VIII. Münzer’s Preparations for the Insurrection

As soon as it became clear that nothing remained to the lower classes but a resort to arms against all exploiters, revolutionary as well as reactionary, no one was more zealous in preparing for the revolