia under siege. In desperation, the townsmen want to give in, but the king persuades them to wait five days to see if God will deliver them. The beautiful and pious widow Judith rebukes them for tempting God and undertakes to save them. She travels to Holophernes’ camp in alluring attire, deceitfully entices him to woo her at a drinking party, and cuts off his head when he falls into a drunken stupor after dismissing the other guests in order to have his way with Judith. She cleverly arranged a plot to get away and arrives back in Bethulia with the general’s head. When the army learns of his death at the hands of a woman and the loss of his head, it fl ees in terror. The appeal of the story under present circumstances in Münster is obvious. 198 In her confession, she said that she had told her plan “first to a woman from Holland, who said to her that she would prove herself in this, and then to the prophet and Knipperdolling and to someone whom she could not name, who urged her to it” (ersten ener frouwen uth Hollant t’kennen gegeven, de er gesacht, dat ze sich selvest daer in prove, daerna den Propheten und Knipperdollinck und noch enen, den ze nicht to nomen weet, de ze daer to geretzet). The final relative clause is ambiguous and could refer either to all three men or just to the anonymous one, and K. assumed the former. But in their confessions, Klopriss, John of Leiden and Knipperdolling all denied instigating her. John himself

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 566

6/12/2007 3:32:49 PM

the events of 1534

567

so firmly confident of the bishop’s death that she was sure that she had completed in her mind what remained to be done. To make a long story short, she decked herself out in very enticing female attire, using art to heighten the splendid figure she was born with, | and then she was let into the council registry, where not only the city’s public taxes but the money of the private citizens and émigrés and the adornments of maidens and matrons were kept in piles. She was allowed to take as much gold and silver as she wished and she was given her choice among the gold rings of which there was a large supply there. She wanted none of these things, since her spirit forbade them, but with Knipperdolling encouraging her in various ways, she eventually asked to be given twelve fl orins for travel money and three golden rings, two of which also held jewels.199 She also decorated an undergarment that she had made with outstanding skill out of the thinnest linen and drenched it with a very lethal poison, intending to give it as a present to kill the bishop, who would be unaware of this circumstance.200 Fitted out in this way and equipped with the deadly gift, she left the city at dawn on June 16 and was immediately captured by soldiers. She was brought under arrest to Telgte and turned over to Derek of Merfelt, the bailiff of Wolbeck. Having taken possession of the money, golden rings and other adornments, perhaps to keep them safe, he asked her what the reason was for her having left her homeland during these very dangerous times and entered Münster, and why she had now grown tired of the religion which she had adopted and was abandoning her people. She replied that she had followed her thirty-year-old husband, | whom she had married without the consent of her people and who had set out for Münster for the sake of the Gospel, but now that she realized that she was being deceived by the false appearance of piety and religion and was being worn out in the city by the constant toil

607

608

stated that she “conceived and requested her undertaking herself, although the king [i.e., John] and the others were opposed to it and thought it a fantasy” (sie hait das selbs vurgegeven und begert, wiewal der konningk und anderen dar widder gewest und es fur eine phantasei gehalten). 199 In her confession, she said that she could not say how much gold she had had, but mentioned three rings, two with gems, one without. In his confession, Knipperdolling said that he had given her twelve guilders and two gold rings. 200 In Classical mythology, Hercules is inadvertently killed by his wife Deianira when she gives him what turns out to be a tainted garment that causes him to burst into fl ames, and Medea intentionally kills her ex-husband’s new wife and father-in-law with similarly treated clothing. Whether any of the people in Münster were aware of these precedents is unknown.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 567

6/12/2007 3:32:49 PM

568

609

the events of 1534

of moving dirt without seeing what reward she would get from this in the end, she had left the city at her husband’s command. She said that she had no doubt that she would be given a travel permit on his behalf on the grounds that he was a blameless burgher who genuinely wished the prince’s benefit, particularly if the prince would accept salutary advice about capturing the city and graciously deign to hear her in person. She also said that with that little gift, although it was small and unworthy of a prince, she would demonstrate the honesty of her intentions and the skill of her hands. She asked that she should at least be allowed to converse with the prince if their aim was to take the city without wounds or bloodshed or losing any of their soldiers. Her husband, she said, was associated with the leading men and took part in their daily counsels, hearing and knowing their secrets, so that he had come up with a sure method of taking the city. The bailiff became suspicious of her not so much because of the gift as the jewelry with which she had increased her beauty, so he asked why she had left decked out with such finery. She replied that she had taken advantage of being on her own while her husband was on guard duty, and with the help of his advice and assistance, since his post was in that part of the city, she had taken all those objects out with her since she would lose any hope of return. She convinced the bailiff of this, and he all but let her into the prince’s presence—had it not been for Herman Ramers. Ramers was a respectable burgher who was by no means devoted to the Anabaptist faction but had remained in the city so that he could in person defend his wife, children and property from being despoiled by the rebaptized.201 He knew that a woman playing Judith had left with the intention of killing the prince since the story was making the rounds in the city, so he concentrated all his efforts on saving the prince. Leaving his property behind and putting his life at the greatest risk, he slipped out of the city on June 18 after finding a suitable opportunity. | He was captured by the soldiers, and when he was dragged before officers and ordered to state the reason for his fl ight, he straight away said that he had left the city to help the prince, for whom he knew that immediate and certain death had been prepared since within the last

201 Ramers is attested in 1525 as one of the men dispatched by the city council to demand documents and looms from monasteries (131D), and John of Leiden stayed at his house during his visit to the city in 1533 (412D, 644D).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 568

6/12/2007 3:32:49 PM

the events of 1534

569

two days the rebaptized had dispatched a woman to plot against the prince’s safety with a lethal gift. He told them not to let her be brought into his presence, since she was very clever and well equipped with hidden trickery and had scarcely any equal in eloquence. He indicated that everything that she had said about asking for a safe conduct for her husband was nothing but groundless fabrication, since she had no husband in the city, and that there was therefore no doubt that if she was let into the prince’s presence, she would kill him unawares with the gift that she brought with her, which was drenched in the most effective poison. Completely terrified by this turn of events, the officers told him to be of good cheer if he was telling the truth, and without delay they reported everything to the bailiff of Wolbeck and the other councilors. Keeping her under closer guard in the council hall, the latter forced her to tell the truth by infl icting torture on her while she was in chains. Unable to stand the torment, she immediately confessed. She said that in connection with the recognition of her faith, which had to take priority, she had been rebaptized in Sneck (a town in Holland) and initiated in the new Covenant. For this reason, she said, she had been unable to fail her people without losing her salvation. The Spirit of God and Knipperdolling and other pious men had impelled her in many ways through the example of Judith to kill the bishop with that poisoned gift and to free the city from his tyrannical siege.202 If she had refused this duty and resisted the bidding of the Spirit and of the prophets, she would have offended God.203 It was therefore better for her to fall into the hands of men than to incur the judgment of God. | She said that whatever penalty was imposed on her because of this, she would endure it with equanimity for the glory of God and the salvation of her soul. After hearing this, the prince recognized Ramers as a man who had saved his life, and as a favor not only ordered him released from his chains but freed his wife and children from the disgrace of Anabaptism and declared that when the city was taken by storm, they would be protected. The poisoner was transferred to Bevergern, and after

610

202 She said nothing of the kind in her confession. When asked who had helped her in her undertaking, she answered “no one.” 203 Once more a misrepresentation. She merely said that if she had not carried out her mission, she would have offended God (Hedde ze dat nicht gedaen, ze hedde Got darmedde vertoernt).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 569

6/12/2007 3:32:49 PM

570

611

the events of 1534

the gift was first burned up, she was decapitated and her body was exposed on a wheel, although she dared to promise herself complete immunity from death, publicly stating that the hangman would have no power over her. Hearing this, he brought the sword down on her with energetic force as if what he was cutting through was not the soft neck of a woman but an aged oak. When Caspar Marschalck, a common soldier, was bravely defending himself against the townsmen in a skirmish, he was eventually surrounded and overpowered by their large numbers, and after being seriously wounded he was brought back to the city.204 Then, desiring to regain his liberty, at the urging of certain townsmen, he sent a letter on June 21 to Hans Poeck, his commander, to Simon Pfl och the ensign, and also to the sergeants and privates. He said that he was being held in wretched captivity and could not be released unless Herman Ramers was sent back to the city in an exchange. The townsmen were extremely hostile to Ramers, particularly because he had both deserted them and betrayed to the prince the plan of the woman put up to acting as Judith, and so they demanded him back for punishment. The soldiers replied on June 23 as follows. They said that with the prince’s authorization | they would do everything that pertained to the release of their comrade. When consulted, the prince had replied that if his release could be secured through the exchange of another private or a comparable soldier or by the payment of a reasonable ransom, he would not fail him, but since Herman Ramers had received pardon for wrongdoing, he, the prince, would not send him back to the city. He said that he would grant similar pardon to any who would leave the city within a short time and ask for it. The soldiers said that they and the prince had no doubt that even if Ramers was not handed over to secure the release of their comrade, the enemy would render to the prisoner all that was dictated by civilized behavior in accordance with military practice until he was released through an exchange of townsmen held captive, which they hoped would soon happen. In the end, he was freed through the payment of one month’s pay. In order to make sure that none of the townsmen would incur the risk of being taken prisoner, on June 23 the elders ordained that none of the Israelites was to go on an attack against the enemy without the specific

204

On June 20.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 570

6/12/2007 3:32:49 PM

the events of 1534

571

urging and instigation of God.205 They said that they themselves would do none of these things without God’s will as made known through the prophet’s revelation, and therefore they would also bid no one else do so. If, on the other hand, someone voluntarily sallied forth against the enemy, they would neither approve nor disapprove. On June 23, the elders also decreed that no one was to be granted possession of a house without the authorization of the deacons. The purpose of this decision was to ensure that occupancy was not assigned to unworthy people, so that the interests of the individual Israelites and the power of the deacons would be kept unharmed. On Sunday, June 28, Gerard the Smoker,206 Timan of Groningen, George of Stinte,207 Otto of Zwolle and Heine of Baldern, soldiers among the townsmen, had sat drinking in the house of Eberhard Reimensnider longer than was proper, and for this reason the host rebuked them. As he went out of the house, he left orders that no beer was to be served to them, and they importuned his wife, who also went out. They then turned to a servant girl, and the Smoker said, “Since that veiled whore of a nun has left,”—he meant Reimensnider’s wife—“you serve us beer, unless you want your head smashed with a pewter stein!” Then, when a male servant intervened, they forced him to serve them. He said, “Christian brothers, it is neither right nor suitable for Christian people to guzzle liquor like this or to abuse God’s creation in this way as if you had been born to destroy it. For it is written that drunkards will have no share in the Kingdom of God.208” The Smoker replied, “Stop preaching and get some beer up from the cellar, unless you prefer to have a stein poured over your head!” Fearing for himself, the male servant fl ed the house in tears. Heine of Baldern then brought up a measure of beer from the cellar. Meanwhile, the host returned home and said, “Is this how you violate the provisions for hospitality in a free city?” They replied, “You branded, | lashed blackguard, you’ve run this house long enough! Since we share everything in common, you will have no right to run it!” Reimensnider lodged a complaint about this act of violence with the elders and councilmen of the city. By their

612

613

The provisions recorded in this paragraph are mentioned only by K. I.e., Gerard Münster, one of main infantry commanders (524D). 207 The context seems to demand a place name, but K.’s form “Stintius” does not seem to suggest such a place or any other sort of last name. 208 1 Corinthians 6:10. 205 206

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 571

6/12/2007 3:32:49 PM

572

614

the events of 1534

order, the soldiers were immediately placed under arrest, and on the last day of June they were condemned to death in a public court. The method of execution was new and unprecedented. In the Lords’ Field, a moveable set of stocks for the neck hung from a linden tree, and one after the other they placed their neck in these stocks, and after they were tied in, they were shot by a firing squad, ending their lives in this disgraceful way. There was no lack of sharpshooters ready to kill the wretches. Since the prophet, who attended this bloody spectacle, said that the man by whose hand crimes were first removed from the midst of Israel was most pleasing to the Father, they eagerly shot the men bound to the linden tree with bullets. This novel form of execution kept the townsmen to their duty, so that they did not even dare to mutter against the decisions of the elders and the prophet. Here is the text of a letter composed by an unknown author in German rhythms and thrown out of Münster.209 It was addressed as follows. “Greetings to the soldiers and the honest men besieging Münster! May Almighty God, the beginning of all things, illuminate my mind with a suggestion so that I will rouse you blind and obdurate people with my letter to stop persisting in such cruel tyranny. If you persecute God and His Word, your undertakings will be vain and fruitless, but blame for this should be assigned not so much to you bloody dogs but to those who would teach you otherwise. The leader of this action is your bishop, who urges you to carry out this tyranny. To him you have sold your services, though you know him to be without money. For he extorts your pay | from peasants, priests and burghers. If your bishop were acting like a good pastor, he would more zealously embrace the Word of God. If he read the Holy Scripture of the Gospel, he would arm himself for a different war. Have you ever seen such a prince, one who waged wars without a public declaration of war? He promised that he would defend the Word of God, and his deeds indicate whether he is doing this. He should read the Acts of the Apostles, from which he will learn that God instituted baptism in the manner in which it is practiced by us, and that He decreed that all goods would be held in common, a doctrine which we too have embraced.210

209 210

The original text of this poem has not been found. Acts 2:38, 44–45.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 572

6/12/2007 3:32:49 PM

the events of 1534

573

“We will learn through experience what that man and you can do against us. Fire from heaven will burn you up before the Word of God allows itself to be trampled under foot by you. Was Paul not blinded by lightning from heaven that cast him down when he was quite arrogantly and haughtily persecuting the Christians and the Word of God?211 Accept, then, a warning, and consider against whom you have taken up this contest! It is Christ whom you are assaulting, the Lord above all princes. We will defend ourselves in the confidence that He is supporting us, and although you are greater in number than the sands of the sea, the Lord will nonetheless hold firm against you bloody, rabid dogs and laugh at your threats. May these words touch the inner recesses of your hearts, and you should consider more carefully whether you are descending into battle as the slaves of the devil. Alas, what blindness you bloody dogs have attained in daring to cast down God and His Word! Why do you contemptuously annoy us with these bitter rebukes and provoke us by frequently shouting, “Father, my spirit desires your fl esh!”212 If you had an accurate knowledge of our works, you would make this statement with different words, but runway dogs have spread such statements about us, convincing you of their truthfulness. “Beseech God, recognize your crimes, and be educated in Holy Scripture. If you do not understand it, come to us! If you show yourselves capable of learning, we will explain the Scripture with plumb-line accuracy. If our interpretation does not please you, this will not affect us one way or the other. You will receive from us at any time full permission to depart, since we will not detain you against your will. “We know that you are convinced that among us father has relations with daughter, mother with son, and brother with sister.213 These lies were made up against us by the runaway dogs, and they will yet come to regret these lies when they are destroyed with the fl ames of pitch like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. They complain to you most bitterly but without justification about the injuries which we have infl icted on them. We merely warned them to embrace the Word of God, but they did not allow themselves to be warned, and to their great detriment they left the city and abandoned their property. Nonetheless,

211 212 213

Acts 9:1–9. See 495K. For the origin of such tales, see n. 57.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 573

6/12/2007 3:32:50 PM

574

615

616

617

the events of 1534

we will not drive them away if they return and embrace the Father’s doctrine and ours. “Consider this deeply with a benevolent mind, and come to us here to be enlightened through the Spirit and grace of God and to attain true recognition of the Word! You dream of nothing but the word “money,” and in your many shouts in the camps you repeat nothing but this word “money.” Among us, however, more lofty rewards await you, and the Word of God, which you shamefully ignore, will be your pay. Put down your habits which are contrary to a Christian way of life, and shun drunkenness, fornicating, idolatry and blasphemy against God! You often send us good men who inform us about your character and way of life and what you have in mind. Why don’t you enter into this way of life? Our city gates are open to those who love God. For our enemies, on the other hand, we have prepared a dish out of lime and pitch, and during the assault we will feed it to them, filling their mouths till they can eat no more. Against your “Devil” and “His Mother,” against the “Whore of Babylon,” against the “Flying Spirit,” against the “Snake of Zwolle,”214 | against mortars, falconets and other guns of this kind we will avail ourselves of the protection of the Highest One. “I would plead with you at greater length if more time were available. I send this letter to those who love God, and I despise the obstinate until they learn to bear the Word of God. Whatever good works they perform are counterbalanced by evil ones, and whatever human enactments they spurn as they place their trust in God alone, for these may they be eternally commended to the Creator of all things.” With this and other letters written both publicly and privately the townsmen won themselves the favor of many soldiers stationed in the camp of the men from Meissen, leading them astray into the adoption of their view, so that the soldiers considered it sinful to bear arms against Christian evangelicals beloved of God. | Their commander, Albert of Beltzig, would frequently either converse privately with the enemy or send a boy to the city to inform them of secret plans, thereby plotting treacherously with the townsmen.215 Accordingly, although on the preceding day their wages had been paid in full and the prince These are the names of large pieces of artillery (see 521D, 676D). It is true that Beltzing corresponded with the city, but Knipperdolling asserted in his confession of July 25, 1535 that in a meeting before the city gates he had tried unsuccessfully to induce Beltzing to defect. 214 215

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 574

6/12/2007 3:32:50 PM

the events of 1534

575

had not yet released them from his service by absolving them of their oath, a large number of the men from Meissen abandoned the camp without any legitimate excuse on the last day of June, and secretly withdrew from the enemy in the depths of night. By the prince’s order, Bernard of Westerholt, the commander-in-chief of the cavalry, pursued them with his cavalry. He also had permission to behead seven or eight ringleaders and to cut off two fingers from the right hands of the rest.216 The cavalry caught up with the soldiers not far from the town of Sendenhorst at the Jungeman manor, to which the soldiers retreated. This manor, which was fortified with a ditch and thorn bushes on all sides and closed off by a wooden gate, had been strengthened with emergency defense works, which were thrown up as the time allowed. When the cavalry saw that the fugitive deserters, who were equipped with arquebuses and other weapons to throw back a cavalry assault, were positioned there ready for battle, Derek of Recke, a brave and hearty man, called up his relative Derek of Recke, the canon of the cathedral at Münster and an equally hearty man, to serve by his side in the front rank. | Together they pulled the gate from its hinges, and spurring their horses on, they charged at the enemy with the rest of the cavalry following. Struck head-on by the shot of an arquebus, the first Derek immediately fell from his horse and passed away, while the other one collapsed from his horse after receiving eighteen wounds during the charge, and lay for several hours on the ground as if dead. This event deterred the others from charging, particularly when they saw the gate repaired and restored. Thus, the cavalry was thrown back by the manliness of the runaways, and they sent a detachment of several horse to fetch arquebuses from the camp. When the detachment returned with artillery, it was aimed to destroy the deserters. Seeing that escape was impossible, the deserters set down their arms and surrendered, giving the prince the discretion to pardon or execute them. They were brought back from there to Wolbeck by the cavalry, and imprisoned in the church. They entreated the prince, who referred the case to the officers, the sergeants, and all the private soldiers. By their unanimous judgment, the fugitive deserters were declared to be disloyal, wicked, disgraceful oath-breakers and sentenced to be pardoned or punished

618

216 This detail is recorded only by K. Oaths were sworn with the index and middle finger raised up and the rest held down (this was interpreted as a symbol of the trinity, by whom the oath was sworn), so it was a frequently penalty for perjurers to have the upraised fingers cut off.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 575

6/12/2007 3:32:50 PM

576

619

620

the events of 1534

by the prince. Since they made no end of entreating him, however, the prince was moved and after punishing those responsible for the desertion and fl ight, he mitigated his previous decision with lenient mercy and forgave the rest. A few days later, a private soldier deserted to the Anabaptists from a camp. He was brought to Knipperdolling for testing and for instruction in the doctrine of the faith like a catechumen, and stayed at his house for some days. During, the night he saw Bockelson, who also enjoyed Knipperdolling’s hospitality, sneak to the bed of a female servant. The deserter was quite astonished that the prophet, a man of God who had a lawful wife,217 | should nonetheless befoul and pollute himself by having sexual relations with someone else’s wife in a most vile act of adultery in violation of God’s commandment. For this reason, he began to mock the prophet’s sham piety and saintliness, not concealing what had happened from the common crowd. Fearing that his infl uence with the commons would be destroyed, the prophet first stopped up the deserter’s mouth with lavish promises, and then, in order to clear himself in case his theft became known to the commons,218 he consulted with Rothman and the other preachers about polygamy. Being themselves devoted to lechery and impudence, they readily decided that by the example of Abraham, Jacob, David, and the other patriarchs of the Old Testament whose way of life they themselves reproduced, it was permissible to have several wives. They were particularly persuaded by the following rationale: men cannot restrain themselves, and therefore they can marry several wives.219 Taking the premise to be founded in nature, they proved the conclusion on the grounds that it was sinful to waste semen, and men waste semen from which no progeny is begotten, as happens when they have carnal knowledge of a pregnant woman or one rendered infertile through old age. | Therefore, in order to avoid a waste of semen on the part of men whenever they have a pregnant or infertile wife, they are allowed to marry another. With these examples and other spells, they deceived the wretched, unwary commons. For three whole days, they incited the commoners in public sermons, and they rammed this message home in the audience,

He had gotten married back in Leiden. Presumably, “theft” refers to the notion that adultery was a form of stealing what belongs to someone else (namely the adulteress’s husband). 219 This and the following argumentation are based on the principals and methods of medieval scholasticism; the main argument is a straightforward syllogism. 217 218

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 576

6/12/2007 3:32:50 PM

the events of 1534

577

easily using Scripture and examples tracked down for this purpose to convince those who were ablaze with wantonness. After the first sermon, which was given on July 23, the entire multitude formed a circle in the Lords’ Field and disputed there for several hours about polygamy, some people advising that it was not to be permitted, | others shouting out the opposite position. They dispersed without great strife, however. Eight days later, during the night of July 30,220 Henry Mollenhecke the blacksmith summoned about 200 natives who preferred either to restore the previous constitution or to open the gates to the enemy or to die rather than permit polygamy. They arrested Bockelson the prophet, Knipperdolling, and the preachers Rothman, Henry Schlachtschap, Klopriss, and Dionysius Vinne, and put them in prison. They deliberated among themselves, seeking ways by which they could receive pardon for their wrongdoing from the prince, surrender the city and let the prince in, recall the old council and the burghers who had been thrown out by force, restore the latter to their possessions, | cast off the intolerable yoke of slavery, and free themselves from constant fear. At daybreak, Mollenhecke ordered those who loved and defended the Word of God to be summoned by drumbeat in the wards to gather in the marketplace, so that he could increase his forces under this pretext. A large crowd of men arrived there armed, not knowing what the purpose of this full assembly was. At this point, Henry Redeker was the first of them all to learn of the arrest of the prophet and his leaders and of the intention of the armed men, and although himself a native-born burgher, by shouting and screaming, he brought it about that the immigrants devoted to polygamy, who had streamed into the city in large numbers, gathered in one section of the city along the open ground behind the walls, bearing arms to kill the native burghers.221 During the very beating of the drum, certain men heard the Word of God mentioned, and joined those who held the marketplace, but when they realized that the city was being divided into factions, and learned that the men of their own stripe, that is, the polygamists, were on the opposing side, they deserted the burghers, seizing the opportunity to return to their own people. In this way, Magnus Koehus and many others first adhered to Mollenhecke’s crowd, which held the marketplace, | but

621

622

623

220 Letters written in the camps outside the city give July 29 as the date for the start of the resistance. 221 According to Gresbeck, Herman Tilbeck was the leader of the adherents of the radicals.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 577

6/12/2007 3:32:50 PM

578

624

the events of 1534

when they realized that the crowd of polygamists was stronger, they withdrew from their own side to join the polygamists. Terrified by this desertion, the burghers sent twenty armed men from the marketplace to the city’s fortifications as if to provide manpower for the day watch. The real purpose was to determine the polygamists’ attitude or intentions through reconnaissance, but the lecherous gang captured twelve of them, driving the rest back to the marketplace. (One of the polygamists was shot by the fl eeing men and died.) Eventually, after manning the fortifications of the city with watches, the polygamist immigrants thought that their side was strong enough, and around noon they launched an attack on the marketplace.222 Throwing a spear from far off, they instantly cut down Herman Krampe, and at his fall the burghers became disheartened. Seeing that they were the weaker side, they withdrew into the council hall to stay alive longer, hurriedly bolting and fortifying the doors. Women brought arquebuses to the marketplace, and the lusty crowd aimed these at the council hall to break down the doors. In fear of the gunfire, the burghers then went upstairs from the ground fl oor of the hall to the upper storey. With crazed energy and shouting, the polygamist immigrants smashed down the doors and burst into the hall, freeing their leaders from imprisonment in the basement. Seeing that their enemies had gone to the upper fl oor, so that they could not immediately exercise the power of the sword against them and did not dare to pursue them with the same fury, some fired bullets through the ceiling, while others got large ordinance ready outside to knock down the council hall. Giving up hope, the burghers surrendered by sticking a felt hat out a window of the hall. Throwing down their weapons, they made suppliant entreaties and begged to be pardoned for their rebellion.223 They came downstairs and turned themselves over to the judgment of the shameless enemy. It would scarcely be possible to describe the extent of the fury with which they charged at the burghers in disregard of all mildness and civilized behavior, the savagery with which they seized them, the blows with which they pounded them, the insults and curses with which they reviled them, and the brutality with which they shoved them into cells. You would have said that the burghers would have preferred to be killed on the spot rather than be 222 According to Gresbeck, Tilbeck and some of the elders first tried to come to terms with the insurgents, and it was only after they failed in this that the attack was launched (by 500–600 men). 223 According to Gresbeck, 120 men surrendered.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 578

6/12/2007 3:32:50 PM

the events of 1534

579

driven on so disgracefully. Among the prisoners they caught Nicholas Detmar, a soldier who had secretly taken more than 4000 fl orins from the council registry, where the city treasury was, and as he hoped to escape, he had hidden this sum in his clothing for travel expenses.224 Since he was stuffed with money, they forced him to tell the truth under torture. After he confessed that he had planned to fl ee and intended to let the prince into the city through the Gate of St. Ludger, they insulted the captives with even greater fury, declaring that they should all be subjected to a special punishment. The next day, then, the elders met to discuss their punishment, and in the end they declared as their sentence that in order to preserve the tranquility of the new covenant inviolate, the prisoners should be bound to the linden tree and shot to terrify the wicked and to protect the good. Twenty-five men were soon dragged out, and after suffering this method of execution they were buried. To make sure that the enemy did not suspect from the frequent gunshots | that the townsmen were experiencing dissension among themselves and to avoid wasting so much gunpowder, it was decided that the remaining sixty should be struck with the sword.225 The execution of the penalty was entrusted to Knipperdolling, who would bring some forward everyday as he saw fit, and eventually he beheaded them all to a man, except that sometimes the prophet carried out the sentence on some of them for amusement and practice.226 Henry Mollenhecke was among the executed. Others, of whom there were a large number, were found innocent of sedition by the public sentence of the elders, it being said that they had been led astray by those who were executed. In this way, with the burghers in whom morality and shame still fl ickered crushed by the violence of the effeminate, all shame, all chastity, and all self-restraint and modesty were done away with. Raging with unbridled wantonness, everyone was now carried away with obscene lechery, and they were set ablaze with such promiscuous lustfulness that no restraint was kept on their prodigious sexuality. John Oekingfeld, a scribe who had infl icted the greatest harm on litigants by burning many court documents, Henry of Arnhem, and Herman

625

This story is recorded only by K. Actually, a letter of July 31 shows that news of the disturbances in the city had already reached the camps. 226 The executions lasted three to four days, and most sources put in the number of victims somewhere in the forties. 224 225

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 579

6/12/2007 3:32:50 PM

580 626

627

the events of 1534

Bisping were by no means deterred by the preceding slaughter from opposing this situation, | proving through Holy Scripture that lawful Christian marriage consisted of the joining together of one man and one woman and that one man was not allowed to have several wives or one woman several husbands.227 At the prophet’s command, they were struck with the sword by Knipperdolling for being seditious. The natives, seeing that in this way they were being oppressed, affl icted and massacred at will by the shameless immigrants, bottled up their silent lamentations, since they could do nothing else. They did not even dare to open their mouths against the way of life adopted by the immigrants, as each individual feared for his own safety. As a result, with no one standing in opposition, polygamy became publicly accepted throughout the city. The prophet immediately became the husband of three women.228 Among these was Diewer, the widow of the prophet Matthisson who had been killed in battle and torn apart by the enemy (she later became the chief queen). The other preachers and very many of the townsmen followed the example of this very saintly man. | Many nuns from various convents, both highborn and lowly, also made use of this opportunity to ruin themselves.229 Giving themselves to all the most criminal blackguards, these maidens who had otherwise lived respectably in cloisters under the strict watch of the men in charge of them, lost their virginity and chastity. All the nuns from the Convent Across-the-River and the Convent of St. Giles who had not left the city looked for husbands, this one finding a soldier, that one, a tailor; this one, a foreigner, that one, a native; this one, a priest, that one, a reeve; this one, an advocate, that one, a plowman; this one, a nobleman, that one, a burgher or whomever her spirit urged. As for the

This story is related only by K. In his confession of July 25, 1535, John of Leiden admitted to marrying first Knipperdolling’s daughter, then Matthisson’s widow on July 25. Presumably, the third wife was his first one back in Leiden. 229 Confessions of the dispatched apostles who were captured in October 1534 place the number of John of Leiden’s wives at two (presumably Knipperdolling’s daughter and Matthisson’s widow), and George Stralen’s at three, and in his confession of October 1534, Klopriss indicated that he had at that time six wives. (For a list of the king’s wives, see 658–659D.) After the fall of the city, two well-informed boys (aged twelve and fourteen) gave the following list of the number of wives held by prominent rebels: Rothman, 9; Knipperdolling, 2; Henry Krechting, 3; Herman Tilbeck, 2; Gerard Kibbenbrock, 2; Eberhard Reimensnider, 3; Henry Xanthus, 2; Henry Redeker, 3; John Redeker, 2; Gerard Reining, 2; Herman Reining, 2; Magnus Kohus, 2. (The boys gave further information, but the scribe got tired of writing it all out!) 227 228

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 580

6/12/2007 3:32:50 PM

the events of 1534

581

heat with which the rebaptized boiled over in their riotous living; the unrestrained madness of the passion in which they assaulted the female sex with more immoderate lustfulness than any beast; the insatiability with which they indulged in the most foul couplings; the monstrosity of the sexual hankerings with which they were ablaze—it is better to pass over these matters in silence than to offend modest ears. How in their madness they prematurely engaged in sex with tender young maidens who had barely passed their eleventh, twelfth or thirteenth year was shown by either the constant illness or the sudden death that was the result for many girls. Knupper’s wife, who practiced surgery, did cure a very large number | with remarkable skill, and these girls were eventually restored to health, if not to their previous virginity. In her house, sixteen girls who had been horribly affected were awaiting remedies at the same time, and they all succumbed together, as was reported by different prisoners. The polygamists frequently engaged in promiscuous intercourse, prodigiously repeating the act without becoming sated. | They wished the women to be ready, under penalty of execution, at the discretion of any man whenever he asked for sex. To refuse a night’s encounter to a man was considered a suitable cause for the death penalty, so that in coupling with women men used a most disgusting phrase that is completely unworthy of chaste ears, and this phrase began to spread throughout the city: “My spirit yearns for your fl esh.”230 What is more foul, more sordid, more unworthy of a Christian person, who should keep all mention of dirtiness as far away as possible, than this notion of being so addicted to promiscuous sex, of being so dissolute with lust, of being so infl amed with lewdness that you would turn a human into a beast or what is worse than a beast? Those women who refused to comply with their husbands’ wishes were taken to the monastery named after the valley of roses231 by the prophet’s command and held there until they repented. Those who persisted in their obstinate refusal to comply with their husbands were punished with beheading, which happened to four women at the same time. | Since he considered it sinful, as the rebaptized did, to have marital relations with his now pregnant wife, John of Utrecht, who was once a canon in Maastricht, took another wife. When the pregnant wife took this very badly, the husband lodged an accusation

230 231

628

629

630

See also 589D and 614D. I.e., the Rosenthal. For its use as a prison, see 463K.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 581

6/12/2007 3:32:50 PM

582

631

632

the events of 1534

against her, and gave verbal testimony about her outrage at the deed. For this the prophet pronounced the sentence that the woman was to be executed after giving birth. In order for them to draw a curtain of sham saintliness and humble clothing over the foulness of the situation, the prophet thought up a form of clothes, shoes and other covering for the body that was new and simpler than the old one. If anyone had more clothes than necessary usage demanded, he contributed them for general use, just as Henry Schlachtschap taught as doctrine in a public sermon. They taught | that since the Ascension of the Lord, no man had lived in a true marriage, since all marriages had been contracted not according to the Spirit but for the sake of appearance or beauty or money or wealth or having grander relations by blood and by marriage, and for this reason they performed the marriages anew as if the previous ones had been void. Drunkenness and other crimes judged to be heinous by the prophet were punished with execution by Knipperdolling the swordbearer. If, on the other hand, the prophet secured the Father’s pardon of the wrongdoing for someone, the death penalty was remitted but the person was punished with a frugal diet of bread and water for some time. If someone committed some heinous crime by lying or cheating or in any other manner, and he confessed this before the entire people, imploring the Father, he was considered a pious Christian. Everything was held in common after the practice of the Apostles, and they thought that nothing was to be denied to someone who asked for it | unless the owner needed it himself. All the Israelites of the new Zion were to forgive all of each other’s debts. Many people convinced many others that they saw assorted visions: now men, now angels, now the Heavenly Father, now an armed horseman, now an unarmed king, either in the air or on the ground. For this reason they perchance called each other “Israelites” or “the men who see God.” They were firmly convinced that the Father would rescue His people from all harm, even if the enemy was marauding in the middle of the city, just as He saved the sons of Israel from Pharaoh’s pursuing army when they crossed the Red Sea without getting their feet wet. They had such confidence in God that just five men of their stripe would throw an entire column of the bishop’s men into confusion. Then, at the instigation of the prophet, the house of Derek Münsterman in the Rothenburg and that of Peter Friese on Salt Street were assigned to the use of catechumens. In these houses, pagans, that is, those who were not yet initiated in Anabaptism but who had

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 582

6/12/2007 3:32:50 PM

the events of 1534

583

taken refuge in this holy city to embrace the Anabaptist doctrine, were taught the rudiments of their religion before being accepted into their covenant. For this reason, these were called the “Heidenhäuser” (houses of pagans). Whenever the prophet was about to make some request of the Father, he would lay himself face upwards on the ground in the shape of a cross with his arms stretched out. Then, the Father would infuse the Spirit of His will into the prophet. He pretended that he was bereft of the use of speech, sometimes for three days, sometimes for four, in the meanwhile writing on a tablet with gypsum or the white earth called chalk what the Father wished to be done. If a lawful wife was separated from her husband, the man sought a new marriage by the advice of the preachers and the bishop. Apart from many others, Eberhard Reimensnider and John of Lüdinghausen did this by marrying maidens consecrated to God.232 After repudiating his own wife, a man called Little Herman accepted the daughter of Bernard Moses. Satan realized that his kingdom could not be expanded so well under the rule of many as under the tyrannical lordship of one man, so after the feast of St. James,233 he drove someone else to be a prophet | in the city, and this man’s name was John Dusentschuer, a goldsmith from Warendorf. Before a full crowd in the marketplace, he gave a sermon: | “Most Christian brothers, the Father has revealed to me from heaven, and enjoined me to make known to you, that John Bockelson of Leiden, a man of God and a saintly prophet, will be king across the entire earth. He will be the lord of emperors, kings, princes and all the powers of the world. He will be over every ruler and no ruler will be over him. He will hold the scepter and throne of his father David until God the Father reclaims His Kingdom from him.” Then, he asked the elders, who were standing there in attendance, to give to him the sword which they had received, and in placing this sword in the hands of the man now designated as king, he said, “Receive the sword of justice and along with it all power, so that with it you will make all the peoples of

633

634 635

I.e., nuns. July 25. The association of the investiture of John Bockelson as king with this date appears to be erroneous. Some sources date the event even earlier (late June), but contemporary broadsheets and Gresbeck indicate that he took the throne during the first week of September during the elation which followed the repulse of the attempt to take the city on August 31. Below, K.’s long description an embassy to the city right before the assault presupposes that John had already become king (see 670–672D). 232 233

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 583

6/12/2007 3:32:51 PM

584 636

637

the events of 1534

the earth subordinate to yourself. | Use it with understanding that you will give Christ an accounting when He returns to pass judgment!” At the same time, he anointed the king with most fragrant liquid, uttering these words: “At the Father’s command I anoint you as the king of the new temple and of God’s people, and in the face of the people I declare you the King of New Zion!” The man from Leiden had long been pursuing this goal with great energy. To this end, he despised and rejected every ruler. To this end, he made all property joint possessions, expelled the burghers of the old community from the city and seized their goods, violated the chaste rights of marriage, cast out all shame and modesty, and with more than tyrannical savagery massacred all those who opposed him. He directed everything toward the goal of acquiring a kingdom for himself and taking sole possession of all things according to his wanton desires. Now with more confidence than usual, he went forth swollen with pride at the title of his dignity. Immediately throwing himself face down onto the ground, he shouted out: “Oh, my Father, being foremost neither in age nor in counsel nor in wisdom, I am not capable of administering such a great power, and thus I am humbly seeking refuge in your mercy to ask for assistance. Therefore, Father, send down from Your heaven and from the seat of Your greatness Your famous wisdom, so that it should be with me and toil with me, so that I should know and understand what is pleasing in Your sight! In this way I will be considered worthy of the office which You have entrusted to me, and I will rule Your people in fairness and justice!” Turning to the people, he said: “Dearest brothers, through the inspiration of the Father, I knew many days ago that these events would take place, but to avoid the appearance of having of my own accord aimed for the kingship among you, and in order that you should have greater faith that all of this is happening through God’s will, | these events had to be revealed by someone else. This is how at God’s command David was turned by the prophet from a lowly shepherd into the anointed king. This is how the Heavenly Father often performs His works, and if someone opposes His will, he calls down upon himself God’s outrage. Therefore, power over all the nations of this earth and the power of the sword has been given to me to terrify the wicked and protect the good. Let no one in this saintly city, then, pollute himself with crimes, and struggle against the will of the Father. Otherwise, he will be struck with the sword without any remission of the penalty.” The people were almost thunderstruck with their great astonishment at beholding these novel, unheard-of events. Then, in silent grumbling

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 584

6/12/2007 3:32:51 PM

the events of 1534

585

they muttered inside themselves that a foreign nobody was seizing the throne of their city, that after casting out the lawful government, he was usurping the royal majesty for himself, that in violation of evangelical humility he was seeking the grand honors and titles and the pomp of the world, and that it was no less rash and foolish to aim for lordship over the entire world than it was contrary to the profession of the evangelical faith. Sensing this, the king | curbed these people with the harshest statements and threats, which struck horror into those who heard them. “Fie,” he said, “are you muttering against the ordinance of the Heavenly Father? Even if you acted as a single man in resisting me, all the same despite your opposition I will be lord not only of this city but of the entire world, if such is the will of the Father, and my kingdom that has been established here will last without coming to an end!” After he said this, great tranquility ensued among the people, no one daring to make a sound against these fulminations of the king. In addition, the prophet and the other preachers spent three whole days teaching the people that Jeremiah in Chapter 23 and Ezekiel in Chapter 37 prophesied about this people of Israel and this just king of theirs. Their interpretation was that whatever the prophets wrote about the scattered remains of the children of Israel and about their being gathered into one place was said about themselves, convincing the people that whatever was written about David being roused as the righteous king in later times by God was written about their own king. In reading Romans, Chapter 13, they gravely urged everyone to obedience. For this reason, the people now looked up to and revered the king to a greater degree. Next, the prophet Dusentschuer raised up his voice in a public sermon in order both to make the king the lord of the city and to break the spirit of the subjects by taking away the excess clothing and food, since the use of it was making them haughty. The reason for this was to make sure that they were left with nothing that would swell them up with pride and thereby render them ungovernable. He proclaimed that it had been revealed to him from heaven that the Father condemned the superfl uous use of food and clothing by both women and men. Therefore, any man would have only two shirts, two pairs of shoes, two coats, two hats, and four undergarments, and each woman only two blouses, one | frock, two pairs of shoes, four undergarments, four sleeves, and four wimples. Those who had more clothing were to contribute them for general use. Three days later, eighty-three well-loaded carts groaning under their burdens conveyed to the houses of the deacons the

638

639

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 585

6/12/2007 3:32:51 PM

586

640

641

the events of 1534

clothing that had been collected in the wards, no one daring to cheat the prophet’s decree. Next, the king seized the majority of the beef and pork, transferring it to his court for the common use of everyone, as he convinced the people. He promised to return it at a time of need, but when a shortage threatened, it was necessary to believe that the larders of both the king and the people were bare. In a few words I will explain the royal descent and life of this basilisk,234 so that no one will be unaware of it. A girl named Adelaide | was once born to parents who tilled the land on an estate named Zeleken in the diocese of Münster. This estate was located in the parish of Darup in the lordship of Horstmar, and it belonged by right of ownership and serfdom to a certain nobleman called Godfrey of Schedelich. Since she had many brothers and sisters, and there was little hope of advancement for her on that estate once the majority of the property was seized by the lord by virtue of his rights as serf-holder, she preferred to try her luck among foreign populations and to seek a livelihood through service among strangers rather than draw out a wretched and tawdry existence among her own people. Moving to Holland, with the beauty and elegance of her body she caught the eye of a refined judge in Grevenhagen235 called Boekel. After a rather close bond of familiarity and companionship was established between them, he had his way with her, and she bore him a son in the country district of Hagen.236 She called the child John Bockelson as the son of this Boekel. She bought her freedom from her lord, | Godfrey of Schedelich, and a few years later the marriage documents were drawn up, and after becoming the judge’s lawful wife, she bore him several children.237 Then, a few years before the siege, she returned to her native soil and her blood relations in case she could get anything in the way of a dowry from the estate

234 There is something of a pun here. The basilisk was a mythological lizard with very poisonous powers, its name meaning “little king” in Greek. Here K. uses a Latinized version of the Greek word for “royal,” which has the same etymological origin as “basilisk.” 235 Old name for The Hague. 236 A document issued by the king on January 2, 1535 is dated to “the twenty-sixth year of his age and the first of his reign” (synes olders sess und twintich, seines rikes des ersten jaers, which is translated on 770D; see also 729D), which places his birth in 1509. 237 At the time of John’s birth, his father already had a wife, who was barren, and his mother was merely a servant girl. John’s father married his mother only after the death of his first wife. Thus, John was a bastard. According to John, she lived with his father for seven years.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 586

6/12/2007 3:32:51 PM

the events of 1534

587

where she had been born.238 While returning from there to Leiden, she took ill between her place of birth (the estate Zeleken) and the country district of Darup, and after she happened to sit down by a tree on the journey, she suddenly passed away. When her body was found, it was transferred for burial to Darup as her parish. Reared in Leiden among blood relations, her eldest son John Bockelson learned at least a facility in reading and writing the vernacular and the craft of tailoring. Growing older, | he set out for England, partly to act as a merchant and partly to practice tailoring. After staying there for about four years, he journeyed to Flanders and to Lisbon and from there to Lübeck. Returning to Leiden, he was now a young adult and married the widow of some sailor who bore him two children.239 In Leiden, he lived in the house marked out with a sign bearing three herrings (small fish),240 not very far from the gate on the road to Grevenhagen. There he served as an innkeeper, selling beer and wine. Starting with early adulthood, he devoted an amazing amount of energy to composing vernacular rhythms, and for this reason he was considered in his own language a “wordsmith” or “speechifier.”241 He built a school for this skill, and taught this facility to the pupils whom he enticed with his lightheartedness. For profit, as is the custom in those regions, he also staged public performances of plays of various kinds that he composed in his native tongue. In these he intermixed some humorous scenes and some vulgar and obscene ones, but only seldom serious ones involving virtue. | Through these activities, he sharpened his talent and heightened and improved his eloquence with alluring fl ourishes, adding in cunning and trickery, with the result that he could sway his audience in any direction that he wished. In fact, you would have said that he was a monster created from a mixture of virtues and vices. He also had experience in holy writings, particularly

642

643

This account of the mother’s demise is reported only by K. In a confession, John indicates that his marriage preceded the trip to Lisbon and Lübeck. 240 Such signs were the way by which inns were recognized. 241 Here K. is apparently referring to the rhetorical societies known as “chambers of rhetoric” (redereijkerskammers in Dutch). These chambers were local institutions in the Low Countries whose function was to arrange for the festive celebration of local saints and of major liturgical feasts, and they figured prominently in the spread of Sacramentarian, and then of Anabaptist, beliefs in the Low Countries; see Williams (2000) 98–99. 238

239

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 587

6/12/2007 3:32:51 PM

588 644

645

the events of 1534

the Bible, | which he distorted in the direction he wished, according to his inclination. He was a master of every sort of light-hearted playfulness, receiving young men and women without distinction and secretly acting as a pimp. At his place, frisky youths would gather to drink away the day and night, to get hangovers, to gobble food, to consort with harlots, to engage in games, to play lutes and other musical instruments, and to squander their resources. At times, however, he took up tailoring, either as a form of relaxation or to use this respectable profession as a cover. Either because he was tired of this sort of life or because he aspired to something better, he secretly separated from his wife and around the feast of Pentecost in 1533 he moved to Münster since he knew that there were remarkable preachers of the Word of God there and was attracted by the desire to learn. He enjoyed the hospitality of Herman Ramers the burgher until the feast of St. James, but then he set off for Osnabrück to investigate the religion there. | He was banished from Osnabrück because of Anabaptism, which he began to propagate openly, and set out for Schöppingen. There he stayed for a few days with Henry Krechting, the gaugraf, who was tainted with the filth of Anabaptism,242 and at night he was dragged at the bidding of the Spirit to the bed of a sick female servant, so that he cured her with his drugs and his rite of baptism. Next he set off for Coesfeld and returned from there to Münster. Finally, around the feast of All Saints,243 he went back to his homeland, where he discussed infant baptism with Matthisson and was rebaptized. He stayed in his homeland until the feast of Christ’s Nativity, and then he and his traveling companion Gerard tom Cloister wandered around together to Brielle, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Enkhuizen, Alkmaar and other places, rebaptizing anyone they met. From this journey they returned to Leiden, where they stayed for not more than three weeks, going back to Münster on January 13, 1534.244 They were received with hospitality by Knipperdolling, and they held frequent, almost daily conventicles245 with Henry Roll and other For Krechting’s later arrival in Münster, see 510D. November 1. 244 Note that here K. correctly indicates that John’s companion in his initial visit to Münster in 1533 was Gerard rather than John Matthisson, as he mistaken relates earlier (478D). 245 “Conventicle” was the pejorative Catholic term for religious assemblies of heretics. 242 243

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 588

6/12/2007 3:32:51 PM

the events of 1534

589

preachers of the same stripe. The priests disseminated the decisions of their deliberations246 among the common people and managed to make virtually the entire city deranged, and to turn idiots into madmen by making Bockelson king. This Bockelson had left behind in his homeland his very cunning wife, who was infected with the same filth as her husband. She had secretly led astray many people with her coaxing speech, but before Münster could be freed from siege, she was arrested by the government in Leiden and paid the penalty for rash schism through the sword. He had a brother whom he took with him to the city, while a sister married a burgher master of Leiden. With fortune acting as her stepmother, she moved elsewhere, but this did not do her much good as she departed from the living in poverty, as they say, in the year 1568, I think. Having in this way attained to royal majesty through the dream of the prophet of Warendorf, he selected as his palatines (servants of the palace or retainers) men who were worthy of him, that is, the worst criminals, particularly those through whose collusion he had risen to this lofty status. In the beginning, in order to do a good turn for his host and to look after his subjects if he could not attend to all his burdens by himself now that his domain was increased and expanded, he entrusted Knipperdolling with the power to act as regent when the king was absent or busy. Bernard Rothman, the main instigator of the commotion | and its chorus leader and chief preacher, was now made the royal spokesman. The king had four councilors: Gerard tom Cloister, Bernard Krechting the pastor of Gildehaus, Henry Redeker the furrier, and Gerard Reining the merchant. Later, he put Christian Kerckering the patrician in charge of them as arbiter when opinions differed. Andrew of Coesfeld was superintendent of morals.247 Herman Tilbeck the patrician was praetorian prefect, whom others called superintendent of the palace or master of the court.248 Henry Krechting, the gaugraf of Schöppingen, was the chancellor. John | Puchman was the king’s secretary. Bernard of Zwolle was the chef.249 Gerard Kibbenbrock was

646

647

648

I.e., the document reproduced on 449–451D. Zuchtmeister. 248 Hofmeister. This is the real title, “praetorian prefect” being a not very good attempt at an ancient Roman equivalent (the praetorian prefect was the commander of the elite corps stationed in the capital). 249 Küchenmeister. 246 247

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 589

6/12/2007 3:32:51 PM

590

649

the events of 1534

the taster.250 Walter Schemmering was the king’s butler. Gerard of Bonn was the gatekeeper. John Suttorp and Hubert Kopperschleger were the chamberlains. Christopher Waldeck, the bishop’s son, was the royal bodyguard.251 Being ignorant of warfare, he had inadvertently come too close to the town from one of the camps, and when the townsmen rushed out on a raid, they captured him and brought him back to the city, where the king made the appointment on account of the gracious appearance displayed by the young man. Caspar Winschenck was the courier. John Kulman was the doorman. Lubbert Haverhoven was the cook. Henry Deckening was the steward. Lubbert Osterman was the organ player. (The king had an organ in his house. It was a small one to be sure, but it was stuffed with such a supply of pipes of every sort that it could compete with even the largest one in its range of notes, sweetness of sound, and remarkable craftsmanship. With this organ | the king delighted himself and his retainers almost every day, dancing ring dances amidst the throng of concubine queens.) John of Busch was oven stoker. There were twenty-eight royal attendants: Gerard Oldenzaal, Henry of Xanten, Herman Bilderbeck, Ernest of Damme, George Fromme, Egbert Scharlaken, Henry of Osnabrück, John Brink, Peter Bevens, Bernard Olieschleger, Adrian of Utrecht, Gerard Schelve, Turban Bill, John Langenstraten, Herman of Wullen, Derek Düsseldorf, John Schuren, Kind of Cologne, John Bisping, Quirinus of Aachen, John Voss, Engelbert Eding, Anthony Velthues, James Oldenzaal, Herman Kistemaker, Otto Belholt, Bernard Wichartz and John of Greven. Niland succeeded Knipperdolling as swordbearer (employing the same number of attendants). John Kerckering, a bastard who had great experience in warfare, was made engineer, and with his colleagues Gerard Mackenburg, John of Deventer and Anthony Grotevader he directed a large gang of laborers. There were two wine sellers: John Ossenbeck and John Salwide; two superintendents of meat selling: Bernard Boentruppe and Gerard Pruessen; two superintendents of grain: Herman Reining and Bernard Menneken, who also oversaw the spices and loaves of sugar. Hans Borstel was the goldsmith. Bernard of Busch was the mint master. Winold (Name)252 was the barber.

250 That is, someone to taste the royal meal first to make sure that it was not poisoned. 251 Contemporary documents refer to the bishop’s son and another attendant as “chamberlains.” 252 Apparently, the name was illegible.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 590

6/12/2007 3:32:51 PM

the events of 1534

591

Herman Glade was the baker. John | of Coesfeld was the saddler. Henry of Lüttich was the tailor. Herman Haledon was the fisherman. There were two scribes: Goswin Glasemaker and Henry of Oldenzaal. The offices relating to warfare were distributed as follows. The main commanders of the entire royal court were the noblemen Gerlach of Wullen and Lambert of Lüttich. John Kursener the furrier was the cavalry commander. Conrad Kruse was the commander-in-chief of the entire infantry. Kind of Oldenzaal, John of Jülich and Christopher Schoonhoven were the three ensigns. Schaep of Mühlhelm253 was the drillmaster of the main army, and Spee was that of the common soldiers.254 Arnold of Oldenburg was the commander of the chargers.255 Henry of Xanten and John Middelburg were the two armorers.256 Gerard of Düren and Caspar Borneman were the two sergeants. Herman of Düren was the drummer. With these and other offices which I omit for the sake of brevity he decked out his court just as if he were the progeny of royal stock | who had been reared amidst princes since childhood and imbued with kingly behavior. Meanwhile, as the offices were being handed out in this way, two crowns were made so that he could also refl ect with his clothing and insignia the role of which the swarm of servants gave the illusion. He ordered these crowns to be made of the purest gold and adorned with brilliant jewels at fixed intervals. One had raised crenellations in the regal manner, and had, in addition to such crenellations, a cross above the crown of the head that was made out of gold leaf. This second crown was wrought with greater craftsmanship in the manner of the emperor’s, so that the finished product virtually

650

651

253 Other sources indicate that the man’s name was Schaep of Melven or Molven. In the Latin, the name appears as Nequam Mulhelmicus. “Nequam” means “good for nothing,” and K. appears to have taken the name to be “sheep,” which in German also means “dimwit” (cf. the first name “Kind,” which is translated into Latin as Infans). 254 K. appears to have run into difficulties with military terminology with these two officers. For their position, the Latin gives ductor (“leader”), which is presumably intended as a translation of the German Führer, but other sources indicate that these men held the position of Furier, which signifies “quartermaster.” Furthermore, the first officer is described in the other sources as serving “bei gewaltigem hauffen,” while the other served “bei dem verloren hauffen.” The former term signifies the “main force,” as K. indicates, but it is normally contrasted with the latter term, which signifies “skirmishers” and not “common soldiers” as K. renders it (Latin gregarii; antesignani would have been a better choice). 255 The Latin cursores ought to signify “messengers,” but in Low German “runner” (Renner) was used to indicate the cavalrymen called Reiter in High German. 256 German Rüstmeister.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 591

6/12/2007 3:32:51 PM

592 652

653

654

the events of 1534

surpassed its material. Hence, he conceived in his mind the notion that he would acquire not | just a kingdom or a part of the earth but imperial dominion over the entire world. From his neck there hung a bejeweled collar to which was attached a golden globe of moderate size representing the shape of the earth. This collar was fixed to two crossed swords, one golden, one silver, and between the hilts of these swords was placed a golden cross on the upper surface of the globe. This cross bore the inscription “Ein koninck der gerechticheit uber all ” or “One king of righteousness over everything.” This was no obscure allusion to his being lord of the world. | Nor did he consider this sufficient for him unless his shoulder blades were also surrounded by heavy chains that were made of interlocking rings and gleamed with jewels. He fastened a golden sheath for a soldier’s sword to his side and fitted golden spurs to his feet. There was a royal scepter surrounded by three golden circles in addition to the three rings glittering with various jewels which adorned the stiff royal fingers. On his index finger he wore a signet ring that weighed twenty-two fl orins | and was made of quite hard Rhenish gold to make sure that it did not wear out through usage. On its face was the royal symbol, an orb pierced through by two swords that was surrounded by this inscription in two circular lines: “Die Koninck in den nyen tempell foret dit vor ein exempell.”257 Accurate appearance and size of the face of the royal ring.

257 The copy of a seal made with this ring indicates that the inscription actually read: “De koninck in dem nien tempel fort dit vor ein exempel.” In any case, it means: “The king in the new temple considers this as a copy.”

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 592

6/12/2007 3:32:51 PM

the events of 1534

593

After the capture of the city, the prince gave this ring as a memento to Eberhard of Elen, a man of outstanding erudition, civility, and experience, and at his death he bequeathed it to the city council to be preserved along with certain arms of the king as a perpetual memorial to these events. If it had been kept in the council chamber and exhibited for daily viewing as a memorable illustration of a most grim disaster, it could have reminded the members of the government of their duty and saved them from a similar calamity. As it was, the council transferred ownership of it by sale to David Knop the goldsmith, who had the highest repute even among the Italians. The council may have had no concern about ancient history or maybe they begrudged posterity in some Westphalian fashion. Perhaps the better explanation is that their purpose was to remove once and for all from the minds of the burghers the constant grief caused by the memory of such a disaster and thereby increase the general good. He also had a more than royal attire to correspond to his other adornments, often changing his clothes as the mood struck him. When about to go forth in public, he sometimes put on a gleaming scarlet and purple garment, sometimes a shaggy one made entirely of silk, sometimes a black one of damask decked out with animal skins of a different color, sometimes a wavy one decorated with raindrops of various shapes, sometimes a muslin one with interwoven threads of gold or silver, sometimes a silken one with slit sleeves that were tied back with golden pins underneath, and, infrequently, a woolen one. The king’s brigand retainers wore cloaks colored red and blue, and on one sleeve they displayed a picture of the world that was pierced through with two swords and | had a cross between the hilts of the swords. Each of the retainers also made up a kind of clothing in accordance with his rank, just like those who stage theatrical events. The twelve elders and the prophets used to wear simple, humble clothes when supreme power had been in their hands under the old constitution.258 Now, however, the public and private gold and silver and the sacred chasubles and other silken garments of crimson and purple consecrated to God which had been stolen from the churches were delivered to them, and they made all goods, both public and private, subject to their control. Thus, having slaughtered the true burghers who opposed their undertakings,

655

656

258 I.e., in the period between the overthrow of the traditional constitution in February and the establishment of the kingdom.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 593

6/12/2007 3:32:52 PM

594

657

658

659

the events of 1534

they decked themselves out as they saw fit with possessions acquired through someone else’s efforts. It was not enough for the stupid, crazy | people to bring in an actor king who was a guardian of harlots if they did not also bring in actress whores (I meant to say “queens”). He selected girls of the most exquisite beauty, none of whom was more than twenty-years-old apart from the chief queen, joining them to himself in marriage. Their names follow: 1) Diewer, the wife of Matthisson the prophet, who was killed in that impetuous raid.259 | She was a tubby woman of moderate height, whose cheeks were ruddy with white mixed in and whose eyes gleamed. She displayed a certain epic grandeur in her gait and surpassed the others in attractiveness. It was thus not without reason that he made her the chief queen, and the others obeyed her without envy. 2) Mary Hecker 3) Catherine Milling 4) Anne Laurentz 5) Angela Kerckering 6) Anne Averweg 7) Elizabeth Wantscherer260 8) Catherine Averweg 9) Elizabeth Dregger 10) Anne Knipperdolling, the step-daughter of Knipperdolling but the natural daughter of Matthew Hangesbecke (called the Zelenmaker)261 11) Anne Kibbenbrock 12) Christina | Roede 13) Margaret Moderson 14) Elizabeth of Busch 15) Margaret Grolle 259 See also 626D. “Diewer” is an old-fashioned Dutch name, and K. gives it in the Latinized form “Divara.” The contemporary artist Heinrich Aldegraver made matching portraits of the king and queen “of the Anabaptists in Münster” after the city’s capture (these survive only in copies), and the inscription names the queen as “Gertrud of Utrecht” whose age is given as twenty-three (aetatis suae 23). 260 For her life (and death), see 823–825D. 261 John was married to Knipperdolling’s stepdaughter even before the introduction of polygamy.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 594

6/12/2007 3:32:52 PM

the events of 1534

595

16) A certain other girl whose name I prudently omit since she is still alive.262 Being not yet ready for a man, she was so damaged by her first coupling with the king that she had to be cured by Knupper’s wife who practiced surgery.263 Once restored to health, she was so averse to the king’s company that she did not return to him. (I pass over in silence other women whose company he had enjoyed before seizing the scepter.) Of all these women, only two (Diewer the chief queen and Margaret Moderson) bore the king children, both girls.264 Since one of them was born on Sunday, she was named Averall (“over everything”)265 for “a,” the letter for that day, while the other one, being born on Monday, was named Blythe (“joy”) for the letter “b.” He marked out the seven days of the week with the first seven letters of the alphabet, assigning “a” to Sunday, “b” to Monday, and so on. Whenever there was a birth in the city, it was immediately announced to the king | that his kingdom (the people of Israel) had been increased with a new offspring, and the king then gave the child a name, always making sure that it began with the letter for the day on which it was born. Very few of the women who had celebrated their marriages during the siege gave birth, however. Instead, they were barren, perhaps through the will of God, so that the ill-omened intercourse deriving from polygamy’s most impure affections should beget no posterity to the detriment of the community. As the proverb warns, prodigies of crime and undoubtedly vicious progeny would have arisen from vicious parents. Thus, it was those who had conceived before the siege who gave birth. The king chose as his palace not a dwelling among the commoners, but one in the Lords’ Field. This was no lowly house but pretty much the most magnificent of all, the home of Melchior of Büren the cathedral

660

262 Since K.’s grounds for restraint no longer apply, I think he would not object to the revelation that the unfortunate girl was Clara, Knipperdolling’s daughter. 263 For the medical aid of Knupper’s wife, see 627–628D. 264 Several sources state that Diewer was already impregnated by John Matthisson when she married John Bockelson. As for the second daughter, the story of Gresbeck (who claims that Bockelson produced no children of his own from his many wives in Münster) is that the other wife had been the married to a soldier and then married Bockelson after the soldier’s death from a gunshot wound, and that general rumor had it that the child was actually the soldier’s and not the king’s. 265 The girl’s name Averil is actually derived from the Old French form for the month of April, but here K. associates it with the Low German averall (= High German überall).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 595

6/12/2007 3:32:52 PM

596

661

662

the events of 1534

steward. The women’s quarters (that is, the queens’ palace) was in the closest house to the east, where the provost of the cathedral had lived, and | an entrance from the king’s palace was made by breaking through a wall. The queens had such a supply of clothing of various colors, so much jewelry, such elegant accoutrements, so many necklaces, so many collars, so many rings with or without gems, that the women’s quarters seemed to compete with those of the Emperor. Retinue of the chief queen Henry Roede was the superintendent of the palace (master of the court).266 Peter Simonson was the chef. John of Geil267 was the gatekeeper. John of Geyll was the chamberlain.268 Frederick Juffel269 was the butler. Engelbert Schemmering was the carver. There were four attendants attired in green and brown livery: Andrew Koster, Henry Wulf, Lambert of Gildehaus and John Bentlagen. Henry Willenhues was the oven stoker. Eberhard tor Hege was the cook. Alexander of Busch was the messenger. Gerard Selking was the doorman. To make sure that no dispute arose among so many queens (concubines) about requesting the sign for foul love, the king had a board made on which he had the names of the queens written one after the other. In front of each name a hole was bored, and he had a peg made that could be inserted into these holes. This system was just like that of the colleges, where the order of the canons was set out in advance on a board hung on the wall, the placement of the peg indicating whose turn it was to sing in the choir. Thus, as the king sat at the table and was surrounded at the meal on all sides by the queens (concubines), | with a mere glance he decided whom he would have as his companion for the coming night, and he did not give her a sign with words or nods but by placing the peg by her name on the board. The woman given the sign in this way awaited the royal night without rancor or insult

Hofmeister. Named John of Groll and John of Goel in other sources. 268 This man is called John of Groll and John of Goel in other sources. Perhaps the man intended is the John of Geel whom John of Leiden later sent out to the Low Countries in search of help for the beleaguered city with a copy of Rothman’s tract Rache (see John of Leiden’s confession of July 25, 1535 and January 20, 1536; cf. 758–759D. for Rothman’s tracts). This man was captured and his confession survives. 269 The name elsewhere appears as “Insel,” such a confusion being easy to make in terms of sixteenth-century letter forms. 266 267

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 596

6/12/2007 3:32:52 PM

the events of 1534

597

from the others. If, however, she was unfit for sex,270 she shifted the peg to the name of another girl whom she favored. To avoid causing the royal majesty disgust, the woman designated for the royal bed entered the bathroom, washed, doused herself in perfume, and put on a purple garment of cotton. The joints of her fingers were stiff with many rings, necklaces and collars went around her neck, her hair was pulled back with gold, her temples were adorned with fragrant green wreaths, her womb was concealed with a silken loin cloth, her two breasts shone out through the thinnest muslin, and, to summarize, everything that could stimulate sex was provided by two worn out old women, who, being very experienced in this matter, served almost as instructors. In this way, the king indulged in the foul pleasures of his lust, but without in the meanwhile neglecting matters pertaining to the preservation of the common good. Seeing that courts were necessary for the city’s tranquility, he maintained them, setting himself up as the only judge. In the marketplace, a magnificent throne worthy of a king was built in the direction of the scales271 by the end of the vaults and Dorhof ’s house. | It was three steps above ground level, and upon the king’s arrival it was decked out with coverlets, sometimes golden, sometimes purple, and with silken pillows. Three times each week he would travel there on horseback to hear the people’s cases, accompanied with royal pomp by the solemn procession of his retinue. First, to the sound of horns and trumpets, Gerlach of Wullen and Lambert of Lüttich, John Kursener and Conrad Kruse272 emerged wearing plumed hats through the creaking doors of the palace. They were followed in pairs by purple-attired, chain-wearing councilors: Gerard tom Cloister and Bernard Krechting, Henry Redeker and Gerard Reining. Next came Herman Tilbeck, the master of the court, who by himself | preceded the king’s horse bearing a white baton. Next came the king, who wore his crown and was adorned with his regalia. He came forth upon a gallant, caparisoned horse, riding with a certain aplomb, and two elegantly clad boys273 of gracious appearance led the way, the one on the right displaying a codex of the Bible, the one on the left the drawn sword of both the secular and the ecclesiastical government.

663

664

Presumably, because of her period. For the “weighing hall,” see 76D. 272 I.e., the two commanders-in-chief and the commanders of the cavalry and infantry (see 650D). 273 One was Christopher of Waldeck, the natural son of the bishop (see 648D). 270 271

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 597

6/12/2007 3:32:52 PM

598

665

666

the events of 1534

Knipperdolling, the king’s representative, and Bernard Rothman the spokesman followed the king. Next came Christian Kerckering the arbiter in the council and Henry Krechting the chancellor, next Niland the swordbearer with his assistants, then the remaining swarm of retainers and servants. Twenty-eight attendants clung to the king on each side, warding off the throngs of people who rushed up too close in their eagerness to marvel at the unusual. When they reached the marketplace, the king ascended the throne that had been decked out for him, while the messenger held the royal horse, and he summoned the litigants to him by shaking the scepter, saying that he would settle all suits with a just ruling. At this point— good God!—the vilest cases, completely unworthy of chaste ears, were presented for decision to the vilest judge: incest, fornication, adultery, marital impotence, the separation of spouses, divorce, and other very foul matters. The greatest dispute was that between spouses complaining about the denial of the conjugal rights by the other. This sort of disobedience was often punished with execution, as will be described later.274 Once the session was finished, the king returned with the same pomp to the place from which he had come. The king and the entire people also often gathered in the marketplace to hear sermons. The queen too came to these, riding on a gentle horse that was saddled with a shaggy purple cloth and led by the messenger. With Henry Roede, the master of her court, and certain other members of her retinue leading the way, the other harlots (concubines) following in a long row, and with four attendants guarding both sides, she proceeded to the house by the scales. There she listened to the sermon sitting opposite the king, while the members of the retinue and the concubines sat around them. Beside the king and the royal tribunal, the priest | addressed the people from a rather high pulpit that was built there, giving a sermon after his own fashion. After an afternoon sermon, the members of the retinue, and anyone else who wished to, sometimes danced in mixed rings till they had their fill, with the king leading the dance. In addition, to make himself not just equal but superior to all the princes of the world, the king struck both gold and silver coins of various sizes and values that bore an imposing inscription. On one face were written these words in the center: “The Word was made fl esh and dwells

274

See 687–689D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 598

6/12/2007 3:32:52 PM

the events of 1534

599

in us,”275 and these around the edge: “He who has not been born of water and the spirit cannot enter,” the sense being completed on the other side with the words “into the Kingdom of God.276 One just king over all, one God, one | faith.” At the center of the same side: “1534 in Münster.”277 The following illustrations represent accurately the appearance, shape and size of both the larger and the smaller coins.

If, by the example of the king and the other leading men of the city, any of the townsmen aspired to become a polygamist by celebrating

667

668

John 1:14. John 3:5. 277 This description applies only to the larger coin. The smaller coin quotes John 3:3 (“Unless a man is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God”) in place of John 3:5, skips the reference to the single king, and has “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” on the reverse. 275 276

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 599

6/12/2007 3:32:52 PM

600

669

670

the events of 1534

several marriages, he approached the king as his best man, bringing the betrothed women with him. After finding out the will and consent of both parties by asking, the king said: “Whom God has joined, a man will not separate.278 Go, then, and in accordance with God’s commandment, multiply and fill the earth!279”280 The prince perceived that the evil and rebellion in the city were now increasing every day, which greatly disturbed him. From prisoners and deserters he learned that in violation of the Empire’s edicts, of all fairness, and of both divine law and human the townsmen had also broken their oath and their agreement, contemptuously rejecting their government and establishing a new kingdom with a tailor as its king, | and that this king had repealed all the ancient laws and replaced them with unheard-of new ones, and had profaned everything sacred, substituting his own delusions in place of it and ordering their observance. Everyone was now so ablaze with unbridled lust and other crimes unworthy of respectable ears that the entire city was now a brothel on the outskirts of town and a most foul whorehouse, since it was not possible to find a virgin over the age of eleven within the city’s walls. Everything was corrupted with such depravity that nothing remained healthy or unsullied. Hence, the prince summoned all the military officers to meet on August 24 in order to discuss how to shame the stubborn impiety of the rebaptized. As it happened, the archbishop of Cologne, the count palatine, the duke of Grubenhagen, the counts of Schauenburg, Isenburg, Nassau, Waldeck, Neuenahr, Oberstein, Bentheim and Wied, and many other members of the knighthood with great knowledge of warfare were present in the camps, either for pleasure or through the desire to help with the assault, and our prince also extended a gracious invitation to these men to participate | in the consultation. In the council, they considered the matter for a long time from many

Matthew 19:6. Genesis 1:28. 280 No other source mentions the king’s participation in marriages. Gresbeck reports that the marriage ceremony was simple, and John himself described it as follows in his confession of July 25, 1535: “The betrothal took place in the presence of two or three of their brethren. The man would say, ‘Do you wish to have me? I desire you.’ If she willingly said yes, the betrothal was complete, and otherwise, not.” (Item geschagh oire trouwe in bysin 2 ader 3 oirer broder, also saggende: ‘Wilt gy my hebben? Ich beger uwer.’ Und waner sie dan willichlich jae sachten, was die trowe vollenbracht, sus niet.) On January 21, 1536, Knipperdolling stated: “In marriage, they kept no solemnities or ceremonies, except that the one gave his heart over to the other” (In der ehe hielten sie ghein solenniten noch ceremonien, dan das der ein dem anderen sin hertz ubergaf ). 278 279

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 600

6/12/2007 3:32:53 PM

the events of 1534

601

points of view, with some men urging one view, and others, a different one. In the end, they decided to send a delegation to the city first in case the townsmen would surrender under fair terms without expense and bloodshed. If, on the other hand, they were unwilling to do this, a full-scale assault was to be mounted against the city, and the greatest possible onslaught was to test the bravery of the townsmen.281 This military council also decided that the princes, counts, barons and members of the knighthood who were the highest officers should stay out of the assault and instead restrict themselves and their cavalry squadrons to positions that would be assigned to them. If, however, the townsmen either withstood or threw back the assault, and the counts of Nassau, Neuenahr, Oberstein and Bentheim thought it useful for the attack to be reinforced by the cavalry, and for the highest officers to dismount in places where necessity | dictated in order to urge the troops to charge forward, then the squadrons commanded by them would also immediately abandon their horses and urge on and encourage the attackers with their strength and example. In addition, the cavalry brought in after the capture would refrain from plundering. Instead, they were to retain the cohesion of their units and follow their commanders. After safe conduct in coming and going was granted and a three hours’ truce was granted by both sides, the delegation entered the city on August 25.282 Although the subject concerned all the townsmen, the delegates were only permitted to carry out their mission in the presence of the king and a very small number of his retainers. The substance of their mission was as follows. They said that the prince would present the townsmen with a remarkable instance of clemency, granting them their lives and putting aside all memory of the previous insults and crimes which they had committed, if they repented of their impious rebellion, and would leave the city unarmed and surrender it to the prince. If, on the other hand, they were not going to do this and

671

281 Already on August 22, a correspondent informed Erasmus of Rotterdam that “our princes have decided to throw the final cast of the dice and to launch a full-scale assault on Münster, which is a cesspool of every heresy.” 282 K. alone provides the details of this embassy. Note that here he again believes that the kingdom had already been established (see n. 233). A source used for the present account was Bolandus’ poem, and a short reference there to this embassy likewise assumes that John had already become king: “Behold, the prince’s embassy returns from his stolen city, which sings that the king is unwilling to surrender” (En redit a rupta legatio principis urbe, quae regem sese dedere nolle canit).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 601

6/12/2007 3:32:53 PM

602

672

the events of 1534

instead would persist in their rebellion, the prince would cut himself a path with blood and iron. To this the king replied that he did not desire the enemy’s clemency, which was pure tyranny, for himself and his people: the clemency of the Heavenly Father was good enough for him. | Besides which, he said, he thought that it was a remarkable act of blasphemy for the prince to imagine that clemency and the gift of life depended upon him, since the prince himself was ill-supplied with clemency and life. Finally, he said, they were not aware of any impiety or rebellion on their part, since they were obeying the Word of God and used this as their rule for living. Rather, it was the bishop himself who was impious and rebellious in that after breaking the agreement, he was, without any declaration of war and in an act of deliberate and obstinate rebellion, persecuting with arms pious people who were living according to the injunction of the Word of God. This being the case, they would neither put down the arms which they had taken up to defend the Gospel nor surrender their city like a pomegranate. Instead, they would defend it to the last breath and in the end they would, if necessary, spill their blood for the glory of God. After being informed that the delegation had not been allowed to speak with the people and had been regarded as almost worthless by the actor king, the prince wished to find some other method by which the townsmen could learn what they had not been able to from the delegation, and so on August 26, he had letters that were certified with his seal attached to arrows and shot into various parts of the city.283 In these letters, he promised the most certain forgiveness for their wrongdoing to those who abandoned the city and its Anabaptist impiety. The sense of the letter was as follows. He said that he had on several occasions graciously offered to all those occupying the city by violence who would abandon it and confess to their wrongs safe conduct in travel, pardon for their crime and the gift of life, and that he had never broken his word to anyone. Now, too, he would show the same grace to anyone who abandoned the city in the wish for pardon before 5 o’clock in the afternoon of the following Thursday.284 After that time was past, however, if he took any harsh measures against the townsmen who rashly

283 284

The entire report about the prince’s letter is related only by K. August 28.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 602

6/12/2007 3:32:53 PM

the events of 1534

603

cast aside his benevolent warnings, this letter would publicly clear his reputation before God and all the men of the world. When this was reported to the king, he immediately issued an edict ordering that no one should pick up and examine the letters which the impious enemy had scattered in the city to tempt the townsmen into deserting the untainted doctrine of the Gospel. He announced that violators would be executed and expelled from the assembly of Christians. This edict from the king | struck such terror into the hearts of the townsmen that no one even thought of desertion, much less spoke of it. To review the solidity of his position as king, he ordered on the advice of the prophet that the names of all the members of the new Covenant of both sexes should be written down in a certain register, which was given to me by a good man and which I am justified in preserving.285 Seeing that he could achieve nothing through the first part of the earlier council’s resolution since the townsmen were persevering in their obstinate rebellion, the prince decided that he had to resort to the second part. Therefore, after everything that was considered necessary for storming the city had been made ready, on August 28, he began to bombard the city from four directions. The fearsome thundering of the artillery could be heard clearly for more than sixteen Westphalian miles,286 and in the more adjacent country districts and manors, the window panes were either shaken from their housings or smashed when the lead was wrenched loose by the constant shaking. Many | city gates were cast down when the framework holding them together was broken apart. Some of them hung there tottering and threatened to fall to the ground, and these the townsmen pulled back with ropes to keep them from collapsing into the ditches. The towers rising up on the walls were knocked in with shells, and they caved in and threw down the men occupying them. Since much slaughter had been infl icted on the men from Gelders with gunfire from the tower of the Church of St. Mary, much effort and cost was vainly spent in the attempt to knock this tower down. It has a very strong base solidly constructed of local marble and quite firm mortar, so it readily spat back any hits made by the artillery, though its summit had chunks knocked out of it on the west side to no effect. From the location of the summer sunset

285 286

673

674

The later fate of this register is unknown. Nearly seventy-five English miles (or 120 kilometers).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 603

6/12/2007 3:32:53 PM

604

675

676

the events of 1534

between the Jews’ Field Gate and the Gate of the Cross as far as the rampart thrown up as a barricade within the city, the crenellated upper surface of the walls were buffeted and had chunks knocked out, though without great harm to its defensive capabilities. The tiles of the roofs of houses in the open areas behind the walls were often hit by accident and crashed loudly to the ground. Blocks that were knocked loose from the walls went fl ying, so that in places close to the open areas behind the walls it was impossible to engage in any activities without danger. Great mountain-like columns of thick smoke were stirred up, in part by the gunpowder and in part by the collapse of other things, and as the smoke rose up without stop, it filled the air and cast such a pall over the sunlight that you would have thought that the sky was threatening a thunderstorm with torrential downpours. Whatever parts of the walls were thrown down and whatever sections of the defenses were weakened during the day the women would repair during the night under the direction of certain men. The reason for this was to make sure that the men did not become enfeebled through being worn out by this job, and would instead keep their strength intact for the coming assault. Nonetheless, the men prepared every sort | of weapon that would contribute to warding off the foe. They did not fire back unless a hit was certain, and they remained safely behind the stronger bulwarks as if asleep and awaited the enemy’s attack in silence. Some women set up copper cauldrons on the ramparts, and cooked lime for the enemy’s breakfast. Others wrapped oakum wreaths around wooden circles and dipped them in molten resin and pitch on certain forks which had been specially prepared for this. Yet others piled up rocks to be rolled down onto the enemy from above. Ten-year-old or older boys who had been trained in sharp shooting were stationed against the enemy, taking position along the ramparts in reed blinds and other forms of cover. Adults with greater understanding and experience in warfare were also mixed in with the boys. There was no one in the city who did not have his assignment. The king himself rode on horseback along the open areas behind the city walls to arrange everything necessary for the defense, giving everyone a post to hold to the death. At the same time, he predicted the day of the attack as if inspired with the spirit of prophecy, though in fact he had secretly learned it from certain deserters.287 He divided up the townsmen so | 287 Several sources note the betrayal of the attack plan to the townsmen through treachery (K. in his earlier poem on the siege and Bolandus blame Hans of Langen-

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 604

6/12/2007 3:32:53 PM

the events of 1534

605

that they were busy with protecting the defenses. Some he stationed in platoons along the open areas behind the walls. These men were to reinforce those who were worn out or had been thrown back from defending the walls or to receive the attack of the enemy in case they overcame the fortifications. The king positioned in the marketplace another armed crowd who were ready for any risky adventure at all. He promised that he would keep watch all over the place in the city with a company of the bravest youths to make sure that there was no need to fear treachery. The king made the men so enthusiastic for the coming battle that they wished the time was already at hand when they would bring death to the enemy and win victory for themselves. The defenses of the city were bombarded for three solid days, and after the commanders had reminded their soldiers of their bravery and their military oath in excellent speeches given in the camps, on the last day of August, when the fair was being held at Greven that year, a certain cannon named “The Devil”288 that had been sent by the landgrave to assist the siege and was known to all the soldiers because of its fearsome boom was loaded with a huge ball and was fired with a terrifying roar at 5 o’clock around the time of dawn. According to an arrangement that had been agreed to among the commanders, this gunshot was the signal for the soldiers to begin the assault on the city. The cavalry was immediately set in motion to the blowing of horns and trumpets, and remaining mounted, they kept position | close to the city in their squadrons. When the drum made the sound for arms, from all the camps first the ensigns and sergeants, then all the soldiers eagerly rushed for the city from six directions.289 They dumped into the first ditches the carts that had been retained to help the attack along

677

straten). In his confession of October, 1535, Klopriss first states: “The king prophesied the assault” (Der kunig hab vom sturme prophesiert), and then specifies: “Three days before the assault, the prophet of Münster gave the order to man the walls and keep watch there, and he himself went around and informed the people of this . . . When the assault began, the king rose around and encouraged the people.” (Drey tage vur dem sturme gebe der prophet zu Munster bevelh, uf den wellen zu sein und zu wachen, und also zeuch er selbst umb und verkundigt solchs dem volck . . . und do man sturmete, reidt der kunig umb und reizte das volk an.) But it must be noted that since the preliminary bombardment began three days before the assault, it did not take a military genius to predict what was coming (particularly since the previous assault had also been preceded by a prolonged bombardment). 288 For other named cannons, see 529D and 615D. 289 Gresbeck notes that six gates were attacked. Another observer noted that while the action began at the Servatius Gate, the most progress was made by the Jews’ Field Gate and the Cross Gate (sy de meeste fruchte an der Jodevelth und Crutze porten, avers an S. Servaes porten wer dat spyll schyr am ersten versehen gewest).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 605

6/12/2007 3:32:53 PM

606

678

the events of 1534

with their loads of osier, bundles of wood, straw and broom. Some men crossed these ditches by leaning down on the wicker mantelets, and with their swords they broke apart the wooden mantelets that served as barricades on the ramparts. Others affixed ladders that were equipped with hooks to the remains of the smashed gates and climbed up. Yet others endeavored to blow the panels of the doors from their hinges by putting gunpowder underneath them, sparing no effort that they thought would help them. Some ensigns standing on top of the walls shouted for help from their men. The townsmen not only held the onslaught of the brave soldiers but shot to death a large number of them who were either held up by the fortifications or ensnared on the bramble bushes on the ramparts. Some threw down the hooked ladders and the soldiers who clung to them, killing them with a terrible fall to the ground, while others cut off the hands of soldiers holding onto the walls. Some released boards that were hung in place on top of the rampart by cutting the ropes, and with their precipitous swing downwards the boards removed the soldiers standing on the rampart and cast them down into the ditches, while others used such force in striking the ascending soldiers on their heads, which were vainly protected by helmets, that the soldiers’ brains were spilled out, and with a great shout they gave up the ghost. Some | used spears to shove down the ascending soldiers, while others cut them apart with axes. Some threw stones from afar to ward off those who were rushing up, while others who were lurking in reed blinds and other forms of cover shot soldiers from the side as they were either crossing the ditches or clinging to the ramparts. The most appalling form of death was dealt out by the women. Some of them poured blazing lime out of wooden containers onto the enemy as they approached the fortifications. Some set fire to crowns of pitch by applying torches, and when these crowns were burning, they threw them with iron forks onto the necks of ascending soldiers. When the terrible fl ames penetrated their armor, these soldiers were tortured appallingly, and as they raced up and down, they fanned the fl ames with their increased motion. They vainly attempted to remove the burning wreaths with mitts made specifically for this purpose out of thick animal skins, but they got so stuck in the viscous blazing resin and pitch that they could not remove their hands. In the end, some fell face down onto the ground, and from the unbearable agony they rolled themselves over on the cold earth, so that the plants all around withered from the fl ames. Then, they spewed up their souls with a great shout. Others dived headlong into the ditches to put out the fl ames and sank under the weight of their armor.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 606

6/12/2007 3:32:53 PM

the events of 1534

607

The townsmen allowed the enemy to pass the first ditch and rampart between the New Bridge Gate and the Gate of the Cross as if that part of the city were stripped of defenders. When the men further back saw this, they thought that the first troops had made it into the city, and so with great vigor they hurried up, urging one another to the attack with words and nodding. Lying in wait in their concealed positions in the bulwarks, however, the townsmen had everything ready for a slaughter. When they thought that enough enemy troops had crossed the rampart, they let loose on them with such a whirlwind of fire, mowing them down at will, that few saved themselves through fl ight. The arquebuses sounded just like herring eggs thrown into a fire, crackling without stop. Thrown back in this way, they often renewed the attack with fresh strength at the urging of the cavalry, and they vainly carried on with great losses until dusk. Eventually the survivors, who had been worn out by the length of the assault and were almost faint with fatigue and exhausted by their wounds, saw that not just the walls and ramparts but also the water in the ditches and the fields were red with the blood of their comrades, and that their bodies were scattered everywhere, gave up all hope of taking the city. The commanders also perceived that their troops were in dire straits, so they sounded the retreat as if they despaired of the situation, calling the unharmed infantry back to the camps. Many half-dead men were scattered among the corpses, and if they regained consciousness during the quiet of the night, they either crawled back or were carried to the camps. It would scarcely be possible to describe the extent of the grief felt by men who had lost their dearest comrades, of the crying of the wounded at their intolerable pain, of the wailing of women bemoaning the loss of their husbands! If the rebaptized had not considered it sufficient to have repulsed the enemy from the walls and had sallied forth at this time of great distress, they would without a doubt have routed several camps and wiped them out.290 Fearing this very thing, the soldiers carefully set up night watches.

679

290 It is easy to say that the townsmen could have won the day if they had only pressed on, when one has not oneself just borne the brunt of a major assault. In fact, Gresbeck blamed the defeat of the assault on the soldiers’ tardiness in carrying it out—he claimed that they could have succeeded if they had begun an hour and a half earlier—and this suggests that they were by no means a spent force.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 607

6/12/2007 3:32:53 PM

608 680

681

682

the events of 1534

After this glorious victory in which the townsmen lost very few men (sixteen),291 they not only sang hymns in thanks to God but held feasts and celebrated holidays, becoming more insolent. The prince, on the other hand, groaned in his distress, being upset at the loss not so much of the money as of the excellent men. Nonetheless, he did not altogether give up hope of taking the city, and instead summoned the estates of the diocese and the commanders, ensigns and sergeants to meet on September 3 for a council about future courses of action. As they realized that it was not possible to take the city by force, their planning turned to protracting the matter. They thought that in this way the goal could be achieved with less expense and loss of men, particularly since they had learned from runaways that the townsmen were beginning to complain about the dearth of supplies, that they were mixing barley fl our into their bread, and that they had in fact sowed the cemeteries and—by removing the fl agstones—the streets with grain, vegetables, roots, cabbages and other necessities. These were most certain indications that the food situation had become desperate, and that they had an insufficient supply of necessities left. It was therefore unanimously decided in the council to lower the number of soldiers, | to build seven siege works or forts at fixed intervals around the city, and to equip them with defenses, sufficient garrisons, and other military supplies.292 The open stretches between the individual forts were also to be blocked with a ditch and ramparts in a continuous circuit, so that everyone would be prevented from entering or leaving the city. | Wilkin Steding was put in charge of completing this task. When this plan was explained at the assembly in Essen, which was attended by the archbishop of Cologne, the electoral duke of Saxony, the duke of Cleves, and other leading men in addition to the prince of Münster, they agreed to it.293 They also decided that it would be very helpful if our prince always kept 300 armed cavalry at the ready to throw back or cut off any townsmen who might attempt to break out.

291 This figure comes from the confession of Klopriss in the following October (he actually said, “fifteen to sixteen”), but it seems implausibly low. 292 Somewhat confusingly, K. goes on to use the old term “camps” to describe these new constructions. They are called “blockhouses” in the German sources. 293 Here K. seems to be confusing the results of a meeting at Essen in early October with a later one that met there in early November. At any rate, in a letter of September 20, the Electoral Duke of Saxony, John Frederick, declined to help the bishop because he, the bishop, refused to distinguish the Lutherans from the Anabaptists in the punishment to be imposed upon Münster.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 608

6/12/2007 3:32:53 PM

the events of 1534

609

In letters dispatched on September 4, the prince gave his bailiffs | and stewards throughout the diocese a strict command to collect gangs of serfs on September 7 to dig and pile up earth without paying any attention to their masters. These serfs were to equip themselves with five days’ supplies, and at the end of the five days, the bailiffs and stewards were to send out new gangs, so the job undertaken should not be interrupted. The bailiffs and stewards were to compel their peasants to work constantly through their own presence. Most of the summer was used up before the camps were set up and fortified against attack from the townsmen through these efforts.294 The seven camps and their garrisons were commanded by seven officers. The closest to the city was the camp of St. Maurice, which was commanded by Wilkin Steding, the commander-in-chief of the infantry. The next was built in a valley near Drolshagen’s pasture, being commanded by Hans of Tecklenburg. The third was raised above Geiste near the windmill of the hospice for foreigners, and Anthony Lichterte commanded it. The fourth was located above the Telt by the Gate of St. Mary, and Herman Sittard ran it. The fifth was built by the Jews’ Field Gate at the juncture where the properties of Stephen | Roede and of the Brothers of the Fountain met, Egbert of Deveren being in command. The sixth was set up along the spot called Hoystacken by the Gate of the Cross, and Laurence of Horst was in charge of it. The seventh was placed near the Eninging mill near the inclined field there, under the command of William of Arnhem. Artillery and a 500man garrison were placed in each of these permanent camps, and the remaining soldiers were gradually discharged to cut down on expenses. While this was going on, the prince saw that he could no longer bear the difficult and dangerous undertaking of the siege with the revenues of the diocese. The prince having spent more than 600,000 fl orins on this war, his subjects’ resources were not simply worn down but virtually exhausted by the frequent exactions. Therefore, with the consent of all the members of the diocese, he sent embassies to four electors | (those of Mainz, Cologne, Trier, and the Rhine Palatinate) and to the princes of three provinces of Germany (those of the Rhine, Lower Germany295 and Westphalia) to ask for assistance. (Germany is divided

683

684

685

Reports written by various witnesses present among the besiegers note the dilatory progress in the construction of the new camps. 295 I.e., the Lowlands. The area now called the Netherlands would not revolt against its Habsburg lord (by then King Philip II of Spain) until 1568, and its independence from the Empire was recognized only in 1648 at the end of the Thirty Years’ War. 294

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 609

6/12/2007 3:32:53 PM

610

686

687

the events of 1534

into a certain number of provinces that are called “circles”296 in the vernacular.) Everyone listened to this embassy sympathetically, agreeing without reluctance to hold an assembly at Koblenz on the feast day of St. Lucy, which was December 13, to discuss this matter carefully. What forms of assistance were decided upon at that assembly will be related in the appropriate place. Caspar Judefeld and Peter Friese, burghers who had left both the city and the diocese before the siege because they feared for themselves, entreated the Archbishop of Cologne, the Duke of Saxony, and other princes to secure for them safe conduct in the diocese of Münster, saying that they would clear themselves of any accusations before the prince or anyone else. The archbishop summoned them to Arnsberg on September 6, indicating that they would receive an answer there in the presence of the councilors of Münster. After the disaster suffered during the most recent assault, many soldiers deserted, though they could not complain about any delay in the pay promised to them. Therefore, on September 14, the prince sent letters asking the neighboring princes in a friendly way to detain soldiers wishing to cross through their jurisdictions without permission from their commanders, and to subject them to the lawful penalties. Furthermore, in order to keep his subjects to their duty, on September 16, he sent letters to the magistrates of all the towns and the bailiffs to warn them that | since the people of Münster were obstinately persisting in the rebellion which they had started, and their example could impel many others to similar contumacious behavior, the magistrates and bailiffs were to keep a close eye on their burghers and subjects to prevent them from plunging themselves and their people into similar danger and eventual destruction. Swollen with pride from the recent victory, the king displayed intolerable hauteur in his adornment, gait and character, and completely forgetting his origin and earlier way of life, everyday he thought up new means of bringing lustre to his royal dignity, being cruel and savage to his subjects. At the same time, John Dusentschuer the prophet saw that the commoners were muttering ominously about the king’s haughtiness and cruelty, and feared that the new government for which he was responsible would collapse unless he reinforced it with new strength.297

296 297

I.e., Kreise. This incident is recorded only by K.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 610

6/12/2007 3:32:54 PM

the events of 1534

611

Therefore, on September 23, he raised up his voice as follows in an assembly of the people called in the customary way to hear the Word of God. “Most Christian brothers,” he said, “I think that you still retain fresh in your memories the fact that the Word of God was announced to some of you ten or six or three or fewer years ago.” The entire multitude answered that they knew this. “Then, hear and understand the Word of God that is being announced to you by me, people! All those who from now on obstinately sin against the recognized Truth will find forgiveness for their misdeed neither in this life nor in the one to come. Instead, they will be handed over to the king’s judgment, and he will turn them over to the swordbearer, so that such people will be removed from the midst of Israel, and their memory will be blotted out with eternal oblivion.” In this way, he suppressed those who were considering rebellion, so that none of the men dared utter a word against the king and the royal enactments. Nonetheless, Elizabeth Holscher hoped that as a woman she might be granted greater leeway on account of her sex, and she horribly offended her lord and husband, Godfrey Beckers, by denying him his conjugal rights three or four times. In the end, she uttered what the rebaptized considered manifest blasphemy by saying, “Oh, Father, if you have the power, see to it | that I will never climb into this marriage bed alive!” For these—would you believe it?—unspeakable crimes, her husband dragged her before the tribunal and lodged an accusation against her. On September 25, she became the first woman of all to be executed by the sword, her sex providing no palliation in the tyrant’s court. On September 26, Catherine Kokenbecker (also called Wulf ) was also killed by the sword at the king’s command for having celebrated two marriages, one with Bernard Eming before Bishop Julius, and another the following day with Francis Wast from Zeeland. By the king’s law polygamy was permissible for men but not for women. Margaret of Osnabrück was also cut down by the sword in the same month. She had not only reviled Henry Schlachtschap by saying that he laid the foundations for his doctrine in sand, but spat in his face in contempt of the Word of God. At the beginning of October, Barbara Butendick’s lord and husband made a public accusation against her for having muttered at him and clamored against him with much insulting language. She had said that the way he was acting with his wives and fellow sisters was not spiritual but carnal, and that he was often joining his body with theirs. Dragged before the court, she was sentenced to death. John Dusentschuer the

688

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 611

6/12/2007 3:32:54 PM

612 689

690

the events of 1534

prophet said, | “Being condemned with a just sentence, this woman will die, but since she is pregnant, she will be preserved until she gives birth as a favor to the unborn child.” He said that after the child was brought into the light of day, what the Father had decided would happen. She immediately fell to the ground, begging her lord and husband for mercy and forgiveness. The husband, being unaware that unless she is obstinate in her sins, the man is an intercessor between God and his wife, did not dare to dismiss her sin without consulting the ruler. After she gave birth, however, she was brought to court again on February 23, 1535, and heard a milder sentence. She was told that she had been sufficiently chastened through her long fear of death, and since she had sought forgiveness for her wrongdoing from her lord and husband, and she had not sinned obstinately against him, she was absolved of the crime. And while Master Eberhard Kribbe the carpenter was to be executed for committing the crime of lese-majesty298 against the king, he earned a pardon for the crime through the excellence of his craft. Then, in October, around the time of the feast of St. Gereon,299 the city council of Bremen sent its amanuensis on an embassy to our prince. The gist of this embassy was as follows. He said that with the prince’s permission, if the people of Münster first gave up their impiety, the council would halt the dispute and settle it on fair terms by the grace of God. | The prince replied to this that he had, through his envoys, reported the impiety and rebellion of the people of Münster not only to his Imperial Majesty but also to the electors, princes, and other estates of the Empire, and invoked their assistance against the city in the confident expectation that with God’s help he would impose upon them the penalty which they well deserved and restore them to their previous obedience, and that for this reason he would not agree to terms by himself without involving the estates of both the Empire and the diocese in the negotiations. Nonetheless, since the Empire’s princes had decided to make an example of Anabaptist perfidy in the case of Münster in its capacity as an asylum for that schism, particularly since they were defending their impiety so precipitously that they were unwilling to deviate from it in the least, the envoys from Bremen were given the response that in their obstinacy the people of Münster deserved neither pardon nor terms.

298 299

I.e., treason. October 10.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 612

6/12/2007 3:32:54 PM

the events of 1534

613

Bernard Knipperdolling saw that John Bockelson of Leiden, a Hollander of lowly origin who had been a wordsmith | (speechifier), actor, pimp, tavern keeper and tailor, and was a foreign vagrant and immigrant, had reached such a lofty position of dignity, and that while the king could maintain and display the majesty of royal prestige in his gait, behavior, clothing, insignia and retinue of servants to the praise and approbation of everyone, he himself, a native burgher born of the highest stock, was despised and in fact reduced to performing the most menial job,300 though by now he had finally been freed of it. As he aspired to loftier things, this situation greatly troubled his noble spirit, and so he thought that he should find a way by which the native would take precedence over the foreigner. On October 12, he pretended that he was mad. For in the city they were convinced that someone could be possessed by madness only through an act of God, | and that such a person was worthy to govern, since that was what had happened to Matthisson and Bockelson, the latter of whom eventually became king. He ran about the entire city like a lunatic, urging everyone to repent with much wailing and shouting. He shouted, “Repent, repent! Come to your senses, come to your senses!” as if he meant to say that the townsmen did not yet have true piety under this king, and that something was yet to be achieved. After this inarticulate bellowing, he returned frothing at the lips to the marketplace, and foaming like a boar he threw himself on the ground and fell silent. Then, when the people attending a sermon were pressing together very tightly in their great enthusiasm to hear the preacher, he suddenly raised himself up with a leap, and crawling over the heads of the standing audience like a four-footed animal, he breathed his spirit upon individuals,301 and said, “The Father has made you saintly. Receive the Holy Spirit!” Perhaps he breathed upon them the same spirit as the one by which he had been raised up off the ground and suspended in the air over the heads of the people.302 He also smeared spit from his mouth on the eyes of certain blind men with the words, “Receive sight!”303 He also indicated a certain spot in the marketplace, where he said he

691

692

I.e., executioner (see 573–574D for his appointment and 649D for his replacement). 301 This is something of an untranslatable pun, the Latin word spiritus having both the literal signification of “breath” and the metaphorical one of “spirit.” 302 Presumably, K. means a fraudulent one. 303 This is reminiscent of Jesus’ act of curing a mute by touching his tongue with his spit (Mark 7:32–35). 300

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 613

6/12/2007 3:32:54 PM

614 693

694

695

the events of 1534

would die that day and immediately be resurrected. Then he went up to the throne and danced before the king with agitated | steps in a way that surpassed the usual habit of men, shouting, “This is how I once would dance with harlots, but now the Father’s wish is that I should do so in the sight of my king.” He appeared to be saying this contemptuously. Being a very clever man, the king perceived that this trick of Knipperdolling’s was part of his attempt to gain the throne, and when Knipperdolling would not stop his insane behavior, the king left his throne, being greatly offended. Knipperdolling then seized the opportunity to act like the king. Declaring that he was being impelled by the Spirit of God, he stated that while John Bockelson was in fact the king according to the fl esh, he would be the spiritual king.304 He eventually went so far as | to say that it was necessary to abolish both the Old and New Testaments and all Holy Scripture, and to live not according to the dictates of secular laws but by the urging of natural law and the Spirit. Viewing this situation with outrage, the king returned, and after shoving Knipperdolling from his seat, he ordered him to be taken away to prison. After Knipperdolling had been kept in chains for three days without being released,305 as he had expected, the fervor of his previous spirit gradually died down. Fearing for himself, he confessed his sin and begged forgiveness. He lamented the fact that he been driven to do so not through any inborn evil but through the deception of an evil spirit. He said that during the previous night in prison, he had learned through the Father’s inspiration how very necessary it was to value his Royal Majesty, adding that he | had no doubt that the king would be the sole ruler of the entire world. The king was induced by this to release Knipperdolling from prison in the According to Gresbeck, he said to the king, “I should rightly be a king. I have made you a king” (Ich solt von rechten ein koningk sein. Ich hebbe dy tho einem koningk gemacket). 305 In his confession of July 25, 1535, John states: “Item. He also stated that a dispute of means arose between him and Knipperdolling, as Knipperdolling held that all their government would gain advancement from the Spirit and their testimony and not from Scripture, and thus he wished to be like the king (as he imagined). However, when this brought him and the common man to ever greater harm, they thought that they had caused such a situation by letting this go unpunished, and so (he) had Knipperdolling imprisoned and kept him there until he confessed” (Item seght mede, dat tusschen oen und Knipperdollingh ein twidracht der maeten erwassen, want Knipperdollingh hebben wolde, dat al oir regiment uit den geist und oerer getuegniss und niet uit der schriften voirtganck gewinnen und also den konninck, als hy achten, gelech wesen wolde. Die wile aver sulx oen und den gemeinen man to weder und dair neist vast groten schaden leden, vermeinden sie sulx, umb dat sie dat ongestreft lieten, verorsackt, und also Knipperdollingh in gefenckniss gestalt und oen bis tot siner bekenteniss dair innen bliven laeten.) 304

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 614

6/12/2007 3:32:54 PM

the events of 1534

615

expectation that from now on Knipperdolling would be more inclined to be a royal partisan. The imprisonment remained buried deep in Knipperdolling’s mind, however, and he not only secretly criticized the king’s undertakings but even rejected an office imposed upon him. From this, the king sensed Knipperdolling’s hostility as a result of his imprisonment, and in an effort to reach a reconciliation with him, he sent him the following advice by writing. Address of the letter:306 “To Bernard Knipperdolling, representative of the king of the New Temple, a man excellent at prudently and carefully carrying out the king’s business. “May the wisdom of the Highest One enlighten your mind, strengthen your faith, increase your love, repay you for your office, enrich you, and lead you to the inheritance that will never die. Amen! You know, dear brother, that in this letter I wish to advise you in a friendly way to administer your office diligently, since you know that it is impossible for me to rule without the help of God’s servants, just as God Himself wishes to perform no works without using His servants as His intermediate causes and tools. Each person, then, will walk in his calling. As for me, I have, to the best of my abilities, ordained my servants in order to preserve the kingdom, and I appointed you as my lieutenant (representative) in this city even if I am present. It is therefore fair for you to carry out your office in the manner that befits you. You know that I have a spokesman and councilors whose immediate services I cannot do without and who always attend and serve me wherever I go, and that I have appointed a certain individual307 to restore concord among them by his authority if they should disagree in some matter. The aim of this is that all actions should be taken fittingly in the manner dictated by fairness, although from this procedure the commons seize the opportunity to say that I have transferred the kingdom to someone else. Those who talk false and rash nonsense hope that | once the kingdom is destroyed, everything will turn out as they wish, which is never going to happen. I therefore advise you not to forget your previous love or become disaffected with me. The memory of the favors308 which you and your wife have shown me have not yet

696

This letter is reported only by K. Christian Kerckering (see 647D). 308 Perhaps from the time when John was lodging at Knipperdolling’s house (see 645D). 306 307

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 615

6/12/2007 3:32:54 PM

616

the events of 1534

grown dim, although I could criticize your ill-turns. Think about the serious statements which I made to you before, and do not forget what will certainly happen, though we are now enveloped in grievous tests. Hence, let us be faithful—our reward will be ample! Be prudent in mind, speak the truth, take heart, and do not give up hope! Instead, put aside arrogance, shun incredulity, and instead keep on praying! The result will be that you will console the weak and faint-hearted. Do not forget God’s miraculous works! Remember Joshua and Caleb,309 and read Esther about Mordeccai310 sometime! A tiny people will retain their honor, even if we do not perceive that this results in His glory through the force of faith and through God’s remarkable help. If only I could be a prophet—with what mental fervor would I profess the Truth! Would we not now place more confidence in God, since He Himself will now fulfill in us the kingdom which all the Prophets foretold, even if many people lose heart, forgetting their previous love and despising God and those sent by Him, which makes it clear that the time is now at hand? Read the last chapter of Esdras 4!311 Has God cast us from

309 As the Israelites approached the Promised Land, Moses sent ahead scouts. Of these, only Joshua and Caleb wholeheartedly endorsed God’s intent that the Israelites should seize the land from its owners, while the others raised various objections. God was annoyed at this lack of faith in him, and as a result he made sure that of the scouts only Joshua and Caleb reached the Promised Land (Numbers 13–14). 310 Odd choice of example. Mordeccai, a Jew in Susa, had a cousin named Esther, whom he raised as his own daughter after the death of her parents, and she eventually became a concubine of the Persian king Xerxes. When an official of the king named Haman schemed to have Xerxes destroy the Jews, Esther and Mordeccai consulted with each other to undermine Haman. In this they succeeded and Mordeccai was raised to the second position in the kingdom after Xerxes. As told in the Book of Esther, the story is one of purely human activity, and God plays no role at all, so it is hard to see how it could serve as an example of miraculous works. Perhaps the point is that Knipperdolling should imagine himself to be a new Mordeccai (though the analogy of John being the equivalent of Xerxes seems unfortunate). 311 This book has a rather complicated history. It was apparently written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, but only various translations survive. In his edition of the Vulgate, Jerome called the books of Ezra (Esdras being simply the Latinized form of the Hebrew name) and Nehemiah Esdras 1 and 2, and added the apocryphal (i.e., not written in Hebrew) books Esdras 3 and 4 after these. (In Hebrew Bibles, Ezra and Nehemiah are considered a single book. In contemporary English usage, the Hebrew books are generally referred to as Ezra and Nehemiah, and the apocryphal books are known as Esdras 1 and 2). The main text was apparently a Jewish work of consolation written in the aftermath of the destruction of the Great Temple in A.D. 70, and it takes the form of seven visions seen by the prophet Ezra (basically, God’s ways are unknowable). At some stage, a Christian preface about the Jews’ rejection of Jesus was added. In addition, there are two final chapters which appear only in the Latin translation, and the second of these is referred to here. These books foretell of a great

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 616

6/12/2007 3:32:54 PM

the events of 1534

617

Himself when He benefits us with chastisement? If we did not have the truth, if we have begun to do good too soon and have wandered from the true path, how then does God enlighten us more and more every day in the knowledge of His truth, as we will soon learn from Bernard’s document?312 In any case, may God grant to you and to all of us the recognition of His truth, however much the world may grow conceited in its evil and arrogance! Remain saved in the faith! May God look after the fl esh! “John of Leiden The power of God is my strength” (In German: Gots kracht ist mein macht.)313 The prophet John Dusentschuer realized that the king was greatly offended by Knipperdolling, and in order to use happier circumstances to divert the king from the outrage which he had conceived in his mind and could not cast aside, | Dusentschuer addressed the king with the following words on October 12. “Most illustrious king, Scripture is hastening to its consummation, and therefore God commands that on Mt. Zion”—such was their name for the Lords’ Field—“you should lay out a common meal for the Christian brothers and sisters. For God is about to dispatch the apostles whom He has chosen to the four corners of the earth as heralds of His word.” The king was virtually transformed into another man by these words, and forgot all the insult that Knipperdolling had infl icted on him. The only thing he ordered was the preparation of this great meal, a matter that was not difficult on account of the large number of servants. Although this meal was a lunch, it was called a supper after the Lord’s Supper. After this lunch, which was extended far into the day, the king celebrated the Lord’s Supper after his own fashion, by the example of Christ. After the tables and chairs were set up and everything that seemed to pertain to the event was made ready, the prophet Dusentschuer rushed through the streets of the city at 9 o’clock in the morning on October 13, and with the

697

tribulation that will come at the end of the world, when God will punish the sinful with temporal affl ictions, and his elect will be put to the test and saved. Such is the meaning here. For a general discussion of the reception of Esdras 4 during this period, see Hamilton (1999), esp. 123–125 for its interpretation in the works of Melchior Hoffman and Bernard Rothman. 312 Reference to Rothman’s Restitution, which was published in October, 1534. 313 Modern German: Gotts Kraft ist meine Macht.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 617

6/12/2007 3:32:54 PM

618

698

699

700

the events of 1534

blow of a horn he summoned the people of both sexes to the supper, apart from those entrusted at that time with the task of guard duty. At 10 o’clock, the king left the palace with an escort of thirty-two cavalrymen and no small number of attendants clad in gold and silk that had been plundered from the churches. He himself wore a crown, chains, a necklace, jewels and rings, and an undershirt of shaggy purple cloth over which he had placed a silk shirt interwoven with silver, and from his neck hung the golden globe pierced by two swords. Then the queen followed him from the women’s quarters with her retainers and concubines in a long procession. Once they were present, Tilbeck, the master of the court, ordered all the people to take their seats. The king | served while the entire multitude of his brigand retainers sat and ate. The first course to be laid out was fresh meat and gravy cooked with radishes, the second was smoked bacon, the third and last was roast meat. After their hunger had been satisfied, round, unleavened fl at cakes made of wheat fl our were served in baskets. Once the tables were removed, the king broke these cakes for the solemn beginning of the Lord’s Supper. He put the pieces into the gaping mouths of individuals with the words: “Receive, eat, and announce the death of the Lord!” As for the queen, carrying wine-filled cups in her hands, which were stiff with many rings, she invited individuals to drink with the words: “All of you, drink from this, and announce the death of the Lord!” After this was done, they sang the hymn “Gloria in excelsis” in German translation as a form of thanksgiving. | The men capable of bearing arms who attended this meal numbered 1600 apart from those on watch duty, the old men and boys numbered almost 500, and the women numbered 5000.314 Next, the king called on everyone to form a circle around him, and set before them the question whether they were all willing to obey the Word of God. The entire multitude shouted out that they would not

314 These figures are based on confessions made by some of the apostles dispatched and captured in October (Regeward, Beckmann and Stralen), and refer not to the number of participants at this meal but to the total population of the city. Dionysius Vinne put the number at 2000 arms-bearing men and a total of 5000–6000, while for these categories Klopriss gave the respective figures of 1800 and 6000. On the other hand, Gresbeck gives rather higher figures, putting the number of males of all ages at this Eucharist celebration at 2000, of whom no more than 1500 were of arms-bearing age, and the female population at “more or less” 8000–9000. He sets the number of children “who could or could not walk” at 1200–1500, for a grand total of 11,200–12,500.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 618

6/12/2007 3:32:54 PM

the events of 1534

619

only obey it but meet their fate on its behalf if necessary. Then John Dusentschuer, the goldsmith and prophet of Warendorf, mounted the pulpit and said: “The Father has revealed to me from heaven twentyseven apostles who | will be dispatched to the four corners of the earth and proclaim our doctrine about the Kingdom of God. They will be protected under the shadow of his wings,315 so that they will lose not even a single hair from their heads. If the ruler in whatever location they come to makes no room for the Gospel, on the spot they will leave a gold coin and shake the dust from the bottoms of their feet316 as a sign that the Gospel has been not received but despised, and they will move on to other places.” Then, after reading out the names of the apostles, he said: “Go | to the cities and announce the Word of God!” Those who were summoned were very enthusiastic about the task imposed upon them. Then, when the king incited the entire multitude from the pulpit with the question, “Most Christian brothers, are you ready if the situation demands that you sally forth against the enemy?” they replied that they were very ready. Each individual then gave his pledge to do his duty. After the people dispersed, the king and queen then had a magnificent meal with the concubines and the whole swarm of retainers and attendants. In addition, there were about five hundred men who had been on watch duty while the others ate, and the king received these men with excellent dishes.317 During the meal, the king got up, claiming that the Father had given him some business to finish, and as he was walking back and forth looking at those sitting at the tables, by chance he found there a soldier of foreign countenance and clothing who was unknown to him. This man had been taken prisoner and brought to this meal by his captors, so that the great abundance of everything—a circumstance that is particularly effective on a soldier—would entice him to their religion. The king said to him, “Friend what is your faith?” Perhaps because he was overwhelmed with drinking, the soldier answered that he know nothing about faith, and that his sect was that of drinking and sex. To this the king asked, “Friend, how then did you come in here for this wedding | without a wedding garment?”318 and the soldier said that he

701

702

703

Cf. Psalm 57:2. Matthew 10:14, Mark 6:11; Luke 10:11. 317 According to Gresbeck, the arms-bearing men were divided into three parts, and each group had to spend every third night at watch duty on the walls. 318 Matthew 22:1–14. 315 316

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 619

6/12/2007 3:32:55 PM

620

704

705

the events of 1534

had not come invited to this wedding of harlots but had been dragged in against his will. Greatly angered at these words, the king ordered that he should also be dragged before him against his will, and after this was done, with his own hands he cut the man’s head off in the sight of everyone and disrupted the public festivities, so that no one felt genuine joy with slaughter roaming before their eyes. The king, on the other hand, returned to his throne to continue his meal as if he had successfully performed a brave deed, and he was so amused with joy and delight and so pleased with himself that he not only boasted among his people about this murder as an excellent feat, but after the end of the meal, he danced the three-step and ring dances with the actress whores until far into the night. Meanwhile, those who had been selected to go abroad to spread the Gospel got everything ready for their departure, saying farewell to their wives, of whom they had 124 according to the confession of Henry Graes at Iburg and other prisoners.319 Then, after they returned to Mount Zion, the king mounted the pulpit and admonished them: “Go and prepare a place for us! We will follow in arms, and we will punish those who despise you with the blade, and bring them under our rule with the sword.” With these words they were dismissed by the king. When dense gloom had come with the night, | they were brought to the city gates by the retainers, with torches lighting the way at the king’s command. Those sent to Soest went out by the Gate of St. Servatius, those to Coesfeld by the Gate of St. Mary, those to Warendorf by the Gate of St. Maurice, and those to Osnabrück by the Horst Gate.320 Here are the names of those dispatched south to Soest: John Dusentschuer the prophet and goldsmith of Warendorf, | Herman Kerckering, John Butendieck, Joachim Kesse, Henry Maeren, Henry Schlachtschap, Laurence Fischer, and Bernard Wever. Six were sent north to Osnabrück: John Boentruppe a butcher’s servant, Henry Graes of Borken a school teacher, Dionysius Vinne from Diest the pastor in Aldeneyck (which is not far from Masseyck in the diocese of Lüttich), Paul Swering, who had lost one arm from a cannon Actually, the preserved confessions do not contain any statements about farewells, and Klopriss fl atly contradicts K. on this point, saying that each of the apostles received written notification and had to leave immediately, without speaking to his wife and children (Also zuege er auch anstundt auss und spreche sein weib und kinder nit an). 320 In the following list, K. follows one source quite closely, and while there are slight disagreements about the exact numbers dispatched to each and about the exact names, the other sources are in general agreement. 319

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 620

6/12/2007 3:32:55 PM

the events of 1534

621

shot,321 Peter Kueper of Sneek, and John Scheffer from Freckenhorst, a shoemaker’s assistant.322 Eight were sent west to Coesfeld: John of Grave, John Essens from Coesfeld, Bernard Focke from Münster, John Friese from Franeker, who was bishop in the city, | Herman Regeward the pastor of New Church in Warendorf, John Beckman of Osnabrück who had been the chaplain at St. Martin’s in the city, then of St. Maurice’s Outside-theCity, and finally moved into the city after the College of St. Maurice was burned down (he had two wives, one a nun from the Convent Across-the-River and the other a nun from the Convent of St. Giles), Bartholomew Neteler, a Hollander called the “Romance speaker,”323 and Egbert Wideman from Nordkirchen. Five were sent east to Warendorf: John Klopriss, Henry Ummegrove, Godfrey Stralen, Derek from Alfen, and Anthony Prüm from Eifeld324 (also called Taschenmaker).325 The most learned and eloquent of all these men was Klopriss. He was born in the parish of Bottrop, and his father was a tailor who lived in a house of Teutonic Knights near Welheim. For some years he preached in Büderich, and after he taught Zwingli’s doctrine, the duke of Cleves banned him from his territories. He was later arrested at Cologne for this same schism, but he was freed from prison with the help of three friends and escaped. Thus, no place was safe for him in the diocese of Cologne, and for this reason, when the agreement about the taking of prisoners at Telgte was made between the bishop and the city of Münster, he entered the city and was rebaptized there by Bartholomew Neteler the Hollander on the vigil of the Three Kings326 in 1534. Then, he called back to him Wendel Hexe, who had borne him

706

707

One source actually specifies the weapon in question as none other than the fearsome gun named “The Devil” (see 529D, 615D, 676D). (Amusing though this may be, it is hard to see how anyone in the city could have known which exact cannon a shot came from.) 322 A contemporary list of the “apostles” suggests that this should be “shoemaker and preacher.” 323 The list used by K. states that he came from France, and calls him simply Bartholomew the Romance speaker (German Wale). Perhaps the explanation is that he was ultimately of French-speaking Walloon origin, but he or his family had moved to Holland before coming to Münster. 324 Perhaps Eichfeld? 325 Although the words “also called” are missing, K.’s usage elsewhere in this catalogue suggests that this is to be supplied. Such additional names generally refer to the man’s occupation, in this case “maker of leather goods.” 326 January 5 (the feast of the three kings is another name for Epiphany). 321

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 621

6/12/2007 3:32:55 PM

622

708

709

the events of 1534

four illegitimate children in Büderich, and celebrated a lawful marriage with her. He soon added a second wife called Margaret to avoid the appearance of deviating from the custom in Münster.327 After learning of all this from deserters and general report, the prince wrote to all the bailiffs and stewards of the diocese as follows. He said that since preachers had been sent from the city to mislead the people all over the place, seducing them into the same error and egging them on to sedition, which could cause various disturbances and attempts at revolution to occur, the bailiffs and stewards | were to keep a close eye on this situation, so that these preachers would not be able to wander with impunity through the diocese and deceive the unwary by spewing out their doctrine. While this was going on, a severe outbreak of the plague affl icted the Cleves camp in particular, laying many soldiers low every day, and for this reason the soldiers conceived a plan to desert. When this was reported to the officers, they gave these troops a severe warning about the oath they had sworn, indicating that if they were willing to move their camp, which was now infected with the pestilence, they should withdraw to Kinderhaus, though without harming the first camp. The officers told the men that they should not declare themselves deserters in violation of the prince’s wishes or brand themselves with the indelible stigma of disgrace, but should instead wait for the payment of their wages. Casting all warnings to the wind, however, the soldiers departed on October 14, giving way to riot, as generally happens, and burning their camp. Raising their standards, they attacked Havixbeck like a military enemy, plundering everything there and wantonly acting like marauders against the peasants and anyone they met.328 When the prince ordered his men to pursue them with cavalry, however, they saved themselves by fl eeing. New troops were immediately raised through the efforts of the commanders to replace the deserters. On the same day (October 14), John Klopriss, who had an ugly face and beard, and his four colleagues entered | Warendorf. They began to shout for repentance after their fashion, first in the middle In his confession, Klopriss states that he “had taken in addition to his first wife Wendel another one named Griet, and he would rather have gone to Rome than taken her. This Griet was at that time still a maiden, but he slept with her no more than two nights.” (Hab zu der irsten hauissfrawe Wendell noch ein genomen, gnant Griet, und er wolte lieber zu Rome sein gangen, dan die genommen. Und die Griet sy desmails noch maget gewesen, aber er hab bie der nit uber 2 nacht geschlaiffen.) The exact cause of his regret is not indicated. 328 This event is recorded only by K. 327

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 622

6/12/2007 3:32:55 PM

the events of 1534

623

of the marketplace and then through the streets. At the command of the prophet of Zion, they straightaway went up to the house of Erpo Holland the councilman and announced peace to the members of his family. Staying there for a few days, they rebaptized more than fifty people, a list of whom was kept hidden by this Erpo in the bedroom behind his storage room.329 Through the efforts of this harborer the whole council was prevailed upon to vote to save the preachers, and, since the doctrine which they professed was salutary, to allow them to preach in public. The council also decided to endure the utmost dangers in protecting them. Although many good men shouted back in protest, the commons were induced by the council’s urgings to join in on the plot. With the entire community’s consent, then, the preachers openly sowed the dogma of the people of Münster, with the intention, as | they confessed under torture on October 22, of stirring up schisms, factions, and seditions among the commons, of gaining the largest possible number of people as profit for their covenant, and of using these allies in their multitude to raise the siege of Münster. Although the prince often warned the people of Warendorf with friendly letters, they nonetheless befouled themselves with the same criminal breach of the Faith as had the people of Münster. Realizing that his travails were being multiplied at this very moment of dire straits, the prince was greatly distressed, but he nonetheless attempted to draw them back from their undertaking with a letter. In it, he first reminded them of the pledge which they had made and the oath which they had taken, and indicated how shameful it was to violate this. Next, he asked them to hand over to him for judgment as his enemies these preachers sent from Münster, | who were undermining the general tranquility with their trickery and contaminating the ancient purity of the Faith. The people of Warendorf became more obstinate and replied as follows. They said that the burghers, who were now enveloped in fear, were busy practicing their weapons, so that the councilmen could not send back a firm answer. In addition, they said, they had such a close alliance with their metropolis and were bound by such tight bonds of loyalty on account of their treaty, that they could not allow themselves to be dissociated from the metropolis without consulting her. Accordingly, they could not and should not in good faith surrender to the prince

710

711

329 Peculiarly Erpo’s confession indicates that the list was kept “up der cameren achter enem schape,” which ought to mean “in the bedroom behind a frying pan.”

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 623

6/12/2007 3:32:55 PM

624

712

the events of 1534

for execution preachers who had been sent by the metropolis in good faith. They would instead undergo the same fortune as the metropolis in connection with their common religion. If, on the other hand, the prince intended, once the preachers were sent to him, to put them to the test in a capital trial, they wished their own people to be brought before a public court in their own city, and would punish them as they saw fit if they were convicted with the aid of learned men. The prince was amazed at the rashness with which the people of Warendorf responded, in that they would accept no warnings, however benign and friendly, and instead endangered their entire community for the sake of these preachers whom they were being asked to surrender to him. He therefore decided that it was necessary to resort to arms in order to restore them to obedience. | He therefore summoned Schwerhaus’ troops, who were not yet discharged, and also detachments of common soldiers from the seven camps and no small number of cavalry, and with these forces he had the town surrounded at dawn on October 21. Camps were established, guns brought up, mantelets brought forward, and the artillery set in place, mostly directly in front of the Ems Gate along the public latrine, barely twelve paces from the city, the purpose being to shatter and knock down the doors of the gate. Everything necessary for a proper siege was made ready. Meanwhile, the highborn Baron John of Büren and Herman Mengersen,330 who felt sorry for the plight of the innocent, strenuously warned the people of Warendorf to surrender. Otherwise, they said, since the prince was greatly offended, the result would be both the killing of everyone and the plundering of the city by the troops. These words induced them to offer to surrender, particularly since they despaired of their own resources in the realization that it was impossible to defend the town against such a military force, and that they could expect no help from outside now that the metropolis was under siege. Their offer to surrender included the condition that the prince would not strip them of their arms and privileges. The prince replied that he would preserve the town more as a result of his clemency than because of what they deserved, but the surrender would be unconditional. He said that he would have been more merciful if they had surrendered before he had moved his forces up to the town, the cost of bringing up the guns and

330 In addition to being prominent members of the bishop’s retinue, they were also senior commanders of his army (524D).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 624

6/12/2007 3:32:55 PM

the events of 1534

625

artillery having been great, and if they had not gone into rebellion at this time of dire emergency. Under the force of necessity, the people of Warendorf promised that they would do what they were told and surrendered the city. Around 9 o’clock in the morning on the day when the town was put under siege, they let the prince in with all his cavalry and infantry. The troops did refrain from sacking and plundering the town through the intercession of the estates of the diocese. | The infantrymen poured into all the streets of the city, and all the guns that had been loaded with shot and powder to kill the burghers were dragged into the marketplace. By the prince’s command, these guns were fired up into the air, and their thunderous boom was so loud that the whole city shook and all the window panes around the marketplace were rattled loose and smashed. Meanwhile, the preachers were arrested and detained in the council hall by certain members of the council and other burghers. In the hall, the preachers cast to the ground their sacerdotal robes and the gold coin minted in Münster by the king of the Anabaptists, bearing witness that their doctrine was true and salutary, and that while the prince was using force in his contempt for them, they had done their duty. The Father, they said, would avenge this insult. As for the prince, he waited in the marketplace with his cavalry until these preachers, who were responsible for the whole misfortune, were handed over. He then handed them over to the custody of the city’s judge, John Wale, who was also called Schiltmaker,331 and to make sure that the burghers did not enter into any plots, he established watches both by day and by night. The next day, October 23, at 8 o’clock, he summoned all the burghers and inhabitants to the council hall with the blowing of a horn, proclaiming the death penalty for those who ignored the summons. The locals came with their weapons, not on their shoulders but at their elbows, and after they arrived, | they set these weapons down. At this point, the prince asked for all the sealed documents containing liberties and privileges and the keys to the city to be brought to him, and for the names of the rebels and the rebaptized to be reported to him. Around dusk, he ordered at the sounding of a trumpet that none of the burghers should leave their houses, and should instead stay indoors until he issued an edict to the contrary.

331

713

714

I.e., “the shield maker.”

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 625

6/12/2007 3:32:55 PM

626

715

716

the events of 1534

On October 24, a stage or theater was build out of nine empty Paderborn barrels and planks in the middle of the marketplace, and sand was scattered in it. Four preachers and three citizens were dragged here and beheaded. The preachers were executed in this order: Godfrey Stralen, Henry Ummegrove, Anthony of Prüm, and Derek of Alfen. After decapitation, their bodies were transported to the four gates of the city and placed on wheels332 to terrify the burghers and all seditious people. | John Klopriss, on the other hand, was sent that day along with a gold coin minted by the king of the rebaptized as a gift to the archbishop of Cologne, and on February 1, 1535, he paid the penalty for his rashness at Brühl and was sentenced to be burned. As for the burghers, they had been arrested and detained in Sassenburg since they confessed to being rebaptized, and after they were brought to the Warendorf, they were executed and taken to the cemetery. The first of these was the councilman Erpo Holland, who had been rebaptized by Klopriss and had welcomed the preachers with hospitality, allowing many to be rebaptized in his house. The second was Bernard Boutemans (also called Schomaker),333 who had broken a statue in the cemetery that portrayed the fl agellation of Christ by breaking off its arms and legs. The third was John of Stoppenberg, the guard of the eastern gate, who had disparagingly said that it was preferable for the bishop to have a rope twisted out of hairs pulled through his buttocks than for him to maraud around like this in the diocese as he pleased. Since Herman Frie, Henry Reimensnider, John Prange, and Henry Muter denied being involved with the Anabaptist faction, they were left in captivity in the prison at Sassenburg. When the executions were finished, the burghers were given full permission to travel wherever they wished within the city. Then, on October 25, which was a Sunday, the ancient ceremonies, which had been interrupted for some time, were reinstituted, and were restored to their previous splendor. The prince himself and his retinue took part when the holy water was scattered and the mass celebrated. Then, at the end of the rite, he summoned all the burghers to the church, where with his own voice he revoked all the ancient rights, immunities and liberties of the guilds and of the entire community of Warendorf for having changed their religion and broken their oath, and he ordered

332 333

I.e., the bodies were raised up on wheels (cf. n. 104). I.e., “the shoemaker.”

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 626

6/12/2007 3:32:55 PM

the events of 1534

627

that the charters for their privileges, the annual accounts of their revenues, the seal, the secret documents of the town that were kept in a sealed box, and the powerful guns and artillery were to be removed to Sassenburg, which is an episcopal stronghold of the diocese of Münster. Since many councilmen—the two burgher masters Henry Huge (also called Koppersmidt)334 and John Bisping, the tax officials Henry Buth and John Pagenstecker the son of Conrad, and Erpo Holland, Henry Crumaker (also called Sonneken), John Eggerdes, John Bransch, Bernard of Beckum and John Hesling—had disregarded their oath, the prince removed the entire council, ordering on November 2 that some members were to be taken under arrest to Iburg and others to Sassenburg. Eventually, after long imprisonment, they received pardon after confessing in public that they were oath-breaking rebels, and deserved to be executed on account of their rebellion. They were fined a large sum of money and then released. In place of the abolished council he appointed six men of conspicuous integrity | and faith: John Roeleving, John Koerding, John Sterneberg, Derek Goetze, John Gise, and Joachim Kruse. Although the city’s judge, John Wale (also called Schiltmaker), had not been appointed by the prince, he nonetheless made use of the authority of Frederick of Twist, who at that time had great infl uence with the prince, to intrude in the new councilmen’s business, usurping such power that the others did not dare do anything without his agreement. Next, in order to shut the door to any future rebellion, to keep the burghers to their duty, and to set a notable precedent for what happens when faith is broken, he built a very sturdy fort in the eastern part of the city, imposing a strong garrison that was to be supported at the expense of the burghers and equipping the fort with the guns taken away from the people of Warendorf. He put Schwerhaus, who had great knowledge of warfare, in charge, and he billeted the other troops throughout the city in the houses of burghers, who had to feed them. This fort | needed the constant labor of such a large number of peasants that the construction undertaken at Münster was interrupted. It was also decided that no one should receive immigrants and foreigners with hospitality unless they reported the strangers’ names every day

717

718

334 I.e., “the coppersmith.” This is apparently a mistake; in his confession, Stralen gives one of the burgher masters the name Kopperschlager (“copper striker”).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 627

6/12/2007 3:32:55 PM

628

719

720

the events of 1534

to the commander of the fort, and that the keys to the city were to be brought to him.335 Eventually, the six men in charge of the town of Warendorf took the status of the town badly, resenting the fact that the judge was admitted to all communal planning, or rather that they were dependent upon his will, and for this reason they bribed all those closest to the bishop (I am happy to pass over their names in silence), asking for the old form of government or at least a milder one. As the prince was naturally benevolent and merciful, they readily overwhelmed him with their entreaties and were granted a new form of government on the Wednesday after the Sunday “Judica” in the year 1542.336 Then, in 1545, they managed to get the fort torn down. Finally, in the year 1552, on the Wednesday after the feast of Abbot Anthony,337 the city of Warendorf was restored to all its previous privileges by the same prince at the stronghold of Iburg, though the method of electing the city council was specified, | and the guilds remained stripped of their ancient liberties. But in 1555 under Bishop William, the town of Warendorf received a full grant of all this and more, so that all the ancient rights, customs, immunities, liberties, and privileges that it received were in no regard curtailed, and it has enjoyed them prosperously down to the present day. Those who were sent to Soest shouted for repentance, and then, without feeling the least apprehension, they ill-advisedly and impudently entered the council hall, where the council sat engaged in municipal affairs. This action took the doorkeeper and attendants by surprise. They also invited the council to repent at length, but the councilmen, | who were amazed at this turn of events, asked why and for what reason and with what rash self-confidence they had come when they had been neither summoned nor let in, since the council viewed such boldness as an act of violence. The apostles responded that they had been dispatched by the King of New Zion at the command of God’s prophet to spread the Gospel, adding that in connection with this particular matter, which concerned salvation, they had no need of official safe conduct or permission, since the Kingdom of God was suffering violence and violent men were entering it. Looking after the burghers’ common good and feeling disgust at this preaching, the council ordered This is recorded only by K. The original document is dated March 29. The Sunday “Judica” is the fifth Sunday in Lent. 337 January 19. 335

336

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 628

6/12/2007 3:32:55 PM

the events of 1534

629

them to leave, telling them that if they wanted something, they should do it by the custom of the community of Soest. Seeing that they were being despised, the apostles threw two gold coins at the feet of the councilmen in the middle of the council hall, thereby attesting publicly that the people of Soest were unworthy of the Word and Kingdom of God. After it was learned that these were Anabaptists sent by the King of Münster to stir up sedition, they were immediately seized, and on October 23, they were killed by the sword within the gates of the city and buried on the rampart. One of them showed great confidence and a fair amount of rash certainty that he was completely secure against death, daring to say to the hangman that his neck would be immune to the hangman’s sword on that day.338 After replying that the apostle should try him out, the hangman swung the sword into him with such force that he would have easily cut through three necks. Those sent to Coesfeld were executed in various places to set many separate examples for what happens when faith is broken and sedition stirred up. Four of them were beheaded and placed on wheels around the city itself, a fifth in Horstmar, a sixth at Borken, a seventh at Bocholt, and the eighth at Vreden. All of them lamented the fact that they had been led terribly astray by Dusentschuer the prophet. Those sent to Osnabrück first entered the home of Otto Spiker, thinking that he was a man of their stripe, that is, one of the Anabaptists. They told him why they had come, and at the same time they placed two royal gold coins at his feet to bear witness that they had been sent by the Father. | Picking the coins up from the ground, he said, “Thank your father for the gift he has sent me, but tell him that I do not belong to your faction! You should be afraid that unless you look out for yourself more carefully, these gifts will be the death of you.” But they were not moved by these words. Rushing into every street of the city, they ran about like madmen and shouted for people to repent and correct their previous way of life. A large crowd of young men, guild members, and other people, who were all amazed at this unusual clamoring, followed them all the way to the marketplace, where they heard sermons. The council, on the other hand, ordered their sworn attendants to seize these apostles and take them away to the prison (the tower named after the goat).339 A crowd of butchers

338 339

721

722

723

This anecdote is recorded only by K. The “Bucksturm.”

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 629

6/12/2007 3:32:55 PM

630

724

725

the events of 1534

then gathered around this tower and sang vernacular hymns without stop. They would have broken open the locks and freed the men if the council had not forbidden any violence to take place, and declared execution as the penalty. Nonetheless, in its fear of a sedition among the commons within their own walls, the council sent a letter to the prince informing him of everything and reporting that among the prisoners was a man who desired permission to speak with the prince or his councilors, claiming that what he had to say was not a trivial matter of no great import but one that concerned the well-being and preservation of the entire diocese of Münster and of the neighboring areas. The prince therefore sent William | Staell340 with cavalrymen and men armed with arquebuses to fetch the prisoners. At dawn, before the crowd of people living around could be attracted from the lanes and fill the streets, the council handed the apostles over to the troops, who placed them in chains in two wagons and took them off to Iburg. While the prince was silently looking for the arrival of the prisoners in the distance as he paced atop the walls of Iburg, Henry Graes recognized the prince and asked him in Latin, “Doesn’t the prince have the power to release a man in chains?” With these words, he won the prince’s favor. Of the apostles, Godfrey Stralen died in prison and was buried beside the cemetery of Iburg’s church. Four were sentenced to death for stirring up sedition, and after being beheaded they were placed on wheels in Stalbrink. The fates reserved Henry Graes for the completion of other business. After relating to the prince all the secret plans of the Anabaptists, including what raid and attack they had in mind and what populations they awaited as reinforcements, then, in case he could gain pardon for the wrongdoing he had committed and be granted his life by the prince, he immediately promised to perform services of the greatest benefit to the general good and to the prince in particular by showing how he would take the city without much bloodshed. Thinking that it made little difference whether Graes lived or died, the prince agreed on the condition of his returning secretly to the city to find out the king’s secrets and the identity of the towns that were allied with him. Graes gave his word that he would do this faithfully, and so he was released from his chains. He was then transported to the city at nighttime, without the townsmen’s knowledge. Then, at the crack of dawn, he was recognized

340

The steward of Iburg.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 630

6/12/2007 3:32:56 PM

the events of 1534

631

by the guards, who received him with unbelieving joy and the singing of vernacular hymns, and in this way he was brought in chains to the king. At this point, he pathetically enough | related, with tears certainly feigned, the dangerous risks that he had undergone in the name of the Gospel and the torments with which the apostles who had been dispatched with him were tortured and killed by the pagans. He alone, he said, had been saved by the will of the Father to be a royal messenger of all this. The king ordered him to be released by breaking the locks of the chains, and asked how he had been brought there. To this Graes replied that the previous night he had seen an angel of God coming to him surrounded by an unusual glow in the gloomy prison of the stronghold of Iburg, and that this angel grabbed his hand and mercifully saved him from the death sentence that had been imposed on him for the following day. This angel had saved him from the tyrannical cruelty of the impious so that they could not treat him in the savage way that they did the others according to their fancy, and in some miraculous way this angel had carried him to the city in the deepest sleep. Lest anyone doubt this amazing act of liberation on the part of the Father, these chains, he said, belonged to the enemy, and had been brought to the city with him, so that the King of Israel and the entire people of God in this saintly city should see in what an indescribable way the Father was both able and willing to help His people, protecting them and saving them from all fatal dangers. | With these and many other words he convinced the king that he had been divinely released from the tyranny of bloody men through an angel of God. Certain more perspicacious members of the retinue, who had come to find this event suspicious, thought otherwise, but the large number of the credulous prevailed. He also reported the great size of the commotions that the Christian brothers were stirring up everywhere in the world for the sake of the New Zion. He said that if they had a leader, they would wipe out the enemy with death, and render this saintly city safe from all attack, persecution and danger. Next, he so ingratiated himself in the King’s mind that he was admitted to all councils, however secret. In all sermons, the king and the other preachers set out this man as an example of brave faith in the New Israel just like Abraham in the Old. Eventually, there was no doubt that he was tainted with the gift of telling the future and with the spirit of prophecy, and for this reason he was designated as a prophet. Graes was very worried about his safety, fearing that the whole story and betrayal which he had planned would be revealed either by

726

727

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 631

6/12/2007 3:32:56 PM

632

728

729

the events of 1534

deserters or prisoners, which would result in his destruction. He had no doubt that a long stay in the city would bring him the most certain death, and thus he sought a suitable opportunity to be dismissed with the king’s full consent. Hence, when the king sat down on his throne to hear the disputes of his people and displayed his grandeur through the majesty with which he was surrounded on all sides, Graes was seized by the madness of prophecy and bellowed before the king | that he had received a divine revelation from God to gather together in one spot the Christian brothers scattered in Wesel, Deventer and Amsterdam, and throughout the Lowlands to raise the siege of the city. He said that he would collect a few thousand armed men to destroy all the princes of Germany and to free the city of the Israelites, that he would be the man to free the New Jerusalem from siege by driving back the enemy, that in his complete confidence of successfully completing this business he would willingly undertake this trip abroad on behalf of his fellow brothers, voluntarily taking on this risk since it was God’s will, and that all the brothers were completely prepared to bring assistance, provided that they learned of the king’s desire through a sure indication. With the king’s authorization and at his urging, Graes promised to set off for other cities that were not tainted with this schism, so that he could, as a prophet recognized by the king, increase, enlighten, and encourage the number of allies with his dogma, and then rouse these men to arms in aid of the New Zion. To give him greater credibility, he was presented with the following letter, which was certified with the king’s larger signet ring.341 “We, John, the just King of the New Temple and the Servant of the Highest God, hereby make known to each and every Christian brother associated with us in the Covenant, that by our authority we have dispatched the bearer of this letter, Henry Graes, a prophet enlightened by the inspiration of the Heavenly Father, | to teach the Words of Life to the brothers scattered in many places throughout Germany as a means of increasing our kingdom, to gather them in one location, and to carry out the other instructions given to him by God and by us. We therefore ask that in all matters pertaining to our cause you have the surest faith in him, just as you would in me. Written at Münster, the city of God, and certified with our seal in the twenty-sixth year

341

This letter is reported only by K.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 632

6/12/2007 3:32:56 PM

the events of 1534

633

of our life and the first of our reign, on the second day of the first month, A.D. 1535.” Graes went on his way equipped with this letter and 300 fl orins. By agreement, at the king’s order some armed townsmen attacked a camp on one side of the city, and while the soldiers were kept busy warding them off, on the other side of the city Graes, who was being led by two servants, passed a camp unnoticed by the soldiers. Having escaped in this way, he was mindful of the promise which he had made to the prince and sneaked away from his servants. On the day before the feast of the Three Kings,342 1535, he returned to the prince in Iburg to keep his word, and there he betrayed all the secrets of the king and of the city: | what were the secret tokens of identity used by the rebaptized; which burghers of Warendorf were allies in the covenant of Münster, and what plans they had; what were the plots of people of this stripe to destroy the good men in Deventer, in Amsterdam, and in other cities of the Lowlands; in which houses and cellars caches of arms were secretly kept; what misfortunes they were planning for the Christians; and what disturbances or acts of plunder they were considering, so that after killing the rulers everywhere, they could subordinate the cities and states to themselves, free from siege the refuge of all crimes and criminals and of all wrongdoing and wrongdoers, and extend and expand as broadly as possible their schismatic kingdom of sex by casting out all piety, chastity and obedience. At the beginning of the year 1535 ( January 8), the prince reported all this by letter to the duke of Jülich and other princes and municipal magistrates, so that they should watch out for themselves carefully and oppose the disaster while it was still sprouting. At the same time, he asked that if they happened to arrest a certain Henry Graes for Anabaptism, they should postpone his punishment until they reported this matter to him, explaining that Graes’ being kept prisoner was of the greatest importance both to the prince and to the general good. | The prince feared that if Graes was killed, those involved in Anabaptist wrongdoing would not be revealed and would thus remain unpunished, and that by eventually thronging together, they would use all their forces to make him raise the siege. Next, he gave Graes two traveling companions who also pretended to be Anabaptists. One of these was John Swerthen, who had left his

342

730

731

January 5.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 633

6/12/2007 3:32:56 PM

634

732

the events of 1534

wife behind in the city. This woman was an armed virago who both on horseback and on foot had often performed more than a man’s duty in throwing the enemy back. The other was the scribe of the nobleman Maurice of Amelunxen. Since the two men were ignorant of this schism, they followed Graes’ lead, imitating his behavior and learning to act like him. Calling him prophet, they revered and looked up to him. They cultivated him and hung from his every word as if he were their teacher. At the bishop’s command, then, Graes set off to go to Wesel with his disciples. There, after showing the king’s letter and producing certain secret tokens of identity, he wormed his way into close familiarity with certain burghers of great repute whom he had learned to be of this stripe. After these men had, at Graes’ urging, armed themselves by gathering various kinds of weapons in certain houses in order to free the king of Münster, they were betrayed. This event stirred up huge disturbances in Wesel. On April 5, the duke of Jülich entered the town with some squadrons of cavalry to suppress the rebellion, and on the 13th of that month he ordered the leaders of the sedition (Otto Vinck, William Schlebusch, and four other men of no little infl uence) to be beheaded and buried outside the walls. On the Sunday “Jubilate,”343 which was | April 18, the remaining rebaptized men, whose number was great, were granted pardon by the prince on the condition that in a ceremony of public purification they should stand around the cemetery wearing white linen and participate in an entire mass standing. With this public humiliation they expiated all their previous crimes, and were in this way received back into the bosom of the Catholic Church. As for Graes, after performing these acts, he returned home and lived out the days remaining to him in peace. To return the narrative to the point at which the digression began, in October a certain soldier was captured in a skirmish when the townsmen made an attack, and after being brought back to the city, he was placed in the commoners’ prison underneath the council hall. The king sent someone to ask whether he was willing to embrace the Word of God. The soldier asked what this word that they embraced in the city was, explaining that to him this sect seemed to consist of nothing but the foulest debauchery and adultery. When the soldier’s response was reported to the king, he pretended that he was seized by mental stupor and thrown into confusion by the Spirit, roaring and raging with

343

The third Sunday after Easter.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 634

6/12/2007 3:32:56 PM

the events of 1534

635

anger. He ordered the soldier to be immediately dragged from prison and brought to him in the marketplace. Once this was done, by the Father’s command, the king struck him with a sword for his contempt for the Word of God and the religion of the city. Around this time, after a boy of about ten years had secretly taken away some roots and vegetables to ease his hunger, he was caught in the theft. He was first tied to a stake, and then each of the schoolteachers that there were in the city at that time fl ogged him in the presence of their pupils until blood was drawn.344 When he relapsed into the same crime, he was hanged from an oak in Mount Zion (the Lords’ Field). When the rope broke and he fell to the ground, he stood there in dumbstruck astonishment until the hangman attached a stronger rope. From this he was hanged a second time and died. A certain woman managed to ask for meat a second time through trickery when horsemeat was being distributed at the meat seller’s.345 When this fact was betrayed, the king ordered her to hold a drawn sword for several hours in the meat market as a form of disgrace, and with this public humiliation she expiated the death penalty. In November, Conrad of Werde and John Kettel of Tiel along with four comrades kept coming to the camps to enlist, and when the prince declined to enroll them, they headed straight for the king in the city. He said, “Are the six of you now capturing our city, which ten thousand of you were unable to capture last summer? What is the reason for your arrival? With what confident expectations are you coming up unbidden to our walls, since no soldier receives any pay from me apart from provisions and clothing?” To this the soldiers replied that they had fl ed to the king to defend the Faith, and that they asked for nothing more than what had been given to his other soldiers. At this, the king asked whether they were speaking sincerely and desired to be baptized in light of this recognition. The answered that they wished not only to be baptized but even | to run the greatest risks and undergo any fate at all with them. Then, after a long admonition, they were baptized. Next, when the king asked them, they reported about the fortifications of the camps, the number of soldiers and guns, and all other secret information. When the king asked about the supply of acorns and

733

734

The two events in this paragraph are related only by K. K.’s account of this event is based on the confessions of Conrad of Werde and John Kettel (see next paragraph). 344 345

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 635

6/12/2007 3:32:56 PM

636

735

the events of 1534

fatted pigs, they answered that in the past twenty years the peasants had not had such a plentiful supply of acorns or such a large number of well fatted pigs as they did this year. To this the king replied, “Let them eat their sausages, we will have the fat!” When this event came to the prince’s attention, on November 27 he issued an edict to the bailiffs and stewards throughout the diocese, ordering that they should let no soldiers into the diocese without a pass from himself or from Wilkin Steding, or allow any to leave. The prince was afraid that if vagrant soldiers were given permission to come and go as they pleased, there would be more who would have no regard for piety and do what the six had done. A few days later, when the soldier from Werde and the one from Tiel and other townsmen were making a raid on the enemy and fought with more imprudence than caution, these two were captured. On the feast of St. Nicholas,346 they were subjected to questioning under torture and made the following confession. “Item. The townsmen were considering making violent raids on all the closest country districts in order to bring back supplies. For this purpose, two military standards347 | had been made by them. “Item. Four men had been dispatched to Frisia and Holland with much money and certain pamphlets that had been printed in the city in order to buy supplies and to stir up sedition. The townsmen were awaiting their arrival with great anticipation. “Item. Five hundred men kept watch every night, forty men being posted at each gate. These gates were open day and night, with only the forecourts closed. “Item. Certain very bold townsmen often changed their attire and slipped out of the city, secretly passing by the enemy camps. Bringing bacon and live chickens from either Altenberge or elsewhere, they retailed these in the camp of Egbert of Deveren in order to reconnoître the camp without the soldiers knowing it. They then returned safely to the city. “Item. Although the women were six times more numerous than the men, they were divided among the men in such a way that there were

December 6. This is a literal (and misleading) translation of the term used in the original, “venlin” (= High German Fähnlein). This word literally signifies a “banner,” but it is also used to designate the military unit (“regiment”) that served under a single banner of its own. 346

347

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 636

6/12/2007 3:32:56 PM

the events of 1534

637

no longer any unmarried women in the city apart from | the widows of the apostles who had been dispatched from the city and killed in various locations.” Since they had been rebaptized, these two men were duly executed. Werner Scheiffert was a man of ancient lineage and descent who, being himself rebaptized, lived for some time among the rebaptized. On December 5, since the way of living in the city no longer pleased him, and the supply of daily necessities was not very plentiful, he slipped away and was captured. On the 11th of the same month he confessed to the following after torture was applied. “Item One. The townsmen | had decided to make a raid on all the closest country districts on the upcoming feast of the Nativity and were awaiting help for this plan from Holland every day. Commanders had also been dispatched to enlist an army in the name of the prince of some other land.348 “Item. At the king’s command, all the grain in the city had been transported to a single location, Bernard Menneken being in charge of it.349 “Item. Winter wheat was being mixed with barley to make bread. “Item. A large number of girls still too young for sex had been most foully abused by the more lecherous men, so that many of them died, while others were restored to their previous health by Knupper’s wife,350 who practiced surgery. “Item. The commoners suspected that the king would sneak away and escape with his courtiers, having sent out books and money. When this was reported to the king, | he had cleared himself before the entire multitude, saying that he had done this for the sake of all his fellow brothers, and that his purpose was to try out a means of freeing the city which had been revealed to him by the Father, and not to desert and leave his people in the lurch. For, he said, he would bear both adversity and prosperity in equal measure with the people of God.” Ludger tom Ringe was the foremost painter of his time, and had a son called Herman tom Ringe, a man of great talent who surpassed his father in the skill of painting and was very expert at harmonious architecture

736

737

738

348 Scheiffert does not refer to this plan, and these words come from the confession of a servant of Ludger to Ring (see next confession). 349 Both Scheiffert and the servant refer to this in their confessions, but only the latter gives Menneken’s name. 350 See 627–628D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 637

6/12/2007 3:32:56 PM

638

739

740

the events of 1534

(this son was still alive in 1573). To avoid befouling himself with seditious schism, the father departed from the city, but left to his own devices within the walls a servant who was tainted with that disease and would not listen to salutary warnings. The servant later grew tired of the schism and slipped away. He was captured, and on December 23 he made the following confession under the compulsion of torture. “Item One. The townsmen were eating horsemeat, and the meat of oxen and cows was kept for the king, and the milk for the babies and pregnant women. “Item. A few days before, the men had returned to the city without being noticed by the camps, and they were loaded down with spices with which to season the horsemeat. “Item. The townsmen had everything ready for a raid, | awaiting only the king’s instructions. “Item. In a public gathering for a sermon, Rothman had said that all the kings, electors, princes, counts, government officials, and noblemen of the entire world, and their wives, sons and daughters would be the subjects and lackeys of the king and queen of New Zion.351 “Item. After Graes, the only one left of the apostles since the rest had been killed, had returned, he had been very dear to the king and a prophet of great authority. “Item. When the commons complained about the lack of gunpowder, the king showed them barrels filled with charcoal. “Item. At the king’s suggestion, the townsmen were convinced that the bishop had approved of Anabaptism in a letter and could allow the king to share rule with him, readily granting him the secular administration so long as the ecclesiastical was not taken away from him, the bishop.” He confessed to much other derisible nonsense that would take too long | to set down on paper. Of all these men, only Scheiffert was released, being aided by his friends and noble blood. Around the time of the feast of the Nativity, a great disturbance was caused in Deventer by the Anabaptists, who had gradually stockpiled various sorts of arms in a few burghers’ houses, so that no one noticed. They meant to use these arms to kill the good men and take control 351 Actually, this statement was made in the confession of Ludger tom Ringe’s servant, according to whom Rothman subjected the rulers of the world not only to the king and queen but also to Rothman himself and his wife.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 638

6/12/2007 3:32:56 PM

the events of 1534

639

of the city, and then to raise the siege of Münster. When this plan was betrayed, however, John of Wintzum, the son of the burgher master, was arrested with three other burghers. When their heads were cut off in the Brink (such is the name of the marketplace) and their bodies buried outside the walls, their example suppressed the commotion. Meanwhile, the king trained the youth in various varieties of agility and soldierly activities: now sharpshooting, now fighting, now running, now dancing. Sometimes, he divided them into opposing, almost warlike teams, and each team drew themselves up in battle formation and charged the other as a game. Other times, he would bend a long column into a circular formation, then straighten it out and draw it into a battle line by pulling back the fl anks. Then he would contract the formation into a wedge and form various other dispositions. Yet other times, | the youths brought out, as they had been instructed, wagons that were fitted with scythes and decorated with the royal insignia. With a throng of lightly equipped youths, the king himself would often assault these wagons as a game in a remarkable sort of contest. He trained his people in this way so that if in the future he made an attack with these wagons as he had decided to do, he would have an army that was better trained against any eventuality in battle. After the horses were gradually turned into food under the force of necessity, however, these wagons ceased to have any use because of the lack of horses, and for this reason they were taken apart and stored in the corners of the cathedral, where they were found after the capture of the city. The Assembly Held at Koblenz Because of the Siege352 The time for holding the assembly was now approaching, and at the request of the prince of Münster, representatives of the four electors of Mainz, Cologne, Trier and the Rhine Palatinate, and the estates and councilors of the three provinces of the Rhine, Lowlands and Westphalia gathered at Koblenz on the Feast of Lucy (which was December 13). Since it was only with the greatest difficulty | that the bishop himself could be absent from the siege, however, he sent in his

741

742

352 Here K. passes over a large amount of diplomatic activity during the course of the fall. The prince solicited assistance from various princes, especially the electors of Cologne, Mainz, Trier and the Rhine Palatinate, but it was eventually decided that it was best to await the assembly at Koblenz as the appropriate venue in which to determine what aid should be offered.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 639

6/12/2007 3:32:56 PM

640

743

the events of 1534

name John of Dockheim (with the last name Freiss), Dr. Jodocus Ruland the chancellor, Herman of Mengersen the bailiff of Schwalenberg, Themmo of Hoerde the marshal of the court, and Eberhard of Elen the secretary. The main chapter, the knighthood, and the diocese of Münster sent Roger Smising the schoolmaster of the cathedral and an excellently educated man, Gerard Morrien the marshal of the diocese, and Wilbrand Plonies the burgher master of the city of Münster. After these men had gathered at Koblenz and been admitted to the assembly of princes and representatives, through a spokesman they gave thanks and made the following report in the name of their prince. The horrific | schism of the Anabaptists had crept into the city of Münster and other surrounding towns and territories during the previous Lent, and if it had not been checked with God’s help, it would without doubt have spread further, to the death of many people and the destruction of the ancestral religion. As for the people of Münster, both in contempt of a private warning made by his Imperial Majesty and in derision of his official edict, they had acted in violation of the sealed decisions of the Empire, of the general peace, of their oath, and of their own agreements and requests by profaning the colleges and churches, by throwing out the praiseworthy ancient ceremonies and mode of divine worship, by substituting unusual customs, by either tearing to shreds or burning up books, sealed and unsealed charters, documents and official texts to the great detriment of the entire community, by despising all government, both ecclesiastical and temporal, and overturning and invalidating the political order, by plundering the property of many burghers whom they had driven out and making this property a common possession, and by making some unknown tailor king, whom they called the King of Zion and the New Jerusalem. This had been attested to by the confession of the preachers who were sent out from the city, some of whom had paid the penalty for their transgression by fire, some by water, and others by the sword. These preachers had also added that they had been dispatched by the king to stir up sedition among the commons, so that the preachers would gather together an infinite multitude of armed men to destroy and overturn not only the diocese of Münster but all of Germany. If their strength allowed, this multitude was to convince all Christendom and subordinate it by wiping out with sword and fire all the princes and government officials who rejected their faith. This impiety, this thieving, this lamentable exile of the good burghers that had been compelled

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 640

6/12/2007 3:32:57 PM

the events of 1534

641

by force, in short this worse than Cyclopean353 savagery and barbaric tyranny had been taken very badly by the representatives’ prince, and to make sure that he was not thought to have tolerated with equanimity a situation that set the worst precedent in his diocese, and that his negligence did not cause Germany and eventually all of Christendom | to be plunged into an irreparable disaster affecting men’s lives, souls and possessions, he had put together forces of both cavalry and infantry, and invoked the assistance of certain neighboring princes to suppress this reckless impiety, as had been agreed to at the Diets of Speyer and Augsburg. In consideration of the greatness of the dangers, these princes had lent him vast sums of money in support of the war and sent soldiers, guns and gunpowder as reinforcements in the very sure expectation of crushing the rebellion in Münster and of recalling them by the grace of God to their previous obedience, but heretofore nothing had come of this. Accordingly, the prince had reduced the scale of the war, and after building seven camps that were fortified with trenches and ramparts around the city, he had placed a garrison of 500 soldiers in each of the camps along with a few squadrons of cavalry in order to cut off the townsmen’s supplies. This was now the ninth month that he was bearing the expense of all this, partly through the revenues of the diocese and partly through loans, having spent more than 700,000 fl orins. Now, however, he could no longer sustain these costs without the assistance of others, and did not dare to burden the princes with further loans when the earlier ones were not yet paid off. Hence, they said, their prince entreated all the estates, representatives and councilors of the aforementioned princes and three provinces who were present, asking them to evaluate this both horrific and dangerous situation carefully with him, and not to allow a new Turkish kingdom to take root in the middle of Christendom, but instead to aid and succour him with immediate, significant assistance. If this did not happen, the prince, being worn out and broken by the length of the war, would not survive these circumstances. If, in that case, some misfortune or disaster befell the Holy Roman Empire, their prince wished to be cleared of blame. After the representatives from Münster brought their speech to an end, they withdrew and the matter was brought forward for discussion.

353

744

745

See n. 89.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 641

6/12/2007 3:32:57 PM

642

746

the events of 1534

The delegates decided that since it was to be feared that if this crime was left unchecked, such impunity would result in the destruction and downfall not only of the confirmed bishop of Münster but also of their Imperial and Royal Majesties,354 of the Empire and the German nation, and eventually of all Christendom, therefore, as a member of the Empire, the bishop of Münster was not to be abandoned in any way, nor were the other estates of the diocese, and the Empire had to take up war against this sect just as it did against that of the Turks.355 Although Elector Duke John Frederick of Saxony did not belong to the three provinces that had been summoned, nonetheless, since he knew the reason for the assembly, he had been invited by the other electors and the bishop of Münster to send plenipotentiary delegates to it, and he promised that in this pious cause, which justly demanded the assistance of all Christians, he would make a voluntary contribution, so that the very dangerous schism could the more quickly be suppressed. For this reason, his representatives were also admitted to the consultation by the estates. After a long discussion, in the end they unanimously voted to support the construction of the camps and to continue the war with the forms of assistance laid out in the following clauses. First, the seven camps were sufficient to besiege the city, and 3000 veteran troops were enough to man them. If, after a careful examination of the situation, however, the officer now appointed as commander-inchief and his four advisers who were in charge of enlistment considered it useful and necessary to surround the city with more camps, he would see to this at the expense of the confirmed bishop of Münster’s curia and of the diocese, with the understanding that only 3000 troops would be distributed among whatever number of camps there would be. A strict accounting of pay would also be taken, so that if some people had been ascribed more pay than was dictated by consideration of the situation and of their duties and personal status, | a reduction in their pay would be discussed with them in a friendly way, so that there would be no excess and whatever was taken from them will be applied to other, necessary purposes. In addition, if a circuit of trenches and ramparts surmounted by wooden hurdles with teeth on top was not completed from one camp to the next, and the camps were not yet 354 I.e., Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, and his brother Ferdinand, who was given control of the Habsburg possessions in southeastern Germany and the title of “King of the Romans.” 355 The designation of the Turks as a “sect” refers to them as Moslems.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 642

6/12/2007 3:32:57 PM

the events of 1534

643

equipped with guns, shot, gunpowder and other military necessities, this was to be seen to and finished quickly by the confirmed bishop and the other estates of the diocese of Münster, as had been agreed to at the assembly at Essen. Next, it was necessary to keep all the roads around the city under such close guard that the townsmen do not grow arrogant through unexpected attacks on the enemy, and that no one could slip out and escape or enter. It was considered that cavalry from the diocese rather than from abroad was more eager and suitable to carry out this task, partly because of their knowledge of the roads and topography and partly because of the incentive provided by their love for their endangered homeland. At the assembly at Essen, the confirmed bishop and the nobility of Münster had promised to maintain 300 cavalrymen at their cost and expense for this purpose, and accordingly the representatives from Münster were asked to fulfill these promises, and to ensure that in the camps this many cavalrymen would always be kept at the ready to counter any raid or escape mounted by the townsmen. When on duty, these cavalrymen were to keep watch more carefully than had hitherto been the case, to make good their negligence with greater efforts, and to obey the commander’s orders. If this was not done, it was to be feared that the princes and estates would justly refuse the aid which they had voted. Third, particular care was to be taken to ensure that serious officers of long experience in warfare should be put in command of the troops. Since Wilkin Steding had hitherto been the supreme commander of the camps, the officer now appointed as commander-in-chief and his four advisers were ordered for many reasons to make the most careful examination possible of Steding’s competence and he should be assigned a position worthy of him. Of the entire force, both horse and foot, Wirich, Count of Falkenstein and Lord in Oberstein, was appointed commander356 on the terms that in the six months for which the assistance had been voted he should continue the siege that has been undertaken, always being personally present in the camps, and that watches and picket posts of both cavalry and infantry should be maintained with the greatest care during both the day and night, without anything that pertains to the official or personal duties of a general being neglected. Four advisers with the greatest experience in warfare

356

747

Hitherto, the bishop had been the overall commander.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 643

6/12/2007 3:32:57 PM

644

748

the events of 1534

were assigned to him, and these were to be appointed by the princes of Trier, Cologne, Jülich and Hesse.357 Arranged in pairs that alternated by month, two of them were to be in constant attendance upon the commander in the camps to provide counsel about any unexpected events that might turn up, and by their advice the provisions of this military arrangement would be changed in light of the circumstances, the enlistment of soldiers would be implemented, and the camps would be strengthened with the necessary fortifications, trenches, ramparts, wooden hurdles, guns, and the such like. In addition, an experienced clerk would be appointed, who would stay constantly in the camps without leaving. Fourth, to support the troops in the camps, the commander-in-chief and his councilors, the quartermaster, the military clerk, the scouts, and the messengers, and for other expenses, a contribution of 15,000 Rhenish fl orins per month | was voted by the aforementioned princes and provincial estates. From this, the general of the entire force whom we have called the commander-in-chief would receive 500 fl orins each month, the advisers in charge of enlistment 200 each, the quartermasters 50, the clerk 25. Florins in Emden currency were ascribed to the others (captains, ensigns, sergeants, corporals, holders of lower rank, and common soldiers). This assistance was voted for only six months. If, however, the city was not taken within that period of time, another assembly would be necessary. The assistance voted for the first three months would be paid on the feast of the Purification of Mary,358 that for the next two months on the feast of Easter,359 and that for the last month on the feast of Pentecost.360 The three electors (of Mainz, Trier and the Rhine Palatinate), the members of their province, and the estates of the Rhenish province would deposit their portion of the voted assistance with the city council of Koblenz, while the prince of Cologne, the duke of Saxony, and the estates of the Lowlands and Westphalian provinces would deposit theirs with the city council of Cologne. From these funds, the military advisers would make withdrawals to pay the

357 Again, the price of the support of the neighboring princes was that the bishop would no longer control the besieging army, whose officers were to be appointed by the princes who paid them. 358 February 2. 359 March 28. 360 May 16.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 644

6/12/2007 3:32:57 PM

the events of 1534

645

troops whenever necessary, giving receipts. If the town was either taken by storm or surrendered in the meanwhile, after an accounting was made and the expenses taken from the fund, the remainder would be returned to the individual estates on a proportionate basis. The four military advisers hired John Udenheim as quartermaster, and he would give the representatives of the princes and provinces a detailed accounting of all the sums received and spent, and would also see to it that no soldier would mutiny in the camps because he had been refused pay. The commander-in-chief, the advisers, the commanders, captains and all those upon whom positions as officers had been bestowed would be bound under military oath to the aforementioned princes and estates. The soldiers who had hitherto been active in the camps for the siege under oath to the confirmed bishop of Münster would be relieved of this oath, and would be bound by oath to the commander-in-chief in the name of the aforementioned estates. Fifth, it was decided that the soldiers now in the camps were to be retained, but others were to be added, though the total was not to exceed 3000. If any of the old soldiers were excluded in the enlistment on the grounds of disobedience, contumely, wrongdoing, impiety or inexperience in arms, they were to be replaced with better, veteran troops. Sixth, by sage deliberation it was decided in this assembly that the cities, country districts, strongholds, and any other fortified places which had defected from the confirmed bishop and diocese of Münster and were recovered by right of war through the assistance voted by the princes and provinces would be in no way removed from the jurisdiction of the bishop or subordinated to foreign lordship by being transferred under any pretext from the control of the diocese of Münster. If Münster was taken by storm or recovered through surrender within the sixmonth period of the voted assistance, | no form of government would be instituted without the decision and consent of the aforementioned princes and estates. In this matter the confirmed bishop and estates of Münster were to obligate themselves by means of a sealed letter. Seventh, if the Anabaptists gathered together to free the city and made an attack on any camp or province, the other provinces would bring immediate help to those who had been overwhelmed or affl icted. The electors and the estates of the provinces would keep the most diligent watch in their regions, territories and realms, so that they would allow no band of rebaptized people to form within their borders, and instead would arrest them, so that they would be subjected to the due penalty in accordance with the edict of the Empire and emperor.

749

750

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 645

6/12/2007 3:32:57 PM

646

751

the events of 1534

Eighth, since it was to be feared that this immediate assistance would not suffice to achieve the present aim, it was decided that the confirmed bishop of Münster, whom this cause most concerned, should send envoys to request the main princes of the other seven provinces in accordance with the provisions of the Empire to convene the members of their province at Worms on the Sunday “Quasi modo geniti,”361 which was April 4 in 1535, for the purpose of holding an assembly to deliberate more broadly on the topic of providing aid in the future if the city was not captured in the interim. Because the Emperor Charles was otherwise engaged, Ferdinand362 was invited to this assembly by the friendly letters and embassies of not simply the electors but also the confirmed bishop of Münster. | The reason for this invitation was that since it was in the interest of all the provinces and of the entire Empire that this seditious, impious and unspeakable schism, which had already assailed many regions and was being increased as it lurked in them, should be wiped out and destroyed, its suppression and the punishments to be infl icted on those in possession of the city of Münster once the city was captured should be discussed in a sort of joint deliberation about assistance from the provinces and the Empire. On this day, there would also be discussion of the three provinces’ previous contribution of expenses, so that what affected everyone equally should be effected through equal expenditures on everyone’s part. The princes and estates of the three provinces had not been specifically summoned to the coming assembly at Worms, but nonetheless by the common agreement and command of the estates, they or their plenipotentiary representatives were ordered to attend in order to discuss the general good. Although certain members of the three provinces made neither themselves nor representatives available and did not justify their absence, they were to obey the decisions of this assembly as if they had been present. If anyone baulked at paying his share of the assistance voted, the treasury of the Empire would, on the basis of its duty, proceed against him in court for disobedience. The urgent need to prevent the soldiers from drifting away from the camps in desertion demanded prompt remedy by the provinces, so the request was put to the representatives of the electors and princes of Cologne, Saxony, Cleves, Hesse, Lüttich and Münster that each prince

361 362

The first Sunday after Easter. Charles’ brother (see n. 354).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 646

6/12/2007 3:32:57 PM

the events of 1534

647

should make an immediate contribution of 3000 fl orins. While the city council of Cologne could not be prevailed upon to do the same, | the representatives of Cleves promised that they would get their council to do so. On December 23, this assembly also voted in favor of a public document in which the townsmen were to be given a stern warning first. They were told to set aside all mental disquiet and to consider with the better part of their minds how impiously and wickedly they had violated both divine and human law by at the same time disregarding the decisions of the Catholic Church and the sanctions of the princes, by tainting the Sacraments, by throwing out the pristine ceremonies and form of divine worship received from antiquity, by replacing these with their own delusions, by profaning the churches and plundering those which they had profaned, and eventually razing them to the ground, by befouling the general peace with violence, by casting down their ruler, by replacing him with a tailor whom they had made king by their own authority, by despoiling the burghers and driving into exile those whom they had despoiled, by appropriating their goods and making them communal property, and by committing other acts that were neither pious nor just. The princes of the Empire and the leading men of the provinces therefore demanded, the document went on, that after regaining their senses, they should reject and discard their impious dogmas, put their lawful ruler back in his previous state of honor and respect, | restore to their position the burghers who had been stripped of their property and driven into exile, and surrender the city both for punishment and for pardon. If, on the other hand, they were not going to do so, and if this salutary and friendly warning received no consideration from them, and they instead preferred to cast it to the winds, then they were to know that the princes and estates of the Empire would take up arms against them with joint aid and at joint expense. Such were the proceedings at the assembly at Koblenz.

752

753

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MACKAY_f10_467-647.indd 647

6/12/2007 3:32:57 PM

THE EVENTS OF 1535

754

The document just mentioned was sent by the highborn Wirich of Oberstein, the commander-in-chief of the entire force by command of the princes and the three provinces, although he himself did not arrive at the camps until January 18. He sent it through a messenger, for whom he had first secured by letter1 safe conduct in going to the Gate of St. Maurice and returning. On January 13, the townsmen replied as follows. “We, the regents appointed by the grace of God according to His word, and the burghers and inhabitants of the saintly city of Münster, have received the letter sent by you, Wirich, Count of Falkenstein and Limburg and Lord of Oberstein and Brock, appointed commander and so on. In this letter, we are asked to be willing to grant safe conduct to your messenger to come to the Gate of St. Maurice at 9 o’clock on January 14 | and deliver to the city a letter in the name of the princes of the Empire and the three provinces. To this we reply that we have never repelled anyone from us, but have always readily let anyone at all into our presence to discuss with us whatever cases he may have, and that this is the same goodwill which it would be right for us to expect from our opponents. We therefore permit this messenger to come to the Gate of St. Maurice in reliance upon our safe conduct, to hand over the letter that he has, and to withdraw without hindrance. We make a similar request for a messenger from us, whom we will dispatch to certain princes, to receive from you the same freedom to depart and return. Which of these things you will do we desire to be informed. Issued under the seal of our city on the Wednesday after the feast of the Three Kings,2 1535.” When this messenger was sent to them, they received him with hospitality, awarded him a gift, read the letter that he had brought, and gave a few clumsy oral responses, which were completely irrelevant. They did, however, promise that they would respond to the letter more fully and carefully in writing by messenger. On the same day that the letter was delivered ( January 14), they responded as they had promised after a short deliberation. Through the messenger for whom they had 1 2

Dated January 12. January 8.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 648

6/6/2007 9:18:32 PM

the events of 1535

649

requested and been granted safe conduct they sent this response to the landgrave for him to pass it on to the representatives of the princes and provinces. In it, they strove to show that they were innocent and free of any blame, never having been rebels against their true ruler or expelled him from the city. Therefore, it was unjust and a violation of both divine and human law for them to be harried with arms by the prince in a tyrannical way without any declaration of war | and to be miserably oppressed. To the charge made against them in the princes’ letter, that the king had been created by private authority, they made no response, cleverly passing it over in silence. The king also wrote a personal letter3 to the landgrave, who he was convinced either was or certainly would be an adherent of his faction. The only address he put at the beginning of this letter was “Unsern leiben besonderen Lipsen, Landtgraven etc.,”4 and from this it can be seen how high | was the opinion he had of himself compared to other princes. Neither letter contained anything but clumsy, vain blather by which the king attempted to conceal his impiety just as Adam did his shameful parts with fig leaves. In the private letter to the landgrave, the case about making a king and queen was set down as follows. “Leve Lips”—(“Dear Phil,” this being the landgrave’s name)—“you no doubt know that Christ and the prophets said that not even a dot in Holy Scripture was set down without a purpose.5 In the Acts of the Apostles, Peter says that in the time of the restoration, which began after the Babylonian captivity was made manifest through the clear light of the Gospel, everything that God said through the mouth of His prophets would be fulfilled and so on.6 Examine the writings of the Prophets, then, and consider carefully what they write about the Babylonian captivity and the culmination of this world, and likewise what Christ’s parables, the writings of the Apostles and the Book of Apocalypse bear witness to. What recompense will the Babylonians receive for their

755

756

3 This letter, dated January 10, is in fact written by the “Godly order and assembly of the regents and community of the city of Münster” (uth gotlicker ornunge und vereinigung der regenten und gemeinen der stat Munster). 4 “To our particularly dear Phil, Landgrave.” The German actually reads: Besonders leven Philips, Lantgrave tho Hessen. This letter concludes by stating that it was written “to our gracious lord of Hesse” (an unsern gnedigen hern von Hessen). Hence, it is hard to believe that the use of the colloquial form of the landgrave’s given name conveys an unwarranted familiarity, as K. seems to think. 5 Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17. 6 Acts 3:21. The reference is only to the fulfillment at the time of the restoration, the relative clause about the Babylonian captivity being a gloss on the king’s part.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 649

6/6/2007 9:18:33 PM

650

757

758

the events of 1535

military service, and on the other hand to what kingdom and glory will the people of God who are to be gathered into one fl ock be raised up! As for the time when this is going to happen, the lesser Prophets in particular discuss this topic. If you consider all this carefully, cut7 the Scriptures correctly, as Paul teaches Timothy, and receive from God the understanding of them, then you will easily and without great effort understand whether we have appointed the king by our own authority or we have one pre-ordained by God.” To this they added a certain pamphlet that had been printed in the city. Bearing the title “On Restoration,”8 it was completely impious and satanic, and from it the landgrave learned of the madness of the Anabaptists. | It is better to suppress the memory of this pamphlet, like many others printed around this time in Münster,9 rather than defraud the wretched and unwary common mob by publishing these works and plunge them into eternal damnation. Witness to the way in which the rebaptized in Münster restored everything is provided by the profanation of all the churches, by the banishment of all the good burghers, and by the complete overthrow of everything divine and human. May God avert the restoration of the Anabaptists! For if it were permitted, nothing would be left intact anywhere in the entire Empire. Therefore, may any such restoration, which would mean the destruction of everything good, be kept away. After reading this pamphlet, the landgrave sent back a refutation10 he had made of the errors in it. We refrain from indicating the way in which he refuted them, since it would take a long time to do so. In this he demonstrated his mental ability, proving it clearer than the sunlight at high noon that the rebaptized were striving to abolish completely and do away with the decisions of both polities,11 all good customs, all laws both divine and human, and in short all respectable behavior and virtue.

“Slice” (von ein schniden) in the original; the exact biblical reference is not clear. Rothman’s Restitutio. 9 Presumably, Rothman’s Rache (“Revenge”), issued in December, 1534, and his Van Verborgenheyt der schrifft des Rykes Christi und van dem daghe des Heeren (“On the Mystery of the Scripture of the Kingdom of Christ and on the Day of the Lord”), issued in February, 1535. 10 Dated March, 1535. 11 I.e., civil and religious. 7 8

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 650

6/6/2007 9:18:33 PM

the events of 1535

651

Having read this document, which was issued by the landgrave on March 30,12 the people of Münster were greatly annoyed and angered. Hence, they sent to him a new document in which they defended their case and strove to demonstrate through certain ambiguous passages of Scripture that everything which they were doing was based on God’s command and the prophecies of the Prophets. At the same time, in order to palliate their own violence and thieving, they cast in the teeth of the landgrave the facts that he had wished to overwhelm the bishops with an armed force, that in the face of the opposition of the emperor he had restored the duke of Württemberg to his previous possessions,13 that he had despoiled the monasteries after expelling the monks, and so on. They also sent another pamphlet entitled “On the Mystery of the Scripture of the Kingdom of Christ.”14 At the same time, they demanded that | the princes should take the Anabaptists’ affairs into consideration, claiming that they would not shun a just trial of their case. After gravely and eloquently refuting all the criticisms made of him by the rebaptized, the landgrave said: “Also, as for your not shunning a just trial of your case, if it were up to me, you would easily get your wish. You would have looked after your own interests better, however, if you had been quicker in doing what you seem to be doing now, that is, if you had offered your case for judgment to the princes before practicing that armed violence, establishing a new king and kingdom, sending out your prophets and apostles to other cities to stir them up and led them astray into a similar error and sedition (which was the principal cause of bloodshed), and making widows and orphans. If, on the other hand, you restore to their previous status on fair terms those whom you stripped of all their goods and drove from the city, | and you give back to your city council its pristine position of dignity and authority, your request will perhaps be heard more sympathetically.” Wirich of Oberstein arrived at the camps around January 18 and took command of the soldiery. He asked the prince to allow the soldiers to be released from their earlier oath and to swear allegiance once

759

760

761

Apparently, the date should probably be a few days earlier. Duke Ulrich had been driven out in 1519 by the Swabian League, which then sold his lands to Charles V. In 1534, Landgrave Philip restored Ulrich to his territory by force of arms (and Ulrich then converted it to Protestantism). 14 See n. 9. 12 13

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 651

6/6/2007 9:18:33 PM

652

762

the events of 1535

more to him in the name of the Empire.15 To this the prince replied that throughout their service the soldiers had given their allegiance in return for pay of four Emden fl orins, but if they were obligated to swear again, they would demand higher pay, so that it would take longer to fulfill the assistance decreed by the Empire. Thus, he said, the renewal of the oath was disadvantageous.16 Next, Wirich of Oberstein and the other commanders noted that the people of Münster were not moved by the previous letter sent by the princes, provinces and estates, and sent another to the city with the aim of deterring them from their impiety and calling them back to a better state of mind. The purpose of this was to avoid the appearance of having a ready inclination to resort to bloodshed. The sense of this letter follows.17 “We, appointed as the commanders of the forces at Münster of the most illustrious and powerful prince and lord, King Ferdinand of the Romans and the Bohemians, and of the electors, princes, counts, barons and representatives of the Holy Roman Empire, make the following known by this letter | to the rulers, possessors and inhabitants of said city. We had been sustained by the confident expectation that you would eagerly embrace the princes’ previous friendly warnings, which, being based on a benevolent Christian spirit that feels compassion for your situation, was sent by us to your city at the command of these princes; that you would finally take consideration of your life and death more carefully into account; that you would give up your longstanding seditious, insane and intolerable impiety and reckless pursuit of marauding; and that you would surrender your city, which we restrain by force, for pardon and for punishment to his Royal Majesty and to the estates of the Empire, as was demanded of you in their last letter. It is not without great anguish on our part, however, that we find that you have cast all this to the winds. Indeed, though your plight is now hopeless, you remain obdurate in your impious error, being plunged further day by day into unavoidable disaster, and many imprudent people who are ignorant of your faith are so closely entangled in your downfall that they are losing and forfeiting not only their life but also This transfer of allegiance was prescribed in the fourth provision of the assembly at Koblenz (see 748D). 16 The bishop was obstructing the transfer as an attempt to retain some control over the campaign. The princes had to intervene in the spring to try and get the prince to comply, but he continued to obstruct the transfer. 17 This letter was actually written to the city on June 1, and it is mentioned below in its chronologically correct location (816–817D). 15

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 652

6/6/2007 9:18:34 PM

the events of 1535

653

their eternal blessedness. This misfortune we would readily ward off from the necks of the innocent and simple people to the extent that God’s grace and our mental ability allow. Accordingly, by this letter of ours, we give you abundant warning that you should, as befits you, obey the previous requests of the princes. If you do this, we will treat you in the manner which befits Christians, and show you the highest goodwill. If, on the other hand, you do not recognize your blindness and instead persist in it, be advised that after this final warning we will carry out the task entrusted to us by the princes, and against those caught outside the walls, both men and women, young and old, we will act in the harshest lawful manner, sparing none of you unless he deserves remarkable clemency.” The landgrave also sent Fabricius to the city with full authority, so that he would draw the commoners back from error, but he was allowed neither to deliver a sermon in public or to converse with the multitude in private.18 To make a long story short, they clung so tightly to their error, | and were so deeply awash in impiety and so completely blinded, that the authority of no passage of Scripture and the well-intentioned warnings of no human being could move them. Therefore, let those who wish go and be hanged! Meanwhile, as this was going on, the king printed the following articles on January 2 in order to keep his people in the city and strengthen their resolve. Articles set out by the king in Münster, the city of the Israelites.19 “Be it known and manifest to all those who love the truth and righteousness of God, both the ignorant and those who know the mysteries, how and in what way the Christians and their adherents ought to live and conduct themselves under the banner of righteousness | as the true Israelites of the New Temple in the present kingdom. This kingdom has been foreseen for many centuries now, was promised by the words of all the Prophets, and was begun and passed on by Christ and His Apostles by virtue of the Holy Spirit, and now this kingdom has been restored by the righteous King John, who was placed on the

763

764

This event took place back in November of 1534, and K. has perhaps erroneously placed it here because of a reference to it in a letter of the landgrave’s from May of 1535. 19 Several other copies and translations of the text into Latin or High German survive, and for the most part K.’s version agrees with them apart from a few explanatory elaborations (provisions 1, 3, 21), two omitted articles (see 4, 8), three articles that appear in only one other source (24–26), and one that is unique to K. (27). 18

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 653

6/6/2007 9:18:34 PM

654

765

766

the events of 1535

seat of David. Therefore, each and every one of these articles will be maintained under penalty of death for the glory of Almighty God and the increase of His Kingdom. “1) In this New Temple, there should be a single king to rule the people of God and to bear the sword of righteousness, so that the Temple will not be tainted with false doctrine, since it is saintly and everything of those who enter the Temple is pure, as Paul bears witness. Hence, no king or ruler except one appointed by God will intrude himself into the Covenant of Christ.20 “2) The King, his judges and the rulers of the people will administer justice to everyone without regard for persons or any profit, deciding and adjudicating all cases and disputes—whether in cities or in rural strongholds—in justice and equity according to the Word of God. If necessary, they will draw the sword against the criminals. “3) No one will involve himself in another person’s sphere of activity or office by usurping it at his own discretion, but each will restrict himself to his calling as he promised.21 “4) No one will get away with perverting Holy Scripture with his own interpretations.22 It should always be understood according to the literal sense of the words, though with the circumstance of time taken into account. “5) If a prophet rises up amidst the People of God and makes prophecies that deviate from the Word of God, he will be removed from the entire People | and killed by them, so that every Israelite will understand his abominable and detestable crime and execrate it. “6) No one serving under the banner of Righteousness will pollute himself with base drunkenness, foul debauchery after the fashion of wild beasts, avaricious games involving private gain, which give rise to

20 The original says only: “First, no king or any government authority shall remain established among the members of Christ’s Covenant apart from those ordained by God who are able to abide by, and to conduct themselves in accordance with, the Word of God” (Vor ersth, dath sall gin koninck noch jenige overicheit under de bundtgenoten Christi, ane de van Got verordent sick na Gotz worth holden und schicken mogen, bestendig bliven). 21 The original states simply: “No one shall slink into someone else’s office and use it according to his own will” (Nemandt sall in eins anderen ampt tasten und na sinem willen gebruken). 22 K. omits the preceding article: “Each person shall always conduct himself in his calling according to God’s ordinance and Word, however he may previously have believed or been obligated or inclined to do or hold” (Ein itlicker sall na Gottes gesette und wort, wo he doch vurhen gelovet, verplichet und to doin ock to hold verwilliget, sick in sine beroepunge alletid gebruken).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 654

6/6/2007 9:18:34 PM

the events of 1535

655

hatred and dissension, and fornication and adultery. Such crimes will not remain unpunished in the People of God. “7) If anyone undertakes to stir up sedition, he will be punished with death. “8) If some people quarrel in the camps, rashly fighting amongst themselves and wounding each other, then if the man responsible for the quarrel (the challenger) kills the other man, he too will be dragged off to suffer the death penalty. If the man challenged unintentionally casts down his opponent either in the heat of the moment or through self-defense, he will be declared guilty or not guilty depending on which is shown to be the case.23 “9) No one of either sex will be motivated to lodge an accusation against another person on account of very light suspicions or any presumptions, but only on account of sure knowledge that the crime has been committed. The accuser who does not prove the crime which he has alleged will suffer the penalty which the other would have suffered if found guilty. “10) No one will withdraw from the camps without having obtained permission and leave from his commander or the regent responsible for him. “11) If someone is away from the camps for three days straight without his wife’s knowledge or obtaining permission from his commander, his wife will be free to seek marriage with someone else. “12) No one will go up to a watch post either by day or by night unless the enemy is at hand and is launching an assault, or unless he has specific instructions from someone like an officer, sergeant, or other military commander to make the rounds to keep close watch on the guards, or for some other necessity. A violator will not escape without punishment. “13) Under penalty of death, no one will harm someone who is innocent or unaware of Babylonian Whoring, unless he causes harm with an armed hand.24

767

23 Here K. omits the subsequent article: “Likewise, whichever men strike one another in the camps shall be corrected according to the aforementioned rule” (Desgliken so welcke binnen legers mallickanderen sick sloegen, sollen na vurgemelten regulen verrechtferdiget werden). 24 K. seems to fudging here in his translation of a rather obscure provision. The German seems to mean: “On pain of death, no one shall harm the innocent man who lacks resources with Babylonian whoring, unless it is found that, without the intention of (causing) an uproar, he (acted) in self-defense against a criminal act” (Menn sall by lives straf den unschuldigen, unvermogenden mit der Babilonischen horerie nicht beschedigen, he

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 655

6/6/2007 9:18:34 PM

656

768

the events of 1535

“14) No one will at his own discretion remove or appropriate spoils or plunder that has been taken from the enemy, but will, as is fair, set it before his regent. Whatever is given to him by the regent he may enjoy without committing wrong. “15) If anyone who was previously dedicated to the Christians defects to the enemy but then changes his mind and seeks to be accepted once more among the Christians, he will not be accepted but will pay the appropriate penalty. “16) Under penalty of execution, no Christian will practice trade with his brother by means of money, nor will one cheat another in exchanges with deceit and fraud. “17) No one among the Christians will be accepted from one congregation (society) into another unless he proves that he is blameless and not tainted with any crime. If the case is found to be otherwise, he will be punished and there will be no remission of the penalty. “18) If a foreigner wishes to serve the Christians, he is not to be turned away, even if he is unwilling to accept the faith, perhaps because he has not yet been enlightened by the Spirit. Any who wish to make friendship, trade, alliances, treaties and agreements with the Christians in a spirit not of censuring them but of living with them in familiarity will by no means be turned away. “19) If, in order to assist the Christians, anyone seeks to transport supplies and other necessities and retail them for a reasonable price and to engage in other forms of trade with them, he will be given official liberty of travel. “20) No one among the Christians will oppose or impede a pagan ruler who has not yet heard the Word of God and been educated in it, provided that the ruler does not force anyone to be unbelieving or

werde dan de wal unwetende sin mochte schedeliker dat werender handt befunden). The sense of “Babylonian whoring” is by no means self-evident. In Ezekiel 23, the figure of the whore of Babylon, who sells her favors to the Assyrians, seems to be a symbol for apostate Jews. In Apocalypse 17, the figure seems to have a much broader (and rather confused) symbolism. The whore is a power who holds sway over the earth, engages in commerce and corrupts the world, and is also responsible for the deaths of Christian martyrs (Protestants famously associated this image with the papacy, as below in provision 20). The reference here, however, seems to be to some sort of direct physical oppression that can be excused on the grounds of self-defense, and it is hard to see what this has to do with the biblical imagery. In any case, the phrase “armed hand” in Latin (armata manu) would be normally be taken as signifying an “armed band (i.e., a band of armed men),” but here it is a literal translation of “werender handt,” which signifies “in self-defense.”

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 656

6/6/2007 9:18:34 PM

the events of 1535

657

impious, but the Babylonian tyranny of the priests and monks along with all their fl unkies and lackeys who have darkened the righteousness of God | with their unrighteousness and violence will be crushed in whatever way possible. “21) If a pagan who is guilty of some crime seeks refuge among the community of the Christians in order to gain impunity for his misdeeds and manifestly acts in violation of the Law of God, it will be pointless for him to invoke the protection of the Christians. Instead, he will receive the appropriate penalty, so that the community of the Christians should not become an asylum for criminals.25 “22) Guarantors for another should not be fewer than three, and once they are bound by the guarantee, they immediately make their own the case of the man for whom they are guarantors, and for this reason they will plead his case in court. “23) If any regent or anyone else at all opposes the Word of God and these decrees of ours, contumaciously despising them, he will certainly not be dragged immediately off for the appropriate penalty. Instead, he is first to be placed in court before the king or his lieutenant, so that after being legally convicted, he will hear in public the penalty appropriate for his deeds. “24) No one will force another into a marriage contract against his will, since such a contract is free and is joined by the genuine and natural bond of love.26 “25) Those who suffer from the comitial disease27 (epilepsy), leprosy, the French ailment,28 or a similar physical malady will not contract a marriage unless they first reveal the malady to their bed partners.

769

770

25 The original states simply: “If a pagan seeks asylum for his misdeed among the Christians, and has acted in violation of God’s revealed ordinance, he shall not be harbored but shall be arrested and punished” (So ein heidene umb sine missedaet under de Christen eine tofl ucht sochte und tegen dat gesette apentlick Godtz gedain hadde, sall nicht beschuddet, dan gestrafft upgeholden werden). 26 This and the next two articles are lacking in all German versions of this document, but they also appear in an independent Latin translation. What exactly the status of these provisions about marriage and how they came to be added to this document are questions to which there is no answer. 27 This is a purely Classical allusion, epilepsy becoming called the “comitial” disease because it was a bad omen if someone had an epileptic fit during an election (comitia), and hence such an attack invalidated an electoral assembly. 28 Syphilis. This disease is first recorded in Europe in 1494 (its origin is disputed), when French troops brought it home with them from southern Italy.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 657

6/6/2007 9:18:34 PM

658

the events of 1535

“26) No female will cheat her fellow brother with the pretence of being a virgin when she is not. Otherwise, she will be severely punished. “27) Whenever any woman does not have a lawful husband, she will select from the community of the Christians some man to serve as her guardian (defender).29 “These edicts were issued by God and John, the righteous King of the New Temple and the Servant of the Highest and Saintliest God, at the age of twenty-six in the first year of his reign, on second day of the first month of the year A.D. 1535.”

771

Prophecies of the King.30 “The Word of God arose today about 3 o’clock in the morning and was made unto me. ‘You will set in motion for Me a people beyond count in order to glorify My name. As for where and at what time | this will happen, I will reveal your outcome to you. As for yourself, you will walk cautiously. You will announce these words to the others of your people, and tell them that they are to be silent.’ ” Another one. “The voice of the Living God told me this, and it is the command of the Highest God. ‘Men will compel their lawful wives and those women whose guardians (defenders) they are to recite a creed. This is not the old creed of “Credo in Deum Patrem etc.,”31 but a creed about the New Kingdom, marriage, and the reasons why and purposes for which they were baptized. These words will be proclaimed and revealed to all men, and two days later an accounting of their actions will be demanded of them so that God may remain innocent of any bloodshed.’” Another prophecy. “It is also the will of God that you should not pointlessly cast His Word to the winds by singing many hymns in the way that they have been hitherto chanted without any awareness of or meditation on piety.” These royal decrees did at first terrify the commons, but since no food was being carried into the besieged city and there were very many mouths to feed, the decrees gradually lapsed. Since the king

29 This provision is unique to K., but the institution of guardians is mentioned by Gresbeck (who specifies that the women in question were those too old to find a husband). 30 Related only by K. 31 The Apostles’ Creed.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 658

6/6/2007 9:18:35 PM

the events of 1535

659

paid no heed to commoners’ penury as he had promised when he had taken possession of every sort of meat,32 the commons began to mutter secretly to each other about the king’s deceitfulness. In response, he proved with various illustrations taken from the Scriptures that if faithful, the people would not suffer from any want. Nonetheless, the commons’ quiet grumbling did not die down but grew daily worse. Factions arose in the city, and these discussed arresting the king and surrendering the city in order to regain the favor of the offended prince and save themselves from the coming misfortune of starvation. | When this was secretly reported to the king, he nipped this fearful situation in the bud, very cleverly extricating himself from these snares in which he found himself entangled and bringing his enemies’ plotting to naught. First, he promised a gathering of all the people in the marketplace that their liberation was very certain to take place on the next Easter, giving his word that if this did not take place, he should be punished in a court of the people as a false prophet and criminal.33 Then, he created twelve dukes, | and to them he entrusted the governance of the city, which he divided into this number of sections.34 He enjoined them to exercise their office very energetically and assigned to each of them the care of one of the city’s gates to prevent treachery.35 Eager

772

773

For the confiscation of meat, see 639D. Already in October, 1534, when he made his confession, John Beckmann (one of the captured apostles) stated that the king had said to the people that “they would be freed from their enemies before this coming Easter” (se sollen vor dussen anstaenden Paeschen van allen vyenden entledigt syn). 34 K. places his account of the creation of the dukedoms here, because Dorp dates it to the feast of the Three Kings ( January 6). Contemporary letters, however, show that this measure was taken on May 3. One refugee from the city stated that John had said that he was inspired to take this step because in a dream the Father had revealed himself and bidden the people to select twelve princes who would help the king govern the twelve tribes of Israel (der Vater hab sich ime geoffenbart und spreache mit ime gehalten, das sie unvorzoglich in der stat zwolf fursten erwelen schullen, die sampt ime dem konnige die zwolf geschlecht Jsrael scholen helfen regieren), and another stated that John indicated that in the city of God, he would sit in the seat of David, while the twelve dukes would sit in those of the twelve Apostles (der konig sal sitzen in David stoel in stat Gots, und zwelf fursten der zwelf apostelen). 35 The mention of treachery is K.’s. One of the runaways actually speculated that the cause may have been that matters had become so serious that the king did not wish to rule alone (Und mag, wie dieselbigen gesagt, villeicht der orsach vom konningk geschein, ob sich die dinge zum argsten zutragen wurden, das er alsdan nicht allein wolle geregiert haben). The details of their assignments suggest that whatever God’s intentions, the matter was one of military expediency. Ten of these dukes were to command one gate each, the eleventh was in charge of the blockhouse at the New Bridge, and the twelfth commanded the round bastion between the moat and the city wall in the section between the Ludger 32 33

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 659

6/6/2007 9:18:35 PM

660

774

775

the events of 1535

for the prestige of the new position, the dukes employed a swarm of very stout attendants to protect their persons and carry out their commands quickly, each having three councilors and twenty-four well armed retainers.36 | The dukes also established guards for each of the gates to prevent any uprising of the commons. They so curbed the commoners with fear of punishment that no one even dared to mutter a word against the king. The names of the gates were also changed. They called the Horst Gate the Eastern one; St. Maurice’s, the Silver one; St. Servatius’, King’s Gate; St. Ludger’s, the Southern one; St. Giles’, Queen’s Gate; St. Mary’s, the Western one; the Jews’ Gate, the Golden one; the Gate of the Cross, the Northern one; and New Bridge Gate, the Water Gate.37 Appointed as dukes were Bernard tor Moer the tailor, John Redeker the cobbler, John Palck the ironsmith, John Dencker the retailer, Engelbert Eding, Nicholas Stripe the merchant, Henry Xanten the coppersmith, John Katerberg the swordsmith, Henry Kock of Osnabrück, Herman Reining, Christian Kerckering the patrician, and a reeve of Leeden.38 To these officials | he promised positions in his kingdom if they carried out the royal commands as carefully as possible, saying that once the siege was broken, which would take place on Easter, he would attack the entire world after killing all the princes apart from the landgrave and would bring it under his rule. To make sure that no dispute would later arise among them about territory, he distributed

Gate and the Servatius Gate. The assignment of the twelve new divisions of the people to these dukes shows that in practical terms they were the direct military commanders of the defense force. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that in the New Jerusalem described in Apocalypse, the city was to have twelve gates and the name of one of the tribes of Israel was to be inscribed above each (21:12). Since the 144,000 pious men who were to do battle against the wicked in the Last Days were to be drawn from the twelve tribes (7:4–8), it is hard to escape the conclusion that this new institution was part of a self-conscious effort to organize the forces of Münster after the model of the Book of Apocalypse. They may well have also been infl uenced by two passages from the Gospels in which Jesus foretells to the disciples that they would sit in judgment over the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28, Luke 22:30 with the additional detail that they would sit on thrones). 36 As a mark of office, the dukes wore chains made of twelve large gold fl orins, while the councilors wore eighteen large silver pennies. 37 K. omits the Bisping Gate, since for some reason it retained its old name. The names of the streets leading from the gates were also changed. Already in the previous December, when Ludger tom Ringe’s servant made his confession (see 566K), he indicated that the gates’ names had been changed. (He mentioned only four, giving the Jews’ Field, Maurice, Servatius and Giles Gates the same new names as those listed by K.) 38 For the reeve of Leeden, see “Events of 1534” n. 96.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 660

6/6/2007 9:18:35 PM

the events of 1535

661

the duchies and principalities among the dukes before the victory. In this he imitated the hunter in Aesop who sold the bear’s hide before he killed it, but he delighted the dukes with uncertainties that were taken as certainties. He bestowed the duchy of Saxony on John Dencker, that of Brunswick on Bernard tor Moer, that of Westphalia between the Rhine and Weser on Christian Kerckering, that of Jülich and Cleves on John Redeker, that of Gelders together with the bishopric of Utrecht on John Palck, and that of Brabant and the county of Holland on Engelbert Eding. He bestowed the bishopric of Cologne on the reeve of Leeden, that of Mainz on Henry Xanten, that of Trier on Henry Kock of Osnabrück, that of Bremen, Verden and Minden on John | Katerberg, that of Hildesheim and Magdeburg to Herman Reining, and both Frisias39 along with the territory of Groningen to Nicholas Stripe.40 These were dukes entrusted with responsibility for and control over all works. To make sure that the townsmen were left with no time to plot sedition against the king, the dukes employed them in constant labor, and to make sure that they did not become fierce, they gave them only bread seasoned with salt to eat. When the men were not engaged in necessary strengthening of the defenses, they were kept busy razing either churches41 or huts and humble structures that had been built long before in the open ground behind the walls. On January 21, they began to pull down the cathedral building, having previously been employed on the public defenses. Meanwhile, the Hollanders and Frisians employed great efforts in various disturbances within their own territories that were designed to raise the siege of the city, but when many people gathered in the territory

776

I.e., East and West. The list here agrees substantially (there are a few variations in detail) with one given by Dorp. In a letter of May 29, 1535, however, Justinian of Holtzhausen gives a quite different list, and there are also isolated references to dukes whose names do not appear here. It would seem that the position was not a permanent one and that the incumbents were changed with some frequency. 41 The task of demolishing churches had already been underway when Fabricius visited the city in November, 1534 (see n. 18). He later reported that when he asked the reason for this, the Anabaptists replied that they would sooner eat their own child in its mother’s body (das kind in muterleib essen) and die than take up popery and the abuses of the parish priests again, and when he said that if they wished to hear sermons, they would need churches, they replied that they would go to the marketplace for this, since they had no fear of hail or rain, because they knew that nothing bad would intervene during the sermon. 39 40

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 661

6/6/2007 9:18:35 PM

662 777

778

the events of 1535

of Groningen, | Baron George Schenck of Tautenburg, Charles V’s representative, defeated them on January 24.42 Peter Schomaker the prophet was a great fool who had persuaded the foolish people that he was the son of God, and hoped that because of this he would have favor among the people and raise armed bands with which to free the city. Schenck imposed the appropriate penalty upon him and certain other leaders of this army. On January 25, the rebaptized gathered in Leiden, the homeland of the monstrous king, and attacked it with all the force they could muster. They exhibited more madness than prudence in this undertaking, and were disabused of any hopes of taking the city by the good burghers, who captured them. The number of those people of both sexes who paid the penalty for their madness was not small. During this uprising, the wife of the king whom he had left in Leiden and who was not only herself rebaptized but also harbored the rebaptized, was beheaded.43 Wilkin Steding had learned no news from the city for some time and wished to know what was going on there and what the plans of the townsmen were, so he chose Hans Nagel of Frankfurt,44 one of the common soldiers who was a clever and crafty man suitable for the role, enticing him with a promise of much money to cross over to the city in a feigned defection in order to gather information. Undaunted, Nagel promised confidently that he would do so, and a suitable occasion was sought for the feigned defection so that the plan for his running away would not become known to his comrades. In camp, Nagel happened to challenge one of his comrades to a game of dice. This man repeated that like fighting, dicing was prohibited within the fortifications, since this was forbidden by the commanders. He said that if Nagel wished to play with him, he should leave the fortifications, and that as for himself he was ready for anything. Nagel, on the other hand, insisted more vehemently, neither ending nor restraining his demand. After getting nowhere, he hurriedly snatched up his arms, as if it was a great crime for one soldier to refuse a game of dice to another, so that he thought that his reputation was harmed. After quarreling back and forth, they both brandished their weapons. While Nagel kept striking and jabbing, in earnest as it was thought, the other man escaped harm by parrying 42 Actually, this is the date of a letter in which Schenck reported the recent destruction of a gathering of Anabaptists by the Duke of Gelders. 43 For his first wife, see 642D. 44 I.e., Frankfurt an der Oder.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 662

6/6/2007 9:18:35 PM

the events of 1535

663

the blows with his sword, and he withdrew without returning them. Meanwhile, Steding and other commanders were upset by this unusual but contrived disturbance, rushing up and breaking up the fight. They investigated the reason for the disturbance, and eventually it was determined that Nagel was the man responsible for the initial disturbance. Being considered worthy of execution for violating the general peace within the fort, Nagel was thrown into chains by a sergeant and kept prisoner for three days to make sure that the plot had not been betrayed. Then, when Steding and the other generals went off riding for recreation, Nagel was helped by the sergeant, who was in on the plan, and undid the locks on his chains, | heading off on foot as best he could in the direction of the city. At this point, everyone in the camp shouted out that this crime was outrageous and the defection a very base act, and that he was violating the soldiers’ oath and agreement and their good name, so they pursued him as he fl ed, bellowing out various threats and promising various forms of retaliation, each man urging the other to jab, strike and shoot the deserter. Perceiving the disturbance, and the earthen mound, the townsmen on the fortifications raised their hats and urged him to run, saying that soon, soon they would be able to protect him against the attack of his pursuers with their gunfire. To make a long story short, he reached the city safely, and his arrival was welcome. He was brought before the king and explained how he had escaped the hands and chains of his impious comrades and the death that had been prepared for him on trivial grounds. He stated that his people were bloodthirsty men who were moved by no mercy towards a man in a miserable situation, and that the men among whom he lived were wild beasts and he preferred to put the good will of his enemies to the test instead of that of his own people. He was received with great civility by the king and took a place among the courtiers. He was given a gold ring and splendid clothing by the king, becoming dearer to him every day. With the greatest care Nagel observed and | scouted out everything that was going on, so that some began to suspect him of treachery, but the infl uence that he enjoyed with the king overshadowed this suspicion. He remained in the city for more than two months, so that he learned quite accurately all the secrets of the king and of the city. Meanwhile, Steding, who was expecting his return, issued orders throughout the camps that no one was to kill a person coming from the city who waved an unfolded handkerchief around his head, this being the signal that had been set for his return.

779

780

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 663

6/6/2007 9:18:35 PM

664

781

782

the events of 1535

Thinking that he had been in the city long enough and had now learned everything that was going on there, Nagel left the city on March 30 as if to fetch vegetables and headed straight for the camp of St. Maurice, which was the one that he had left. When the signal was seen, he was received by the troops and taken to Steding, to whom he told everything that he had learned. First, he said that the king maintained sixteen45 concubines, the chief of whom was the queen, and claimed that he would have 300 and would become the monarch of all the world, as he had persuaded the people. The king had 100 horses and nearly 200 cows,46 but nothing was left for them to eat apart from salt and bread. Next, Nagel said the king was planning a break out by force | and was persuading the people that in battle one Israelite would slay ten of the impious, and that the Father would strike all the besiegers with blindness. Next, he said that the city was being strengthened in an amazing way and the king was busy raising fortifications, but if he was not relieved by the Hollanders and Frisians, whose forces he was expecting every day, the king could not endure the siege beyond two months because of the privation, starvation and lack of all necessities. Such faith was placed in Nagel’s story | that the commanders had no doubt that the city was sure to be surrendered. Now the soldiery throughout the camps dreamed of nothing but the terms of surrender, the appearance of the captured city, and the plundering and the division of the booty. They now thought that after Mars’s long journey they would close the doors to the Temple of Janus47 and attain the prize money for their old age with which they could spend the remaining days of their lives in peace. Turban Bill, a man of the knighthood who came from Denmark, was captured by the townsmen during a skirmish after the disastrous assault that had been made the previous year,48 and on February 3 he secretly returned from the city and made the following report to the prince and commanders. The king was going to send out to all the corners of the world a printed letter under his seal, promising soldiers

Nagel gave fifteen as the number. Another source puts the numbers at 20 and 200 respectively (which makes more sense; cows would be useful during a siege, but not horses). 47 Another Classical allusion. At the start of a war, the Romans opened the doors to the Temple of Janus, and did not close them until its completion. 48 I.e., that of August 31. 45 46

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 664

6/6/2007 9:18:35 PM

the events of 1535

665

huge wages and plunder taken from all the peoples.49 He said that the king was certain that this stratagem would gather a huge army to protect his cause and result in the killing of all rulers. | After hearing this, the prince set out the tightest guard to prevent these messengers of the king from sneaking past and stirring up various disturbances everywhere in the world. He knew that the natural inclinations of soldiers were such that under the infl uence of great pay and plunder they would feel no shame in protecting even manifest impiety. As Lucan attests,50 they think that right resides where the pay is greatest. The prince knew that this situation would cause much trouble not only for himself but for all the princes and states of Europe, and therefore, in case the messengers did sneak past his guards, he notified all the surrounding princes of the king’s plan, | so that they would not allow bands of soldiers to gather anywhere. Although hemmed in by the strictest watch, the messengers did sneak out safely amidst the guns and swords, but they were betrayed by the prince’s letter and intercepted by George Schenck and other rulers in various places. In suffering the punishment they deserved, they thwarted their king’s expectations. Many townsmen were impelled to defect by the rampant privation, and the attempt turned out successfully enough for some, but badly for others. On February 9, three men and three women who were either planning to sneak out or were found to have knowledge of such a plan but did not report it to a regent were beheaded. The first was Hans of Beckum, who had helped Turban Bill’s attempt to sneak out in order that Bill should win safe conduct for Hans from the prince, since Hans too was going to escape. Jerome Profaess and Henry Holstein knew about and concealed Bill’s and Hans’ collusion in escaping, asking for safe conduct from the prince and showing the signal of the safe conduct amidst the fortifications and mantelets once they had gotten it. A woman named Dreierschen knew not only of Bill’s but of Werner Scheiffert’s defection, advising the latter not to trust anyone while sneaking out, since the king had the worst prepared for him if he did not arrange the matter quite carefully. For this she was held under arrest for a few days in the Rosenthal convent.

783

784

785

49 In a letter, the bishop reported that the monthly wages were to be four golden fl orins for a private, five for an artilleryman, and ten for a fully equipped knight. 50 Civil War 10.408.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 665

6/6/2007 9:18:36 PM

666

786

the events of 1535

Margaret Tuneken had given Bill a letter to take to Raesfeld to ask for mercy, and embezzled public funds that she intended to take with her as travel money when she left. Anne Hoene had given Timan of Groningen five fl orins for the expenses of his escape, and she had paid off this crime in prison so that she would not pollute herself with a similar one in the future. Unmindful of the mercy granted to her before, she provided Bill with eight fl orins, and in addition she did not deliver into the common fund seventeen fl orins that she had found beside the narrow bridge that crosses over to the Parish across-the-River, thereby treating the king’s edict with contempt. Instead, she kept the money for herself and hid is under the roof of her house. Arrested for these horrendous (beg your pardon)51 crimes, they were dragged into the marketplace and beheaded. When the hangman seemed to take too long in killing Dreierschen, who had been brought from the Rosenthal for execution, Knipperdolling seized the sword from his hand and carried out the hangman’s duty. He did not spare his girlfriend or shrink from shedding blood which had often warmed his heart, feeling no shame at showing himself as an enemy to someone in the caresses of whose embrace he had often indulged in sex. As an excuse for his madness, he shouted that he was driven by the urging of the Father. It was by His consent and decision that his hands had been moved and impelled to avenge the crime, contrary to his own expectation. On February 25, Matthew Arsche was also beheaded for selling weapons to some foreigner and for receiving two Hessian fl orins from Turban Bill, thereby engaging in trade by means of money in violation of the king’s edict.52 Knipperdolling’s lawful wife, who was in fact a respectable woman, had made many statements in opposition to polygamy, and the king ordered her to be dragged into the marketplace. There, before a large crowd of spectators, she was forced to hold a drawn sword for some time, and through this disgrace, she was granted dismissal of the charge after also confessing her crime.53

51 K. is apologizing for ironically using the sort of adjective that he imagines the Anabaptists would have used. 52 Article 16 (768D). 53 Another source says that her crime was a refusal to share her clothing with Knipperdolling’s other wife. In his confession of October, 1534, Dionysius Vinne

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 666

6/6/2007 9:18:36 PM

the events of 1535

667

The townsmen would often go on raids in groups of two, three, four or more, and at their discretion they would fight with the soldiers, or escape their notice in passing by the camps and bring back supplies that they had either bought or seized in various rural villages under the excuse of warfare, or sneak by without the intention of returning and escape. On the other hand, others could enter the city at any time with impunity. For this reason, the prince and military commanders | decided that the work which had been started in the fall of the preceding year but interrupted, partly because of the sedition in Warendorf and partly because of the inconvenience of winter, should be completed.54 The whole city was to be enclosed very tightly with a ditch and rampart, so that no one would be able to leave or enter it. They were sure that the result would be that when the townsmen were cut off from supplies and suffered from lack of necessities, they would be bereft of any hope of being helped or liberated, and would then surrender without bloodshed, and that in this way they would themselves gain a bloodless victory. Therefore, on February 11, the peasants were called back for the work that had been interrupted the previous year. Since they remembered the difficulties of the past, it was certainly against their will that they were dragged back to this work. Some of them not only were rebellious but also stirred up such an inclination for rebellion among others that they almost started a terrible sedition on the part of all the peasants of the three bishoprics against the prince, and those instigators were executed.55 They paid the price they well deserved for causing sedition during this dire situation, and by their example they deterred the rest from similar rashness. A special house | was also raised in the camps in which mantelets (protective screens to serve as protection and defense against gunfire) were woven out of pliant wicker and more clingy sorts of bushes.

787

788

states that “Knipperdolling’s wife is free and is once more with him in his house” (Knipperdollinges husfrowe is ledich und is wedder by em im huse), which presumably refers to an earlier incident. Bolandus claims that Knipperdolling executed his wife, but this must be a confusion with the executed girlfriend Dreierschen. 54 For the previous work, see 596–599D; for the decision made at Koblenz about cutting off the town (in provision three), see 747D. Work was already underway again in January, but it was hindered by the high water table, which would fill up the trenches and soon brought the work to a temporary standstill. 55 Seemingly, there was no open disturbance among the peasantry at this time, so K. seems to be thinking of the troubles of the preceding summer (see 548–549D).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 667

6/6/2007 9:18:36 PM

668

789

the events of 1535

They divided up the job, so that the peasants of Wolbeck began to bring the work from the right bank of the Aa, where it fl owed into the city, to the fort of Anthony Lichterte. From there, it was continued to the fort of Hans of Tecklenburg by the peasants of Bevergern and Sassenburg; then to the camp of St. Maurice, which Steding commanded, by those of Lüdinghausen; then to the fortress of William of Arnhem by those of Horstmar; then to the fort of Lawrence of Horst by those of Dülmen and Stromberg; then to the fortress of Egbert of Deventer by those of Ahaus and Bocholt; and then to the defensive works of Herman of Sittard and on to the left bank of the Aa by those of Werne. These peasants were released after five days and replaced by those of Harpstedt, Wildeshausen, Vechta, the Emsland,56 Cloppenburg and Delmenhorst, who were in turn replaced by the peasants of other dioceses until the work was finished. More than 3000 peasants were always kept busy by their bailiffs and stewards, who were present. They worked continuously except for breaks whose beginning and end were marked off with drumbeats. In this way, the entire city was surrounded very tightly with a deep ditch and steep rampart, with brambles and wood inserted at fixed intervals to hold up the pile of dirt, which was formed of sandy earth. This prevented the townsmen from wandering around and raiding freely, which finally spelled their doom. Much time was taken up in completing this work, since it encompassed with a continuous circuit the very broad expanse of open ground between the camps and city that is known in the vernacular as the “Kingdom.” The eastern cities that had made agreements in ancient days with other states to facilitate trade57 grieved that Münster, which also had a treaty with them, would be destroyed in this way by sword, slaughter and devastation, and so the city council of Lübeck sent a letter to our prince on February 13 asking that as a favor for the innocent, of whom there were no doubt still large numbers among the guilty, it and some neighboring cities (Hamburg and Bremen) should be allowed to halt the dispute between the prince and the people of Münster which had been going on and getting worse for so long, and once they had done so, to restore this situation by the grace of God to the previous state 56 I.e., the sparsely settled area along the Ems River in the vicinity of the town of Meppen. This territory is noticeably to the west of the other towns mentioned here. 57 Circumlocution for the Hanseatic League, an alliance of trading communities mainly based on the Baltic. By this time, its heyday had long since passed.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 668

6/6/2007 9:18:36 PM

the events of 1535

669

of concord. At the same time, the amanuensis of the council chamber of Bremen returned to make the same request.58 The prince replied as follows. It was not entertainment or recreation or some trivial reason leading to rashness but the highest and unavoidable necessity that had caused him to assail with sword and arms the occupiers of the city of Münster and to besiege that city as an asylum for the impious and the seditious. For those occupiers were seditious and schismatic, being contaminated with the filth of Anabaptism. They were treacherous breakers of treaties, who were impious oath-breakers and the violators of the proclaimed peace. His purpose was instead to maintain his subjects in tranquility. If he had not taken this action, the sedition of the people of Münster would, like a contagion, have thrown into confusion not just the diocese but also Germany and then all of Christendom, plunging it into a huge debacle. They had often been warned in a friendly way both through the words of envoys and by letters, and not just by himself and the estates of the diocese but also by certain princes of the Empire, but all this had been in vain. In fact, they had been made more precipitous, obstinate and stiff-necked. | He had therefore first undertaken the perilous step of war and siege, and then after realizing that he was unequal to the burden he had taken up, he had invoked and received the assistance of neighboring princes and then of the other estates of the Holy Roman Empire against the rashness of the people of Münster. These estates had not only voted to aid him but had involved themselves in every aspect of the burdens, and therefore he could permit no proposal in this situation without the advice and authorization of those whom this concerned most. If, on the other hand, he was able to render unto them the obligations of neighborliness, he said that he would be happy to do so. This response made it readily apparent that the princes of the Empire had decided to make this city an example of the consequences of impiety and rebellion. On March 25 (the Thursday after Palm Sunday), Nicholas of Boppard, a common soldier who had been captured by the townsmen some months before, seized an opportunity to return from the city to his side. He made the following report. The people of Münster had equipped eight men with wallets full of money and sent them off on

58

790

791

792

For Bremen’s earlier attempt at mediation, see 689–690D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 669

6/6/2007 9:18:36 PM

670

793

794

the events of 1535

the night of March 1659 to Holland and Frisia to ask for assistance. They were escorted by 150 armed soldiers, and during the uproar, four passed by the camp of Cleves and the rest by the camp of Gelders, without the soldiers noticing.60 He also reported that the king would make a raid with certain chariots equipped with scythes in order to fetch grain. Accordingly, the prince advised all the towns of the diocese and all the bailiffs of the country districts and the stewards of the villages that they should keep a very careful eye on their own affairs, and that whatever grain or supplies they had in places close to the city they should keep in safer ones further away. The day of Easter, which was celebrated on March 28 in this year, was at hand, and since the king was beginning to despair of the liberation of the city which he had prophesied to the people,61 he pretended to be sick and kept indoors for six days, during this time planning how to escape his predicament and | absolve himself before the people. At the end of this period of time, he quite confidently went out into a full assembly of the people, who were eager for liberation and had gathered in the marketplace. There, he announced that the Father had placed the sins of all the Israelites upon his shoulders, and these had made him weak for some days. He had been weighed down by this heavy yoke for the sake of the people, but now his strength had been restored through the Father’s mercy. The people had thus been liberated from the burden of sin, and he added that he meant the internal, spiritual liberation, which was the most important. This, he said, was the liberation which he had promised, and he told them to await external liberation with patience, since it was sure to happen if they did not relapse into sin and if they put their full faith in the Father, Who would never desert His people and Who would test their steadfastness with various adversities. In East Frisia between Sneek and Bolsward, there was an ancient monastery62 that was enclosed with four ditches and a steep rampart, and around March 28, a large swarm of Anabaptists occupied it by force, and began to fortify it against enemy attack. George Schenck

Boppard actually said March 23. Boppard actually said that the escort by the Cleves camp numbered 200 and the one by the Gelders camp, 600. These figures seem rather large given that at this time there were no more than 1500 arms-bearing men (see “Events of 1534” n. 314). 61 For this prophecy, see 772D. 62 Oldencloster (Old Cloister). 59 60

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 670

6/6/2007 9:18:36 PM

the events of 1535

671

immediately attacked and put them under siege. He used a sudden assault launched on the spur of the moment upon his arrival to test their spirit and reaction. Finding that the defenses of the monastery were strong, and that it could not be stormed immediately, he brought up artillery and smashed these defenses on April 1. He made four assaults with fresh troops, and after pushing the enemy back to the fourth set of buildings, he gained control of these. The enemy withdrew into the church, into which torches could not be thrown because of the strength of the vaults, and fortified it. On April 7, he buffeted the building with artillery and siege equipment from five directions, and at 3 o’clock in the afternoon he assaulted it in force via pontoon bridges. He gained victory after sunset, with great losses among his men, thereby checking the Anabaptists’ madness | and cutting short the journey which they had planned. At this point, George Schenck had possession of Lower Germany and its shore, so that he prevented any groups of the rebaptized from forming and any ships filled with them that were wandering about in the sea from putting to shore. Duke Charles of Gelders, who was a very devout Catholic and very hostile to sectaries, used weights to sink in the river Yssel three ships which were filled with Anabaptists of both sexes and various weapons intended to destroy Deventer. On April 4, King Ferdinand’s envoys conducted a diet at the request of the princes, as had been agreed at Koblenz.63 There, certain cities that had not yet contributed anything for the siege of Münster declared that the reason why they had not come before was the decree passed at Koblenz, but they were now doing so to gratify the emperor and King Ferdinand. There was then a great dispute between the princes and cities about contributions. | In the end, they voted aid of 20,000 gold pieces per month for five months, and decreed that the innocent were to be spared and that the immovable property that had been left behind by the burghers driven into exile was to be restored to them.64 Another diet was held in Koblenz on the same topic on July 13 (this will be narrated in the appropriate place). In addition, they decided to give the townsmen one final warning through an official Imperial embassy, so at Imperial expense the burger

795

796

For the agreement, see 750D. Actually, 105,000 guilders were promised, and there were no provisions about sparing the innocent or about the future status of the bishopric. 63

64

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 671

6/6/2007 9:18:36 PM

672

797

798

the events of 1535

masters of Frankfurt and Nuremberg were sent to request after a friendly warning that the city should be surrendered to await punishment or mercy. To them the people of Münster replied that they would have nothing to do with that fourth beast mentioned in the Book of Daniel, that is, with the Holy Roman Empire, since at the urging of the Heavenly Father they had established and founded a new, saintly empire, which was quite different from the Holy Roman Empire. They therefore asked them not to oppose the Heavenly Father or attempt to overthrow His kingdom with impious arms. Otherwise, the result would be that they would call down upon themselves His outrage and vengeance and perpetual exile. Since the beginning of the siege, the prince and military commanders had encamped in the Dick House,65 but since it was rather far from the city, on April 5, they transferred their tents to a place behind the Arnhem camp that was closer to the city, on the estates of Averhagen and Wintercamp. Being sick in mind and body, the prince left for Wolbeck, where he granted audiences to anyone in his stronghold and awaited an end to his fate or to the war. On April 26, a boy escaped from the town and reported that the people there were suffering from a shortage not only of bread but of all necessities, and that most were living on plants and grass. Though privation generally weakens men’s spirits to the breaking point, their spirits did not fl ag at all. As little Hans of Tecklenburg, the commander of the fort built beside the Drolshagen pasture, was rashly riding by their fortifications on horseback, they shot him with gunfire, though his servants held him upright on the horse until they reached the camp | so that the townsmen would not perceive that they had hit him (he was replaced by Louis of Brunswick).66 In the same month, when William of Arnhem, the commander of the Eninging camp, was rather imprudently and cavalierly wandering about in the fields, he was struck with gunfire and withdrew from human affairs (he was succeeded by Matthew Bilderbeck). In that month, Kind of Cologne, who was remarkable for changing sides twice—he first transferred from the camps to the city, but then he grew tired of the lack of food and hoped to escape from the city with impunity—was captured, and along 65 The Diekburg House was in the rural territory of St. Maurice’s. In a letter, Wirich of Oberstein calls it the “Dickhof.” 66 This took place during a skirmish on April 26, in which the besiegers lost twenty dead and the same number wounded.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 672

6/6/2007 9:18:36 PM

the events of 1535

673

with five rebaptized men and two women he was condemned to death at Wolbeck and beheaded. This privation and starvation gradually became so strong, so savage, so oppressive, that to feed their stomachs they were forced to turn into food things that were shunned by human nature under other circumstances. It made them fl ay the male horses and foals and man’s best friends, the dogs, whom neither gold nor jewels can corrupt | and no fl ogging, not even at the hands of their masters, can cause to change their allegiance. It gave them the idea of hunting not rabbits or boars or hinds, none of which were available, but mice, shrew mice and dormice, not in forests but in empty, cleaned out granaries and not with traps and nets but with snares equipped with bait to trick them. So, while hunting for bait, they became bait.67 It made them slaughter the enemies of rabbits, which we call cats but they called domestic rabbits, and after cutting off the heads because they considered the brains harmful, they fixed them on spits and roasted them over a fire. It made them suck leather, worn shoes, hides of every variety, book covers68 that had been softened in water and torn into strips, | and frog loins that had a pliant, sticky fat. It made them consider green tendrils that suggested the fl avor of vinegar and the fresh and still soft shoots and bark of trees to be delicacies. It made them rejoice at boiled vegetables, which were thought to become fatty by being hurriedly dipped once or twice in a tallow candle. It made them capture slimy slugs and snails and bristling hedgehogs in the “kingdom”69 and turn them into food. It demanded any plants or roots to assuage the need for food and sustenance. It made them collect ox and cattle dung that had dried in the sun, and rummage in the latrine by the river Aa, where they extracted the human excrement and hardened it into lumps through the heating of the sun. The fact that these lumps gave the appearance of bread on the inside induced some people to try it, but after tasting it they cast it aside with revulsion and nausea, preferring to die rather than taste such food again. It made them strip the fresh corpses by pulling the muscly meat off with knives. The starvation made them listless and exhausted, and as they wasted away, they became sallow and fell victim to various forms of disease.

799

800

67 If not a real aphorism, then an unsuccessful attempt at one (dum escam captant, esca fiunt). 68 Which were made of leather. 69 For the sense, see 788D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 673

6/6/2007 9:18:37 PM

674

801

802

the events of 1535

First their legs became puffy and swollen, and then their entire bodies became bloated. Some people swelled up with crude humors to such an extent that they could barely hold up the weight of their own bodies. Starvation made many babies waste away in their cribs or in the arms of their helpless mothers and killed them, and many were also (I shudder to say it) killed with a sword by their own parents for food, and after the capture of the city it was | not in one but in many locations that the bones of such babies were found in brine.70 The wife of Hans Menken the councilman gave birth to triplets, whom she cut up limb by limb and preserved in brine. Parents raged against their own progeny, or rather against their own fl esh, slaughtering, butchering | and cutting them up. What wild beast was ever so cruel and brutal as to sharpen its teeth on its own offspring? Wild animals love their own children, and even in famine they nourish them and keep them alive by getting food either with great effort or at the risk of their own blood, and sometimes by providing their own blood. The brute animals that live by preying on other sorts of animals still refrain from shedding the blood of their own kind. In not shrinking from eating their own brood, these people surpassed all the beasts in savagery and inhumanity. O privation, what evils you urge in violation of the laws of nature! O costly starvation, you do not spare your own fl esh! O foul want, you introduce filthy and unheard-of practices into the customs of men! It is not to be doubted that this town in Westphalia not only equaled but surpassed the famous Jewish city of Jerusalem in its wretched misfortunes. Becoming limp as the fl esh was eaten away, the skin of the townsmen dried up and turned black. The ribs and inner organs could be counted though it, the bones stuck out, the fingers grew stiff with emaciation, the nose became pointy, the checks sagged and became furrowed, and the eyeballs sank deeper into their sockets, seemingly covered over. There was the color of bruising on their faces, and they were so debilitated by the starvation that you would have said that they were more like spectres and ghosts than humans. Only the shape of human bodies could be seen, their operations and functions were miss-

70 Cannibalism (including the eating of the corpses of adults) is mentioned in many literary sources, but there is no mention of this in contemporary letters or documents. Gresbeck reports that after the siege unspecified people said that children had been eaten and that soldiers said that they had found salted bodies and limbs of children, but he denies any personal knowledge of this (though he grants that the hunger in the city was so severe that such behavior was plausible).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 674

6/6/2007 9:18:37 PM

the events of 1535

675

ing. Some were so broken down with rotting sores | that they seemed to waste away and decay while alive, becoming the walking dead, while others burst apart as their skin was stretched taut. In short, the city was full of death. Everywhere, large numbers of people collapsed on the streets and suddenly died, and in order to prevent a stench, their corpses were quickly heaved into a wagon specially prepared for this purpose at the king’s command and carried away. They opened large graves for the burial of these corpses, and these were gradually filled up as the bodies were cast into them.71 In reliance on the king’s promise, some people were confident that the Father would turn the paving stones into loaves of bread before they died of starvation. For this reason, when they were being tormented by horrible hunger, they tried to bite these stones, but when they found out through experience that the stones had not undergone any metamorphosis of their substance or accidental qualities,72 their old faith began to fl ag, and in tears they silently bewailed the fact that they had been led most terribly astray. Everyplace resounded with groans, everyplace was filled with women’s lamentations, everyplace screeched with the commons’ complaints, everyplace was permeated with the wailing of children, everyplace was disturbed with the sobbing of the old and sick. Their only silent grievance was that those responsible for this great | misfortune were not only still alive but were enjoying every sort of delight, and honors were heaped upon them to boot, as if they had performed some great feat. For the king, who had hidden within his palace a very well stocked larder that provided everything for him and his court, was unmoved by such complaints, and since he was awash in decadence, he did not recognize the misery of his people, who were fading away

803

804

71 Gresbeck reports that when the number of deaths became large, the king first ordered the bodies to be buried in graves outside the gates, but later they were buried in the cathedral yard. An observer posted with the besiegers reported on May 29 that six, eight or ten corpses were buried in each grave. 72 These are terms of the scholastic analysis of physical entities. In the analysis of Thomas Aquinas, the “substance” was the inherent quality of an entity. The category to which any individual entity belonged was defined by certain qualities, and it was the possession of specific qualities that defined which category an entity belongs to. The term “accidents” was used of the coincidental characteristics that had no bearing on belonging to a category. For instance, rocks may be defined in terms of substance as being heavy, inedible and unnutritious, but the fact that a given rock is black or grey has no relevance to its belonging to the category of “rocks.” The use of such terminology in the present passage is probably meant to be an ironic comment on the impossibility of extracting nutrition from stones.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 675

6/6/2007 9:18:37 PM

676

805

806

807

the events of 1535

in the final stages of starvation. Instead, he preached that the Father would not desert His people, but was merely testing their faith through starvation. He said that he would give permission to those less steadfast in their faith to leave, so long as they went out in their cheaper attire and left the better clothing behind. Even if everyone left, he said, he would by himself | protect the city against the enemy’s assault with the help and assistance of the angels. When the king granted this permission to leave, people preferred to run into the swords of the enemy while escaping the very severe famine than to waste away with slow starvation, considering that it was better to be wiped out suddenly on a single day than to be dying every day, and to suffer a single death rather than many. Hence, every day in April the terrible famine | drove out of the city a great multitude of men, old men, the sick, women and children, some of whom had not even tasted a scrap of bread in eight weeks.73 As for the men, since they should have acted more prudently than the weak and unwarlike sex, and since the deadline for mercy had passed, they were done away with by the enemy’s sword, though innocence was taken into account. Some preferred to be cut down than to be granted their lives and to return to the unendurable sufferings in the city and finish off the business there. The old men, however, were spared, and the soldiers kept them and the women and children hemmed in within the area between the city and camps, pushing them back in the direction of the city. Unwilling to return to the city, these people wandered around for four weeks enclosed within the “kingdom” between the camps and city, plucking plants like four-footed animals. | Some crawled on the earth, dragging their limbs, and they took whatever necessity offered, turning into food anything that luck and chance served. They were so eager to eat that

73 On April 13, it was reported in a letter from the camps that according to fugitives from the town, there was a plan there to drive out the women and old people, and in a letter of April 22, the bishop stated that General Wirich had informed him that old people, women and children were being driven out. Gresbeck reports that at first the king would arrest anyone who requested permission to leave the city, but then changed his mind in order to reduce the number of old men, women and children. Clearly it was in the interest of the city’s defenders to reduce the number of people who would drain its limited supply of food without contributing to the defenses. Wirich reported in a letter of May 7 that two fugitives had reported that there were 1007 infants below the age of two left in the city, and the duke of Brunswick-Grubenhagen wrote on May 23 that prisoners reported that 9500 people remained in the city, of whom 1300 or more were arms-bearing males (young and old), 5500 were females, and the rest children. For earlier figures on the besieged population, see “Events of 1534” n. 314.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 676

6/6/2007 9:18:37 PM

the events of 1535

677

they no longer distinguished among the different varieties of food by taste. Some, being completely bereft of energy, rolled themselves along in the sand, twitching as they dragged their lifeless limbs up and down. Some stuffed their greedy throats so much with greens and the leaves of shrubbery that they choked from having their mouths full. Some who lay themselves facedown to pluck plants with their mouths suddenly bit into turf and gave up the ghost. Some cried, though for lack of water they could not shed tears. Some groaned and sighed, bewailing, “Oh, the hunger that cannot be satisfied, the suffering more cruel and savage than death itself, the terrible scourge of Jerusalem, the Jewish affl iction, the fl ames that torment our guts! Oh, death, why are you fl eeing from us? Why do you not make off with this long delay that is life? Why do you not end our grievous misfortunes? Why do you draw out our miseries, and in so doing increase them? No hope remains for us in the city, where virtually everything has been eaten and the hunger grows stronger every day as it recurs. On the outside, we are kept back by the soldiery with swords, who hem us in between the city and forts and take from us the liberty to escape. If only we could gain from the enemy just the favor of their burying swords and bullets in our chests and in the skin that barely clings to our bones! If only they would cut open a path for the gore that swells up in place of blood! If only we had been cast over the steep edge and drowned in the waters in the ditches! It is not the enemy or his weapons that we fear but the terrible horror that we carry around with us, that gnaws at our guts, that makes our limbs thin, that goes down into our marrow and takes away our strength. Through this wound without wounding, we are tormented and tortured on the inside, dying without death. All these wounds, these miseries, this horror, this death could be cured with a crumb of black bread!” While the old men and mothers | made such complaints, some of the babies wailed with hunger, some lapped in vain at their mothers’ dry breasts to which they clung, while others drew out gore in place of milk. Others cried, and looking up from their mothers’ arms, they raised their own open mouths and awaited pre-chewed food from their mothers’ mouths, but their hopes were thwarted and they cried. The larger ones asked for bread smeared with butter or even dry bread. Their mothers gave them sobs, groans and tears in place of food, lamenting that they had not been killed with their beloved little children. Then, with much bewailing, they begged the soldiers to remember that they were human, had been born of women, had been babies, had needed

808

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 677

6/6/2007 9:18:37 PM

678

809

810

the events of 1535

their mothers’ help, and had been reared by their mothers’ anxious care. The women begged the soldiers in the name of a mother’s love for her children to give them a tiny bit of moldy black bread. If they could not do this, each woman asked that the soldiers at least fill her starving baby once with any food, or if they did not | allow themselves to be moved to do even this by a woman’s tears, to run her and the child through with a single blow of the sword and bring her misery to an end. Each asked that since the worst thing for her was to live, the soldiers should break open the prison block of the soul and unlock its cell with the sword, freeing her soul that was weak through living with the fl esh and worn out from long toils, so that it could enjoy liberty once it was wrenched from the fl esh. The women said that they would consider this the greatest favor. Though the soldiers were hard and closed to entreaty, these appalling circumstances and lamentations, which would have moved even savage beasts and rocks, so softened them that decided to succour the women and children’s plight with some human consolation.74 From the camps, the soldiers gave the mothers and children bread along the fortifications, and to the extent that age and starvation allowed, they competed in rushing for the food just like starving puppies. Each strove to outrun the other, each was eager to snatch a bite from the other, which caused quarrels among the children that the mothers could barely settle. For what was at stake was not some matter of small import but food, the preserver of life. When they were | given access to food, the food began to be a burden to some. Teeth unused to sustenance could not chew what was placed in the mouth. Their bite was weak, the passageways for the food were blocked, the inner organs were stiff, the way through the throat was cut off, the veins of the liver that draw in the food were dried out. To be sure, the desire to eat and the appetite for food remained, but they had fallen out of the practice of eating. Hence, the food brought danger to more people than it did salvation, since in them the desire to eat outstripped the ability. Some people knew no moderation and piled in excessive amounts of food. For this reason, regular food caused them to become puffed up with air instead of reviving them, and in being stuffed with food, they would be rent with breaking wind. On the other 74 Apparently, large numbers of women and children gathered by the besiegers’ blockhouses in the hope of getting some food. Gresbeck notes that the soldiers took some of the children to feed them, and that some of the younger women were also received by the soldiers and became their wives.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 678

6/6/2007 9:18:37 PM

the events of 1535

679

hand, those who took their food gradually and abstemiously and held off their eagerness to eat until their lapsed ability to take food returned to its original state escaped the danger. On April 22, General Oberstein informed the prince of this wretched disaster which was being suffered by the people who were escaping from the city every day and wandering like animals in the “kingdom.” The prince began to groan, and he genuinely lamented the suffering of the city and of those who left it. Raising his hands to heaven, he bore witness that he was not responsible for this awful situation, since during the siege he had often and of his own accord offered the townsmen peace and forgiveness for their sins.75 He would have been very merciful to them, he said, if they had given up their impiety and rebellion and chosen the peace which had been offered so often. Since they had, however, preferred war to peace, misfortune to liberty, hunger to satiety, he had been compelled to take up arms in defense of the glory of God, the Catholic religion and peace in the community. For this reason, he said, he was cleared of blame for this disaster before God and man. Next, he consulted with the military commanders about the refugees from the city. In these deliberations, the prince stated his view that it was inhuman, cruel and horrible that such a large number of old men, women, children and sick people, very many of whom were no doubt innocent, should be killed without distinction or hemmed in between the city and camps so that they would die together through starvation and lack of food since they preferred to die on the outside by the sword than to return to the city and waste away through emaciation. On the other hand, he did not think it a good idea to give them permission

811

75 Though K.’s report is generally accurate, the factual details are somewhat different. The letter was actually written to the bishop by his military councilors, who asked him to come from Iburg to Wolbeck for consultation, but in his reply of the same day, which provides the substance of the considerations attributed to him in the next paragraph, he indicated that at the moment he was not able to leave Iburg. The councilors had advised sending another letter to the city, but in his reply the bishop noted that this was unlikely to do any good, since the letter would reach only the leaders and not the common man. Instead, he suggested that a captured spy (Sibbeken Friese) should be executed as close as possible to the city and then a written notice was to be affixed to the gibbet to give warning that all fugitives from the city would be treated in the same fashion. He also suggested informing the inhabitants of the recent crushing of the Anabaptists at Oldencloster in order to disabuse them of any hope of relief. In terms of K.’s portrayal of the bishop’s supposed distress at the townsmen’s distress, he did conclude his letter by stating that even though he had sent numerous warnings to the city, nonetheless, as a prince who had no desire to shed innocent blood, he was ready to remind them of this once more in case they were willing to surrender.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 679

6/6/2007 9:18:38 PM

680 812

813

the events of 1535

to leave lest they have impunity in stirring up and destroying other places with a similar sedition. | Hence, to avoid reaching any decision that was harsher or more lenient than was fair, he proposed laying this matter before the archbishop of Cologne and the duke of Cleves, so that those princes might openly consult about the best course of action, though the prince reserved for himself the right to moderate the decision. This consultation was carried out by representatives of both princes at Cologne on May 19, and the decision was as follows. First, the refugees should be forced to return | in any way possible to the city, where they were to urge their husbands and kin to seize the city and the leaders of the faction. Once these people were handed over and the city opened, they would gain mercy for themselves and the other innocent townsmen. If they could not be prevailed upon to return to the city, the entire multitude of refugees was to be brought to the Dick House under an escort of cavalry, and kept there under guard until the capture of the city without any of them leaving or any foreigner being allowed to speak with them. Next, a careful and accurate investigation of both the men and the women was to be conducted to determine whether it was of their own accord or under compulsion that they had entered or remained in the city, whether they had been devoted to Anabaptism, what their opinion of it was, and so on. The purpose of this was that while the innocent would be spared, the criminals contaminated with the stain of Anabaptism would suffer the punishment which they deserved according to the law and the emperor’s decrees. In addition, those condemned to be punished should be provided with a learned and pious priest to use Holy Scripture to bring them back from error to the recognition of the truth and from the pathless lands to the true path, so that they would not suffer the loss of eternal salvation. Finally, measures were to be taken so that those who were to be kept at the Dick House would likewise not lack a Catholic preacher. In this way, if any residue of their earlier stain of impiety happened to remain in them, it would be completely eradicated, and they would be confirmed in the Catholic religion. On May 27, our prince responded to this advice as follows. Some hundreds of commoners were wandering between the city and camps, and it was not possible to persuade them to return to the city with any coaxing words or to compel them to do so with any force, since they preferred to die immediately from an enemy’s sword than to return to the earlier miseries which they had abandoned. Hence, the heads of the diocese, whom this business concerned most, and then the military

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 680

6/6/2007 9:18:38 PM

the events of 1535

681

council had agreed that after giving sureties the multitude of refugees should be dispersed to various locations in the area and were to restrict themselves to these locations until they were recalled, under penalty of death for disobedience. In this way, this diocese would not be burdened with more expenses than it could bear, | since it cost a lot of money to maintain guards both by day and by night and to feed such a large number of people, an expense that would grow larger every day or even hour, as more people escaped the city. On May 28, the prince freed this entire multitude from the prison that the “kingdom” had become through being hemmed in on all sides, and he had them transferred to the Dick House under escort of some men armed with guns and of cavalry squads. Since many people of both sexes who were shattered by starvation, privation, illness, and old age could not stand or walk, they were transported there in four-horse wagons. At the Dick House, the known criminals were separated from the innocent, and those condemned to death were executed. As for the innocent, after binding themselves to an agreement by swearing an oath and providing guarantors, they were relegated to various places in the diocese. These guarantors obligated themselves by oath to pay a sum of money commensurate with their status if those who had been relegated reneged on their word by violating the agreement in the least.76 The articles of the agreement which was set before the women and old men who had left Münster and in some way been granted mercy and which each person promised under oath to obey after providing one relative were as follows. First, they genuinely abjured Anabaptism and all the articles deriving from it by which they had been led astray, promising not to adhere to them or return to their previous crimes in future but to come to

814

815

76 On May 29, Justinian of Holtzhausen wrote to his father that the prince had arrested the old men, women and children who were gathered around the blockhouses, and had released the citizens. He said that he did not know of the intended treatment of the foreigners but thought that the bishop was leaving this to the decision of the military forces. Holtzhausen did not like the implication of this: “He [the bishop] wants to place the burden on our shoulders, but we wouldn’t want to act as judges and executioners towards the poor people.” (Er wolt den last uf uns geschoben haben. Wir wolten aber nicht richter und hencker sein uber das arm folk.) A broadsheet of June 3 indicates that 300 women (not counting their children) and not more than six old men had fl ed since Whitsun (May 16). After arresting them, the bishop released those who could provide security and a promise to reform their faith. Most had by then been released, but about 70 remained who thought that they would eventually be released on these terms. The writer expected the execution of fifteen or sixteen.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 681

6/6/2007 9:18:38 PM

682

816

817

the events of 1535

their senses in accordance with their preceding life and live in a pious, Christian manner. Second, they promised not to leave the place to which they were relegated without the prince’s agreement or in violation of his will under penalty of execution, and not to speak of the Anabaptist sect to any person of whatever age, much less to offer a way to it or describe it, but to avoid interaction with all people for the time being. Third, they promised that if it was, nonetheless, proven that after the relegation they taught someone the doctrine of Anabaptism or propagated it by words, deeds, writings, or in any other way, they would immediately pay the penalty which they richly deserved. Fourth, although they had gained release from their crime, once the city of Münster was retaken by the grace of God, for their impiety and for the crime which they had committed they would readily do whatever public penance the prince would impose upon them. Fifth, they affirmed under oath that they would uphold all the preceding articles under pain of losing life and eternal salvation, would not oppose them by words, deeds, writings, or any other evil chicanery, in secret or in public, by themselves or through others, and would not receive any privilege against them from any ruler, whether ecclesiastical or secular. From these refugees who, as has been stated, had been driven out by hunger, Oberstein and the other commanders learned of the incredible misery and disaster in the city, and considered that the townsmen would now be more inclined to surrender. Accordingly, in order to avoid bloodshed,77 | it was decided on May 30 to send a document to the city once more and to advise them to give up their impiety, come back to their senses, and surrender the city for mercy and punishment.78 If, the document continued, they would not allow themselves to be persuaded to do this, they should keep the men, women and children in the city and not allow them to leave. Otherwise, the commanders would consider the townsmen the bitterest enemies. On June 2, the townsmen replied as follows.

77 In the second half of May and the first week of June, very large numbers of people fl ed the city, and no mercy was shown to any men among them. On June 8, Justinian of Holtzhausen reported in a letter that in the previous four days as many as 200 men had been shot. 78 This letter was delivered on May 4, and K. already related its contents out of its chronologically correct place (761–762D).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 682

6/6/2007 9:18:38 PM

the events of 1535

683

“In asking for our response, you are without a doubt forgetting our previous response, which was well thought out and steadfast.79 Nonetheless, in order for you to grasp our frame of mind more fully, consider the following to be our steadfast and unchanging response. We have been so inspired with the Truth, which shines among us through the grace of God, that it is our resolve to defend it with all our strength until our dying breath unless it is shattered and stormed by you or anyone stronger with the battering rams of Scripture. We know that we are guilty of no crime, though we are falsely accused of this by you, and hence it would be completely ridiculous and idiotic for us to confess to guilt when we have not yet been convicted of it, to make excuses for such crime, to implore the enemy’s mercy, and to surrender ourselves to his discretion. | If you wish to show off in worthy fashion the designation of being a Christian of which you quite arrogantly boast, you would treat us according to the Christian law which we have often but vainly invoked, and those who have been accused and charged would be allowed a defense before uncorrupted judges whom they did not hold suspect. “But such complaints are pointless. It was divinely prophesied to us by Daniel in Chapter 7 that this would happen. This is how the fourth beast, which signifies the fourth monarchy on earth, that is, the Roman Empire, tramples on the saints of God. This is how that beast is inclined not to allow any lawful defense, but to trample the saints of God at his tyrannical will, smashing, slaughtering, destroying, robbing, killing, and devouring them. For the fourth beast is quite different from the previous three, smashing everything and trampling it under foot. The writings of all the Fathers and historians should be consulted. It will be found that with reference to the business of the Faith there has been no tyranny affecting the saints such as is now the case in the time of this beast. “What is more horrible, this beast’s judges and rulers, although they know that they are oppressing the innocent saints of God, do not refrain from cruelty and bloodshed out of intentional evil in order to gratify the beast. They do this so that the Truth will not emerge, which would result in their destruction, and move the people to vengeance. To such an extent do they keep the witnesses of the Gospel pressed

818

79 The reference here is to replies sent on January 14 and May 10 in response to letters sent to the city following assemblies at Koblenz and Worms.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 683

6/6/2007 9:18:38 PM

684

819

the events of 1535

underfoot, cut out their tongues, force their mouths shut, and drown them out with horns and drums that they do not allow them to rise up in their own defense. This is what the prophet refers to when he says “trampling the remains under foot.”80 Christ also prophesied this in Chapter 24 of the Gospel of Matthew, saying, “At that time, there will be a great affl iction, such as there has not been since the beginning of the world down to the present day, and such as there will not be,”81 and in the same chapter, “The abomination of desolation will stand in the saintly place.”82 This is manifestly coming to pass in the present, since they are usurping Christ’s saintly name and place, but with specious saintliness they are committing abomination all over the earth. Hence, if no one is moved by the considerations of our cause, if we are not allowed to clear ourselves but are trampled under the beast’s feet, if this is God’s will, then the examples provided by the endurance of God’s saints will console and ease our affl ictions, until | the square stone of Scripture crushes the beast’s bronze feet83 and gives to the people84 of lofty saints the beast’s kingdom and its power and magnificence under all of heaven.85 “As for your statement that we should not let out any more men, women or children, we respond that we have sent you none and will send none. Instead, we allow those who voluntarily ask to leave us to go, although we know that they will do us no good and that with you they will think up and implement some evil against us. Treat them, then, after your own fashion, according to whatever is urged by your spirit and suggested by this beast whose rulers you are. For our own part, we do not turn away those who come to us to enter into friendship, and similarly we do not detain against his will anyone who asks permission to leave, even if he has been taken captive by us as a military enemy. “Our reason for responding at length is to make sure that you are satisfied with this final, unchanging response, and will not ask us for another in the future. For we are not so ignorant and inexperienced as

Daniel 7:7. Verse 21. 82 Verse 15. 83 Daniel 2:34. (It is not clear from the passage why the stone should be called “square”; perhaps this is a contemporary reference to the Bible in the form of a book.) 84 I.e., the “people” ( populus) as a corporate totality, such as the “people of Israel.” 85 Daniel 7:27. 80 81

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 684

6/6/2007 9:18:38 PM

the events of 1535

685

not to know the Christianness of your spirit and the reliability of the security which you pledge in your safe conduct. “Issued under the seal of our city, June 2, a.d. 1535.” While this exchange of documents was taking place, at around 8 o’clock in the evening on May 11, a large and foul heap of rebaptized people gathered in Amsterdam to free Münster from siege. They were going to seize the council hall and turn the city into a haven and collection point for filth of their kind. During the uproar, | they killed one of the burgher masters along with the watchmen, but after their initial fear was dispelled, the burghers took up arms against the rebaptized and retook the city by the sword, killing twenty-seven of them and capturing the rest. Some of these they beheaded, some they hanged, some they drowned, and some they tortured alive by tearing out their hearts. Thus, this attempt of the rebaptized came to naught. While the commoners were horrifyingly wearing themselves out with crying, starving and wailing, the king indulged in dancing, debauchery and killing86 as the mood took him. When the standard-bearer John of Jülich was accused by many of secretly plotting to defect and of spreading words that smacked of sedition among the common people, he was ordered by the king to plead his case from chains. While in prison, John plotted to defect with Christopher of Schoonhoven, another standard-bearer who was also being kept under arrest there for opposing Anabaptist impiety. Hence, they both entrusted their fate to fortune by breaking out of jail in the hope that they could also escape from the city. Christopher escaped, but John was captured and they found a wrapped up military banner hidden in his pocket. For this reason, John was executed on May 11. Henry Radan had twice asked the king for permission to leave, and had twice been restored to favor, but now he finally began to plot to defect in secret from the community of Christ. He negotiated with Andrew of Cologne to buy a sword and breastplate from him, and promised to ask the archbishop of Cologne for a safe conduct for Andrew at the latter’s request. Hence, they were both arrested on May 12 and condemned to death.

820

821

86 In a letter of May 21, Justinian of Holtzhausen claimed that the king had recently executed with his own hand four people who had spoken against his government and wished to leave the city (the king supposedly said that he wished to do the same to all temporal princes). Gresbeck also reports that the king acted as executioner at this time.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 685

6/6/2007 9:18:38 PM

686

822

the events of 1535

The wife of Henry Graes, whose husband’s crime against the king had not resulted in her being sentenced to exile or driven from the community of the rebaptized, likewise attempted to leave in secret, and for this reason she decked herself out with all the clothing and adornments that she could manage.87 Gertrude the wife of Master Conrad the surgeon also defected from the Anabaptist faith, talked back to her husband, and departed from him, secretly taking their food supplies with her. She had money and silver which, in violation of the king’s decree, she did not turn in to the common fund and had kept hidden in her house, and she concealed the fact that she had various household goods buried on the property of Lord Dungel. Hence, after both women were caught, they were beheaded on the same day (May 12) on Mt. Zion (the Lords’ Field). Albert of Frisia intended to turn over to the bishop one of the city’s gates and the sheep that were pasturing in the “kingdom” and proposed to some townsmen that they should carry this out with him. He was betrayed by them, and on June 8 he held out his throat to be cut by the sword.88 Anne Rodehos was always rebellious towards her husband and rebuked him because he had in the meanwhile taken another, younger woman as his wife. When censured by her husband, she got so carried away with rage that she cursed him with dire imprecations, and picked up a chair which she threatened to smash upon his skull if he did not send away the other wife. This rebellion was thought to deserve execution, and for this reason she suffered the death penalty on the same day ( June 8). Nicholas Snider of Nordhorn sent his wife to the bishop and the bailiff of Stromberg with a letter in which he wished the enemy salvation and offered them his services. In addition, he entrusted a letter addressed to Steding to a fellow brother for delivery, but instead the man handed it over not to Steding but to the king. Now that the treachery was revealed, Nicholas ended his life miserably. His head was cut off on June 9, and then his body was cut into thirteen pieces.89 This story is related only by K. Gresbeck states that the king himself carried out the execution. He also claims that Albert was a confirmed Anabaptist and was driven to his plan only by starvation. 89 Here too it is reported that the king carried out the execution himself, and Justinian of Holtzhausen specifies the date as May 20. In any case, Nicholas’s head was placed on a spike above the door to the cathedral and the twelve other pieces of his body were exposed outside the walls, presumably as a warning against defection. 87 88

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 686

6/6/2007 9:18:39 PM

the events of 1535

687

John Floer, a tanner’s assistant, preferred to plot to defect secretly rather than ask the king for permission to leave, though in this month the king would grant this after hearing the reason. He was captured and on June 10 was condemned to beheading. Alexander of Busch, the queen’s messenger, plotted defection, and for travel money he stuck into the sole of his left shoe a golden ring which his mistress had given him. Caught in this theft, on June 11 he was hanged from a green oak on Mt. Zion.90 Elizabeth Wantscherer shunned frequent conjugal relations and in disgust at the character of her first husband, Reiner of Harderwijk, she fl ed.91 After being found outside the city in the place not far from the Cleves camp where she had hidden, she was brought back to the city and reconciled with her husband. After the death of her husband a few days later, she married August of Beeck, whose last name was Cloterberndt. Unable to bear him, she asked for a divorce to be granted by royal authority, complaining that she had been forced into this marriage by her father’s savagery. When her father confirmed in the king’s council that this was true, the divorce was approved. Nonetheless, the girl was rebuked by her father for inconstancy and for not obeying her husband. “Hardly,” she said. “I don’t think there’s a man in this city who can tame me!” When the girl’s impudence was reported to the king, he ordered that she should be immediately thrown into jail, and after two days he had her brought before him. Since the girl had a rather comely figure, the king said, “If you will be willing to keep yourself from now on in your obligation to be obedient and modest, I will take you as wife.” To this Elizabeth replied, “If, most illustrious king, | your servant can gain in the eyes of my king the favor of being allowed to wash the feet of all my king’s wives or any more humble part of them, my king will find me to be completely prepared to do this or any other tasks.” In this way, she found favor in his eyes and was made not a pedicurist or maidservant but a royal wife, keeping this status for about six months. But when she came to know the king’s impiety and high living and the depths of debauchery for which he was so ardent without any restraint, as well as the tearful lamentation of the people as they died of hunger, the situation displeased her. She gave back the rings and other adornments that he had given her, and

90 91

823

824

This story is related only by K. The following details about Elizabeth’s early life are recorded only by K.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 687

6/6/2007 9:18:39 PM

688 825

826

827

the events of 1535

like other women she humbly asked for permission to leave. The king said to her, “Well, then, your deceitful posing, | your inconstancy, disobedience and rebellion are now revealed.” He had her dragged into the marketplace, and there, with his own hands and in the sight of the entire people and of all his concubines, he beheaded her on June 13, and trampled upon her corpse.92 After this savage murder, the other concubines sang the hymn “Gloria in excelsis.” Then the king led some fairly lewd round dances in the marketplace with his retainers. He cleared himself of responsibility for the crime on the grounds of the beheaded girl’s impiety, saying, “She was a whore who was always inclined to sedition, and for this reason the Father ordered her to be done away with.” Little Hans Eck of Langenstraten93 was a short soldier who possessed innate intelligence and cleverness. Some months before, he had deserted | the camps for the city and was immediately appointed by the king to be commander of the guards. When he saw that he and the other commoners were suffering from the complete lack of everything, that no hope remained for the liberation which had been so long awaited, and that an even more bitter lot and nothing but complete desperation were impending, he secretly discussed with eight other soldiers how to sneak away. Seeing that it was impossible to escape the inevitable fate that would soon befall them if they did not save themselves in some way, they thought it better to test their luck by taking some risk, and that it was better to endure some danger rather than be completely bereft of any hope of life. God, after all, might smile on their endeavors. Thus, they slipped out of the city together around the feast of St. Vitus.94 | While they attempted to break out of the enclosure called

92 The execution actually took place on May 25 or 27 (contemporary accounts differ). Two men claimed in confessions made after the city’s fall that it was botched and someone else had to be called in to remove the head properly. When the king was rebuked by Anthony Corvin for this during their discussion after his capture (see 869D), he is reported to have replied that “whatever of this he did, he had done at the command of the prophet” (se quidquid huius fecisset iubente atque imperante propheta fecisse); which prophet he had in mind is not clear. In his confession of July 25, 1535, the king stated that Elizabeth had been beheaded because she had become disobedient to the faith and to him, and wanted to leave him (sein wiff ist gekoppet worden darumb, dat se den gloven und ehme ungehorsam ist worden und van ehme tredden wolde). 93 Hans(e)ken (= High German Hänschen; -ken is the standard diminutive ending in Westphalian) van der Langenstraten in most sources. 94 June 15. This date is erroneous, and Gresbeck gives the date correctly as May 23.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 688

6/6/2007 9:18:39 PM

the events of 1535

689

the “kingdom” in various places, seven of them were detected and killed by the night watchmen after they unwisely made a din. Little Hans and Conrad Sobbe, on the other hand, investigated many guard posts along the circuit in the attempt to find a place where they could sneak by. When one was found, Sobbe was the first to pass over the peasants’ work, that is, the enclosure of the “kingdom” which surrounded the entire city, but when he got caught on the rampart through being ensnared in the brambles and thorns, he made a din. The guards, however, thought that this was being made by the horses that were pasturing in the “kingdom,” and for this reason were not very concerned about the disturbance. In this way, they succeeded in escaping, not without divine assistance, so that the man by whose advice and help the city was to be taken would be kept alive, and so that a single day would not see the destruction of the laborious work of so many years.95 For the townsmen, who were bereft of all protection now that the food was used up and all hope was gone, had decided to pile up all the wealth of the city in a few houses, and after setting light to the city in many locations to make an armed assault, entrusting themselves and all their possessions to the arbitrament of fortune. After they reached Hamm, Sobbe went his own way. Hamm is a by no means humble town in the Mark at the confl uence of the rivers Lippe and Ahse. | Little Hans went to the house of Meinhard of Hamm, who was the most famous general of his time in Germany and under whom Hans had once served. Being a fairly eloquent man, Hans described the extent of the misery and misfortune in Münster. He related how worn down, dejected, exhausted and broken, how listless the townsmen were as a result of starvation, and how easy it would be to seize the town with a very small band of troops. He said that after becoming fed up with the lack of food and the misfortune, he had slipped out of the

828

95 Gresbeck’s eyewitness account is rather different. He reports that a burgher (i.e., Gresbeck himself ) escaped from the city, and in the “kingdom” he came across four soldiers who were attempting to do the same. They agreed to work together, and as they approached the besiegers’ works, the watch became aware of their presence. The burger and one soldier (Hanseken of Nijmwegen) pulled back in order to try their luck elsewhere, but the two got separated (Gresbeck thought his companion gave up and returned to the city). Gresbeck eventually surrendered at the Gelders blockhouse, where his life was spared when he told his captors that he too had once been a soldier and that he had information to tell their officers. Meanwhile, the other three managed to pass by the besiegers during the noise of the changing of the guard. After they made good their escape, one of the three went his own way, and Hans of Langenstraten and an unnamed third man traveled to Hamm to visit Hans’ old commander, Meinhard.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 689

6/6/2007 9:18:39 PM

690

829

830

the events of 1535

city in order to avert the danger that was threatening the whole city and all the wealth that would otherwise be consumed by fl ames. If the prince would remit the penalty for breaking his allegiance and desertion, wipe the slate clean of the crime which he had committed, and give him some reward as consolation for his hard work and danger, | he, Hans, would provide him with a plan for taking the city. He would lead the army to victory, march in the front line, take the first step in the journey, and be the first to expose his life to danger. He said that since he had been watch commander, he knew all the secret passageways and was familiar with the paths through the fortifications and the city, had marked out both in his mind and with his eyes a suitable location for the assault, and without a doubt would bring back a pleasing victory along with the troops. The soldiers’ strength was fresh, and they were undaunted, hearty and experienced in arms, while the enemy was weakened through starvation, and his strength had been reduced to the breaking point through lack of food. His disgusting sustenance had made the enemy’s hot, vigorous blood become cold and weak gore, and the enemy himself could barely move his limbs without weapons, much less those weapons themselves. At the same time, Little Hans explained his plan. He urged that speed was of the essence to make sure that the townsmen did not anticipate this attack by burning the entire city, which would be their last resort in their desperation, that the terrible blaze did not devastate and destroy the city, and that the fire did not consume the plunder which the soldiery had been eagerly looking forward to for some time now. Having found success several times in availing himself of Little Hans’ advice on various campaigns, Meinhard pondered carefully the plan for taking the city that he had heard. Coming to the conclusion that no better way could be thought up, he immediately informed the prince of the entire matter by letter, asking for safe conduct on behalf of the deserter, whom he kept in his own house. | Sick of the campaign and fearing the devastation to the city that would result from the fl ames, the prince not only granted Little Hans safe conduct but enticed him with promises of wealth.96 To make sure that the situation would not be betrayed, he ordered that Little Hans was to be conveyed by his most

96 In a notarized document dated December 5, 1536, Langenstraten attested that he had received fifteen Emden guilders from the bishop and foreswore any further claims against him.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 690

6/6/2007 9:18:39 PM

the events of 1535

691

trustworthy servants, first to Horstmar and then to Wilkinghege, covered with branches as he lay in a wagon as if it were carrying the meat of wild animals.97 (Wilkinghege was the residence of John Stevening, which was about half a mile from the city.) Here, the leading men of the diocese and the military commanders gathered to discuss Little Hans’ stratagem and plan with him. After discussing the matter back and forth for a while and giving it their best consideration, they had no doubt that by the grace of God his plan would be advantageous, and decided to take the risk of attacking the city. | The night set for this was the one that separates the Nativity of John the Baptist from the Feast of St. Lebuin.98 Although Little Hans thought that 300 troops would be enough for him to retake the city, by the commanders’ advice 400 of the strongest and most experienced men in all the camps were chosen. Wilkin Steding, | a man who was as helpful and easy-going with his friends as he was savage and rancorous with his enemies, was appointed as the commander, while the other officers were Egbert of Deveren, Herman Sittard, Louis of Brunswick and Lawrence of Horst, and the military banner was turned over in soldierly trust to John of Twickel, a high-spirited member of the knighthood. Light-weight ladders equipped with hooks, in case of need, and everything else deemed useful for the enterprise was quietly made ready without giving rise to any general suspicions about the assault. The men chosen to undergo

831

832

97 Gresbeck claims for himself an important role in these events that is ignored by K. According to Gresbeck, right after his capture he explained the defenses of the city to certain officers (he even drew a diagram of the city in the dirt), and suggested a plan of attack that was the same as the one proposed by Hans of Langenstraten. Gresbeck even personally demonstrated the feasibility of his plan by infiltrating the city’s defenses without being detected, while a pair of officers observed at a safe distance. Meanwhile, Langenstraten laid out his own similar plan to the bishop through the offices of Meinhard, and both he and Gresbeck planned the details of the attack. Gresbeck claims emphatically that he was the first to suggest the plan, but in his letters of July, the bishop refers only to advice from a runaway soldier (he gives no name, but clearly Langenstraten is meant), which may explain why K. seems to have no knowledge of Gresbeck. In a letter of July 1, however, Justinian of Holtzhausen seems to confirm Gresbeck’s version by reporting that about four or five weeks earlier a carpenter had been taken prisoner while escaping the city, and that this man had revealed the city’s defenses (Holtzhausen also mentions the man’s diagram in the dirt) and proposed a plan of attack. The officers decided to wait until they could inform the military council of this plan, but in the meanwhile the prince-bishop ordered the attack on the basis of the plan of another prisoner (presumably Langenstraten). Thus, while Gresbeck may well have been right about proposing the plan first, it was Langenstraten who brought the same plan to the attention of the prince-bishop and the senior commanders. 98 June 24/25.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 691

6/6/2007 9:18:39 PM

692

833

834

the events of 1535

the danger armed and encouraged each other, most eagerly praying for the time of the attack. To avoid the appearance of being bloodthirsty, the prince and Oberstein thought it necessary to send envoys on June 22 to warn the townsmen to give up the impiety and rebellion with which they had quite immoderately and precipitously violated the laws and tranquility of the Holy Roman Empire. The townsmen were to restore to their previous possessions and homes the burghers whom they had driven by force into exile and stripped of all their goods, and they were to surrender themselves to the Empire and the prince for mercy and punishment. The townsmen gave a fairly contumacious response through their spokesman Rothman, saying that they would not surrender their city unless this happened to take place in the Spirit. After sunset on the day of John the Baptist, which was June 24, the west wind gradually brought in a huge string of reddish clouds that resembled great mountains, and from the south there arose an equally large mass of clouds that were scattered high up and covered and obscured the entire face of the sky. Gusts of wind blew in whirlwinds, and constantly made roaring and whistling noises. Lightning frequently burst the clouds apart and gleamed across the sky, while the thunder was accompanied by torrential rain and hail. The watchmen of the city were horrified by the continuous crashes and downpour, and to escape the bad weather they entered the huts that were erected for them at intervals along the ramparts. Worn out with hunger and wakefulness, they fell asleep.99 Amidst the obscurity that prevented the townsmen from being able to look into the fields and the roaring of the wind that deadened the crashing of the weapons and other items, Little Hans brought the 400 very brave soldiers up to the forecourt of the Cross Gate around 11 o’clock at night. Here the ditches were narrow and low in water, and beside the aged wooden beam with teeth that held up the wickerwork across the surface of the water to ward off the enemy, the soldiers threw into these ditches bundles of straw and shrubbery—each soldier had

99 Many sources remark upon the lack of guards and give various explanations. In his earlier demonstration of how easy it was to penetrate the city’s defenses (see n. 97), Gresbeck had already found no watch, so the storm could not have been the cause. It may simply have been a matter of complacency, or perhaps the effects of starvation had undermined the townsmen’s ability (or resolve) to carry out this necessary but tedious task.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 692

6/6/2007 9:18:40 PM

the events of 1535

693

brought a bundle with him from the camps—tree stumps and branches, ladders, wood, clumps of turf, cheaper wagons with twigs, and whatever chance offered. With the help of this hurriedly built bridge, they broke the wickerwork and crossed the first ditch.100 Next came the steep mountain-like bulwark that the Anabaptists had raised up out of dirt to guard the gate. Virtually at its summit were placed sharp-pointed stakes that were arranged in a row at moderate intervals so that they would throw back or at least slow down anyone ascending. Since this rampart was steep, they mounted it by climbing at an angle, but when they reached the stakes that stuck up at the top, Little Hans removed one of them which he had noted earlier, so that those ascending could climb up to the top of the bulwark without much difficulty. At this point, | they killed the sleeping guards, and to make sure not to leave any enemy at their back, they looked into the huts along the entire rampart and stabbed all the guards that they found. They also stabbed the soldiers positioned at intervals who were clinging in a deep sleep to tree trunks and branches, apart from Bernard Schulte the furrier, who was granted his life for betraying the password for the night and followed the victorious force.101 This password was “earth.” Next, they descended from the bulwark to the broad, paved street between the gates that was lined on either side by walls and led to the city. | There they slaughtered to a man all those who had been stationed there for guard duty and overcome by asleep. Then, Little Hans pulled a rope to open the small gate by which the guardsmen customarily traveled to the ramparts at fixed times. They had now entered the city, and without meeting the enemy, they first reached the cemetery of the Church Across-the-River by Cross Street, then the Lords’ Field by the narrow bridge built across the Aa.102 Here, they assigned some soldiers to Deventer and put him in charge of the Anabaptists’ arquebuses, which were kept in the cathedral and were well positioned for sharp shooting. This deprived the Anabaptists of

835

836

100 According to Gresbeck, he himself led the way to the defenses and was the first to cross the makeshift bridge, but after that, Langenstraten led the initial assault (Gresbeck notes that as he was still a prisoner, he had no weapons or armor; presumably Langenstraten did). For the numbers involved, see n. 102. 101 No one else mentions sparing the guard’s life. 102 According to Gresbeck, Langenstraten undertook the initial attack with thirtyfive men, and then, once the path into the city was secured, about 400 men launched the main assault. Wirich of Oberstein later gave the total as about 500, while some contemporary broadsheets indicate 350.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 693

6/6/2007 9:18:40 PM

694

837

the events of 1535

the use of these guns. Then, they formed themselves into a dense battle line, struck up the drumbeat for arms, unfurled the banner, and eagerly awaited the rebaptized. Immediately, a great hue and cry arose that the enemy was operating in the middle of the city, had possession of the guns, and was marauding at will, killing and plundering. Roused from the streets, | some hurriedly seized their arms to the extent that time allowed, some rushed unarmed from their houses and were gradually gunned down as they bumped into the armed enemy, some unintentionally met with the guards left at the cathedral as they rushed in swarms to bring out the guns and were killed unawares. Realizing that the use of these guns had been taken from them, the armed men gathered in the marketplace and occupied the neighboring Chapel of St. Michael. They immediately fortified it, and with continuous volleys from afar they harried the enemy, who were standing in battle formation in the Lords’ Field. The men in the Field brought the larger arquebuses from the Cathedral and attempted to drive the rebaptized from the shrine, but they failed, because the ancient and solid structure of its walls easily repelled all their shots. Next, the rebaptized charged in full array from the marketplace, where they had armed themselves, and attacked the enemy, forcing them to withdraw to the alley named after the Chapel of St. Margaret. It was impossible to cross through this shrine, and when the rebaptized kept striking, jabbing and shooting our men, they forced them into the alley, which was so narrow that they could barely move their weapons and arms. Sighing, our men began to groan silently as if they had lost almost all their strength. On the advice of Steding, however, a certain canon opened a gate by force, and while the rest of the comrades were left there to bravely hold back the onslaught of the enemy, almost 200 escaped through the backdoors into another street103 in the direction of the Church of St. Giles. From there, they suddenly brought help to their hard-pressed comrades in a nearby alley,104 as if they were a new battle formation. Imagining that this was a new enemy force, the rebaptized began to quiver, since they had no doubt that the whole city was in the hands of the enemy. Our men raised one another’s spirits by exchanging encouragements, and they taunted the craven, pushed back the yielding, and pursued the fl eeing, cutting

103 104

John’s Street ( Johannisstrasse). Horse Lane (Pferdegasse).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 694

6/6/2007 9:18:40 PM

the events of 1535

695

down a large number of them. Meanwhile, the little gate by which the enemy had entered the city was closed very tight.105 While each side was fighting keenly in the city and many soldiers in the other camps were going around the city in their worry about the safety of their comrades | in case they could hear any commotion, women on the ramparts and bulwarks hurled projectiles blindly in the dark at the wandering horsemen and infantry, deriding them with these words. “We’ve now finished off your commanders and officers, whom you were rather unwise to send to us. The fl ower and strength of your force is done for. Alas, what a signal victory you have brought back, what splendid spoils you have taken back! This is what usually happens to those who oppose God and who contemptuously despise the strength of their enemy, claiming everything for themselves. Now say that we are broken by starvation and hunger and are bereft of strength! Send more men for us to finish off with slaughter! You will see that we lack neither spirit nor strength!” The soldiers, who were anxious with uncertainty about the safety of their comrades, were greatly upset by the words of these women, having no doubt now that all those who had been sent into the city with Little Hans were now dead.106 Meanwhile, our men pursued the fl eeing rebaptized from the Lords’ Field all the way to the marketplace, covering the whole path with corpses and blood, but in the marketplace they worked feverishly to raise up emergency fortifications built out of vessels, chairs, rocks, wood, planks, beams, stakes, and other objects. Their thunderous fire at our men forced them to retreat, since they were worn out by the constant hard work of using their weapons. The rebaptized were suddenly revitalized and followed our men as they retreated. Though fatigued, our men did not give up their hope of victory, but revived their spirits in order to wipe out the disgrace of fl ight through courage, and they once more cut themselves a path with the sword.

838 839

105 Though K. does not emphasize the importance of this event, the closing of the gate meant that the attackers, being cut off from the rest of the besieging army, were now on their own. Gresbeck claims that he warned before the attack of the necessity of keeping a guard at the gate, but the troops were too intent on plunder to bother. Justinian of Holtzhausen (who was away at the time of the city’s capture) records a rumor that the attacking troops had closed the gate themselves in order be left at peace during the plunder (i.e., not to have to share with their comrades outside), but a letter of Wirich of Oberstein confirms that it was the townsmen who closed the gate. 106 According to Gresbeck, the shut-out soldiers attributed the closing of the gate to treachery on the part of Langenstraten.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 695

6/6/2007 9:18:40 PM

696

840

the events of 1535

Meanwhile, the king vacillated between hope and fear, and at around 3 o’clock in the morning he sent a delegation to each side to break off the battle, | asking for a meeting. Since our men were exhausted by their constant use of arms and by their hard work throughout the night, and for their part, the rebaptized were exhausted by their long starvation and hunger, both sides found the idea of a meeting and a truce in which to rest for a while most pleasing. During the meeting, the delegates demanded that the soldiers should lay down their weapons and surrender, saying that the king was not bloodthirsty or savage towards suppliants and would grant them mercy.107 The soldiers refused to do this, but said that they would leave the city if the rebaptized neither stripped them of their weapons nor despoiled them of their banners, but gave them full permission to go. To this the delegates replied that they should first lay down their weapons and hand over the banners to the king, and then they could leave unarmed. The soldiers responded that while the oath of military honor by which they were bound to the Empire and the prince was still intact they ought not to commit an act from which they would incur everlasting ignominy and eternal disgrace, since they preferred to meet a glorious end than to besmirch themselves and their posterity with the stain of dishonor. During this truce, the soldiers sent John of Twickel the standard-bearer, who had secretly wrapped up the standard without the townsmen noticing, to the rampart with three armed attendants. When he unfurled the banner in the dawn’s light and shouted for the help of his side with a loud voice, the soldiers immediately ran up at the sound of this new voice. They suspected that some Anabaptist ploy was behind this, fearing that the soldiers who had been sent in had been killed, and that the Anabaptists were fraudulently showing the banner in order to lure more into the same perilous danger, so the soldiers approached to examine the truth of the matter more carefully. The man said that he was John of Twickel the standard-bearer, and that all was well, but the soldiers were exhausted from the hard fighting. Unless they brought help to them in their dire straights, the safety of all of them was at risk. At the same time, in a loud voice he gave the password, which

107 A broadsheet reports that the king himself cried to the soldiers, “Dear soldiers, lay down your weapons and march off to the gate—no harm will come to you!” (Ir lieben landsknechten, legt ewer weer von euch und zeucht zur porten auss, euch soll kein leid geschehen! )

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 696

6/6/2007 9:18:40 PM

the events of 1535

697

was “Waldeck.”108 After saying this, he returned to the formation of his men, announcing that relief was sure to come. | At this news, the rebaptized became downcast and apprehensive for their safety, while it raised the spirits of our men, who in their confidence of victory renewed the battle very fiercely.109 Revived with almost new strength and heartened by the hope of relief, they rushed more boldly at the rebaptized. Meanwhile, Steding and the other officers urged our men by name to be mindful of their prior courage and future victory, and open their eyes, clench their fists, strike the whites of the enemy’s eyes, and save themselves from the disgrace of surrender and capture. Then a most terrible slaughter took place. Brought to a desperate situation, the rebaptized shouted out that it was worse than the behavior of wild beasts if they stabbed one another, shed the blood of Christian relatives, rushed in madness to kill indiscriminately, and crushed the people of God with inhuman tyranny, so that the weapons on each side were colored red with the blood of Christians. This, they said, was how wolves let into the sheepfold maraud against the sheep, how pagans, Turks, Scythians, Dacians110 and other barbarous nations untouched by any religion or mercy commonly leaped at Christians. This barbarity was displeasing to the Father and contrary to the words of the Gospels. The soldiers should therefore choose the Word of God in place of weapons, loving concord in place of murder, and peace in place of Cadmean111 victory, | and in imitation of the rebaptized, they should be instilled with the same laws, reasoning and piety, and with them serve the Heavenly Father in mutual tranquility. If they could not be prevailed upon to do this, they should leave as they had promised and return to their people, keeping their weapons and banners, and they should leave the rebaptized alone in their liberty and their customs, and not disturb God’s people in their religion

841

842

108 A broadsheet, which identifies that standard-bearer (i.e., Fähnrich or “ensign”) as a man of Jülich, has him cry, “Waldeck, Waldeck! Münster is ours! Fall in, fall in, dear soldiers!” (Waldegk, Waldegk, Munster is unse, tredet an, tredet an, leven landesknechten! ) 109 Seemingly, the tide was turned by news of the capture of the Jews’ Field Gate (see n. 114). 110 Here K. uses the ambiguous term Getae. This is properly a synonym for the Dacians, a Thracian people who occupied the area of modern Romania in antiquity, but the similarity of the name led to a medieval confusion with the Germanic Goths ( Jordanes’ history of them is called the Getica). Since the Turks and the Scythians were located in southeastern Europe, and the confusion is post-Classical, K. probably has the Dacians in mind. 111 For the sense of “Cadmean,” see “Events of 1532” n. 107.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 697

6/6/2007 9:18:40 PM

698

843

844

845

the events of 1535

in this saintly city. During the very struggle, some of the rebaptized implored their Father, who was now either deaf or asleep or distracted by other business, and asked Him for victory against an impious nation that was ignorant of God. But their Father and the soldiers had deaf ears and were not moved by these words at all. The Father did not hear the rebaptized, and the soldiers quite energetically cut a path by the sword through the Anabaptists’ line. In this way, they slaughtered them all over the place in the Lords’ Field, killing them by shooting and stabbing, so that the whole plain was strewn with corpses and was awash in human blood mixed with gore. In desperation, Rothman made a soldier’s outfit out of silk decorations from churches and threw himself into the densest part of the enemy’s line to avoid being taken prisoner and reserved for an unpleasant punishment. Receiving a fatal wound, he fell to the ground and spewed out the spirit of life along with much blood.112 The king too was downcast by this slaughter, and in secret he withdrew through the backdoor of his palace to the Giles Gate, either because he thought that this was the most strongly fortified place or because this was the most convenient place from which he could find an opportunity to slip away and escape from the enemy’s hands. He was betrayed by a boy, however, and he was captured on the top fl oor and thrown into chains.113 Meanwhile, once the password and voice of the standard-bearer were heard, Matthew Bilderbeck and Anthony Lichterte roused the strength of all the camps with drumming to hurry to attack any fortifications of the city, which were now stripped of defenders, and the troops raised a great cry. With equal bustle, both the cavalrymen, who left behind their horses, and the infantry climbed over the ditches, ramparts, | bulwarks, forts, wicker works and walls. Some gates were cut and smashed open by force or opened with whatever skill this was possible, and thus by fortune, or rather by the will of God, they entered the city, where they directly attacked the enemy, freed our men from toil and slaughter,

112 Most sources agree that Rothman died in battle, but his body was never found, and there were later (unfounded) rumors of his escape. 113 In later confessions, the king does mention his retreat to the Giles Gate, but he says nothing of being betrayed.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 698

6/6/2007 9:18:41 PM

the events of 1535

699

and now turned against the enemy’s battle array.114 There, a frightful butchery was carried out. While this was going on, John Rokol of the Mark, a tall, strong and high-spirited man who was at one time the beadle of the school of St. Paul when Timan was rector and who was the bell-ringer of the cathedral after the city’s recapture, took a small break from the toils he had undergone and then rushed into the palace alone, finding no one there but a sick boy whom he forced by brandishing his weapons to show him the king’s adornments. After making an agreement about his life, the boy led him to the treasure room, where the soldier crushed the better crown with his right foot, and hid it under his steel breastplate along with golden spurs to give to Steding and some chains and rings. Then he returned to the battle in higher spirits. He was struck by one of the enemy with a toothed club and fell to his knees, but after being protected by his comrades’ arms for a moment, he regained his strength and used a strong axe to stab his opponent in the left side. Realizing that the enemy’s battle array was increasing in number while their own was being lessened through constant disasters, the townsmen all fl ed in different directions, each seeking a hiding place for himself. About 200 hurriedly occupied the fortifications that had been thrown up in the marketplace.115 While pursuing them during the fl ight, our soldiers had been picking off men in their rear guard by sword, but after they reached the fortifications, they fired such a thunderous volley from there that they would allow no soldier to stand in the marketplace or to come into their sight with impunity. Now that the city had been captured after a long siege and various assaults and disasters, the commanders realized that a new siege and new attacks were necessary to finish off and defeat the men in the marketplace, and therefore they deliberated about what should be done.

846

847

114 Wirich reports in a letter of June 29 that “our troops in the city opened first the Jews’ Field and then the Cross Gate, which was most weakly defended, and I, the commander, thereby entered with the main force of the army” (. . . die unsern in der stat die Judenfelder pforte, das nechst an der Creutz pforten, welche am schwechsten verwart, geoffnet. Dardurch ich, der oberst, mit dem gantzen hauffen unsers volcks hie in kommen). Henry of Morgensen reported on June 29 that Wilkin Steding left an ensign (“standard-bearer”) in charge in the cathedral yard and with the other ensign and some soldiers opened “eyn felder porten” (= the Jews’ Field Gate?). Various other gates are mentioned, but Wirich’s account is decisive as to the first two that were opened. 115 Various sources indicate that these forces were commanded by Bernard Krechting, whom the king had, according to Gresbeck, previously made his lieutenant because there was too much for the king to attend to on his own.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 699

6/6/2007 9:18:41 PM

700

848

849

the events of 1535

Some urged that they should be stormed by force, and that no step should be taken that would allow the defeated to be made the equals of the victors and that would permit this tiny band, which was practically all that was left of the previous war now that a countless multitude of the rebaptized had been annihilated, to make laughingstocks of such commanders and troops. They said that the defeated did not normally taunt the victors; a victory that did not smash the enemy’s impudence into submission was not complete and perfect; and therefore that whole race should be stamped out by the sword, so that no remains of the Anabaptist impiety should be left. Others advised that they should be granted mercy and presented with their lives if they were willing. They were surrounded by fortifications on all sides. The approach was difficult and dangerous, since they had plenty | of guns and arquebuses inside. This fortification could not be taken from them easily. If everything was carried out by force, this victory would be won at the cost of much bloodshed and misfortune on the part of the soldiers, and if they had gotten any glory in war, they would without a doubt sully it with such slaughter. Thus, it was better to keep the victory already achieved intact by saving a few lives than to cast it away disgracefully through the loss of many soldiers. This view was chosen by the majority of those deliberating, and thus the men in the marketplace were ordered to lay down their weapons immediately and follow some commanders out of the city. Having received full safe conduct in leaving, many of them left for their homes in order to take from there anything that they might need, and thus they voluntarily became separated from those ready to depart. After taking a long time in their homes, these men were confident of their safe conduct as they attempted to follow without the commanders those who had by now left in safety, but they were cut off and slaughtered by the soldiers, as they vainly invoked the safe conduct that had been given to them.116 Around 6 o’clock on June 25, Paul Ledebur, the natural son of Henry Ledebur, rushed at the greatest speed on horseback to Wolbeck and was the first to report the city’s capture to the prince, who immediately sent word of this victory to many princes and cities by letter. Next, the soldiers searched every house and corner of the city very carefully, bringing out the Anabaptists whom they found and then killing

116 K. alone reports this incident in such detail, but references in other sources do indicate that the promise given to those who surrendered was in some way broken.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 700

6/6/2007 9:18:41 PM

the events of 1535

701

them by the sword.117 This is how Bernard Swerthen, Magnus Koehus and | many others were brought out into the street from hiding places in their houses and executed with drawn swords. John Eschman of Warendorf, a tall man with white hair who had been counted by the prophet among the Israelite elders during the previous government,118 was caught in the hall of a certain canon of the cathedral, and when the soldiers rushed at him to kill him, he tried to persuade them that he was a canon of the cathedral, claiming that illness had prevented him from escaping the siege of the city. He would have easily convinced them of this because of his white hair and dignified manner if he had not been betrayed by certain people. Derek Schloschen attempted to escape by adopting the attire of a peasant, but he was recognized by Kortemolle and cut down with an axe. Herman Tilbeck was stabbed near the Convent of St. Giles, and his body was left in the muck. Eventually, it was dragged to a nearby water channel and barely received a donkey’s burial when it was covered in sand. John Boentruppe the butcher, who was not the least important of the rebaptized, vainly extended his hands in supplication, and was killed with a branding pole. Gerard Kibbenbrock breathed out his final breath when he was stabbed in the marketplace in front of his own door. Xanten | the blacksmith fell with a wound in his side in the area of the council hall. Others were cast down from the council hall into the marketplace, where they fell onto the spears of soldiers standing there. Tile, a tall, one-eyed man who was a remarkable sharpshooter, covered himself with an elk skin and helmet, but soldiers obstructed his way on every side with spears, swords and axes. He was jabbed, punched and shoved, so that he often fell to his knees, but using the city wall as a prop he got up again. With difficulty he was eventually knocked down with very frequent blows by the narrow little bridge, and cast down into the Aa. There he gave up the ghost, and the waters, which he dyed with his blood, and the sand covered him over. Four scouts on the tower of St. Lambert’s protected themselves vigorously against anyone climbing up to attack them, but three of them fell after being shot. The fourth plummeted down alive from the roof, and when he touched the ground, he fl ew apart into pieces, so that all the joints of his body were ruptured and his guts poured out with blood.

117 118

850

851

The subsequent details are for the most part related only by K. For his appointment as an elder, see 576D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 701

6/6/2007 9:18:41 PM

702

852

the events of 1535

Every day for about eight days, bloody spectacles like this were performed against those who were forced out of their hiding places either by the soldiers or by hunger. Since the rebaptized were all pale, everyone who was pale was considered to be an Anabaptist, which led to the destruction of many foreigners and strangers. Lord Bernard Krechting was dragged out as a captive from the Convent of St. Giles, and though he would have preferred to die immediately, he was reserved for unpleasant punishment. After their capture, Gerlach of Wullen and Christian Kerckering were taken to strongholds of the prince. Around the time of the feast of St. Gall in October,119 the former abjured Anabaptism and was pardoned by the prince, who granted him his life. Between Dülmen and the Weddern monastery, the latter was dragged by the hangman from the wagon on which he was riding with Knipperdolling and beheaded.120 Next, the corpses of the executed were stripped of their clothing, | and in the Lords’ Field they were buried in large graves that had been dug by peasants summoned for this purpose. Knipperdolling was not found among the prisoners or the corpses or seen by anyone, and the very close guard kept on all the roads would have prevented him from being able to escape anywhere. Hence, it was considered necessary to institute a great effort to hunt for him as the cause of virtually the entire disturbance. After the capture of the city, his situation was desperate, and in the sure hope of slipping away, he first withdrew secretly to the house of Catherine Hobbel, who lived by the New Bridge Gate. There, he hid in the top part of the house for that night and the following day, which was June 26, awaiting an opportunity to slip away. Complaining that he was overwhelmed with intolerable thirst, he asked to be given some clear water, and after drinking this, he said he preferred it to the king’s wine, and at the same time he lamented his lot. But when this woman learned that the soldiers were hunting for Knipperdolling, she began to fear that this guest she was hiding would be the death of her. To make sure that he would not be caught in her house, she insisted that at dusk he should move to the empty house next door, where he could hide at his own discretion. After they had searched many places throughout the city without finding Knipperdolling, a rumor began on the following day

119 120

October 16. This execution is again related on 861D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 702

6/6/2007 9:18:41 PM

the events of 1535

703

( June 27) that he had last been seen near the New Bridge Gate, and hence a few squads were sent there to hunt for him. Meanwhile, the Anabaptist women were gathering together since they were being commanded by crier to leave the city. To these women Oberstein announced that he would grant life and burgher status to the one who revealed Knipperdolling, | and would exempt her property from confiscation. At this, Catherine Hobbel said that if she was sure that these promises would be upheld, she would give Oberstein what he wanted. When this was guaranteed, she showed Knipperdolling’s hiding place, and he was dragged out in chains.121 The husband of this woman, who was now pregnant, was hauled by soldiers to the cemetery of St. Lambert and beheaded, but the woman and her property were spared in accordance with the guarantee. After Knipperdolling’s capture, about 50 soldiers rushed into the registry, where the wealth of virtually the entire city was stored, and they stuffed their rather loose clothing with silver and gold, both minted and bullion. They were caught in this theft, however, and seven of them were beheaded in the Lords’ Field. After the rest were stripped of their clothing apart from their underwear, they were bound together in a long line with ropes, and dragged to the Cross Gate. After being disgraced with this humiliation, they were banished from the city (their clothes had been brought by wagon and were returned to them).122 Then, on June 28, Steding went out with 800 armed men to meet the prince, who was coming to the captured city from Wolbeck, and congratulate him.123 As a token of honor and booty, Steding brought him the king’s crown, sword and golden spurs and the keys to the city. Now that the city was restored to him, the prince stayed in it for barely three days on account of the plague that was raging everywhere as a result of the hunger and the stench. After receiving the share in the plunder owing to him according to the agreement, he withdrew to

853

121 Bolandus gives a different account of Knipperdolling’s capture. According to him, Knipperdolling, who was exhausted from battle, first began to fl ee the city, but then he changed his mind and returned. He then entered a house by the Church of St. Martin, but was accidentally seen by an unnamed woman, who betrayed him. In any case, K.’s date is wrong, since in a letter of June 25, Wirich of Oberstein reports that Knipperdolling had been discovered in his unspecified hiding placed and captured that day at around 11 o’clock. 122 This story is related only by K. 123 This date appears in various literary sources, but contemporary evidence shows that the bishop arrived on June 29.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 703

6/6/2007 9:18:41 PM

704

854

855

856

the events of 1535

Iburg, I think, appointing representatives who were to be in charge of the city in his absence. The soldiers gave comely children of both sexes whose parents had been killed as gifts to high-ranking men and women as if they were chattel.124 Since some women had not obeyed the previous edict, on July 5 they were again summoned to the cathedral vestry, the crier announcing that death was the penalty for the disobedient. | After gathering there, they and their children were driven out of the city through Mary’s Gate by armed men, being forbidden to return to the diocese. On July 7, Diewer the main queen, Knipperdolling’s wife and Brandeschen his mother-in-law, and Wolterin along with her daughter, who were all crazed with Anabaptism, were beheaded.125 Eberhard Reimensnider kept hidden on the roof of James Stove’s house during the day, but at night, when the soldiers who were then occupying the house were asleep, hunger and thirst compelled him to creep in secretly and fill himself on the soldiers’ food. He did not, however, moderate his ravening appetite, | and as the food decreased, the soldiers came to suspect that an Anabaptist was lurking in their midst. In a careful search they found him, and then on July 8 they dragged him to the Lords’ Field along with Catherine Borchardes and her son Caspar. There they paid the penalty for their transgression by having their heads cut off. But who could count up all the killing on each day? The entire city was then sacked, and all the moveable property became booty without distinction. Superintendents of the booty were appointed, who sold the spoils not simply to the clergy and to the burghers returning from exile but to any third parties at all and placed the proceeds in a common fund. Some goods were sold at retail, so that there was hardly any region of Germany into which this plunder was not imported. Many burghers who were returning from long exile bought their own property that had been made plunder at no lesser price than they would have bought someone else’s property, though they did regain possession of their immovable property at no cost. The immovable property of the rebaptized, on the other hand, was confiscated for the common good This is related only by K. No other source mentions Diewer’s execution, and some overtly note that her fate was unknown. Furthermore, the king later spoke of her as if she were still alive (see n. 137 and 872D). Of the other wives, some were captured, some executed. 124 125

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 704

6/6/2007 9:18:41 PM

the events of 1535

705

of the homeland, in recompense for the expenditures that had been made. Important men were appointed to sell it by the four estates of the diocese: Frederick of Twist the chamberlain of the court, and Eberhard Moring the bailiff of Fürstenau, by the prince; Lord Roger Smising the schoolmaster, and Lord George of Hatzfeld the bursar, by the chapter; Gerard Morrien the marshal of the diocese, and John of Merfelt, by the knighthood; and Wilbrand Plonies the burgher master of Münster, and John of Graes the burgher master of Coesfeld, by the cities of the diocese. A great disturbance arose in the city between the superintendents of the booty and the common soldiers. The soldiers distrusted the superintendents’ honesty, suspecting that they were acting with malfeasance in selling the booty, and so they captured them and threw them into chains. They subjected them to questioning under torture to extract the truth and decided to kill them and plunder the entire city a second time, despite the fact that the burghers had redeemed their property by paying cash. When he learned of this situation, the prince checked the soldiers’ madness by sending a letter that cleared the superintendents. He stated that they had paid him the share owing to him according to the agreement (the prince had bargained for himself half the plunder, the guns and the goods found in the council hall),126 and as for the rest of the money collected from the booty, | they would make an accurate accounting of it to the soldiers by means of the clerks’ records. Thus, he said, he was confident that the well-born and true soldiers, to whom he had paid their wages in a princely manner, would not further devastate and plunder the city which they had handed over to him and the keys to which they had themselves offered to him upon his entrance, particularly since both the ecclesiastics and the laity had redeemed their household goods and domestic property from the superintendents of plunder by paying cash. In addition, he went on, although it was found that there were twenty or thirty impious criminals in the entire army who paid no heed to their oath or to fairness, he was sure that the other, well-born soldiers would maintain their oath and their military honor and respectability inviolate. With this letter, the spirits of the mutineers fl agged, so that this whole uproar suddenly died down. On July 13, the prince proclaimed a public supplication throughout the diocese to render thanks unto God for the signal victory. The main

126

857

858

859

See the terms of military service, especially articles 3 and 5 (527–528D).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 705

6/6/2007 9:18:42 PM

706

860

861

the events of 1535

clergy also ordained that as a form of thanksgiving and as a permanent commemoration for so splendid and unexpected a victory, this day, the one that directly follows the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, was to be celebrated every year with unparalleled pomp and piety. The entire clergy and city council gathered at the cathedral, and there, after they were first blessed in a long procession and taking communion, the Mass of the Trinity was performed and various hymns were chanted in praise of God. Prayers to God were also instituted on behalf of those who had fallen bravely while fighting against those abominable humans, the Anabaptist prodigies. On July 15, an assembly was held at Neuss, to which the archbishop of Cologne, the duke of Cleves and the bishop of Münster came to deliberate about the future constitution for the city’s government to make sure that in future the Holy Roman Empire would not be affl icted and disturbed by a similar disturbance and sedition. The same day, an Imperial Diet was convened in Worms, in which the topic for discussion was the complete eradication of Anabaptism. Through envoys, our prince asked to be remunerated for the war’s expenses, complaining that the money that had been agreed to had not yet been paid. Since few estates were present, they dared not pass any decree prejudicial to the interests of those absent, and therefore it was voted that another diet of the princes and estates of the Empire should be convened on November 1, and that a decision was to be made in it about the costs of the war in Münster and the form of constitution to be instituted in that city. (This diet will be discussed in the appropriate place.)127 The king, Knipperdolling, Lord Bernard Krechting, and Christian Kerckering, who had all been fitted with fetters and manacles, were brought on July 24 to the stronghold in Dülmen, | in separate wagons so they could not converse with one another. During the journey, Kerckering was taken from his wagon in a pleasant grassy spot along the way and beheaded, and the body was buried there. The rest, whom a more severe execution awaited, were imprisoned in cells at the Dülmen stronghold. Godfrey of Schedelich and Wilkin Steding, whom the prince had made his representatives in the city, informed the prince by letter on August 2 that every day the women who had slipped out of the city

127

863–868D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 706

6/6/2007 9:18:42 PM

the events of 1535

707

amidst the famine during the siege and been granted their lives were now returning in droves. On August 13, the prince wrote back that they should grant burgher status to no one unless he swore by oath. | By now most of the soldiers had been discharged, and the burghers who had returned from exile to their ancestral homes were summoned outside the Horst Gate, and they were required to swear a new oath. They replied that they were still bound by the oath that they made at the time of the installation, and since the old oath was still valid, there was no need for a new one. To this the prince’s councilors replied that they had violated the previous oath by which they had promised to protect the city of Münster for the benefit of the prince and of the entire homeland, and that the result of their having abandoned the city was that the Anabaptists and the lowliest humans on earth had taken possession of it, to the harm and detriment not only of the prince and the entire diocese but also of the Holy Roman Empire, and thus the prince was demanding that they swear again. The order was given that if they were unwilling to provide the oath, they should cease to be counted as burghers. (The decree being that the gates were to be shut against such people, who would not be let in.) Hearing this, the burghers complied with necessity. At the suggestion of certain men during the siege, the prince was impelled to consider confiscating all the property of the Convent Acrossthe-Water and using it for his own upkeep on the grounds that most of the nuns had tainted themselves with Anabaptism and remained in the city. The only exceptions were Ida of Merfelt the abbess, Ludgera of Linteloe and Sophie of Langen,128 who had been in exile in their manor at Holthausen during the siege, and he did not think that this small number could thwart his plan. When Ida of Merfelt breathed her last in exile on May 7, 1535, he thought that he could now legally implement what he had been intending in his mind for some time, and so, when the remaining nuns were thinking of appointing a new abbess by free election in the customary way, the prince forbade this. For this reason, on August 28 of that year, they petitioned the other estates of the diocese to deign to deter the prince from his chosen course of action, so that | he would not take their right away from them, since they were innocent and did not deserve this. At the same time, they pointed out how much it was in the interest of the knighthood and

128

862

863

See 482D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 707

6/6/2007 9:18:42 PM

708

864

the events of 1535

of the poor for this convent to be preserved. The prince was induced through the intervention of the estates to change his mind and give up his intention. Thus, Ermingard Schencking was chosen as abbess, and the prince gave his authorization.129 When the estates of the Empire convened to hold a diet at Worms on November 1, the envoy of King Ferdinand reminded them of the reasons why it had been called, including the need to deliberate with him about how the city of Münster, which had recently been captured and rescued from the Anabaptists, was to be kept from now on in the old religion. Next, the bishop’s envoy stated the extent of the costs paid out during the entire war and the great size of the debt which the prince had incurred, in that after the city’s capture it had been necessary to construct and garrison two fortresses within the city to crush any new disturbance or threat, and he asked that all these matters should be taken into account. To this the following answer was given. The bishop had appropriated for himself the majority of the plunder, all the guns and the property of Anabaptist burghers, all of which belonged to the Empire, and thus it was fair that once an estimate of the value was made, this should be included with the contribution. | Whatever else was missing should also be taken into account. The Empire did, however, claim half of the guns and the immovable property of the Anabaptists who were captured in the city. Afterwards, further decrees were passed.130 First, the bishop and city of Münster were to be subject to the Empire in the manner traditional since ancient days. Next, since by the grace of God the city of Münster had been recaptured through the common expenses of the Empire, it would, along with all its privileges, immunities and lordships, remain in the possession of the confirmed bishop, his successors and the diocese in the same way as had been claimed by the previous bishops and the confirmed bishop before the Anabaptist uproar. Neither he nor his successors were to alienate this city from the Empire through sale, mortgage or any other transfer of title. Since the Christian religion was not the least important foundation for a well-ordered state, the estates

In October, 1535. From here to 868D, K. translates further decisions drawn up in the recess of the diet. 129 130

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 708

6/6/2007 9:18:42 PM

the events of 1535

709

of the Empire advised that the confirmed bishop and the other estates of the diocese should also restore within the city a religion that would not contravene the Empire’s recesses. It was also decreed that it was just that both the secondary and main clergy and the other nobles131 should receive back without loss their houses, land, churches, annuities, and income and all privileges which they had possessed either within the city or without. Similarly, all burghers of both sexes who had left the city to fl ee the Anabaptist uproar and preferred voluntary exile to being tainted with that schism should be restored to their previous possession of their houses, revenues, annuities, or any immovable goods which they had left within the city or without, even if the sealed charters were burned, torn up, lost or in some other way alienated. If any of them who were not devoted to Anabaptism breathed their last in exile, their immovable goods, revenues, annuities, and all their rights were to devolve upon their heirs who were not tainted with Anabaptism. If, however, some of the burghers who left the city tainted themselves with Anabaptism, and it was proven that they promoted this sect, these people were to be punished with exile for life and the confiscation of all their property. To make sure that no one was crushed in violation of justice and fairness on the basis of suspicions, conjectures or enmity, it was deemed necessary that certain neighboring princes and electors should be chosen as commissioners to send representatives to Münster in the name of the Holy Roman Empire, and these were to try those held suspect by the bishop. Once absolved and cleared, the innocent were to regain their property, while those guilty of being tainted with Anabaptism were to be punished with exile for life, disgrace, and the sale of all their property. | If any were found to be worthy of mercy, once the circumstances were taken into account they were to be dealt with in such a way that no one would be oppressed in violation of his merits and fairness. Since the estates of the Holy Roman Empire had been compelled by the disobedience of the city of Münster to bear huge costs and expenses, and had been forced by their impious belief in unheard-of schism to place their lives, bodies and property at the greatest risk, no better or more convenient way of ensuring that they would not in the future be driven to similar risks and great expenses could be conceived than that

131

865

866

An addition of K.’s. The original merely referred to “others.”

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 709

6/6/2007 9:18:42 PM

710

867

the events of 1535

the main fortifications of the city of Münster should be pulled down and destroyed, with the provision that with the authorization of the aforementioned representatives common walls should be built in place of those torn down, and that Münster should at least retain the title of being a city. Not only would this avert the risk of future dangers, but by its example the city would deter other states from similar impiety and rebellion. Also, the aforementioned representatives were to inspect all the fortifications of the city and decide among themselves which ones were to be torn down. Then, they were to inform the confirmed bishop, the chapter, the nobility, and the diocese of their decision, and insist strenuously that the Empire’s decision should be promptly carried out, and the estates of the diocese were to obey them. To make sure that the innocent should not suffer the penalties intended for the guilty in civil affairs, it was decreed that if they did not contaminate themselves with Anabaptism, the burghers who had left the city were to receive the governance and control of the city which their ancestors had possessed in ancient days and before the exile, and to regain the city council, the court and the workmen’s share in the functions of the council.132 To all these institutions their rights, privileges, liberties, | immunities and customs which had been received from ancient days were to be restored and to remain inviolate without impediment or interference at the hands of the confirmed bishop, his successors or anyone else, even if the sealed charters had been torn up, burned or in any way alienated, with the proviso that they should render due obedience to the confirmed bishop. Once restitution had been made in both directions, as the saying goes, and the main fortifications erected on the outside had been torn down and demolished according to the orders of the representatives, the confirmed bishop, the chapter, the nobility, and the diocese were likewise to demolish and completely remove the two fortresses built in the city after its capture in order to crush the impudence of the townsmen. In addition, the confirmed bishop, the chapter, the nobility, and the burghers of the city of Münster were to give to the Roman King and the estates of the Empire in a sealed letter a binding guarantee that neither they nor their successors would ever repair the fortifications

132 The last clause is an elaboration of K.’s. The original referred merely to “other offices.”

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 710

6/6/2007 9:18:42 PM

the events of 1535

711

which had been pulled down or build any in a manner at variance with the orders of the Empire’s representatives. | They were to hand over this sealed obligation immediately to the representatives, who would deposit it for the Empire’s use in the archive at Mainz. To ensure the implementation of the arrangements made by the diet and of the restitution voted by it, Ferdinand, King of the Romans, chose as commissioners the electors and princes of Mainz, Trier, Cologne, Jülich and Hesse, the highborn Count William of Nassau, and the city of Cologne.133 On the Tuesday after the Sunday “Reminscere,”134 which was March 5 of the next year (1536),135 they were to send their representatives to Dortmund, and from there these representatives would head for Münster at the Empire’s expense to implement the arrangement and restitution. (The commissioners were to receive the expenses for this mission from the money collected for the common benefit of the Empire and deposited in Trier.) It was decided to present the theatrical king to certain princes as a spectacle before his execution, and so he was brought to Bevergern and kept in the stronghold there under close guard. Knipperdolling and Krechting were kept in chains separately in Horstmar. On different occasions, Anthony Corvinus and John Kymeus were let in to see them and conversed with them about various articles of the faith, discussing the Kingdom of Christ, rulers, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the humanity of Christ, marriage, and other poorly understood concepts.136 In these comparisons of Holy Scripture, the king seemed almost to agree with the passages cited by these men.137 Knipperdolling and Krechting, on

868

869

133 K. misrepresents the situation. The diet’s decision was that one councilor each should be sent by the following members of the estates: Ferdinand; the seven electoral princes of the Empire; the bishops of Worms and of Lüttich on behalf of the ecclesiastical princes; the duke of Cleves and the landgrave of Hesse on behalf of the temporal lords; the provost of Ellwangen on behalf of the prelates; the count of Nassau on behalf of the counts; and Cologne on behalf of the Imperial free cities. 134 The second Sunday in Lent. 135 Actually, this was March 13 (K. makes this same mistake several times in referring to this decree in the events of the following year). 136 The main topic omitted here was justification. 137 In his initial discussion, the king gave way on justification and remained convinced of his earlier position on other points. About eight days later, he requested and was granted a second discussion, which lasted about two days. The preachers found him in a more pliant mood this time, but he still would not budge on the rejection of infant baptism and of the humanity of Christ as a result of his birth from Mary. In any case, they thought that he simply wished to bargain for his life (he offered that if he received mercy, he would, with the help of Melchior Hoffman and the queen

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 711

6/6/2007 9:18:43 PM

712

the events of 1535

the other hand, were so convinced, so precipitous, and so obstinate and infl exible that neither Scripture nor any argument could sway them. Hence, this comparison of Scriptures produced little profit in the case of these two men.

(i.e., Diewer?), convince all the Anabaptists in Holland, Brabant, England, Frisia or anywhere else to cease and to return to obedience.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f11_648-712.indd 712

6/6/2007 9:18:43 PM

THE EVENTS OF 1536 Finally, on the Wednesday before the feast of Anthony the Abbot, which was January 12,1 they were brought to Münster for execution, and were kept there in prison until the Saturday after the feast of Anthony, | which was January 22, the day dedicated to St. Vincent the Martyr. In front of the council hall, a stage and theater were erected out of three wagon attached together with strong spikes, so that there was a higher area separated from the audience. In the middle rose up a stake with movable stocks fitted to it. A beam stuck out horizontally from this stake at a height of one cubit2 above the spikes, and those condemned to execution were to sit on the beam with their legs held apart. On the day before he was to be brought before the public court, the king was asked whether he desired a priest to console him with Holy Scripture and with whom to engage seriously in the business of eternal salvation, since he was to die the next day. He replied that he would consider it a great favor if they would let Lord John of Siburg, the prince’s chaplain | talk with him, and he employed the chaplain’s services throughout the night. He was so moved and changed by the chaplain, that he did nothing but bemoan and detest his own impiety, murders, thievery, lewdness and other crimes, and stated that he had earned the most unpleasant death ten times over. In prison, he privately retracted all his errors apart from those concerning baptism and the humanity of Christ, and he would have done the same in public if he had been allowed, but since they were afraid that he would scatter among the crowd statements that would give rise to further evil, they did not permit him to speak in public at the time of execution. He also said that he was much grieved that he had often completely discounted the landgrave’s very salubrious advice, despising it in his arrogance. He also hoped that his wife Diewer would be impelled by similar repentance for her crimes.3 When Siburg said that he would tell

870 871

872

1 Other sources give the date as the Wednesday after the feast of Anthony, i.e., January 19. 2 About one and a half feet or a little more. 3 This statement apparently rebuts K.’s earlier claim (855D) that Diewer had been executed (see also his reference to “the queen” in “Events of 1535” n. 137). It is hard to imagine that news of her execution would have been withheld from Bockelson.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f12_713-729.indd 713

6/6/2007 9:19:19 PM

714

873

874

the events of 1536

her, the king said, “She will hardly believe you when you tell her this, and you will not have an easy time persuading her that I have recanted my doctrine as erroneous unless it is proven to her with a sure sign.” Therefore, as a sign he related the fact that she would hold a candle | when he used to shave the hiding place for lice at the groin (the pubic hair). Throughout the night, then, the king enjoyed the conversation and consolation of Lord Siburg. The other men, however, refused to speak with priests and rejected their presence, repeatedly stating that the presence of the Heavenly Father was good enough for them. Then, after 8 o’clock in the morning on January 22, the gates of the city were locked, and the prisoners were brought out from their cells to the marketplace.4 There, the theatrical king along with his retainers mounted the stage that had been built, and throwing himself to his knees, he repeatedly invoked the Father after his fashion. Then they stood up and looked around. With completely miserable expressions they saw first the group of executioners, then the stake with its stocks and the place of execution, then the prince sitting opposite them in the house of Jodocus Holthuss, then the surrounding audience, then the two iron braziers and the hot coals placed in them, then the four tongs that were horrifying merely to look at, then the tower of St. Lambert’s, from which would hang the iron cages into which they would be placed after execution to provide food for the birds. Meanwhile, the coals hissed and crackled when the executioners used bellows to stir them up, and the tongs were placed on the braziers and became white-hot. John Wesseling, a licentiate5 in law and the judge of the city, mounted the theater with his assessors, Herman Heerde and Melius Herte, and the other attendants of the court, sitting before the tribunal to pass judgment upon the prisoners’ case.6 | The king was immediately accused of sinning against God and ruler, reviving the Anabaptist errors which had been condemned by the councils of the Holy Fathers and the civil laws, polluting all the Sacraments, tearing down and plundering churches

4 Other sources indicate that the executions were not, as K. suggests here, simultaneous but consecutive (first the king, then Knipperdolling, then Krechting). One broadsheet even states that the later victims did not know of the (mis)treatment or manner of death of the earlier one(s), which suggests that they were each kept in detention at some distance until their turn came. 5 For the meaning of this term, see “Events of 1532” n. 82. 6 In the legal procedure of the time, the guilt of the accused was determined by the presiding magistrate before the “trial,” whose sole function was to provide a public forum in which the accused was to plead guilty and then be condemned and sentenced.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f12_713-729.indd 714

6/6/2007 9:19:19 PM

the events of 1536

715

and shrines, profaning things sacred, stirring up sedition, casting down the lawful ruler, substituting himself by his personal authority and making himself king, besmirching himself with the crime of treason, and driving into grievous exile burghers whom he had stripped of their property and forced from the city, all of which crimes, it was said, were so manifest and so well-known to all the men of the Holy Roman Empire, whether of the highest or lowest status, that they needed no demonstration. He replied that he had certainly offended the ruler, but not God. As if a man who despises and overturns God’s ordinance does not offend Him! He confessed to Anabaptism, stirring up sedition to the detriment of the ruler, and the charge of lèse-majesty,7 and for this he was condemned to death. Knipperdolling and Krechting were also condemned to death for virtually the same crimes. Immediately, the executioners first put the king into the stocks and bound him to the stake, then tore him apart with the blazing-hot tongs, ripping at the muscles all over his body.8 When touched by the tongs, the muscles gave off visible fl ames, and this made such a strong stench that it revolted the noses of all the by-standers in the marketplace. The others also had the same punishment infl icted on them. They seemed to withstand the tortures with less endurance and patience than did the king, bearing witness to the pain with more cries and words.9 | Knipperdolling was struck dumb with terror when he saw the horrible torture and settled down in the stocks that bound him to the

875

I.e., treason. This revolting practice was in fact nothing out of the ordinary in the savage form of justice practiced at the time. Tearing the fl esh with “glowing tongs” (to use German legal jargon) was frequently added as a preliminary to execution in the case of crimes that were thought to be particularly heinous (the number of “tears” was normally prescribed in the sentence). 9 Anthony Corvin (see 869D), who attended the executions, reports that the king endured the pain with great fortitude and did not utter a word. A broadsheet reports that the king’s torture lasted one hour, and after enduring the first three applications of the tongs in silence, he then constantly invoked the mercy and aid of God with words like “Father, have mercy on me!” (Vatter, erbam dich mein! ), and that when he perceived that the end was near, he cried out, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” (Vatter, in dein hend bevelh ich meinen geist), and died. Of Knipperdolling, Corvin said that he was too far off to hear, but people who were closer up said that all he said was, “May God be propitious to me, a sinner.” As for Krechting, Corvin hear him cry out “O Father! O Father!” twice when the tongs were applied. The broadsheet reports of Knipperdolling and Krechting that they stuck to their earlier views and said nothing apart from calling out the name of the Father after their fashion. The author remarks that their silence could have been the result of the torture which they had endured during their imprisonment, which had made them seem more dead than alive. 7 8

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f12_713-729.indd 715

6/6/2007 9:19:20 PM

716

876

877

the events of 1536

stake, attempting to crush his throat and hasten his death.10 Noticing this, the executioners raised him up and pulled a rope between the teeth in his gaping mouth so that he could not settle down and break his throat or choke himself by constricting his breathing and closing his voice box. After long torment, they were still alive, twitching and quivering, and then the executioners tore at their throats with glowing tongs, constricting them with the heat of the fire, and at the same time drove a dagger into the chest of each man with as much force as they could, so they would die more quickly with a wound in the seat of life. Their corpses were then carted off to the cemetery of St. Lambert and placed in iron cages fitted with grillwork. Held up with stocks, the corpses were suspended in these cages and attached to the top of the tower of St. Lambert’s on the south side, with the king holding a higher position in the middle and the other two a lower one on either side of him. Even now these cages can be seen attached there as a permanent memorial to the event, the fl esh and bones having disappeared. | The tongs with which they were tortured can be seen in the middle of the marketplace hanging from columns of the council hall to serve as an example and terrifying deterrent to seditious people who do not obey the lawful ruler. Afterwards, the clergy and burghers engaged in a competition, striving to repair the churches and to restore divine service with greater efforts than those deplorable people had used in destroying and abolishing them. Their principle aim was to roof over the still intact walls and quickly recall the divine offices from exile, as it were. Next, they would restore the previous decorations gradually within, and then they would finally turn their attention to repairing their own possessions. The prince also took upon himself the onus of establishing in the recovered city a fixed constitution that would be safe against future misfortunes, | and therefore, with the agreement of the other estates of the diocese, he proclaimed that a diocesan assembly was to be held on January 24 in the customary location (Laerbrock). When this assembly convened, the diocese’s various problems, burdens and troubles were set out by the prince. After these matters had been opened for public discussion and carefully examined, it was decided that it would be useful to make the customary reduction in the large number of members to expedite the passage of some definite decision about these matters.

10

This incident is recorded only by K.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f12_713-729.indd 716

6/6/2007 9:19:20 PM

the events of 1536

717

By the will of all the orders, important men of particularly high nobility were appointed: the high-born Count Arnold of Bentheim and Steinfurt, Gerard Morrien the marshal, Arnold of Raesfeld, Bernard of Westerholt,11 Godfrey of Schedelich, John of Merfelt, Conrad Ketteler, Rudolph of Wullen, John of Büren, Henry Schencking, John of Asbeck and John of Dincklage. The estates delegated to these men the authority and power to make permanent decisions, and promised to uphold whatever decisions they reached about these difficulties. First, since the Imperial estates had, at the last diet, which had been held at Worms on All Saints’ Day, passed decisions that were adverse, burdensome and virtually intolerable for the prince and the entire diocese, and issued directives which the representatives of the Empire were to order the diocese to comply with in the name of Empire on March 5,12 the delegates were to take counsel with the prince, his | councilors and the chapter, and deliberate about the foundations and arguments that could be used to undermine and demolish these decisions and to completely remove the burden placed on the diocese. Next, they were to consult judiciously about the constitution for the recovered city and about what sort of fortress was to be built to check any future rebellion on the part of the townsmen. Once this assembly was dissolved, the prince, the chapter, and the delegates from the nobility entered the city of Münster to deliberate carefully about the matters officially entrusted to them. The first thing they decided was the response to be given to the Imperial representatives (commissioners) on March 5. This will be described in the proper place.13 Next, they carefully considered the reasons because of which in previous years many different precipitous innovations in religion had crept into the city, stirring up conspiracies, factions and schism, and eventually the detestable and horrific sect of Anabaptism, public sedition, and the waging of open war against the prince and diocese by the occupiers of the city. Therefore, the delegates thought, the prince and his loyal subjects had had the intention of not only defending their homeland from devastation, their property from being plundered, and themselves from most certain disaster and destruction, but also of

878

11 Here K. omits the names Jodocus Korf, John of Raesfeld from Raesfeld, and Bernard of Oer. 12 Actually, March 13 (the same mistake appears in the next paragraph and in 868D and 890D). 13 See 890–893D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f12_713-729.indd 717

6/6/2007 9:19:20 PM

718

879

the events of 1536

saving this province, Germany and Christendom from being tainted with Anabaptism and its sedition and killing, and this was why they had necessarily resorted to arms, acquiring an army at great expense to the city under siege and thereby enclosing the rebels within it, checked their raiding at will, and stopped this appalling sect from spreading further. This had resulted in signal disasters, blood slaughter, horrible and unheard-of crimes, and lamentable devastation in the city, and through these actions the townsmen had plunged the prince, the diocese, and all his subjects headlong into irreparable losses, but through the aid, assistance, and advice of the princes and his friends, they had undertaken the siege, and then through the help of the estates of the Empire they had endured the entire war and siege, which they eventually managed to conduct in such a way that by the manifest favor and gift of God the city was recovered and restored to the prince’s control and compelled to give him obedience. Hence, the prince, chapter and delegation from the nobility unanimously decided that it was necessary for the benefit and preservation of the entire city and homeland that a fortress should be erected in the city and manned with sufficient garrison and other such necessities, | so that it would serve as an obstacle to future rebellion and retain the townsmen in their duty through fear of it. Given the previous disasters and the very festering state of the present time, it was hoped that this arrangement would ensure that this city and its innocent inhabitants would, by the grace of God and by judicious counsel, be henceforth ruled in good government, obedience and concord to avoid the recurrence of anything in the future. The articles about building, fortifying and equipping the fortress follow. “1) The fortress (fort) will be built in such a way in a suitable and appropriate location in the city by the advice of the chapter and nobility of this city that it can be maintained with a very small garrison and at tolerable expense. “2) If the structure of this stronghold is extended so far that it is necessary to tear down neighboring houses, the prince and diocese will give just recompense for them to the owners. “3) Half of all the city’s revenues, both from misdeeds and the freigravedom14 of Senden and other manors belonging to the city and

14

For this court, see 107D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f12_713-729.indd 718

6/6/2007 9:19:20 PM

the events of 1536

719

from the secular court, will be collected and contributed for the maintenance of this stronghold. If these funds do not suffice, the prince will see to the necessities for the stronghold from his own revenues. “4) The commandant of the stronghold will be a native of this diocese, who is a rich member of the knighthood capable of administering it. He will bind himself and his word of honor to the prince, chapter and nobility by oath and pledge, and he will not be taken into or released from service by the prince alone without the agreement of the chapter and nobility. “5) The commandant will loyally protect and defend the rights, jurisdiction and ordinances of the prince in the city. He will transfer to the stronghold all the wheeled guns that were found at the time of the city’s recapture and put them under the closest guard. “6) The prince and those who succeed him as bishop will have the power to come here and leave as they please, and in the prince’s presence the commandant will have no less control over the stronghold than in his absence. Neither the prince nor his successors will take any foreign princes, lords or noblemen with them to the stronghold to observe its defenses. If, at any time, sedition or disturbance is stirred up in the city, neither the chapter nor the nobility will be denied entry if they fl ee to the stronghold. “7) If any dissension or strife arises between the prince and the estates of the diocese or anyone else, the commandant of the stronghold will neither favor nor admit either party. “8) In his diocese, the prince will defend the religion which the emperor and the Imperial estates imposed upon him in the previous diet and will not deviate from the recesses passed by the Imperial estates at Neuss, Cologne and Worms. “9) The structure of the stronghold and the articles pertaining to the city and to the commandant, upkeep and garrisoning of the stronghold, and the power now bestowed on the prince and his successors which is greater than that of the past before the Anabaptist disturbance will in no way detract or derogate from the ancient privileges of the diocese, | nor will the estates of this diocese lose any of their rights as a result of these enactments, except for what has necessarily been enacted or decided by the prince and the diocese in the articles pertaining to the city. “10) If the stronghold needs a stronger garrison because of sedition or disturbance within the city or without, then if the prince is absent, the commandant will requisition the assistance necessary to this end from the bailiffs of the diocese, who will not deny it to him.

880

881

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f12_713-729.indd 719

6/6/2007 9:19:20 PM

720

the events of 1536

“11) Neither the burgher masters nor the burghers or inhabitants will presume to attempt any action against any of these enactments and decisions of the prince and diocese under penalty of execution for oath breaking, nor will they allow any such attempt without the authorization and agreement of the prince and the entire diocese.”

882

Articles for the good governance and political ordinance in the city of Münster “To prevent—which God forbid!—any future sedition and disobedience, to restore, stabilize and maintain peace, obedience and tranquility among the burghers and inhabitants of the city of Münster, to preserve the city and ensure the well-being of the entire diocese, and to keep the good men safe and defend them against oppression at the hands of the wicked, so that through the grace and goodwill of God the city will henceforth, particularly during this most festering and deceitful age, be better and more resolutely preserved in peace and tranquility and in the best status, the building of a fortress (stronghold) is decreed by the unanimous decision of the prince and diocese. The following articles pertaining to the city council and government of Münster were handed over to the council designate on the Sunday “Misericordias Domini.”15 “1) To begin with, a city council will be designated, consisting of twelve patricians and | twelve other wealthy citizens of known origin and proven way of life. These twenty-four councilmen and the two burgher masters chosen from them will first be appointed by the prince on the advice of the chapter and the nobility. “2) These twenty-four councilmen will henceforth have the power, when necessity dictates, to choose the two burgher masters from their number by the advice, decision and authorization of the commandant of the stronghold. This selection will be valid provided that the prince gives his authorization. “3) It is also deemed necessary for these twenty-four councilmen and burgher masters to retain their office and not be stripped of it so long as they live in a respectable, blameless manner. If one of them gives a legitimate reason to remove him, he should have his office taken away and be replaced with another by the agreement of the commandant and with the authorization of the prince.

15

Second Sunday after Easter (April 30).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f12_713-729.indd 720

6/6/2007 9:19:20 PM

the events of 1536

721

“4) Whenever one of them is taken off by death or the impediment of a serious disease or for some other just cause, so that he cannot perform the task imposed upon him, someone else will be substituted in his place in the manner stated in the previous article. “5) The burgher masters and council will settle disputes among their burghers through terms that are tolerable to both sides. If, however, this is not possible, they will refer the matter to the appropriate tribunal in light of the litigants’ status. “6) For the secular court the prince will assign a judge, two assessors from the council, and the other attendants, prescribing fixed formulas for passing judgment and quickly deciding law suits. “7) The burghers and inhabitants of the city who are not polluted with Anabaptism will be granted possession of their property without interference, obstruction or disturbance from anyone. “8) Although the prince had the most just cause and right to claim all the city’s revenues for himself to support the stronghold, with unparalleled goodwill and mercy | he will leave half of it to the city, so that it can pay off its debt and sustain and endure its other burdens apart from what was dedicated to the support of the stronghold. “9) The archdeacon will be stripped of none of his traditional rights and jurisdiction in the city by this ordinance. “10) Since, as was stated above, the city will be graciously granted half of its revenues, the burgher masters and council will, with the agreement of the commandant of the stronghold, turn over the administration of municipal offices to men of known integrity who are under oath to the prince and to the city of Münster, and as necessity dictates, they will remove these men from such offices, and substitute others. In the interval between the death of one prince and the appointment and confirmation of his successor, they will be bound by similar oath to the chapter and the knighthood. At the appropriate moment, they will render an accurate accounting of the office which they have administered to the treasurer of the prince before the commandant of the stronghold and in the presence of the burgher masters and council. “11) The commandant of the stronghold and the council will also carefully examine the state of the entire community, and after taking all circumstances into consideration, they will establish for the preservation of concord and the public good municipal laws for the burgers in the city regarding buying, selling, making contracts and engaging in commerce for profit.

883

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f12_713-729.indd 721

6/6/2007 9:19:21 PM

722

884

the events of 1536

“12) Since it is very clear from experience that all sedition, factionalism, abuse and disobedience crept into the city of Münster through associations, alliances, confederations and conventicles16 among the electoral districts and guilds, all the electoral districts and guilds in the city will be done away with and completely abolished, and none will be restored. Also, in order to forestall every occasion for future disturbances, no secret or open conventicles, associations or confederations among burghers, inhabitants, foreigners or immigrants will be tolerated in the city. If any people contumaciously disregard this decree, they will be punished not only with confiscation but also with execution according to the status of their person and property. “13) In addition, since the city was divided up before the previous disturbance into six separate units called “leyschapps”17 | so that this arrangement would facilitate the provision of watches and other duties and obligations of the burghers, it was decided to preserve these divisions unchanged for the purpose of preserving the city, though with the proviso that they should obey the commandant of the stronghold, the burgher masters, and the city council. “14) A master of force18 will be appointed, and he will be bound by oath to the commandant of the stronghold in place of the prince. He will loyally administer the night watches and everything relating to this office. Day and night, he, together with six attendants under oath to the prince and the city council, will carefully ensure that no secret conventicles, assemblies, factions, and seditions are stirred up or conducted in the city. He will have the power, if necessary, to invoke the assistance of all or certain divisions of the city, who are to defend themselves against the violence of the seditious, and to make sure that these wicked men do not escape punishment. The “leyschapps” will not deny to him the assistance he invokes. “15) Neither the prince nor the commandant of the stronghold will grant safe conduct in returning here to any of the seditious Anabaptists who were instigators or leaders of that faction. Those who claim innocence will be allowed to clear themselves of suspicion. If, however, anyone responsible for the previous sedition relies upon the official safe conduct granted to him in order to return, his official guarantee

16 17 18

For the meaning of “conventicle, see “Events of 1534” n. 245. The German term for the voting districts (see 105D). Gewaltmeister (see 108D).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f12_713-729.indd 722

6/6/2007 9:19:21 PM

the events of 1536

723

of safety will be revoked, and he will either be exiled permanently or taken away for the punishment he deserves.19 “16) Neither the prince nor the commandant of the city will interfere with the jurisdiction of the court of the gaugrafs over the main clergy either within the city or without, or derogate from it in any way. “17) Wine, beer or any other food supply bought for the use of the main clergy will be imported into the city and exported without any inconvenience, toll or tax. The lower clergy will also not be stripped of its privileges, immunities and rights. “18) If any member of the knighthood of this diocese places his son or daughter in a monastery or convent in the city of Münster, he will transport the wine, beer and other necessities for celebrating a marriage into the city without toll or tax and make free use of these items. “19) From the treasurers and administrators of all the alms houses and hospices the burgher masters and city council and the fiscal official appointed by the prince in the city will, at a suitable time every year, demand an accounting of their management of these houses, primarily making sure that the property of the poor is not squandered or diverted to some inappropriate purpose. “20) It has also been deemed necessary for the burgher masters, city council, burghers and inhabitants to swear under oath that after the death of the prince they would obey no one but the chapter and the members of the nobility appointed by the diocese until a new prince is unanimously chosen and then confirmed and installed. “21) Everyday, the keys to the city gates will be brought to the commandant of the stronghold once the city is locked.”

885

The document containing this ordinance relating to the construction of the new stronghold and this constitution drawn up in articles was passed and decreed unanimously after deliberations, and it was decided to ratify it with the seals of all the estates: first the prince’s, second the chapter’s, and third that of Count Arnold of Bentheim etc. for the knighthood. When the city council of Münster was to append its seal to it as the fourth estate on behalf of the other towns, it was rent with division, since the patricians had gone over from the burghers to the

19 In effect, the safe conduct was valid only until the determination of the guilt of the person in question, which would have made acceptance of such an offer somewhat perilous.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f12_713-729.indd 723

6/6/2007 9:19:21 PM

724 886

887

888

the events of 1536

knighthood, thinking | that they could no more be restricted to the rights of burghers than could the knighthood.20 The prince insistently demanded that the sealing should take place. The commoners on the council replied that they would not be responsible for perpetual slavery in their city, and would never commit such an act as would result in the entire posterity of the city being plunged into inescapable misfortune through their fault. They said that they would never put their seal to articles that had been designed to destroy the city’s liberty, and instead asked the prince to show his graciousness by relieving them of their oath and allowing them to resign from their office. The prince was greatly angered at this (his offence was increased by the urgent suggestion of certain men), and he replied that he would take another tack with the city and think up other remedies against this rebellion. These words so disturbed and distressed Borchard Heerde, a man of old-time piety and faith and a partisan for the city’s liberty who had been mainly responsible for the previous reply, that after returning home he fell into a sudden illness that was quickly followed by death. Thus, both sides went their own ways with angered spirits. In the meanwhile, there was no lack of men who hated public tranquility, and with furtive blowing they fanned the fl ames that had been kindled against the city. Since the city council of Münster refused the prince’s request that they put its seal on these articles, | it was deemed best that twenty-six noblemen should sign the document on behalf of the towns of the whole diocese. Then, five identical copies of the articles were drawn up to preserve the memory of the decision and to guarantee its accuracy. The first was given to the prince, the second to the chapter, the third to the Count of Bentheim, the fourth to Gerard Morrien the marshal, and the fifth to the burgher masters and city council of Münster. Literal translation of the oath “The burgher masters, burghers and inhabitants of the city of Münster will vow and swear that they will render their faithfulness and due office to the prince and his successors, St. Paul, | and the diocese of Münster, that they will seek and promote the interests, profit and salvation of the city and diocese of Münster for the prince and for successive bishops, while removing, as far as possible, all detriment, loss and disadvantage

20 I.e., the patricians thought that like the knights they too were better than the burghers and deserved more extensive privileges.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f12_713-729.indd 724

6/6/2007 9:19:21 PM

the events of 1536

725

for them, that they will lawfully and loyally administer the duties of the council entrusted to them, maintaining and preserving peace, obedience, justice, and civil concord in the city of Münster, and will defend and protect the prince’s and diocese’s arrangement and political ordinance in said city, obeying it and neither secretly nor openly doing anything or allowing anything to be done in violation of it, that they will heed the governor of the city (commander of the stronghold) in the office entrusted to him in order to preserve the diocese and maintain and defend the obedience and concord of the city, and that they will undertake to look after and protect the city for the benefit of the prince and of the entire homeland; also, that after the death of the prince they will be bound under oath to the main clergy and the knighthood of this diocese and to no one else until the concordant installation of the chosen prince and his assumption of administration.” They promised that they would carry out all these things in a loyal manner without deceit, fraud or subterfuge. The burgher masters and councilmen were summoned to the curia of the bishop, where they took the oath. Then, in the Lords’ Field, all the burghers swore to these articles and provisions, which were read out to them first. By the same oath, they were obligated to obey the council, the governor of the city, and these articles, to treat the burgher masters and city council with due respect, and not to oppose these articles with any words or deeds. If any seditious people or those suspected of it turned up in the city, the burghers | were to reveal them under penalty of death and of the confiscation of all their property. If the governor of the city or the city council equivocated in imposing execution on the seditious, they were to be severely punished by the prince for neglect. Gerard Morrien the marshal administered this oath to the burgher masters, the council and the entire commons in the presence of the prince. The patrician councilmen appointed by the prince were Berthold Travelman the burgher master, John Bischoping the chamberlain, Lambert Buck, Henry Droste, John Warendorf of Evinghof, Herman Schencking, Arnold Drolshagen, Bernard of Tinnen, Henry Stevening, Eberwin Droste, Egbert Clevorn and Albert Clevorn, and the commoners were Wilbrand Plonies the burgher master, Derek Münstermann the chamberlain, Borchard Heerde, Herman Heerde, John Herding, Bernard Gruter, Gerard Averhagen, John Buthman, Bernard Grolle, Jodocus Smith, James Stove, and Herman Jonas; and Nicholas of Affeln was the usher. The burgher masters and the council, which the

889

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f12_713-729.indd 725

6/6/2007 9:19:21 PM

726

890

891

the events of 1536

prince wished to be hereditary, were allowed to fill the council’s other offices. Since the Jews’ Field Gate was not yet reopened and the use of it was necessary for the burghers, that district brought this matter to the attention of the main clergy on February 13, and when the latter intervened with the prince, he readily granted their request for it to be unlocked. Now, March 5 was at hand, the day on which the commissioners appointed in the recess of the Diet at Worms were going to send representatives in the manner already related to Münster to carry out the Empire’s decrees, and so the prince summoned to Münster from the entire diocese the nobles who exercised particular infl uence and the abbots and other leading clergymen, so that he would not lack for men to consult under these problematical circumstances.21 After the representatives came and set out before the prince, the chapter, the nobility and cities who were attending that assembly the decrees described above, insisting in the name of the Empire that they were to be carried out, the prince and the other estates of the diocese deliberated about this and replied as follows. The demolition of the bulwarks and other defenses of the city, particularly at this very festering and faithless time, when everything was filled with self-seeking fraud and deception, would be disadvantageous not only | to the prince, the entire diocese and the innocent inhabitants of Münster but also to the neighboring princes, his Imperial Majesty and the whole Empire, and these would also be very detrimental to the general good. Furthermore, in the whole diocese, the prince had no other fortification in which to seek refuge in safety at the threat of danger, and his subjects resident in various villages and fields would not be safe from foreign plundering and enemy attack if they could not, in reliance on the city’s defenses, confidently bring their property there as if to an asylum, and place it in the city’s safe keeping. In addition, they said, giving to the representatives half of the sums realized from selling the guns and the property owned by the rebaptized would be very burdensome not only to the prince but also to the entire diocese, and would cause a public loss, because in the seven

21 K. is now returning to the point in the narrative at 878D, where he stopped discussion of the planned response to the demands made on the diocese by the Imperial diet and related the new constitutional arrangements for the city.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f12_713-729.indd 726

6/6/2007 9:19:21 PM

the events of 1536

727

whole months before estates of the Empire made any contribution, the prince had, by himself, paid the cost for the beginning of a most difficult siege, not only for his own and the diocese’s advantage but also for the preservation, salvation and benefit of the Empire, the whole Germanic province, every ruler, | respectability and Christiandom, when he spent 15,00022 fl orins on the soldiery and was the first to remove from the necks of the Christians the danger that was threatening their lives, souls, possessions, and wives and children, and oppression and murder at the hands of tyrants. Since it was not within the power of the diocese of Münster to bear the great expenses of the siege, the prince had borrowed money from neighboring princes, mortgaging to them strongholds, lordships, towns, country districts and other manors, which meant that a huge sum had to be paid in interest every year. The subjects of the diocese were exhausted by the monthly exactions and overwhelmed with carting guns and digging and piling up earth for ramparts for nearly a year and a half. Also, he had supported 300 cavalrymen and all the necessities for the guns at his own expense, and before the aid voted by the estates was delivered, he borrowed 56,000 fl orins from creditors under mortgage, and the entire diocese was liable for all these detrimental difficulties involving both the interest and the principal, and was awash in debt. If the assessment for the Anabaptists’ guns was paid to the Empire’s estates, the diocese would never emerge from these hardships or pay off the loans. | The prince did express his eagerness to comply with the other decrees of the Empire, asking that the representatives report this benevolently to the estates of the Empire. The commissioners pressed on energetically with the decrees, stating that they could not deviate from them in the least. Hence, the prince appealed to his Imperial Majesty and to all the estates of the Empire against this detrimental ruling, hoping that they would mitigate the provisions in light of the times and the circumstances. In this way, the representatives left without completing their assignment in terms of these two articles. The prince and the other estates of the diocese spared no effort or expense in acquiring the goodwill of Emperor Charles, King Ferdinand, the electors, and the princes and cities of the Empire, so that given the dictates of the times and the circumstances, the more

22

892

893

Should be “50,000.”

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f12_713-729.indd 727

6/6/2007 9:19:21 PM

728

894

895

896

the events of 1536

severe decrees affecting the diocese of Münster lapsed into abeyance and have not been revived down to the present day. Next, in order for the decree of the estates of this diocese to be complied with and for the burghers to be kept from causing disturbances in the future, the prince carefully fortified the very strong fortress, built in ancient days on the northern side of the city near the New Bridge Gate between the ditches and the rampart, surrounding it with a ditch in the direction of the city and placing a garrison of armed men in it to oppose any attack from the burghers. On the other side to the southwest, a place was designated for the stronghold by the Monastery of the Brothers of the Fountain. Houses that stood in the way were torn down with payment being made to the owners, and the stronghold was fortified with much effort and expense. It was protected against the city with a very thick tower, and a wall, rampart, ditch and other defenses, and its name is the Angel’s Castle. | They thought that the tower of the Church Across-the-River would hinder the stronghold because of its great height, which would allow hostile burghers to fire into the stronghold and easily force the defenders from the fortifications, and therefore they thought that it would be cheaper to tear down this prominence than to raise the rampart to such a height as to make the defenders safe against the gunfire, particularly since they also thought that so great a work would not hold together without collapsing under its own weight. The demolition of this was postponed, however, until the building of the stronghold was completed. On the advice of the other estates, Bernard of Oer, a man of the highest nobility and infl uence, was placed by the prince in command of this stronghold, holding full control of the government. He was burgher master, councilman and alderman, holding the reins of the city in his own hands alone, while the councilmen sported the titles of empty offices. At his own discretion, he passed and unpassed laws and threw burghers into prison, punishing or fining them as he saw fit. He tore down Bischoping Gate, the Windmill Tower, a large stretch of the city walls, and other defenses, which allowed cavalry and infantry to enter the city by day or night without using the gates. Confident in impunity, his servants broke into burghers’ houses and committed whatever acts they pleased, but no one dared to complain about the injuries infl icted on him. They called him the governor of the city, assigning him a salary of 700 fl orins per year. It is astonishing | how much burghers who were accustomed to freedom loathed and detested this sort of government and chafed under the governor’s tyranny in the memory of their ancient

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f12_713-729.indd 728

6/6/2007 9:19:21 PM

the events of 1536

729

liberty, grumbling that he was doing everything according to his profit, greed and lustful inclinations, but they preferred to be subject to him temporarily rather than be considered instigators of a new disturbance. Hence, it seemed that as a favor to the good-natured prince from whom they hoped to regain their ancient liberty they would tolerate things that were unpleasant and almost intolerable for them. The extent of the losses infl icted on the city by the rebaptized when they tore down the churches is shown clearly enough by the great size of the expenses laid out just for the repair of the Lords’ Church. These exceeded 7800 golden fl orins, not taking into account the prince’s gift of half the lead and bronze used on the roof, the 1800 oaks donated by the lords of the main clergy, the vicars of the cathedral and various monasteries, and the stained-glass windows that were repaired and restored to their original splendor at the expense partly of the prince, partly of the Count of Bentheim, partly of the noble canons, partly of members of the knighthood, and partly of the executors of various wills.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f12_713-729.indd 729

6/6/2007 9:19:22 PM

THE EVENTS OF 1538–1553 897

898

899

Then, on December 2 of this year (1538), which was the first Sunday of the Lord’s Advent, the Cathedral of St. Paul was reconsecrated by the reverend Lord John Bischoping, the suffragan bishop. Once the churches in the city were in some way repaired, and the chant books were reprinted at the expense of the main clergy since the earlier books had been either torn up or burned by the rebaptized, divine worship and all the Catholic ceremonies were revived with unparalleled zeal and acclaim on the part of the burghers, and now that a constitution had been established by the prince, every individual returned to his duties and business activities. Now it was thought that everything was pacified, and all the soldiers were discharged, but contrary to everyone’s hope and expectation, around the Sunday “Cantate”1 in the year 1538, the brothers George, Christopher and Anthony of Oldenburg and with them Duke William of Brunswick and Count Otto of Tecklenburg, who was later captured during this war, gathered a large band of soldiers and waged an undeclared war against the diocese of Münster, which was broken through what was by now a long | period of war, and worn out to the point of exhaustion through frequent exactions. They took the towns of Wildeshausen and Vechta on the first assault, then after several attacks they captured the stronghold itself, where the bishop was almost cut off by the enemy. Next, after taking Haselünne, Meppen, Harpstedt, Niehaus, and Cloppenburg, and placing garrisons in them, they occupied this whole region of the province, plundering the property. If they had laid aside their hesitant delay | and led their large and now seasoned forces on a campaign against Münster and the whole diocese, they would without a doubt have attained victory. The city was stripped of guns and of virtually every sort of weapon, the ramparts had fallen into the ditches through neglect, since there was no one to look after the defenses (in certain places the collapse of the ramparts filled the ditches), and the parts of the city walls that had been shattered during the previous siege had not yet been repaired. The burghers could not

1

Fourth Sunday after Easter (May 19).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 730

6/6/2007 9:20:09 PM

the events of 1538–1553

731

stand the tyranny of the governor, and in their disgust at this slavery, they yearned for freedom. Hence, it would not have been difficult to take the city and with it the whole diocese. But after the prince enrolled cavalry and infantry forces under the command of John of Raesfeld against this unexpected violence, the enemy left the diocese, burning the town of Vechta with its stronghold and Niehaus, though they fortified Kloppenburg and placed a garrison there. The prince retook by force the towns and strongholds that the enemy had taken from him, and he stormed Kloppenburg. As the enemy fl ed to the County of Oldenburg, he pursued them there, taking Wardenburg and threatening to besiege Oldenburg too, which is the capital of the area. He would have occupied the entire county if his advisers had not dissuaded him, and a chain had not kept the cavalry commander from being able to advance even the width of a straw further.2 Meanwhile, the archbishop of Cologne | and other potentates interrupted this war and then settled it. I am unaware of the peace terms. After having endured much toil in war, the prince finally attained such a degree of peace that he was ordained in 1540 as a deacon by the suffragan bishop on the Day of the Innocents3 in the Iburg Monastery and as priest the next day. Next, on the Day of the Lord’s Circumcision,4 he was consecrated as bishop in the Marienfeld Monastery by the Bishop of Lüttich, who was in exile, and by the suffragan bishops of Münster and Paderborn | with the assistance of two abbots, Arnold tom Drecke of Marienfeld and Bernard Westerholt of Iburg. Being by no means pleased with the form of government by which the burghers were being oppressed under the tyranny of the governor in violation of their previous liberty, the city council pleaded with the prince in various ways for a number of years in almost all assemblies, asking either that this form should be made milder and more tolerable, or that the previous form should be restored. Otherwise, they asked him to allow them in his graciousness to resign from their positions after giving an account of them. Finally, on January 4, 1541, a meeting was held between envoys of the prince and representatives of the main clergy on the one hand and

900

901

902

2 This is an ironic way of indicating bribery, since gold was often formed into ostentatious gold chains. 3 December 28. 4 January 1, 1541.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 731

6/6/2007 9:20:09 PM

732

903

the events of 1538–1553

the burgher masters and city council of Münster on the other. Here, the prince’s envoys set out the following statements. In the past few assemblies and most recently in the assembly at Telgte and the one at Münster, the burgher masters and city council had urged the prince in the most assiduous and dutiful terms possible that he should graciously allow them to withdraw from their office after receiving from them an account of it, and to this the prince gave the following reply. He said that he would send envoys of his own and representatives of the chapter and the knighthood to Münster to take the accounts on the Monday after the Lord’s Circumcision, which had been done the preceding day. Once this accounting was rendered and completed, they would hand it on to the prince, having no doubt that he would be very pleased with it. As for the burgher masters and council having resumed their previous petition after rendering the accounts, and having rashly persisted in it, requesting that the prince release them from the oath which they had given for their offices and graciously allow them to give up their offices, the envoys gave the following reply by command of the prince. The prince had not imagined that the burgher masters and council would interrupt or give up and reject the administration of the public offices which had been entrusted to them, as was described in the political ordinance that had been formulated with the moderating infl uence of fairness and decreed and decided by him, the chapter and the nobility with the agreement and approval of the towns. Instead, they had, together with him, considered that this political arrangement had been instituted and laid out to restore and preserve peace and civil concord, in order to avoid any seditious disturbance like the one that had blazed up in previous years, plunging not only the inhabitants of the city of Münster but those of the entire diocese and the neighboring princes and rulers of neighboring states into serious losses and intolerable calamity. If, God forbid, seditious disturbance crept once more into this state, this would be very detrimental to the burgher masters, the city council, and the wealthy burghers in particular, and then to the prince and the entire diocese. In addition, it was to be feared that the prince, the chapter, the nobility, and the whole diocese would call down upon themselves the outrage of his Imperial Majesty because they had not, when the city was in their control, established laws and political decisions that | would shut the door to future sedition. If an inconvenience similar to that of previous years was once more forced upon the Empire, it would without a doubt demand repayment for all its expenses from

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 732

6/6/2007 9:20:10 PM

the events of 1538–1553

733

the prince and the entire jurisdiction of Münster. The prince therefore demanded that the burgher masters and city council should continue to administer the duties which had been placed upon their shoulder and which they had undertaken. If, however, they thought that they were being oppressed by the aforementioned constitution in violation of the moderating infl uence of fairness, the prince had instructed them, the envoys, to discuss this situation in a friendly way with the advice and assistance of the chapter’s representatives in order to restore everything to the standard of equity, and to hear the city council’s advice as to what it thought were the appropriate measures to take in this matter in order to protect the entire diocese against future disturbances. After a short deliberation, the council gave the following reply. It was very true, they said, that for them the duties of the council in the city of Münster as well as the constitution were burdensome and virtually intolerable, since they had undertaken to administer them through a somewhat coerced obedience. If they retained and fulfilled those offices according to the ordinance that had been prescribed to them, it was impossible to preserve the usual government without faction and dissension on the part of the burghers, it having been made clear enough through the reading of articles in previous assemblies why they could not accept this constitution. It was also certain that other towns in the diocese rejoiced in the enjoyment of fuller liberties and privileges, though if there was to be any hope for the ancient honor of this city, it was necessary for it to have many new liberties and privileges bestowed upon it. Yet, they did not press this claim with tenacious insistence, and their sole request, which they were making in humility, was to be restored to the status granted by their previous liberties and privileges. They were obliged not to overlook this matter to the detriment of the city, nor could they in good conscience give any advice relating to the constitution or agree to any matter before such restoration. They also asked that in this matter the prince’s councilors and the representatives of the chapter should be not judges but advocates of the burghers’ privileges. They should voluntarily do what they thought just and fair, and the burghers should be restored in accordance with the decision of the Imperial princes at the Diet of Worms.5 To this the prince’s councilors and the chapter’s representatives said the following. They could conceive of no reasons why the prescribed

5

904

For this decision, see 863–868D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 733

6/6/2007 9:20:10 PM

734

905

the events of 1538–1553

constitution was so burdensome and virtually intolerable for the burgher masters and council that they could neither preserve stable government in the city while it was in force nor administer their offices beneficially without giving rise to faction and dissension among the burghers. It had been absolutely necessary, as the council itself could attest, for certain laws to act as barricades that would restrain the inhabitants of this city from a madness and disturbance similar to what had blazed up in previous years to the calamity of the diocese, and that these laws had been introduced with no other goal in mind but to forestall future evils. The burgher masters and council should remember that the prince and the diocese had selected them to serve on the council on the grounds that they were more eminent, more prudent, more intelligent, more experienced, and more virtuous, a circumstance that would win them great prestige in everyone’s eyes. If, on the other hand, they had been unworthy of being raised up to such a prominent position because they needed someone else’s advice and leadership, they would have been entangled in a burdensome situation because of this circumstance rather than the constitution. Accordingly, it was the trustworthy advice of the councilors and of the chapter’s representatives that they should not refuse to administer their offices in accordance with the constitutional enactment, but should retain them to the advantage of their own honor and of the public good. As for the claim that this constitution entailed the undermining of civil government in the city of Münster, they did not see this, since practically the same constitution was established in ancient days in the city of Cologne, and had been confirmed over the long passage of time. Nor was it advisable for the prescribed constitution to be changed or abrogated at the request of the city council or for it to be completely restored in the way decreed by the Empire, since it was to be feared that this would result in an immediate recurrence within the walls of the old schism and the previous disturbance. For if, as the Empire wished, | a restoration took place, the restoration of all the guilds would seriously alienate the commons from the city council, and it was to be feared that this would result in the previous disobedience, rebellion and sedition against the ruler, and eventually in a similar disturbance. The way in which the liberty of the guilds had previously blazed into impudence demonstrated clearly enough what windows to baneful dissension and the overthrow of all estates would be opened if the guilds were restored to their previous status and ancient liberties. If the diocese infl icted on the Empire a disaster similar to the previous one, the Empire would

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 734

6/6/2007 9:20:10 PM

the events of 1538–1553

735

not only demand payment for all its expenses from the diocese but utterly destroy it in a complete disaster for the prince, the city council, and all the estates. It was therefore a matter of the highest necessity that in every possible way the path to such future misfortunes should, as far as God’s grace allowed, be blocked. As for the council’s unwillingness to share its advice and to agree to any matter pertaining to the permanent government of the city, the delegates said that they were completely amazed at this, since the council was complaining that the constitution prescribed by the prince was very burdensome to it, and as the rulers of the city the councilmen knew on the basis of previous disturbances the remedies with which future ones would be forestalled. The council was also not unaware that a dispute over courts and jurisdiction had broken out on several occasions between previous princes and the city of Münster, | and that if God had not averted it, this situation would have infl icted serious losses not so much on the prince and diocese as on the city. It was therefore necessary to find a way to avoid such a dispute in the future. Furthermore, the fact did not escape the council’s attention, they said, that it was in reliance on the rights of the gaugravate of Senden that burghers had made raids from Münster and attacked the jurisdiction of the prince, taking both noblemen and commoners prisoner and bringing them back to the city. They thought that the city had hardly had this right, since it violated the prince’s jurisdiction, and a great deal of dispute and contention had arisen from this. To prevent the same thing from happening between this prince and his successors and the city if burghers attacked his jurisdiction on account of the gaugravate of Senden, as had happened repeatedly in the past, it was necessary to seek a means for peace. After a deliberation, the people from Münster gave the following response. They would not in any way permit the constitution prescribed by the prince. Such rash consent would disgrace them in the eyes of posterity, who would be plunged into never-ending slavery through the fault of their ancestors. They therefore asked the prince to grant their request to resign their offices and to replace them with others. They could bear this, since they had made only honorable and just requests, namely the restoration of ancient privileges and liberties. As for being requested to give advice about instituting a fixed constitution, they had to say no, since they lacked any plan. It did, however, seem useful to them for the guilds and their meetings to be suppressed and never restored in the city, and for the prince to possess the authority to

906

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 735

6/6/2007 9:20:10 PM

736

907

the events of 1538–1553

appoint and remove councilmen, since this would result in less sedition being stirred up in the city. As for the assertion that if the ancient privileges and liberties were restored, the previous rebellion, disobedience and sedition against the ruler were to be feared, their response was the following. If privileges and liberties were responsible for sedition, no association, no community, no corporate body was free of sedition, and there was more disturbance in the little town of Telgte than in Münster. As for jurisdiction,6 this had been the reason why the prince had the power to appoint or remove the judge. If it had happened that someone was taken prisoner for a crime, it had been customary for him | to be exposed to questioning under torture by the city council in criminal cases, for the crimes he had confessed to be turned over to the judge, and for the suspect, if he did not recant his confession, to be brought to court, accused, and eventually condemned to some form of execution or punishment for his misdeed. The council would not release a criminal without the agreement of the prince. Of the fines collected in the city, half belonged to the prince and half to the council to defray the costs laid out for the prisoners. It was customary to try and decide civil cases before the prince’s judge and certain assessors belonging to the council. Safe conduct had always been sought from the council and the judge, and with the judge’s consent official guarantee of safety had been granted for the purpose of enforcing one’s rights or of defending oneself by law. The council had had possession of the gaugravate of Senden since ancient days, and raiding on the part of burghers had been common practice since time immemorial. If someone infl icted harm or violence on them, the victim had avenged himself upon his foe with the permission of the common law. To this, the representatives of the chapter gave the following reply. They were still aware that the prescribed constitution was burdensome to the city council, though the council knew well enough from the past what reason the prince had had to establish it, namely the purpose of forestalling sedition and preserving concord, peace and tranquility in the city. If the council did not rely on the prince’s authority in governing the city, it would not by itself preserve peace and tranquility, and therefore the right and authority to rule depended upon the prince, and it had

6

See 93–95D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 736

6/6/2007 9:20:10 PM

the events of 1538–1553

737

been necessary for a constitution to be prescribed by him. The city’s peace was not maintained merely by the prohibition against guilds and by the appointment and removal of councilmen by the prince, since they had learned from past experience more than sufficiently that if there was a restoration in the way decreed by the Empire, the commons would think that this same decree also allowed them to set up guilds and hold meetings, and for this reason they would extort all these things from a council that had been restored to its ancient status. As for the council’s claim that if privileges and liberties were responsible for disturbance, no corporate body, however small, including the community of Telgte, would be free of disturbance, the response was that this was irrelevant if it was being compared with the corporate body of Münster. The latter’s sedition | could be pacified only with great inconvenience to the prince and the entire diocese, while a disturbance in Telgte could be pacified easily, as had been made clear enough in the previous instance. If the written common law7 was to be considered, they could not give up their offices, since they were carrying out public duties which had no provision for discharge for cause, it being traditional practice in this city that no one appointed to the council could be discharged for cause. In addition, even if the prince did have the right to appoint and remove the judge, in the past he had nonetheless often been hindered and disturbed in this through the interference of certain disputes. It also seemed advisable to him that whenever the truth was to be forced from prisoners through torture,8 this should be done in the presence of the judge, since it was not only through the confession to the crimes but also through facial expression, gestures and other circumstances that the situation concerning the crimes can be judged. Also, it was proper for the prince, who possessed the power of the sword, to have the right to release criminals in light of the circumstances. The prince’s councilors and the representatives of the chapter also perceived that it was a great abuse which led to the overthrow of the prince’s rights and jurisdiction, that in civil cases appeals were lodged

908

7 Despite the sound of this expression in English, K. has Roman law in mind. It was the only form of law common throughout Germany, and its written nature distinguished it from local custom. 8 The standard method of investigation in criminal matters involved the extraction of information from suspects through the use of torture.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 737

6/6/2007 9:20:10 PM

738

909

910

the events of 1538–1553

with the city council against the sentences of the prince’s judge, since it was a violation of the nature of appeals for them to go from the higher to the lower judge. It therefore seemed just to them that in order for the natural order to be preserved, the aggrieved party should appeal to the prince. They also thought it to be consonant with fairness that in civil cases the city council should give to burghers an official guarantee of safety, but when the arrest had been carried out under the prince’s authority, the council had no right to give anyone a safe conduct, much less in criminal cases, since the granting of such a guarantee belongs to the prince and his bailiffs. As for the gaugravate of Senden, they were not unaware that the council had recently sent Dr. Wieck and certain other members of the council on an embassy to Iburg to petition the prince about certain articles: that within a radius of one mile of the city of Münster no one was to bake bread or brew beer for sale and that the prince should not purchase the gaugravate of Senden, which had been mortgaged. They | therefore had a great desire to know for how much the gaugravate had been mortgaged, and for how much money it could be purchased. If the council also wished to make use of the tribunal of the freigravedom,9 it should lay claim to no more right than it had in it or bring before that tribunal cases that were not granted to it by the Empire. Raids against foreigners who had committed extortion against burghers very greatly violated the prince’s jurisdiction and authority, and for this reason it would be difficult to secure permission for this, since the whole diocese would not find this tolerable, and indeed they had the not unreasonable suspicion that this would involve the city council in various troubles. For if a rash person prone to sedition had a dispute with someone outside the city about some trivial matter, and rashly rose up against him, he could complain to the council about the serious injury done to him without justification and demand that a guard be granted to him in order to avenge himself against his foe and take him prisoner. If this was denied to him, he would stir up his blood relations and others to sedition against the council itself, from which first disobedience and then a civil disturbance were to be feared. If, on the other hand, the council allowed him a raid, this would give rise to rioting. As for | the council’s notion that such raiding was a form of defense granted by law, they were wrong about this, since defense

9

See Article 3 on 879D.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 738

6/6/2007 9:20:10 PM

the events of 1538–1553

739

encompasses the moderate use of unimpeachable protection, but if the commons began to act with madness, they would without a doubt transgress the boundaries of unimpeachable protection. Second, if the burghers were granted such defense against those who oppress them, what is the point of magistrates, of the prince, of bailiffs and stewards, if every individual could be the judge of his own case? Third, even if the burghers had been permitted to use force to avenge themselves upon someone who oppressed the burghers and take him prisoner, he should nonetheless not be led back to the city and thrown in prison there, but instead should be handed over to a bailiff or steward to be placed before a court for those who wished to pursue their legal rights. If the people of Münster were to have the full right to avenge in the prince’s jurisdiction an injury done to their burghers, attacking the perpetrator, taking him prisoner and bringing him back to the city, the prince would have the same right to attack anyone who had oppressed his subjects and fl ed to the city, capturing him there and taking him away, without any interference on the part of the council, to impose penalties on him. For what is just for one man cannot be unjust for another. To this the people from Münster gave the following reply. It was their repeated request that in accordance with the wish and decision of the Empire they should be restored to the previous status granted by their privileges and liberties. They were confident that if this took place and the guilds were not allowed, they would maintain a tranquil community. In addition, the prince should allow them to resign their offices. As for the claim that these were public offices that did not allow discharge for cause, their response was as follows. Anyone should be allowed to earn the community’s gratitude and to benefit it to the best of his abilities, but since this was a permanent office imposed upon them till the end of their lives, they thought that they were not bound to it to the detriment of their own affairs. While | the prince’s councilors thought it useful for the questioning of prisoners under torture to take place in the presence of the judge, they thought that this was not worthwhile, since the confessions extracted from the prisoner would be presented to the judge, and from this the circumstances of the crimes could be clearly inferred. As for the prince’s ability to release criminals without the consent of the council, this could not happen without endangering the community, since an arsonist and a brigand could gain release from the prince through bribery or for some other reason.

911

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 739

6/6/2007 9:20:11 PM

740

912

the events of 1538–1553

As for the inversion of the nature of appeals when appeal is made to the council against the prince, their response was as follows. This was not an appeal but consisted of acts of reporting, returning10 and instructing, since it takes place though all these acts. With the judge’s panel the council made a decision on the basis of these acts, and this was a decision of the first instance. Safe conduct and the official guarantee of safety had been granted since ancient days in the manner stated above, so they did not see in what way this custom was in confl ict with fairness. As for the article about the gaugravate of Senden, they had no other knowledge and had never heard anything else but that it had been bought from the noblemen of Schönebeck and had been in the possession of the council since time immemorial. As for raiding on the part of burghers, they would give a justification if they were told when and in what case they had made an unjust raid. Next, they complained in a miserable and tearful way about what had happened to their burghers at Schöppingen in the previous year. After deliberation, the prince’s councilors gave the following reply. They would not enter into a long-winded debate with the city council, but would report to the prince the statements and arguments made by them. He would no doubt do what was in conformity with fairness. As for the gaugravate in connection with civil cases, however, they could still not figure out what case should be referred to the city council after the passing of sentence, and they therefore replied that this was not an act of returning since the sentence had not been passed by those making the decision. Second, it was not a report, since this would take place before the passing of sentence, and reports were of a different nature, being made to a superior. It did, however, seem useful to them for this article to be referred to the decision of the prince and of the entire diocese. As for the claim that criminals should not be released by the prince without the consent of the council, they had devised a middle course in this matter. If the prince wished to release a criminal who the council argued should not be released, the prince | should appoint three of his councilors who were natives of the diocese and not born elsewhere to serve as judges under oath. Each side should set out its reasons for

10

I.e., returning the case to its original venue.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 740

6/6/2007 9:20:11 PM

the events of 1538–1553

741

thinking that the criminal should either be released or not released but subjected to a capital trial. As for the granting of safe conduct, the council had heard the reasons why the prince alone claimed this in certain situations. It was stated above that raiding on the part of burghers would do more harm than good, and that it was also contrary to fairness to make attacks on the prince’s jurisdiction and to violate it rashly. Nonetheless, they would report to the prince the statements made by the council. They did expect that they would receive from him permission for the burghers to avenge and take prisoner in the prince’s jurisdiction anyone who had oppressed them or was their foe, provided that this took place without harm to his subjects and that the criminal was handed over to the bailiff or steward in whose territory he had been caught. Angered by these replies, the councilmen persisted in resigning, to which the councilors gave the following reply. They had no instructions or authorization from the prince about this matter, but they faithfully urged and advised them not to lay down their offices before everything was reported to the prince. They had, they said, no doubt that he would give a gracious response to it all. The council agreed on the condition of being given a prompt response as to what the prince’s frame of mind was, which his councilors promised they would get him to do. After these proceedings, the parties went their separate ways. By now, the council had been pleading with the prince about making the constitution milder and more tolerable or at least restoring the old one for more than five years, but since he was greatly offended, he was unwilling to absolve them of their oath. Certain of the more peaceable members of the council thought it necessary to deal with the offended prince in a different way if the ancient privileges were to be regained. Herman Heerde, | who at that time held the position of chamberlain on the council and later became burgher master, and governed the city in an excellent and most prudent manner to the acclaim of all the citizens, was a calm and wondrously eloquent man, and therefore he made use of the advice and assistance of Herman Schencking the patrician to become friendly with Frederick of Twist, the bailiff of Sassenburg and marshal of the court, who had such infl uence with the prince that he was everywhere called the “junior bishop.” On behalf of the council, Heerde gave him a gift of sixty gold fl orins and discussed with him the restoration of the ancient privileges. While they were having frequent meetings to deal with this matter, sharing plans about how the business of the restoration could be brought to a satisfactory conclusion with the

913

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 741

6/6/2007 9:20:11 PM

742

914

915

the events of 1538–1553

prince, Twist fell ill, and John Wesseling, a doctor of philosophy and medicine who was the prince’s physician, undertook his care. In the meanwhile, it happened that in their desire to complete the business which they had begun, Heerde and Schencking sought an opportunity to meet Twist, but in order to make sure that frequent meetings would not betray the matter to ill-wishers who could intervene to disrupt their plans, | Twist decided to entrust the matter to Wesseling, whom he would use as an intermediary. Hence, he told Wesseling that the city council of Münster had sent Heerde and Schencking for the purpose of regaining the privileges, and that they had entered into serious negotiations with him about this. No one, he said, could be found to finish the matter in a safer and more careful manner than the doctor, and also without raising suspicions. Being a burgher, he would no doubt look after the city’s advantage in a loyal way, and since he was a physician of public standing, he could more safely report both to the prince and Twist and to Heerde and Schencking everything that was secretly entrusted to him. Wesseling promised to do this as a favor to the city, and through him Twist informed Heerde and Schencking that to avoid suspicion they should come to him in Sassenburg, entrusting the delivery of whatever they wished to be transacted with the prince to the doctor as intermediary. This case was handled and considered in many ways in January of 1541, but through the hope of further profit, Twist brought up many objections, causing delays and dragging the matter on. From this, the city council clearly perceived his intention, and gave him 400 gold fl orins as an honorarium through the doctor. Nonetheless, in expectation of greater gain, through his own machinations he postponed the matter until Easter, | thinking that he deserved a greater reward for the recovery of something invaluable. Having purchased the prince’s fullest grace and mercy with a promise of 2000 fl orins as a gracious remuneration, the council ascribed the responsibility for the delay to Twist alone. The prince too was impatient at the delay, since he yearned to receive the money promised to him by the council, and he criticized Twist for not bringing the business to an end. Fearing the prince’s ill-favor, he dared not drag the matter out any further, and to a country village called Oedingberg11 he summoned Heerde and Schencking along with the council’s amanuensis and both Wesselings, one of whom (the

11

Reference unclear.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 742

6/6/2007 9:20:11 PM

the events of 1538–1553

743

one mentioned above) was a physician and the other was a licentiate12 in law and the city’s judge. There, the matter was discussed back and forth, | but since no specific decision was reached at that meeting, another was held in the same location, but again without reaching any decision. Twist promised that he would first report the deliberations from the previous meeting to the prince, claiming that nothing should be done without his authorization, and that he would promptly write back with news of the prince’s decision. When this response was postponed for many days, the council feared that the matter had been revealed, and that this had resulted in the overthrow of all the plans for the city’s liberties. Hence, at the suggestion of the council, on the Wednesday after the Sunday “Exaudi,”13 which was June 1, Wesseling the physician sent Twist a letter earnestly asking for the response. Wesseling wrote that this long delay could lead to many evils. Twist finally wrote back that certain members of the council along with both Wesselings should come to the Rengering Convent on the Monday after Pentecost, which was June 6. After the prince with his retinue, Wilbrand the burgher master, the patrician councilmen Bernard of Tinnen, Herman Schencking, and John Bischoping, and the commoner councilmen Herman Heerde and Gerard Averhagen arrived there, a discussion began about restoring all the ancient privileges, liberties and customs to the city. The two Wesselings acted as intermediaries and almost as agents between the prince and the council, and the negotiations on both sides were completed by them. | Although it had been an ancient custom, confirmed by long usage, that as a favor for any burgher who had a dispute outside the city with anyone, even a member of the knighthood, a city gate would be left open at night to allow him to avenge himself on his foe, Twist argued that there were many reasons why this article should not be granted to the city. The Wesselings realized that Twist was ablaze with the desire to receive more bribes, and when they informed the council of this, the council held a swift consultation and voted him 500 fl orins on top of the 400 already given to him. After the Wesselings secretly reported this to Twist on behalf of the council and begged him to look upon the business favorably, he nodded in his usual way and asserted that he had earned a gun, which was sent to him as a gift along with the money once the

12 13

916

917

For the meaning, see “Events of 1532” n. 82. The Sunday after Ascension.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 743

6/6/2007 9:20:11 PM

744 918

919

920

the events of 1538–1553

matter was finished. The prince therefore released | the council from its previous oath and not only returned to the council all its ancient privileges, rights, liberties, customs, and practices, but also completely restored the entire city and its burghers to their previous status, though he said that he would not give any permission at all to the guilds and their meetings, since these had been the source of all the evils which had befallen the city of Münster. He further ordered that within one year the council should revive to their previous status all the ancient laws, statutes and decisions, and should pass new ones to increase the burghers’ liberties and benefits, doing everything within the walls that would improve the community without infringing upon anyone’s rights, | and he stated that he would place his seal upon these measures as a sign of his approval of them. After this, there was such vigorous drinking that they did not know how they had left. For there was joy on both sides, one party being delighted by their bribes and the other by the recovery of their liberties. A few weeks later, Twist prevailed upon the prince to allow the council to tear down the stronghold that had been built in the city as a barricade against the burghers’ liberties, it being clear that once this happened, the city would be fully restored. This situation stirred up the enmity of those who looked upon the city with disfavor, so that they denied that the prince had the right of restoration without the consent of the other estates, and they conceived secret plans against this restoration, which had already been implemented. Accordingly, in order for his decision to remain valid against anyone’s objections, the prince entered into an agreement with the city of Münster and the other towns of the whole diocese, and they ratified this with their seals on May 20, 1542. | In order for this restoration of privileges and liberties by the bishop to be valid, the council requested confirmation from the Emperor Charles V and received it on May 8, 1544. In order to comply with the prince’s order, the council sent Francis of Werne, its amanuensis, to certain cities to request rights, laws and customs which they could, with modification according to the circumstances, use in their community. Although they seemed to be expending great energy and efforts in composing these political laws, no definite decision was reached and the matter was postponed for several years because of the disputatious secession of the patricians, who argued that they were unwilling to be bound by the laws of the commoners. Accordingly, as a favor to the burghers, certain men who had taken part in the restoration which the prince had made earlier negotiated with

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 744

6/6/2007 9:20:11 PM

the events of 1538–1553

745

him and Twist about the political laws that the council was to write and complete, stating that this delay was causing the burghers’ liberties and benefit to be postponed and held in suspension, to the great detriment of the burghers. At their urging, the prince wrote to the council several times, urging and advising them to comply with their agreements. He threatened that if this was not done promptly, he would sequester the property of the councilmen. In this way, fear induced the council | to draw up certain articles to assuage the prince. After drawing these up, they showed them to the prince and had them published, and copies came into the hands of a few people. Since it was thought that these were not so much increasing as lessening the liberties and benefits of the inhabitants, as the guild masters complained, they were soon given up. Later, the council itself | changed the provisions which it had written about the guilds in the political laws, since it realized that it could not keep the community in a tranquil state by its previous method. Hence, the council set up separate guilds, putting in charge of each two men who would be under oath not to their guilds but to the council, so that the council would have full control over the guilds and could claim for itself any fines collected because of transgressions. Since the council feared that in setting up separate guilds and granting them indulgence, it would incur the anger of the prince, whose wish it was that the guilds should be permanently abolished and never restored, envoys were sent to the prince and they received his consent to what the council had done. Summoning the guild masters, the council related this to them in a splendid speech as if it had gotten something highly necessary and useful for the guilds, but they all remained silent, thereby signifying that this by no means pleased them. Therefore, one member of the council inveighed fiercely against Ludger Mumme, asking why he was standing there with his tongue in his mouth like a dumb sheep, and why he did not use it but remained silent. Astonished and horrified by these words, the man returned home, and after suddenly falling ill, he died within a few days. This | matter so disturbed the guild masters that they gathered in the old choir of the cathedral on the afternoon of the feast of St. Stephen the Protomartyr14 in 1553, and consulted among themselves about the absolutely full and complete restoration

921

922

923

14 I.e., December 26, 1552 (given K.’s custom of beginning the year on Christmas Day).

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 745

6/6/2007 9:20:11 PM

746

924

925

the events of 1538–1553

of their ancient privileges. In the end, it was decided that on the Monday after the feast of the Three Kings, which was January 9, they would approach the council with a petition about the restoration of the ancient liberties, since it was their understanding that not only the council but the whole city and all the burghers had been restored by the prince to their previous state, but this liberty was being suppressed by the council. The sense of this petition was as follows. They said that after Anabaptism crept into the city in 1534 and polluted matters both divine and human and turned everything topsy-turvy, | so that nothing was safe for themselves in the city and the whole situation inclined toward manifest armed violence, they had noted that the entire situation within the walls was seething with murder and rapine, and therefore certain people had voluntarily withdrawn from the city under the compulsion of justifiable fear for their possessions. Others had been driven into sorrowful exile against their will by the sectaries, being stripped of all their possessions, and their homeland, wives and children. They had lived a miserable life abroad but assisted the prince against the violent occupiers of the city, always remaining in dutiful adherence to their oath and awaiting the end of the siege. After the recapture of the city, in order to avoid involving the innocent in the punishment of the guilty, the prince, who was moved by the misery and misfortune of the burghers, had, with unparalleled grace, decreed a full restoration of the ancient privileges and liberties not only for Hiltrup and Greven but also for Telgte. They said they were confident that without a doubt the prince had long since made good on this promise, as they had also heard in previous years from by no means lowly members of the city council, though this had hitherto been postponed to the great detriment of the burghers. Hence, for the sake of God and of the public good, which they had never ceased to promote, they asked the city council to restore the ancient privileges and liberties of the burghers to them if it had received these from the prince’s indulgence. If they could achieve this through any petitions, they expressed their voluntary readiness to earn favor through obedience, compliance and any act of dutifulness. They did, however, expect a well-intentioned and merciful reply from the council as to which of these courses it would take. The council replied that the oath which they had sworn was such that without the knowledge and permission of the prince it was not within their power to restore more to the burghers than had already been done. If they were able to acquire some grant from the prince, the council expressed its ability to tolerate this. | Not satisfied with

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 746

6/6/2007 9:20:12 PM

the events of 1538–1553

747

this reply, the guild masters petitioned the city council about this matter again on the Thursday after the feast of St. Anthony, which was January 19, stating their desire not to burden the prince with the various contentious cases that might arise from this. They requested that if they could not at that time gain full restoration of the liberties from the council, the council should at least add their authority to the following articles as a favor to the guilds in order to assuage the commons and restrain them from causing a disturbance. First, with the council’s permission, they would be allowed to meet freely whenever they wished. The accounting of the guilds’ receipts and expenses would take place before their masters and not the senate. Their employees who are called “messengers” would be under oath to their guilds, and not to the council. The guild masters would be chosen not by the council, but by their guilds. All the guilds would appoint two officials to plead their cases before the council whenever necessary. Each guild would regain its hall if this had not been freely alienated. | The master of each guild would have authority to issue commands or prohibitions. The masters stated that they had no doubt that since these requests did not seem to be unjust, the council could permit them even without consulting the prince, and for this reason they requested a gracious reply about these matters very quickly, so that they would be able to gratify the commons in turn. They said that they were fully prepared to return the favor in any way. This letter was delivered in the name of all the guilds to the burgher master Herman Heerde by the goldsmith Gerard Vernheiden (with the last name Oswald) and the tailor John tom Brincke, two men reputed for eloquence. After it was read in the council on January 20, the following reply was given. From a careful consideration of the articles which had been offered, the council recognized that they were drawn up in such a way that because of the oath by which it was bound to the prince with reference to the restitution granted to it by him it could by no means approve these articles, or grant its authorization to them, without incurring the censure of disgrace. The council also stated its conviction that it was not prejudicing the interests of the guild masters in violation of its agreements and oath, not to speak of requesting from the prince something which it was not within its power to request. If, however, the guild masters could secure some further benefit from the prince in addition to what the council had hitherto been granted, the council stated its ability to tolerate this if it was released from its oath and its good reputation remained intact. The council also desired that

926

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 747

6/6/2007 9:20:12 PM

748

927

928

929

the events of 1538–1553

the guild masters or anyone at all should be completely aware from this reply that in pleading this case each person should remember his word of honor given by oath to make sure that this would not result in any further disadvantage, annoyance, danger or calamity to the council, or to any other inhabitants of this city. From this reply of the council with its menacing postscript, the guild masters conceived the notion that arrest and the greatest dangers were to be feared by them, and for this reason they summoned all the guilds to the very spacious monastery of Minorites on January 26. There, they solemnly bound themselves by the strictest oath to avenge most energetically any violence on the council’s part that was directed against the guilds on account of this cause, at the cost of their property and at the risk of their lives. After this compact was entered into, | they now pressed on more securely, confidently and boldly with their aim of achieving their goal, and on January 30, they presented a third petition to the council, the sense of which was as follows. They said that for some time there had been a dispute between the council and them about restoring and returning the burghers’ privileges and liberties, and in the previous petition certain statements had been made that had perhaps offended and angered the council, in that these were taken to mean that the guilds would in future burden the council with a large number of innovations. To this they responded that God knew that they had no plans against the prince and the council, and their aim was to foster peace, tranquility and friendship between the council and burghers, and to preserve it for the longest period of time possible. The things which they were demanding were not unheard-of novelties but ancient institutions which had been the most common practices. If, in its judgment, the council perceived in the previous petition and the attached articles something that it considered unfair, unjust and intolerable, they would submit it to the judgment of their ruler and were ready to do what fairness and respectability dictated. They did, however, ask the council to declare by its judgment which articles it thought should be allowed and which rejected, so that once the contentious dispute was finally put to an end, tranquility could take its place, grow strong, and be preserved for ever. They also strenuously requested that in taking up this matter with its best deliberation, the council should consider the various forms of harm that would arise from it, and then it should give its permission to these articles, which did not confl ict with fairness and the public good, and | secure the prince’s agreement as a favor to the burghers’ advantage, a matter for

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 748

6/6/2007 9:20:12 PM

the events of 1538–1553

749

which they had been born. In addition, the council should consider that without the privileges and proper meetings of the guilds, the city of Münster could not be conveniently preserved. The guild masters asked to receive a reply as to what they should hope for in this matter. This dispute was reported to the prince by the council, and to settle it he sent to the city on the Sunday “Reminiscere”15 the high-born nobleman Count John of Waldeck, Wendel Colbecher the chancellor, and Master John Mensing the prince’s secretary. Starting the next day, they discussed the guilds’ disputed articles back and forth for several days in many meetings, and during these discussions, both the council and the guild masters made many additional statements, so that the prolonged argumentation made the case much more complicated, and tempers became frayed on both sides. Therefore, it was decided to refer the proceedings which had taken place before the councilors to the prince, and to await his decision about the articles still under dispute. Thus, the councilors left before the Sunday “Laetare”16 without finishing the matter, and by the litigants’ agreement they took with them for the prince the articles which had been discussed, both those settled and those under dispute. While this was going on, the illustrious Philip the Great, Duke of Brunswick, the son of Henry, raised an army, and in addition to other areas, he attacked the diocese of Osnabrück and Münster, plundering everything.17 The reason for the war was that when the dukes of Saxony and Hesse had defeated his father Henry in battle and were besieging the stronghold of Wolfenbüttel, our bishop sent infantry, cavalry and artillery as assistance, and for this reason he had often been advised by friends both in writing and in person to reach an agreement with Brunswick about this action on the grounds that otherwise his subjects would be overwhelmed by arms, plundered, and sorely affl icted. At the urging of certain men whose names I pass over out of respect, however, he cast this advice to the winds until the arrival of the letter proclaiming a declaration of war. Thus, Philip the Great crossed the Weser with his army, infl icting great damage as he passed through the territory of Lippe and attacking the diocese of Osnabrück. Christopher of Fritzburg, the Duke’s general, and John of Münchhausen, the cavalry

15 16 17

930

The second Sunday of Lent (February 26). The fourth Sunday of Lent (March 12). This was in 1542.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 749

6/6/2007 9:20:12 PM

750

931

932

the events of 1538–1553

commander, headed very swiftly for Iburg that day by forced march (Iburg was the bishop’s residence). On April 15, which was the Saturday after the Sunday “Quasi modo geniti,”18 they took this stronghold and the little town at nightfall. They had hoped to capture the prince, but he barely escaped the enemy’s hands and betook himself to the defenses of the city of Münster as a safer refuge. | The enemy plundered the stronghold, which abounded in everything, stripping it to such an extent that they left nothing to sustain even a mouse. When the duke moved his army to Osnabrück and placed the city under siege, the terms for peace were negotiated, and it was purchased for 29,000 fl orins. Then he headed for Warendorf, and during the march, he plundered all the possessions of the peasants. The cavalry sent to the town as reinforcements were terrified by the duke’s arrival and returned to Münster, the place from which they had come. The burghers were downcast at their withdrawal and surrendered the town, and if the diocese had not bought peace for 100,000 fl orins, the enemy would have caused irreparable damage by marauding throughout the entire area. The prince was forced to resign from the diocese of Minden. The diocese of Paderborn and the counts of Lippe, Schauenburg and Hoya, and many others successfully protected themselves through the payment of many thousands of gold coins. The prince therefore kept himself temporarily in Münster, as he feared that the duke might overwhelm him, and to make sure that the business which they had started would not in the meanwhile fall into abeyance, it was decided on the part both of the general community of burghers and of the guilds (for the city consisted not simply of the guilds but of other burghers as well) to appoint two men to whose good faith this matter would be entrusted. For | a large number of participants in deliberations tends to slow down the completion of the business entrusted to them. Therefore, Caspar Judefeld, Gerard Oswald the goldsmith, John tom Brincke the tailor, Paul Horstman, Jodocus Moderson, and Henry Swartarnt the baker were chosen from the guilds, and an equal number from the general community of burghers who did not belong to guilds: John Wesseling the doctor and physician, Peter Corler, Borchard Heerde, Magnus Sticker, Herman Burman and Matthew Impens. In several meetings, these men discussed the matter in various ways with the city council, and in the end, after having

18

The first Sunday after Easter.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 750

6/6/2007 9:20:12 PM

the events of 1538–1553

751

deliberated back and forth repeatedly about regaining the privileges, they decided that in order to avoid being further worn down through dealing with these frivolous and pointless disputes, the city council and guilds would submit everything to the prince’s criticism and judgment, and he would then give his authorization to those of the articles sent to him in Bevergern before the Sunday “Laetare” that were agreed to by both sides, and graciously decide at his own discretion the articles that were still under dispute. By the agreement of both sides, John Wesseling and Peter Corler were appointed as envoys to secure the prince’s agreement. They were not allowed an immediate audience because of diocesan business | that was occupying the prince, and when they informed Wendel the chancellor of the matter, he promised to report it to the prince when an opportunity arose and told them to wait for his reply. After a short time, the chancellor returned and announced that nothing could be more pleasing to the prince, particularly at the present time, than that the city council and burghers should do away with this long-standing dispute and become reconciled, reaching such agreement that they did not have great need of his services as arbitrator. Now, therefore, since he was insufficiently informed of the situation in the city and of what was beneficial or harmful to the city, he entrusted the envoys with the task of using their discretion to draw up certain political laws to provide for solid peace, genuine tranquility and the general good. The prince said that he would approve and put his seal on whatever these were. He would add whatever was lacking in the restitution which he had made, and graciously absolve the council of the oath which it had given in connection with the restitution about not restoring the guilds; his sole attitude towards the city was such that he completely accepted all the rights, liberties, immunities, and privileges which had been in practice before Anabaptism, and would not deny anything further that it wished for. This reply certainly pleased the burghers, but did not at all please the city council, which had begun to suspect the previous envoys of favoring the commons, as if they had either carried out their mission in bad faith or inaccurately reported the prince’s reply, and for this reason another embassy was voted. Members of it were the burgher masters Herman Heerde and John Bischoping and the city’s syndic Dr. Christian of Wieck, to whom were added Caspar Judefeld and Gerard Oswald from among the burghers. These men were admitted to an audience, and made the following statement. The city council, the guilds, and the entire city of Münster had sent Wesseling and Corler

933

934

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 751

6/6/2007 9:20:12 PM

752

935

936

the events of 1538–1553

on an embassy to the prince, but since the reply seemed obscure and complicated, and they were not certain whether the envoys had carried out their mission properly or brought back as the reply statements which they had not understood correctly, they had come to ask for a firm and unambiguous reply to make sure that no new disagreement could arise. At this point, Chancellor Wendel described what the previous envoys had asked for, and what reply they had received at the prince’s command. The present envoys noted that this reply did not deviate even an inch from the previous one, and then they thanked the prince and prepared to leave, some angered and embarrassed, some delighted and overjoyed. Before they could depart, however, the prince | set out the following to them through Wendel. Since he was being forced to give up and resign from the diocese of Minden to make sure that Philip the Great did not completely lay waste to and devastate the diocese of Münster with fire, destruction and plundering, and since he noted that his detractors were hatching some new plot against him precisely because of the previous restitution, he greatly wished to know what he could hope for from the city of Münster during this dire situation. The envoys promised that they would report this to their people in order to gain a firm reply. After the envoys departed, a great dispute arose among them about the prince’s reply, the councilmen giving it a strict interpretation and the commoners a broad one. The latter argued that all their ancient privileges had been restored, and indeed increased, while the councilmen argued that only those which contributed to peace and the general good had been restored. During this battle of words, Wesseling said, “Small wonder that the council suspected me and Corler, since both burgher masters and the syndic are disputing with Judefeld and Oswald about the reply which they heard from the prince.” In order to settle the matter once and for all, it was decided to summon a larger number of witnesses from both sides and approach the prince once more to ask for an explanation. After both sides agreed to this, Herman Heerde the burgher master, Henry Travelman, Herman Osenbrug, and Herman Menneman were chosen from the council, and Caspar Judefeld, Gerard Oswald, John Wesseling the doctor, and Peter Corler from the commons to finish this matter, and they approached the prince at 3 o’clock in the afternoon. | Before they approached him, however, Herman Heerde the burgher master brought up as a topic for discussion the question of whether it was a good idea to approach the prince when he was involved in so many worries, overwhelmed by so many troubles,

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 752

6/6/2007 9:20:13 PM

the events of 1538–1553

753

distracted by so many perilous circumstances, and surrounded by the envoys and councilors of so many princes and states. To this Wesseling replied that since the chapter and the knighthood had secret discussions with him almost every hour, this could hardly bring him under suspicion. In any case, since the city of Münster constituted one of the four estates of this diocese, no one could be offended if the city council discussed its affairs with the prince. Therefore, they returned to the prince, and Heerde asked for an explanation of the previous reply. After the envoys departed, Wendel took a document out of a bag, and there in a meeting of the prince’s councilors | he reported that the prince had ordered him to write down the reply given to the envoys of the city of Münster a few days before, and that he was holding this in his hand. The prince then ordered it to be read out to the envoys, and after this was done, the prince confirmed orally that this was his decision. When both sides asked for a copy of this document, which was certified by the prince’s own signature, he consented. After these proceedings, the prince asked for an answer to the question which he had asked at the previous meeting. To this the burgher master replied that the burghers’ attitude towards the prince was the kind that befitted upright, loyal subjects. Judefeld replied on behalf of the burghers that they were so disposed towards the prince that they would not hesitate to risk not only their possessions but also their lives and blood for him. Oswald added that the burghers would suffer the destruction of their walls and of the entire city before they abandoned him, and if it seemed during this dire situation that the prince lacked the things necessary to maintain him, the burghers would make a contribution from their property. Indeed, they would provide help with their own hands before they abandoned him at this time of need. This statement by Oswald suddenly raised the prince’s spirits, | so that he cast off both his tears and most of his despondency for joy. He then made this clear by doffing his hat and thanking the burghers in his own voice for their goodwill, promising that he would show the city unparalleled favor. After peace had been bought from the enemy, the prince headed for Bevergern, and from there he sent two copies of his previous reply which were certified by his own signature, one to the council and one to the masters of the commons. Then, they once more disputed among themselves about the privileges. Wieck said that the copies of the reply had been drawn up in a way that differed from the way in which they had been read out in the sight of the prince. He said that the council

937

938

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 753

6/6/2007 9:20:13 PM

754

939

940

the events of 1538–1553

had therefore sent another letter to the prince to ask for an explanation and was awaiting the reply. When the aldermen learned of this, they were greatly upset and offended, thinking that it was unfair to heap lies and distortions upon the benevolent and gracious prince, and to say that a letter was false when the chancellor had written it and read it out in public, and the prince had ratified it both verbally and with his seal and signature. Now, they said, it was finally clear whose fault it was that the restitution of the privileges had been postponed until that day, a fault which they had unjustifiably thrust upon the ever excellent prince. | When the aldermen stated that they would report this to the commons in a complaint, individual councilmen feared for themselves and earnestly asked the aldermen not to stir up any trouble but to await the prince’s reply. They eventually agreed to this on the condition that when the reply was delivered, it should be read out to them. When the reply was read in the council registry, it censured the council in fairly strong terms, and the aldermen had a laugh, repeatedly stating that this censure was not unreasonable. Now in the sure hope of concord, | the aldermen requested and were granted a meeting with the councilmen. When discussion began about the restoration of the ancient privileges and about the firm, traditional constitution, Wieck stated that the council could tolerate the establishment of the constitution by the prince and aldermen as they saw fit, but it would not in any way contribute to this with its advice or actions. At this, a terrible grumbling arose, and a public disturbance and the shedding of blood would hardly have been avoided if the aldermen had not restrained themselves. After the grumbling settled down, Herman Heerde the burgher master, who had great infl uence and power in the city, said, “If I knew who was responsible for this disagreement, as Herman Heerde is my name I would remember him.” To this, Wesseling asked the burgher master if he had him in mind, and the burgher master replied that he did not at all. If the burgher master did have him in mind, said Wesseling, this would amount to treating him with violent injury, since he had never involved himself in these matters by his own volition, but had done so at the request of the council and urging of the commons and had sought nothing but peace, tranquility and the common good of this city. He expressed his great astonishment that while they were not wolves or bears or wild beasts but the inhabitants of a single city and the members of a single state, they raged and argued and rioted among themselves in this way, though what was being asked for was not something new and unheard-

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 754

6/6/2007 9:20:13 PM

the events of 1538–1553

755

of or unfair and detrimental to the general peace or prejudicial to the interests of the council but the just practice of many centuries, which had been conducive to peace and beneficial to the entire city. Why then, he asked, could they not agree among themselves, since the prince had graciously restored everything, even allowing all matters to be carried out at the discretion of the council and burghers? The reply given to this was that everything which pleased the prince pleased the council, and that they wished to entrust everything to his decision and judgment, so that the aldermen would do the same. With this, both sides went their separate ways in anger. A few days later they met again to discuss the same matter. The council persisted in its previous position—that both sides should leave everything to the prince’s decision. They indicated that they would inform him by writing of their frame of mind, and asked the aldermen to do the same. Seeing that the council could not be budged from this position, the aldermen agreed to this. While this was going on, Wesseling fell ill with a fever, so that he could not participate in the last few meetings, and therefore Oswald and John tom Brincke brought to him as he lay in bed the document that was to be sent by the aldermen (representatives of the commons) to the prince so that they could hear his advice. Since he was suffering from a fit of trembling, he ordered them to return to him the next day. When they came back, they asked him to express his judgment of the document that had been presented to him, | and he promised to do this if all the representatives were summoned to him. After they gathered, he first pleaded his illness as an excuse, and then stated that it by no means pleased him that they had now remitted everything to the prince’s decision. They replied that this had been the wish of the council, and that they had given the council their agreement to this the previous day. To this Wesseling replied that since there were eleven of them, they could have done this without consulting him, but it was to be feared that this matter would cause the community great harm. Therefore, he declared before them that he did not agree to this and never would. When Borchard Heerde the younger heard this, he said that he had not been present at the preceding day’s deliberations and had not approved its decision. For this reason, Caspar Judefeld asked Wesseling to explain his position, and he first replied that he had sufficient familiarity with the prince’s mood to know that he would take it very badly that this case was being remitted to him since it would entail considerable trouble, and he would not readily interpose his own

941

942

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 755

6/6/2007 9:20:13 PM

756 943

944

the events of 1538–1553

decision, | since he was not about to offend the council, much less the commons. For all his confidence rested on this city after God, and for this reason he had left the city in great joy a few days previously, when he thought that the leading men of this city were reconciled with the commons. Second, many events could intervene to make the prince forget about this remission of the case to him. He was broken with both years and the severe grief caused by various wars—especially the last one, which had been unexpectedly infl icted upon him—the loss of the diocese of Minden, which was particularly remunerative, and other distressing events. If, then, he happened to die, something that was to be feared, they should consider the state in which they would be sure to find the community of Münster. They already had in hand the liberty which the prince had bestowed upon them, and if they transferred this to the prince, it was possible that at the urging of ill-wishers this would be turned into a bitter, unending form of slavery, which would also oppress all their posterity. This would stir up irremediable hatred between the council and the commons through the recollection of the loss of liberty, and it was to be feared that this would result in mutual wounding, murder, devastation, and many other misfortunes that a prudent man would omit here. After he said this, everyone looked at one another, but in silence they all agreed with Wesseling. Borchard Heerde, however, burst out with the following statement. He would never approve of the case being remitted to the prince, even if he knew that preparations had been made to put his property and life at risk. They then deliberated more calmly about the means to get the council to change its position, but since they knew that they too had agreed to it, they could avail themselves of no better arguments than those which they had received from Wesseling and Heerde. They therefore asked these men to allow them to give their names as advocates of this course of action if the council was headstrong in its insistence that the case should be remitted. They told Wesseling and Heerde not to be apprehensive for themselves, since all the burghers would defend them to the point of bloodshed. Wesseling and Heerde allowed themselves to be convinced, though they asked that their names not be revealed unless this was absolutely necessary. Everyone then returned to the council hall, where there was a long argument about the remission, which the council pressed for insistently. Since no prayers could move the council, the aldermen finally took refuge in their last resort and laid out the advice of Wesseling and Heerde, urging that the council should consider this carefully with the

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 756

6/6/2007 9:20:13 PM

the events of 1538–1553

757

judgment of affairs in which they excelled, so that it would not be the council’s fault that the entire community and all their posterity were put at risk. After hearing this, the council considered it carefully among themselves and were softened. In collaboration with the aldermen, they settled the matter of the restitution with dispatch, and on the Tuesday after “Exaudi”19 (May 16), 1553, they sent the prince a document that had been drawn up at both sides’ discretion for him to put his seal on it. | After doing so, he sent it back on the following Sunday. The sense of it was as follows. Virtually literal translation of the bishop’s final restitution “We, Frederick, by the grace of God bishop of Münster, Osnabrück etc., publicly declare, proclaim, and attest by this document that with Imperial approval and confirmation we have graciously restored all their ancient and praiseworthy civil liberties and privileges to the city council, the obedient burghers who left the city, the members of all the guilds, and the entire community of Münster, just as we promised them during the siege of that city at Hiltrup, Greven and other places, with the exception of the organizations (guilds), which we thought should not be tolerated. We did this in the sure confidence that they would devise, draw up, and promulgate political laws and statutes that would particularly promote the general peace and the burghers’ interests, so that the burghers would have no grounds for complaint. It has now been clearly perceived, however, that the guilds | and the other burghers were greatly oppressed by the previous constitution established by these political laws, which tended to cause the loss of their daily sustenance and the overthrow of the burghers’ ancient liberty and privileges, and for this reason they lodged various complaints with us. Accordingly, in order to preserve peace and concord and to end the destructive feuding and disturbance which could be born and engendered between the city council, guilds, and the entire community of the burghers of this, our city of Münster, we entrusted to our kinsman, the high-born nobleman Count John of Waldeck, and to our councilors Wendel Colbecher and John Mensing, the task of graciously hearing, examining, and settling the disputes and complaints of both sides. It was not, however, possible for peace to be commodiously established in this way at that meeting, and when certain disputed articles were presented to us to decide by

19

945

946

The Sunday after Ascension.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 757

6/6/2007 9:20:13 PM

758

947

the events of 1538–1553

our decree, we carefully considered this case in a princely spirit. After thoughtful refl ection upon the political privileges and civil liberties as well as all their circumstances, we have, in the following form, changed, amended, and established these liberties and articles in the way in which at the present time we change, amend, and establish them by virtue of the present document (his Imperial Majesty’s right of approval and confirmation being preserved). We, therefore, publicly order and wish the following. “First, the selection of the city council shall be carried out in the manner that was customarily practiced for some centuries since time immemorial, just as the council and the masters of the guilds and of the entire community of burghers have permission to reach a broader mutual agreement about these matters without further approval and confirmation from us or our successors. “Second, the council should present its annual accounting in the traditional manner that was customary in ancient days before the capture of the city. “Third, we restore the workers’ organizations called guilds and the other burghers to all their ancient and praiseworthy immunities, liberties and rights, and wish them to be restored with the Imperial right of approval preserved, | with the proviso that they should behave respectably and honestly in their business activities and in the acquisition of their livelihoods, and obey their ruler. “We also confirm whatever the burgher masters, the council, and the guild masters unanimously decide for the purpose of preserving the future peace and tranquility in this community. If, however, any dispute on this topic arises among them which they cannot settle themselves, it will be decided by our decree and by that of our successors without recourse to anyone else. All feuding, hatred, discord, ill will, and distrust between the council and commons will also be permanently removed. To make sure that the city council does not think that it has lost any of its honor and prestige, we completely release them from the oath which they swore to us about the previous restoration. “In order for this document to enjoy the fullest credence without any thought of fraud or deceit, we have certified it with our larger seal and our own signature. Issued at Bevergern on the Wednesday after ‘Exaudi,’20 A.D. 1553.”

20

May 17.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 758

6/6/2007 9:20:13 PM

the events of 1538–1553

759

The community of Münster did not think the restoration to its previous status was sufficient for its purposes if they did not also acquire confirmation of the bishop’s restoration from his Imperial Majesty, and this they successfully requested from Charles V at Brussels on June 26, 1553. May God grant that they make successful use of it! After Francis of Werne, the council’s amanuensis, checked a copy of this restoration granted by the bishop against the original and certified it with a subscription, it was turned over for safekeeping to the guild masters on June 27. The original was placed in the council’s archives. For some time, the prince ruminated bitterly on the irrecoverable losses to his dioceses—in particular his forced resignation from the diocese of Minden and the plundering of his beloved stronghold of Iburg—and he was distressed with a serious affl iction from grief. This became so embedded in his mind that it could not be dislodged by any change in location, the prescription of drugs by physicians, or the delights offered by other things. It increased daily, and in the end it became so rampant that in the stronghold of Wolbeck it assailed his heart and vital organs on July 12, gradually spreading to all his limbs. When the good prince realized that his last day was impending, he fortified himself with the stipend for the road to salvation.21 Heartened by the pious citation of Holy Scriptures offered by Lord Herman Kothe, he satisfied nature’s laws on July 15, and found repose in the Lord. May God Almighty in His infinite mercy grant this Father of His Homeland a joyous and happy resurrection. Amen! The next day, the funeral cortege was brought to the city in a solemn procession, and with virtually the entire city in mourning, he was buried in the Lords’ Church by the south wall, which he had adorned with the gift of a splendid window after the siege. His sarcophagus is raised slightly above the pavement and bears this noteworthy inscription: “Francis, by the grace of God bishop of Münster and | of Osnabrück, administrator of the Church of Minden, scion of the high-born and noble family of the Counts of Waldeck, is buried here. When this city was occupied by the Anabaptists, he eventually restored it to its burghers after a long and difficult siege. He died in Wolbeck around 7 o’clock in the evening on July 15, 1553. May his soul rest in peace. Amen.”

21

948

949

I.e., he took the sacrament of supreme unction.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 759

6/6/2007 9:20:14 PM

760

950

the events of 1538–1553

Then, in the year 1554, on the Tuesday after the feast of St. Anthony,22 the city council was appointed in the traditional way by electors chosen by the voters of the electoral districts. Henry Rotgers and Eberhard Judefeld were the electors from the district of St. Martin, John Holtebuer and Francis Coesfeld from St. Lambert’s, Nicholas Munth and Christian Moderson from St. Ludger’s, Berthold Vos and Albert Wulffert from St. Giles’s, Magnus Sticker from St. Mary’s, and Gerard Billig from the Jews’ Field district. In this free election, Bernard Holtappel, Henry Warendorf, Thomas of Wieck, and Alard Droste were removed from the council, while Herman Schencking was removed by death. Their replacements were George Bisping, Herman Holtappel, John Stevening, and John Herding. The burghers have enjoyed these privileges and this liberty in election down to the present day. May God grant that they should enjoy this for the longest period of time possible, to the glory of His name and the tranquility of the community. Amen! Most honored readers, you now have what your importunate requests extorted from me. If your desires have in some manner been fulfilled, | I have cause to rejoice. If not, use your surpassing industry to change the warp in the loom at your discretion, provided, however, that you do not violently break the truth, which is spun from a thread of simple words. As the worried sailor who has been driven by long wanderings Generally rejoices when he sees the safety of the shore, So too, when he sees the end of the present little book, The weary writer exults and takes pleasure.23

January 18. This poem is a variant of a common medieval colophon comparing the wearied author’s completion of his work to the joy of a sailor upon his return home after a long journey (the original was ascribed to the ninth-century abbot Walafrid Strabo). 22 23

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_f13_730-760.indd 760

6/6/2007 9:20:14 PM

INDEX Aachen, John of 115 Aachen, Quirinus of 590 Achenberg 322 Adelaide, mother of John of Leiden 586 Ae, John and Henry tor 141 Aelius, Eberhard 201, 307 Affelen, Nicholas of 725 Ahaus 668 Ahaus, Henry of 129 Ahlen 177, 278, 430, 431, 499, 556 Alberting (also called In dem Slottel), Herman 530 Albwin, king of Langobards 87 Alebrand, archbishop of Bremen 120 Alfen, Derek of 621, 626 Alkmaar 588 Amelunxen, Maurice of 634 Amsterdam 511, 588, 632, 633 Anabaptists of Münster 9–12 views of 18–23 confessional documents of 441–444 governmental decrees of 544–553, 653–658 appeals of to besieging troops 553–555, 572–574, 683–685 Apostles (Anabapist emissaries) dispatched in October of 1534 618–622 Arnhem, Henry of 579 Arnhem, William of 609, 668, 672 Arsche, Matthew 666 Asbeck, John of 297, 717 Augsburg, Confession of 31, 341, 368, 459 Augsburg, Diet of 31, 246, 261, 322 Averall, supposed daughter of John of Leiden 595 Averhagen, Gerard 185, 318, 725, 743 Averhagen, Goswin 414 Averweg, Anne 594 Bade, John in der 315 Baggel, John 189, 315 Baldern, Heine of 571 Baldus, Petrus de Ubaldis ( jurist) Bastert, John 315, 414 Bastwillen (no first name) 556

93

Bavaria, John of, bishop of Münster 122 Beckers, Godfrey 611 Beckman, John 621 Beckman, Otto 368 Beckum 430 Beckum, Bernard of 215, 627 Beckum, Hans of 557, 665 Belholt, Arnold 244, 259, 402, 407, 421, 424–425, 459, 464 Belholt, Otto 590 Beltzig (from Schwerhaus), Albert of 508, 521, 574 Bentheim and Steinfurt, Eberwin count of 204, 331 Bentheim and Steinfurt, Arnold count of 717, 723, 724 Bentheim, Otto of, bishop of Münster 136, 159 Bentlagen, John 596 Berg, George tom 182, 479, 481 Berning, Herman 551 Bevens, Peter 590 Bevergern 259, 501, 513, 668, 711 Bilderbeck 294, 297, 299 Bilderbeck, Herman 590 Bilderbeck, Lambert 543 Bilderbeck, Matthew 672, 698 Bill, Turban 590, 664–665, 666 Billig, Gerard 760 Bischoping, Eberhard 141 Bischoping, John 185, 725, 730, 751 Bisping, George 760 Bisping, Herman 185, 244, 580 Bisping, John 590, 627 Blythe, supposed daughter of John of Leiden 595 Bocholt 522, 629, 668 Bockelson, see Leiden, John of Bodegen, Melchior 511 Bodeker, Albert 322 Bodelswing, Adolf 362, 380, 381, 384, 404 Boekbinder, Bartholomew 15, 16 Boekel (no first name), father of John of Leiden 586 Boemeken, Jodocus 517 Boemer, Herman 505

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_index_761-.indd 761

6/12/2007 4:35:33 PM

762

index

Boentruppe, Bernard 505, 506, 551, 590, 620, 701 Bokenfeld 322 Boland, Conrad 366 Boland, John 185, 415 Bonn, Gerard 590 Bontorpen, Bernard 310 Boppard, Nicholas of 669 Borchardes, Caspar 505, 704 Borchardes, Catherine 704 Borken 629 Borneman, Caspar 591 Bösensell 318 Borstel, Hans 590 Boutemans (also called Schomaker), Bernard 626 Brabant 452, 499, 511, 536 Brabant, Mary of 14, 510 Brandenburg, Justin 205 Brandeschen, Knipperdolling’s motherin-law 458, 704 Bransch, John 627 Bremen 345, 668 Bridorp, Herman 530 Brielle 588 Brincke, John tom 414, 747, 750, 755 Brincke, Ludger tom 185, 212, 259, 323, 423 Brink, John 590 Bruno, bishop of Minden 120 Brunswick, Eric duke of 510 Brunswick, Ernest and Francis dukes of 341, 344 Brunswick, Louis of 672, 691 Brunswick, Philip duke of 749 Buck, Eberhard 380, 404 Buck, Herman 361 Buck, Lambert 725 Bureck, Henry 189 Büren, Berthold of 258 Büren, Ermingard and Mary of 162 Büren, John of 297, 381, 387, 388, 389, 407, 408, 508, 624, 717 Büren, Melchior of 380, 384, 404, 478, 497, 519, 595 Büren, Odinga of 118 Burman, Herman 750 Busch, Alexander of 596, 687 Busch, Bernard of 590 Busch, Elizabeth of 594 Busch, Herman of 243, 438 Busch, Jerome of 488 Busch, John of 590

Busch, Paul 323 Busch, William of 141 Butendick, Barbara 611 Butendieck, John 620 Buth, Henry 627 Buthman, John 725 Buxdorp, Bernard 565 Calepinus, Ambrosius (lexicographer) 154 Campenbergs 487 Capito, Wolfgang 13 Charlemagne 89, 91, 108 Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor 14, 24, 288, 309, 646, 727, 759 ecclesiastical policy of 29–32 letters of 210–211, 288–289 Charles, duke of Gelders 671 Chilo 503 Clarenback, Adolf 185 Clement VII, pope 29 Cleves, John duke of 201 Clevorn, Albert 415, 725 Clevorn, William 361, 380, 404 Cloister, Gerard tom 431, 588, 589 Cloppenburg 668, 730, 731 Coervorden, Conrad of 485 Coesfeld 333, 334, 417, 432–434, 447, 470–471, 499, 513, 519, 588, 620, 621, 629 Coesfeld, Francis 760 Coesfeld, John of 551, 591, 705 Colbecher, Wendel 749, 752–753, 757 Cologne 511, 734 Cologne, Kind of 590, 672 Coritzer, John 508, 521, 560 Corler, Peter 750–752 Corvinus, Anthony 53 n. 77, 711 Crumaker (also called Sonneken), Henry 627 Cruse, Anthony 205–207, 210 Cruse, Conrad 206 Cuiper, Gerard de 17 Cuiper, William de 16 Cyrus, king of Persia 93 Darup 586–587 Damme, Ernest of 590 Deckening, Henry 590 Deist, Eberhard of, bishop of Münster 156 Delmenhorst 402, 668 Dencker, John 660–661

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_index_761-.indd 762

6/12/2007 4:35:34 PM

index Derek, bishop of Münster 111 Derloe, Conrad of 500 Desiderius, king of Langobards 87 Detmar, bishop of Hildesheim 120 Deveren, Egbert of 508, 522, 609, 636, 668, 691 Deventer 632, 633, 638 Deventer, Augustine of 508 Deventer, John of 322, 355, 356, 403, 414, 506, 552, 590 Dickenheim, Nicholas 407 Diepenbrock, George of 522 Diepenbrock (from Bocholt), Roger of 204 Diewer (Divara) 16, 580, 594, 595, 704, 713 court of 596 Dincklage, John of 508, 522, 717 Dodo, bishop of Münster 91, 109, 110 Dortmund 711 Drecke, Arnold tom 731 Dregger, Elizabeth 594 Dreierschen (no first name) 666 Drolshagen, Arnold 725 Drolshagen, Henry 185, 415 Droste, Alard 380, 404, 760 Droste, Eberwin 185, 259, 315, 318, 415, 496, 528, 725 Droste, Eberwin (son of preceding) 380, 404 Droste, Henry Droste, Joachim 408 Droste, John 185, 188–189, 259, 408, 496 Dülmen 204, 348, 400, 434, 499, 556, 668 Dumkuster, Henry 551 Dungel, Herman 421, 517, 538, 686 Düren, Gerard of 591 Düren, Herman of 591 Dusentschuer, John 583, 585, 610, 611, 617, 619, 620, 629 Düsseldorf, Derek 590 Eck, Little Hans, see Langenstraten Edelbot, Henry 551 Eding, Engelbert 506, 590, 660–661 Effurt, Michael of 508 Egbert, bishop of Münster 121 Eggerdes, John 627 Elen, Eberhard of 593, 640 Elijah 477 Eller, Frederick of 508, 522 Eming, Bernard 611

763

Emsland 668 Enkhuizen 588 Enoch 477 Erpo, bishop of Münster 120, 121 Eschman, John 543, 701 Essens, John 621 Estates of Münsterland 34–35, 363–365 statements of 349–350, 373–376 Eugenius IV, pope 130 Evinghof 522 Fabri, Eberhard 340, 343 Fabricius, Derek 447, 451, 455, 458–460, 462, 466, 467–469, 488, 516, 653 Feicken, Hille 566–570 Ferdinand, brother of Charles V 30, 646, 652, 671, 708, 711, 727, 745 Fischer, John 395 Fischer, Laurence 620 Floer, John 687 Florentinus, bishop of Münster 111 Focke, Bernard 621 Foecke, Herman 323, 506, 530 Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor 158 Frederick III, duke of Saxony 5 Freiss, John 640 Fridagh, Henry 315, 318, 414 Fridagh, John 422 n. 42 Frie, Herman 626 Friese, John 621 Friese, Julius 519, 530 Friese, Peter 279, 322, 414, 441, 582, 610 Frisia, Frisians 452, 499, 519, 536, 636, 661, 664, 670 Frisia, Albert of 686 Fritzburg, Christopher of 749 Fromme, George 590 Fürstenau 259, 501 Geil, John of 596 Geiste 426, 522, 609 Geisthovel, Albert 505, 506 Gelders 452 Gertrude, wife of Conrad the surgeon 686 Gestemer, Everet 492 n. 40 Geyll, John of 596 Gievenbeck 212 Gildehaus 519 Gildehaus, Lambert of 596

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_index_761-.indd 763

6/12/2007 4:35:34 PM

764 Gise, John 627 Glade, Herman 591 Glandorp, Bernard 414, 551 Glandorp, Eberhard 414 Glandorp, John 422, 437 n. 63, 459, 464 Glasemaker, Goswin 591 Goetze, Derek 627 Grael, Francis 380, 404 Graes, Henry 620, 630–634; wife of 686 Graes, John of 407 Grave, John of 621 Gregory VII, pope 129 Greven 746 Greven, John of 590 Grever, John 186 Groeten, John 189 Grolle, Bernhard 185, 725 Grolle, Derek of 415, 508 Grolle, Margaret 594 Groningen, Timan of 571, 666, 699 Grotevader, Anthony 315, 506, 590 Grubenhagen, Eric of, bishop elect of Münster 246–247, 249 letters of 249–250, 254–256, 256–258 Gruter, Bernard 188, 318, 725 Gruter, John (also known as Flascamp) 414 Gruter, Lucas 414, 506, 533, 552 Guldenarm, Anthony 323, 414, 543 Hacklenburg 522 Hagen, Bernard of 203 Hake, Henry 314, 332, 384 Hake, John 508 Haledon, Herman 591 Hamburg 668 Hamm 499, 504 Hamm, Derek of 154 Hamm, Meinhard of 689–690 Hangesbecke (also called Zelenmaker), Matthew 594 Hannibal, Carthaginian general 93 Hans, Little 583 Hanxthausen, Conrad of 388 Harderwijk, Reiner of 687 Harmen, Godfrey 388 Harmen, John 177 Harpstedt 668, 730 Haslünne 730 Hatzfeld, George of 705 Haverhoven, Lubbert 590

index Havichhorst (no first name) 215 Havichhorst, Bernard 530 Havixbeck 622 Hecker, Mary 594 Heerde, Borchard 724, 725, 750, 755–756 Heerde, Herman 315, 415, 492 n. 40, 528, 714, 725, 741–743, 747, 751–754 Heerde, John 511 Hege, Eberhard tor 596 Heitter, Albert 530 Helfman, John 325, 326 Hellebrandes, Adelheid 162 Henssenbrock, John 511 Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor 120 Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor 120 Herding, John 185, 189, 415, 725, 760 Herford 177 Herford, Hercules 495 Herman I, bishop of Münster 91, 111, 119 Herman II, bishop of Münster 127 Herman XIV, bishop of Münster 152–153 Herman, archbishop of Cologne 120 Herte, Melius 318, 714 Heshaus, Tilman 370 Hesling, John 627 Hesse, Louis of, bishop of Münster 121 Hesse, Philip landgrave of 30, 274, 341, 344, 408, 649 letters of 274–276, 330, 331, 403, 460, 650–651 Hexe, Wendel 621 Heyden, Derek of 203 Hiltrup 505, 746 Hobbel, Catherine 702–703 Hoene, Anne 666 Hoerde, Philip of 380, 381, 384, 404 Hoerde, Themmo of 397, 529, 640 Hoevel, Ida of 122 Hofman, Melchior 1, 12–15 Hoier, Derek 355 Hoier, Henry 271 Holland, Hollanders 452, 499, 505, 536, 636, 637, 661, 664, 670 Holland, Erpo of 421, 623, 626, 627 Holophernes 566 Holscher, Elizabeth 611 Holstein, Henry 665 Holtappel, Bernard 760 Holtappel, Herman 760

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_index_761-.indd 764

6/12/2007 4:35:35 PM

index Holte, Borchard of 105, 110, 111, 121, 138 Holtebuer, John 760 Holtman, John 338, 459 Horstman, Paul 750 Honorius, pope 159 Horst, Laurence of 508, 522, 609, 668, 691 Horst, Richmoda of 122 Horstmar 259, 629, 668, 691, 711 Höxter 344, 346, 347, 385, 388 Hoya, Eric of, bishop of Münster 132, 194 Hubmaier, Balthazar 370 Huge (also called Koppersmidt), Henry 627 Hulshorst, Roger 414 Hunfried, bishop of Magdeburg 120 Hus, Jan 5 Hut, John 370 Iburg 501, 511, 620, 630, 738 Impens, Matthew 750 Innocent V, pope 126 Iserman, Henry 264 Isfording, Arnold 155 Jonas, Anthony 185, 315, 318 Jonas, Henry 414 Jonas, Herman 259, 725 Judefeld, Caspar 310, 318, 322, 341, 342, 403, 414, 415, 478, 489, 491, 498, 504, 610, 750, 751, 755 Judefeld, Eberhard 760 Judefeld, Reiner 366 Judith 566, 569, 570 Juffel, Frederick 596 Jülich, John of 591, 685 Jülich, Matthew of 562 Justin 85 Justin II, Eastern Roman emperor 87 Kaerbuck, Egbert 511 Kaiserwerden 511 Kaldenhof 522 Kalenberg, Jodocus 482 Kansen, Lubbert 185 Kanstein, Corbin of 388 Karlstadt, Andreas of 7, 13 Katerberg (also called tor Heyden), John 530, 660–661 Katzenellebogen, Herman of, bishop of Münster 106, 135 Kemner, Timan 366

765

Keppell, Adelheid of 137 Kerckering, Angela 594 Kerckering, Bernhard 185 Kerckering, Christian 506, 551, 598, 660–661, 702, 706 Kerckering, Herman 620 Kerckering, John 421, 590 Kerssenbrock, Herman of 33 life of 35–38 dispute of with city council over publication of his history 37–47 other writings 47–49 composition of his history 49–55 historical methodology of 55–58, 59–61, 81–84, 372–373 sources for his history 51–54 Kesse, Joachim 620 Kettel, Bernard 508 Kettel, John 635–637 Ketteler, Conrad 717 Kibbenbrock, Anne 594 Kibbenbrock, Gerard 315, 361, 414, 423, 424, 496, 506, 519, 523, 552, 580 n. 229, 589, 701 Kinderhaus 622 Kistemaker, Herman 590 Klopriss, John 437 n. 63, 444, 471, 474, 477, 577, 580 n. 229, 621, 626 Knipperdolling, Anne 594 Knipperdolling, Bernard 244, 262, 263, 278, 308, 361, 380, 414, 423, 454, 464, 476, 480–481, 482, 488–490, 496, 499, 501, 506, 512, 519, 539–541, 550, 553, 566, 569, 576, 577, 579, 580 n. 229, 582, 588, 589, 594, 598, 613, 666, 702–703, 706, 711 origins of 208–209 becomes “swordbearer” 541–542 challenges John of Leiden 613–617 execution of 715–716 Knop (no first name) 380 Knop, David 593 Knupper’s wife 581, 595, 637 Koblenz 610, 639, 671 Kock, Henry 660–661 Koehus, Magnus 533, 552, 577, 580 n. 229, 701 Koening, Gerard 519 Koening, John 506 Koerding, John 627 Kokenbecker (also called Wulf ), Catherine 611 Kopperschleger, Hubert 590

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_index_761-.indd 765

6/12/2007 4:35:35 PM

766

index

Kopperschleger, Stephen 506 Korf, Jodocus 361 Kortemolle (no first name) 701 Korthe, John of 508, 522 Koster, Andrew 596 Kothe, Herman 759 Krampe, Herman 310, 315, 454 Krechting, Bernard 500, 589, 597, 702, 706, 711, 715–716 Krechting, Henry 500, 551, 580 n. 229, 588, 589, 598 Krechting, John 552 Kribbe, Eberhard 540, 612 Kruse, Conrad 533, 552, 591, 597 Kruse, Joachim 407, 627 Kucklenburg 522 Kueper, Peter 621 Kulman, John 590 Kursener, John 591, 597 Kyll, George of 321, 508 Kymeus, John 711 Laerbrock 431 Lange, Rudolph 508 Langen, Sophie of 707 Langenstraten, Little Hans (Eck) of 590, 688–691, 693, 695 Langerman, John 188, 215, 228, 279, 318, 414, 415, 441, 459, 464 Langobards (Lombards) 87–88 Laurentz, Anne 594 Ledebur, Paul 700 Leeden the reeve of (no first name) 530, 660–661 Leiden 587, 662 Leiden, John of 1, 16, 181, 480–481, 488, 532, 541, 550, 557, 566, 576, 577, 580 n. 229, 583, 632, 650, 706, 711 early life of 586–588 first visit to Münster 430–431 second arrival of 476–477 succeeds Matthison as prophet 538–540, 542 proclaimed king by Dusentschuer 583–584 court of 589–591 dispute with Knipperdolling 613–617 proclamation of 653–658 prophesies of 658 appoints twelve dukes 660–661 execution of 713–716 Lemgo 177

Lening, John (also called of Melsing) 447, 451, 455, 460 Lenting, Lubbert 187, 324, 414 Lepper, John 505 Lichterte, Andrew 609, 668, 698 Linteloe, Ludgera of 479, 707 Lippstadt 177 Lith, Artz of 557 Lord’s Lords (Domherren) 28, 104, 105, 141, 318, 529 Lowenburg, Eric of, bishop of Münster 185 Lübbecke 374 Lübbecke, Andrew of 508 Lübeck 668 Ludger, St., bishop of Münster 89, 91, 121 Lüdinghausen 668 Lüdinghausen, John of 583 Ludolf, bishop of Münster 127 Lukenbeck 522 Lüneburg, Frederick duke of 194 Luther, Martin 4–9, 29, 30, 370 Lüttich 452, 519 Lüttich, Henry of 591 Lüttich, Lambert 543, 591, 597 Luxemburg, Nicholas of 562 Mackenburg, Gerard 590 Maeren, Henry 620 Maess, Leonard 217 Maperting, Lambert 543 Margaret, wife of Klopriss 622 Mark, Gerard of, bishop of Münster Marschalk, Caspar 570 Martin (no first name, chaplain) 259 Martin V, pope 129 Matthison, John 16–17, 181, 431, 477, 501, 512, 514, 517, 530, 532, 534, 537–538, 613 Meinershagen, Richwin 185 Meissen, Frederick of, bishop of Münster 137 Melanchthon, Philip 31, 215, 368–369, 385 Mengersen, Herman of 380, 381, 388, 389, 393, 395, 404, 407, 508, 624, 640 Menken, Hans (of Borstel) 506, 674 Menneken, Bernard 322, 552, 590, 637 Menneman, John 263, 752 Mensing, John 749, 757 Mensing, Peter 279, 310, 315, 414

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_index_761-.indd 766

6/12/2007 4:35:35 PM

index Meppen 730 Merckel, John 380, 404, 407 Merfelt, Derek of 225, 271, 318, 387, 488, 566 Merfelt, Henry of 204, 297 Merfelt, Ida of 323, 448, 471, 479, 707 Merfelt, John of 297, 705, 717 Meschede, John of 355, 366 Mesman, Henry 185 Middelburg, John 591 Milan 87, 89 Milling, Catherine 594 Mimimgardford (ancient name of Münster) 89, 91, 108 Minden 177 Moderson, Christian 760 Moderson, Henry 185, 262, 318, 415 Moderson, Jodocus 750 Moderson, Margaret 594, 595 Moer, Bernard tor 543, 551, 660–661 Moers, Walraf of 132 Mollen, John tor 197, 323 Mollenhecke, Henry 414, 551, 577, 579 Moring, Eberhard 502–504, 705 Morrien, Alexander 380 Morrien, Gerard 307, 380, 381, 404, 508, 640, 705, 717, 724 Moses, Bernard 583 Mühlheim, Schaep of 591 Muiden, Jodocus of 508 Mumme, Ludger 310, 745 Mumpert, Henry 446, 449, 450, 462 Münchhausen, John of 749 Münchhausen, Nicholas of 201 Münster almhouses 141–142 Bispinghof 129 character of inhabitants 95–96 fortifications 97–103 markets, marketplaces 139–140, 142 city council and government 166–169 letters of 256, 271–272, 287, 290, 312, 315–316, 322, 326–327, 328–329, 329–330, 330–331, 332, 333, 335–336, 339, 357, 358–359, 375, 386, 387–388, 390–391, 449, 451 1533 regulations of on appointing parish priests 409–412 commons statements of 254–256, 319–320

767 council hall 139 “Paradise” 106, 156, 209 cathedral of St. Paul 279, 415, 428, 446, 448–451, 484, 507, 729 Old Church 108–118, 162, 519 New Church 111–112 churches Across-the-River 405, 424, 459, 728 Giles, St. 137, 162, 405, 424, 437 n. 63, 440, 459 James, St. 118 Lambert, St. 133–135, 405, 462, 464, 466, 467, 469, 716 Ludger, St. 162, 405, 421, 423, 424–425, 427, 467, 533 Martin, St. 162, 393, 405, 424, 540 Maurice, St. 98, 137–138, 162, 213–214, 216, 271, 279, 326, 333, 354, 393, 394, 507 Michael, Archangel 105 Nicholas, St. 105, 118 Servatius, St. 137, 162, 405, 464, 466, 475–476 clergy statements of 291–292, 359–360, 366–367 courts 155–157, 168 festivals, festivities 144–153 gates Bishoping 99, 528, 728 Cross 101, 103, 522, 604, 605 n. 289, 607, 609, 692, 703 Giles’ 99, 486, 521, 538 Horst 98, 99, 102, 528, 556, 561, 565, 620, 707 Jews’ Field 100, 125, 522, 559, 604, 605 n. 289, 609, 726 Ludger’s 99, 103, 427, 477, 521, 528, 538 Maurice’s 102, 521, 556, 560, 561, 565, 620, 648 New Bridge 102, 103, 607, 702, 703, 728 Servatius’ 98, 528, 605 n. 289, 620 St. Mary’s 100, 125, 485, 609, 620, 704 traditional names changes by John of Leiden 660 guilds 170–171 letters of 316–318, 332–333

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_index_761-.indd 767

6/12/2007 4:35:35 PM

768

index

smiths’ guild intimidates city council 464–466 dispute about status of 745–749 infirmaries 141 monasteries Bispinghof 446 Brothers of the Fountain 129–131, 162, 187, 188, 200, 424, 438, 506, 519, 728 Franciscans 422, 424 Hofruggin’s 162 Knights of St. John (Hospitallers) 131–133, 162, 506, 519 Marienthal, Across the River 119–125, 162, 212, 276, 279, 448, 469, 471, 479–480, 497, 520, 580, 707 Minorites 136–137, 519 Nitzing 137, 162, 186–187, 188, 192, 200, 506, 519 Reine 162 Ring’s 162, 519 Rosenthal 519, 665, 666 St. George’s (Teutonic Knights) 128–129, 144, 162, 205, 506, 519 St. Giles 497, 580, 701, 702 peace treaty of 1533 between city and bishop 405–412 status of city after capture 716–725 struggle for restoration of city’s privileges 732–758 schohaus (guild hall) 42, 262, 266 schools 163–165, 422–423 siege enlistment of besieging forces 508–511 layout 521–522 first storming, May 1534 557–559 second storming, August 1534 604–607 deliberations of prince-bishop with neighboring princes about 562–565, 600–601, 609–610, 639–647 starvation in city 672–679 problems with refugees from city 679–682 capture of city 692–700 towers Bogey Man’s 25, 484 Mirror Tower 27, 484

St. Maurice’s 555 St. Mary’s 603 St. Lambert’s 701 Münster, Gerard (the Smoker) 508, 571 Münster, Henry of 408 Münster, John of 297 Münsterman, Derek 185, 189, 415, 528, 582, 725 Munth, Nicholas 189, 760 Müntzer, Thomas 8, 370 Muter, Henry 626 Nagel, Hans 662–664 Nassau, William count of 711 Nate, Herman tor 551 Neteler, Bartholomew 621 Neuss 511, 562, 706 Niehaus 730, 731 Niehus, Adolph 185 Niland (no first name) 590, 598 Nobility of bishopric of Münster statements 295–296, 300–302, 308–309, 322 Nochle, John 566 Noest, Conrad 562 Norden, Brixius of 278, 279, 459, 464 Nording, Miachel 259, 323, 414, 421 Northof, John 551 Nuremberg, Diet of 309, 405 Nusbicker, George 395 Oberstein, Wirich, count of Falkenstein 643, 648, 651, 652, 679, 692, 703 Ocken, Evert 492 n. 40 Oeken, Gerard 185 Oekingfeld, John 579 Oer, Bernard 728 Oesen, John, the elder 185, 189 Offerkamp (no first name) 560–562 Oldenburg 731 Oldenburg, Anthony, Christopher and Otto of 730 Oldenzaal, Gerard 590 Oldenzaal, Henry of 591 Oldenzaal, James 590 Oldenzaal, Kind of 591 Olieschleger, Bernard 506, 590 Opponents of Anabaptism abortive uprising in 1533 453–455 same in Feb. 1534 485–492 forcible conversion of 513–518 Mollenhecke’s uprising 577–579

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_index_761-.indd 768

6/12/2007 4:35:35 PM

index Osenbrug, Herman 752 Osnabrück 177, 431, 499, 511, 588, 620, 629 Osnabrück, Henry of 590 Osnabrück, Margaret of 611 Osnabrugge, John 185, 189 Ossenbeck, John 414, 506, 543, 590 Osterman, Lubbert 590 Oswald (also called Vernheiden), Gerard 747, 750–7523 Overijssel 537 Ovelaker, Eberhard of 508 Paderborn 177 Paell, Bernard 185 Pagenstecker, John 627 Palck, John 315, 318, 414, 484–485, 506, 551, 660–661 Peck, John 380, 404 Peck, Otto 402 Perault, Raymond, cardinal 213 Pfl och, Simon 570 Picker, Bernard 506 Pickert, Bernard 492 n. 40 Plettenberg, Henry of 380 Plonies, Wilbrand 185, 315, 318, 415, 492 n. 40, 528, 705, 725 Poeck, Hans 570 Poeck, Ludolf 432 Polybius 83 Pothgen, Henry 506 Pothof, Conrad 551 Pothof, Henry 551 Prange, Conrad 511 Prange, John 626 Profaess, Jerome 665 Provesting, Gerard 366 Pruessen, Gerard 414, 506, 551, 590 Prüm, Anthony 621, 626 Ptolemy (astronomer) 93 Puchman, John 589 Radan, Henry 685 Raese, Arnold of 407 Raesfeld, Arnold of 204, 307, 408, 717 Raesfeld, Geoffrey of 144 Raesfeld, John of 361, 508, 731 Ramers, Herman 188, 431, 568–570, 588 Recke, Gerard of 204, 307, 362, 380, 404, 508, 522, 575 Recke, John of, lord of Drensteinfurt 407, 408, 500

769

Redeker, Henry 262, 264, 322, 415, 471, 478, 505, 530, 577, 580 n. 229, 589, 597 Redeker, Herman 315, 551 Redeker, John 505, 551, 580 n. 229, 660–661 Regensburg, Diet of 262, 365, 405 Regeward, Herman 419–421, 456, 500, 621 Reimensnider, Eberhard 571, 580 n. 229, 583, 704 Reimensnider, Henry 626 Reine 400, 445, 448, 461 Reining, Frederick 185 Reining, Gerard 215, 506, 533, 552, 580 n. 229, 589, 597 Reining, Godfrey 197 Reining, Herman 530, 580 n. 229, 590, 660–661 Ribbert, Herman 552 Rietberg, Conrad of, bishop of Münster 113 Ringe, Herman tom 637 Ringe, Ludger tom 414, 637 Rodenberg, Lubbert of 161 Rodtland, Arnold 551 Roede, Christina 594 Roede, Henry 315, 414, 506, 543, 596, 598 Roede, Stephen 609 Roeveling, John 627 Rokol, John 699 Roll, Henry 437, 440 n. 68, 444, 471, 474, 477, 505, 588 Rotermunt, John (the elder) 322 Rotgers, Henry 185, 318, 760 Rothman, Bernard 256, 271, 278, 279, 281, 287, 318, 326, 333, 355, 360, 367, 368, 387, 412–413, 415, 419, 423, 434–438, 444, 452, 455, 462, 466, 468, 474, 475, 477, 479–480, 488, 494, 496, 518, 543, 577, 580 n. 229, 589, 598, 650 nn. 8–9, 692 early life and career of 213–215 appointed at St. Maurice’s 213–214 statements of 217–220, 221–224, 225–228, 251–254, 272–274, 305–307, 445, 518–519, 523–526 doctrinal statements of 229–243, 282–287, 360–361, 441–444, 455–457 Rotterdam 588 Ruescher, Hubert 414, 454, 505, 531, 533

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_index_761-.indd 769

6/12/2007 4:35:35 PM

770

index

Ruland, Jodocus 640 Rupe, Henry 107 Sacramentarians 14, 342, 421 Salwide, John 590 Sassenburg 626, 627, 668, 741 Saxony, Eric duke of, bishop of Münster 113 Saxony, John Frederick duke of 341, 642 Scharlaken, Egbert 590 Schauenburg, Ernest duke of 194 Schedelich, Bernard 133 Schedelich, Godfrey of 297, 307, 362, 408, 586, 706, 717 Scheffer, John 621, 637 Scheiffert, Werner 500, 665 Schelve, Gerard 590 Schemme, John 540 Schemmering, Engelbert 596 Schemmering, Walter 590 Schenck, George 536–537, 662, 665, 670–671 Schencking, Ermingard 708 Schencking, Henry 366, 404, 717 Schencking, Herman 361, 380, 404, 496, 528, 725, 741, 760 Schencking, John 185, 496 Schimmel, George of 508 Schlachtschap, Henry 437 n. 63, 577, 582, 611, 620 Schlebusch, William 634 Schloschen, Derek 186, 552, 701 Schmalkaldic League 31, 341, 388, 389, 417, 503 Schmalkaldic, Nicholas 542 Schomaker, Bernard 322 Schomaker, Peter 662 Schomaker, Rudolf 186 Schönebeck, Henry of 508, 522 Schönefl ieth 194, 497 Schoonhoven, Christopher 591, 685 Schöppingen 499, 588, 740 Schroder, John 463 Schrodercken, Caspar 215, 244, 279, 318, 344, 345, 347, 414, 415 Schrodercken, Gerard 355 Schulte, Bernard 693 Schulte, John 542 Schuren, John 590 Schuttorp, John 393 Schwartzenberg, Henry of, bishop of Münster 113, 123

Scottish beggar 482 Selker, John 407 Selking, Gerard 596 Senden 738 Senden, John of 508, 522 Sendenhorst 322, 575 Sibing, Herman 213, 214 Siegfried, bishop of Münster 127 Siburg, John of 713, 715 Simonson, Peter 596 Sittard, Herman of 508, 521, 609, 668, 691 Smising, Caspar 297, 408 Smising, Roger 380, 384, 535, 640, 705 Smith, Jodocus 725 Smoker, Gerard the, see Münster, Gerard Sneek, Albert of 562 Snider, Nicholas 492 n. 40, 506, 519, 686 Spiker, Otto 629 Sobbe, Conrad 689 Soest 176–177, 499, 620, 628–629 Sonnenbrunn 366 Spee (no first name) 591 Spiegel, Conrad 388 Staell, William (deacon) 212 Staell, William (Iburg official) 630 Staprade, Herman 437–438, 441, 471 n. 10, 474, 477 Steding, Wilkin 508, 521, 608, 609, 636, 663–664, 668, 686, 691, 699, 703, 706 Steinkamp (no first name) 551 Steinman, Eberhard 419–420 Stell, Reiner 187, 323 Sterneberg, John 627 Stevening, Eberwin 185, 415 Stevening, Henry 725 Stevening, John 760 Sticker, Magnus 750, 760 Stinte, George of 571 Stoeldreier (no first name) 432 Stolte, Henry 551 Stoppenberg, John of 626 Stove, James 704, 725 Stralen, Godfrey 323, 444, 471, 474, 477, 580 n. 229, 621, 626, 630 Strasburg 13–14 Striker, Magnus 421 Stripe, Nicholas 414, 492 n. 40, 506, 660–661 Stromberg 668

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_index_761-.indd 770

6/12/2007 4:35:36 PM

index Suren, John 542 Suttorp, John 590 Swartarnt, Henry 750 Swedarth, Henry 188, 414, 490 Swerhus, Eberhard (Ovelacker) of 627 Swering, Paul 620 Swering, Peter 500 Swerthen, Bernard 182, 480, 701 Swerthen, John 511, 633 Swibert, St. 109, 120 Tant, John 185 Taubenheim, John of 395 Tecklenburg, Hans of 560, 609, 668, 672 Tecklenburg, Otto count of 730 Tegeder, Herman 511 Telgte 322, 374, 378, 381, 387, 392, 399, 432, 478, 521, 522, 528, 556, 566, 732, 736, 746 Münsterite raid on 379–380 Tilbeck, Herman 192, 259, 279, 318, 402, 414, 415, 416, 421, 423, 454, 485, 490, 491, 494, 496, 498, 504, 532, 543, 580 n. 229, 589, 597, 618, 701 Tile (no first name) 478, 701 Till, Derek of 508 Timmerman’s wife 483 Tinnen, Bernard of 315, 365, 725, 743 Tinnen, John of 415 Tonsoris, Gerard 366 Torck, Arnold 366 Tos, Roger 189 Travelman, Berthold 415, 725, 752 Travelman, Henry 185 Treviso 87 Trier 511 Trutling, Derek 189, 540–541 Tulen, John 366 Tuneken, Gerard 414 Tuneken, Margaret 666 Twelve elders 543 decree of 544–553 Twickel, John of 691, 696 Twist, Frederick of 388, 627, 705, 741–743, 745 Udenheim, John 645 Uldan, John 527–528, 552 Ummegrove, Henry 621, 626 Ummegrove, John 244, 279, 341, 343, 344, 345, 347

771

Utermack, Nicholas of 508 Utrecht 437, 505 Utrecht, Adrian of 590 Utrecht, Godfrey of 508 Utrecht, John of 581 Varlar, battle of 194 Vechta 668, 730, 731 Velen, Reiner of 196 Velmede, Goswin of 299 Velthues, Anthony 590 Vernheiden, Gerard see Oswald Verona 87 Vicenza 87 Viger, John 413 Vinck, John 185, 197 Vinck, Otto 632 Vinne, Dionysius 323, 437 n. 63, 444, 474, 477, 485, 577, 620 Voelkerst, John 12 Voerde, Clymner of 557 Vogelsang, John 355, 366 Vos, Berthold 760 Voss, Jacob 154 Voss, John 590 Vreden 629 Waldeck, Christopher 590 Waldeck, Francis of, bishop of Münster 81, 260 statements of 261–262, 277, 288, 289–290, 291, 292–293, 294–295, 310–311, 313–314, 381, 384–385, 396, 397–400, 423, 433, 446, 450, 460, 461, 473, 474–475 installation as prince of Münster 427–429 Waldeck, John count of 749, 757 Waldeck, Philip count of 344 Wale (also called Schiltmaker), John 625, 627 Walraf, Henry 463 Wantscherer, Elizabeth 594, 687–688 Wardenburg 731 Warendorf 177, 214, 333, 417, 419, 429, 461, 470, 499, 516, 522, 620, 621, 622–628, 633, 667 Warendorf, Bernard 380, 404 Warendorf, Henry 380, 404, 760 Warendorf, John 380, 404, 725 Wassenberg 437 Wast, Francis 611 Wechler, John 315, 488 Wedemhave, Herman 315, 454

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_index_761-.indd 771

6/12/2007 4:35:36 PM

772

index

Wendt, Francis of 407, 408 Weppelman, Bernard 430 Werde, Conrad of 635–637 Werden, Andrew 505 Werne 310, 668 Werne, Francis of 324, 325, 759 Werneken, Godfrey 517 Wesel 499, 632, 634 Wesseling, John (doctor) 36, 484, 486, 501, 517, 742, 743, 750–756 Wesseling, John ( judge) 714, 742 Wessede, Meinburg of 141 Westerholt, Bernard of 297, 307, 362, 575, 717, 731 Westerman, John 459, 464, 467 Westphalians 89, 94–95 Wetter, Frederick 511 Wever, Bernard 620 Wichartz, Bernard 590 Wichman, Henry 217 Wieck, Christian of 738, 751 Wieck, Gertrud of 141 Wieck, John of 281, 338, 340, 341, 343, 392, 395, 403, 416, 438, 454, 459, 471, 501–504 speech of 416–418 Wieck, Thomas of 760 Wied, Frederick of, bishop of Münster 185, 200 Wied, Herman of, archbishop of Cologne 177, 201, 326 letters of 327–328, 329, 386–387 Wied, John count of 203 Wiede, Herman of, bishop of Paderborn 429 Wildeshausen 668, 730 Wilkinghege 691 Wilkinghof, John 116 Willenhues, Henry 596

Willibrord, St. 108 Windemoller, John 263, 279, 414, 424, 440 Winold (last naming missing) 590 Winschenck, Caspar 590 Wintercamp (no first name) 486 Winzenburg, Derek of, bishop of Münster 104, 110, 121 Wintzum, John of 639 Wirtheim, Peter 459, 463, 464, 467 Witte, Bernard 89 Wittenberg 214 Wolbeck 297, 303, 308, 322, 373, 426, 513, 556, 575, 668, 673, 700, 703 Wolterin (no first name) 704 Wordeman, Christian 414, 471, 506, 552 wordtgeld (land rent) 90, 41 Worms, Diet of (1521) 5, 322; (1535) 706, 708–711, 716, 717 Wulf, Henry 596 Wulffert, Albert 760 Wulframsdorf, George of 508 Wulframsdorf, Leopold of 508 Wullen, Gerlach of 543, 591, 597, 702 Wullen, Herman of 590 Wullen, Rudolf of 717 Xanten, Henry 310, 506, 543, 580 n. 229, 590, 591, 660–661, 701 Ysselmonde, Pilgrim of

508, 536

Zütphen, Franco of 115, 507 Zwifel, Derek 115 Zwingli, Ulrich 8–10, 30, 371 Zwolle 536 Zwolle, Bernard of 589 Zwolle, Otto of 571

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

MacKAY_index_761-.indd 772

6/12/2007 4:35:36 PM

SHCT-serie16x24.qxp

28-3-2007

16:07

Page 1

Studies in the History of Christian Traditions (formerly Studies in the History of Christian Thought) Edited by Robert J. Bast 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 36. 37. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

McNeill, J. J. The Blondelian Synthesis. 1966. Out of print Goertz, H.-J. Innere und äussere Ordnung in der Theologie Thomas Müntzers. 1967 Bauman, Cl. Gewaltlosigkeit im Täufertum. 1968 Roldanus, J. Le Christ et l’Homme dans la Théologie d’Athanase d’Alexandrie. 2nd ed. 1977 Milner, Jr., B. Ch. Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church. 1970. Out of print Tierney, B. Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350. 2nd ed. 1988 Oldfield, J. J. Tolerance in the Writings of Félicité Lamennais 1809-1831. 1973 Oberman, H. A. (ed.). Luther and the Dawn of the Modern Era. 1974. Out of print Holeczek, H. Humanistische Bibelphilologie bei Erasmus, Thomas More und William Tyndale. 1975 Farr, W. John Wyclif as Legal Reformer. 1974 Purcell, M. Papal Crusading Policy 1244-1291. 1975 Ball, B. W. A Great Expectation. Eschatological Thought in English Protestantism. 1975 Stieber, J. W. Pope Eugenius IV, the Council of Basel, and the Empire. 1978. Out of print Partee, Ch. Calvin and Classical Philosophy. 1977 Misner, P. Papacy and Development. Newman and the Primacy of the Pope. 1976 Tavard, G. H. The Seventeenth-Century Tradition. A Study in Recusant Thought. 1978 Quinn, A. The Confidence of British Philosophers. An Essay in Historical Narrative. 1977 Beck, J. Le Concil de Basle (1434). 1979 Church, F. F. and George, T. (ed.). Continuity and Discontinuity in Church History. 1979 Gray, P. T. R. The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451-553). 1979 Nijenhuis, W. Adrianus Saravia (c. 1532-1613). Dutch Calvinist. 1980 Parker, T. H. L. (ed.). Iohannis Calvini Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. 1981 Ellis, I. Seven Against Christ. A Study of ‘Essays and Reviews’. 1980 Brann, N. L. The Abbot Trithemius (1462-1516). 1981 Locher, G. W. Zwingli’s Thought. New Perspectives. 1981 Gogan, B. The Common Corps of Christendom. Ecclesiological Themes in Thomas More. 1982 Stock, U. Die Bedeutung der Sakramente in Luthers Sermonen von 1519. 1982 Yardeni, M. (ed.). Modernité et nonconformisme en France à travers les âges. 1983 Platt, J. Reformed Thought and Scholasticism. 1982 Watts, P. M. Nicolaus Cusanus. A Fifteenth-Century Vision of Man. 1982 Sprunger, K. L. Dutch Puritanism. 1982 Meijering, E. P. Melanchthon and Patristic Thought. 1983 Stroup, J. The Struggle for Identity in the Clerical Estate. 1984 35. Colish, M. L. The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. 1.2. 2nd ed. 1990 Guy, B. Domestic Correspondence of Dominique-Marie Varlet, Bishop of Babylon, 1678-1742. 1986 38. Clark, F. The Pseudo-Gregorian Dialogues. I. II. 1987 Parente, Jr. J. A. Religious Drama and the Humanist Tradition. 1987 Posthumus Meyjes, G. H. M. Hugo Grotius, Meletius. 1988 Feld, H. Der Ikonoklasmus des Westens. 1990 Reeve, A. and Screech, M. A. (eds.). Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament. Acts — Romans — I and II Corinthians. 1990 Kirby, W. J. T. Richard Hooker’s Doctrine of the Royal Supremacy. 1990 Gerstner, J. N. The Thousand Generation Covenant. Reformed Covenant Theology. 1990 Christianson, G. and Izbicki, T. M. (eds.). Nicholas of Cusa. 1991 Garstein, O. Rome and the Counter-Reformation in Scandinavia. 1553-1622. 1992 Garstein, O. Rome and the Counter-Reformation in Scandinavia. 1622-1656. 1992 Perrone Compagni, V. (ed.). Cornelius Agrippa, De occulta philosophia Libri tres. 1992

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

SHCT-serie16x24.qxp

28-3-2007

16:07

Page 2

49. Martin, D. D. Fifteenth-Century Carthusian Reform. The World of Nicholas Kempf. 1992 50. Hoenen, M. J. F. M. Marsilius of Inghen. Divine Knowledge in Late Medieval Thought. 1993 51. O’Malley, J. W., Izbicki, T. M. and Christianson, G. (eds.). Humanity and Divinity in Renaissance and Reformation. Essays in Honor of Charles Trinkaus. 1993 52. Reeve, A. (ed.) and Screech, M. A. (introd.). Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament. Galatians to the Apocalypse. 1993 53. Stump, Ph. H. The Reforms of the Council of Constance (1414-1418). 1994 54. Giakalis, A. Images of the Divine. The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. With a Foreword by Henry Chadwick. 1994 55. Nellen, H. J. M. and Rabbie, E. (eds.). Hugo Grotius – Theologian. Essays in Honour of G. H. M. Posthumus Meyjes. 1994 56. Trigg, J. D. Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther. 1994 57. Janse, W. Albert Hardenberg als Theologe. Profil eines Bucer-Schülers. 1994 59. Schoor, R. J. M. van de. The Irenical Theology of Théophile Brachet de La Milletière (1588-1665). 1995 60. Strehle, S. The Catholic Roots of the Protestant Gospel. Encounter between the Middle Ages and the Reformation. 1995 61. Brown, M. L. Donne and the Politics of Conscience in Early Modern England. 1995 62. Screech, M. A. (ed.). Richard Mocket, Warden of All Souls College, Oxford, Doctrina et Politia Ecclesiae Anglicanae. An Anglican Summa. Facsimile with Variants of the Text of 1617. Edited with an Introduction. 1995 63. Snoek, G. J. C. Medieval Piety from Relics to the Eucharist. A Process of Mutual Interaction. 1995 64. Pixton, P. B. The German Episcopacy and the Implementation of the Decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1216-1245. Watchmen on the Tower. 1995 65. Dolnikowski, E. W. Thomas Bradwardine: A View of Time and a Vision of Eternity in Fourteenth-Century Thought. 1995 66. Rabbie, E. (ed.). Hugo Grotius, Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae Pietas (1613). Critical Edition with Translation and Commentary. 1995 67. Hirsh, J. C. The Boundaries of Faith. The Development and Transmission of Medieval Spirituality. 1996 68. Burnett, S. G. From Christian Hebraism to Jewish Studies. Johannes Buxtorf (1564-1629) and Hebrew Learning in the Seventeenth Century. 1996 69. Boland O.P., V. Ideas in God according to Saint Thomas Aquinas. Sources and Synthesis. 1996 70. Lange, M.E. Telling Tears in the English Renaissance. 1996 71. Christianson, G. and Izbicki, T.M. (eds.). Nicholas of Cusa on Christ and the Church. Essays in Memory of Chandler McCuskey Brooks for the American Cusanus Society. 1996 72. Mali, A. Mystic in the New World. Marie de l’Incarnation (1599-1672). 1996 73. Visser, D. Apocalypse as Utopian Expectation (800-1500). The Apocalypse Commentary of Berengaudus of Ferrières and the Relationship between Exegesis, Liturgy and Iconography. 1996 74. O’Rourke Boyle, M. Divine Domesticity. Augustine of Thagaste to Teresa of Avila. 1997 75. Pfizenmaier, T. C. The Trinitarian Theology of Dr. Samuel Clarke (1675-1729). Context, Sources, and Controversy. 1997 76. Berkvens-Stevelinck, C., Israel, J. and Posthumus Meyjes, G. H. M. (eds.). The Emergence of Tolerance in the Dutch Republic. 1997 77. Haykin, M. A. G. (ed.). The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697-1771). A Tercentennial Appreciation. 1997 78. Kaiser, C. B. Creational Theology and the History of Physical Science. The Creationist Tradition from Basil to Bohr. 1997 79. Lees, J. T. Anselm of Havelberg. Deeds into Words in the Twelfth Century. 1997 80. Winter, J. M. van. Sources Concerning the Hospitallers of St John in the Netherlands, 14th-18th Centuries. 1998 81. Tierney, B. Foundations of the Conciliar Theory. The Contribution of the Medieval Canonists from Gratian to the Great Schism. Enlarged New Edition. 1998 82. Miernowski, J. Le Dieu Néant. Théologies négatives à l’aube des temps modernes. 1998 83. Halverson, J. L. Peter Aureol on Predestination. A Challenge to Late Medieval Thought. 1998. 84. Houliston, V. (ed.). Robert Persons, S.J.: The Christian Directory (1582). The First Booke of the Christian Exercise, appertayning to Resolution. 1998

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

SHCT-serie16x24.qxp

28-3-2007

16:07

Page 3

85. Grell, O. P. (ed.). Paracelsus. The Man and His Reputation, His Ideas and Their Transformation. 1998 86. Mazzola, E. The Pathology of the English Renaissance. Sacred Remains and Holy Ghosts. 1998. 87. 88. Marsilius von Inghen. Quaestiones super quattuor libros sententiarum. Super Primum. Bearbeitet von M. Santos Noya. 2 Bände. I. Quaestiones 1-7. II. Quaestiones 8-21. 2000 89. Faupel-Drevs, K. Vom rechten Gebrauch der Bilder im liturgischen Raum. Mittelalterliche Funktions-bestimmungen bildender Kunst im Rationale divinorum officiorum des Durandus von Mende (1230/11296). 1999 90. Krey, P. D. W. and Smith, L. (eds.). Nicholas of Lyra. the Senses of Scripture. 2000 92. Oakley, F. Politics and Eternity. Studies in the History of Medieval and Early-Modern Political Thought. 1999 93. Pryds, D. The Politics of Preaching. Robert of Naples (1309-1343) and his Sermons. 2000 94. Posthumus Meyjes, G. H. M. Jean Gerson – Apostle of Unity. His Church Politics and Ecclesiology. Translated by J. C. Grayson. 1999 95. Berg, J. van den. Religious Currents and Cross-Currents. Essays on Early Modern Protestantism and the Protestant Enlightenment. Edited by J. de Bruijn, P. Holtrop, and E. van der Wall. 1999 96. Izbicki, T. M. and Bellitto, C. M. (eds.). Reform and Renewal in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Studies in Honor of Louis Pascoe, S. J. 2000 97. Kelly, D. The Conspiracy of Allusion. Description, Rewriting, and Authorship from Macrobius to Medieval Romance. 1999 98. Marrone, S. P. The Light of Thy Countenance. Science and Knowledge of God in the Thirteenth Century. 2 volumes. 1. A Doctrine of Divine Illumination. 2. God at the Core of Cognition. 2001 99. Howson, B. H. Erroneous and Schismatical Opinions. The Question of Orthodoxy regarding the Theology of Hanserd Knollys (c. 1599-169)). 2001 100. Asselt, W. J. van. The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669). 2001 101. Celenza, C.S. Piety and Pythagoras in Renaissance Florence the Symbolum Nesianum. 2001 102. Dam, H.- J. van (ed.), Hugo Grotius, De imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra. Critical Edition with Introduction, English translation and Commentary. 2 volumes. 2001 103. Bagge, S. Kings, Politics, and the Right Order of the World in German Historiography c. 950-1150. 2002 104. Steiger, J. A. Fünf Zentralthemen der Theologie Luthers und seiner Erben. Communicatio – Imago – Figura – Maria – Exempla. Mit Edition zweier christologischer Frühschriften Johann Gerhards. 2002 105. Izbicki, T. M. and Bellitto, C. M. (eds.). Nicholas of Cusa and his Age: Intellect and Spirituality. Essays Dedicated to the Memory of F. Edward Cranz, Thomas P. McTighe and Charles Trinkaus. 2002 106. Hascher-Burger, U. Gesungene Innigkeit. Studien zu einer Musikhandschrift der Devotio moderna (Utrecht, Universiteitsbibliotheek, MS 16 H 94, olim B 113). Mit einer Edition der Gesänge. 2002 107. Bolliger, D. Infiniti Contemplatio. Grundzüge der Scotus- und Scotismusrezeption im Werk Huldrych Zwinglis. 2003 108. Clark, F. The ‘Gregorian’ Dialogues and the Origins of Benedictine Monasticism. 2002 109. Elm, E. Die Macht der Weisheit. Das Bild des Bischofs in der Vita Augustini des Possidius und andere spätantiken und frühmittelalterlichen Bischofsviten. 2003 110. Bast, R. J. (ed.). The Reformation of Faith in the Context of Late Medieval Theology and Piety. Essays by Berndt Hamm. 2004. 111. Heering, J. P. Hugo Grotius as Apologist for the Christian Religion. A Study of his Work De Veritate Religionis Christianae (1640). Translated by J.C. Grayson. 2004. 112. Lim, P. C.- H. In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty. Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in its Seventeenth-Century Context. 2004. 113. Connors, R. and Gow, A. C. (eds.). Anglo-American Millennialism, from Milton to the Millerites. 2004. 114. Zinguer, I. and Yardeni, M. (eds.). Les Deux Réformes Chrétiennes. Propagation et Diffusion. 2004. 115. James, F. A. III (ed.). Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations: Semper Reformanda. 2004. 116. Stroll, M. Calixtus II (1119-1124). A Pope Born to Rule. 2004. 117. Roest, B. Franciscan Literature of Religious Instruction before the Council of Trent. 2004. 118. Wannenmacher, J. E. Hermeneutik der Heilsgeschichte. De septem sigillis und die sieben Siegel im Werk Joachims von Fiore. 2004. 119. Thompson, N. Eucharistic Sacrifice and Patristic Tradition in the Theology of Martin Bucer, 1534-1546. 2005. 120. Van der KooI, C. As in a Mirror. John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God. A Diptych. 2005. 121. Steiger, J. A. Medizinische Theologie. Christus medicus und theologia medicinalis bei Martin Luther und im Luthertum der Barockzeit. 2005.

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto

SHCT-serie16x24.qxp

28-3-2007

16:07

Page 4

122. Giakalis, A. Images of the Divine. The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council – Revised Edition. With a Foreword by Henry Chadwick. 2005. 123. Heffernan, T. J. and Burman, T. E. (eds.). Scripture and Pluralism. Reading the Bible in the Religiously Plural Worlds of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Papers Presented at the First Annual Symposium of the Marco Institute for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, February 21-22, 2002. 2005. 124. Litz, G., Munzert, H. and Liebenberg, R. (eds.). Frömmigkeit – Theologie – Frömmigkeitstheologie – Contributions to European Church History. 125. Ferreiro, A. Simon Magus in Patristic, Medieval and Early Modern Traditions. 2005. 126. Goodwin, D. L. “Take Hold of the Robe of a Jew”. Herbert of Bosham’s Christian Hebraism. 2006. 127. Holder, R. W. John Calvin and the Grounding of Interpretation. Calvin’s First Commentaries. 2006. 128. Reilly, D. J. The Art of Reform in Eleventh-Century Flanders. Gerard of Cambrai, Richard of SaintVanne and the Saint-Vaast Bible. 2006. 129. Frassetto, M. (ed.). Heresy and the Persecuting Society in the Middle Ages. Essays on the Work of R.I. Moore. 2006. 130. Walters Adams, G. Visions in Late Medieval England. Lay Spirituality and Sacred Glimpses of the Hidden Worlds of Faith. 2007. 131. Kirby, T. The Zurich Connection and Tudor Political Theology. 2007. 132. Mackay, C.S. Narrative of the Anabaptist Madness. The Overthrow of Münster, the Famous Metropolis of Westphalia (2 vols.). 2007. 133. Leroux, N.R. Martin Luther as Comforter. Writings on Death. 2007. 134. Tavuzzi, M. Renaissance Inquisitors. Dominican Inquisitors and Inquisitorial Districts in Northern Italy, 1474-1527. 2007. 135. Baschera, L. and C. Moser (eds.). Girolamo Zanchi, De religione christiana fides – Confession of Christian Religion (2 vols.). 2007.

Prospectus available on request BRILL — P.O.B. 9000 — 2300 PA LEIDEN — THE NETHERLANDS

Hermann von Kerssenbrock - 978-90-47-42115-3 Downloaded from Brill.com06/01/2021 04:26:30PM via University of Toronto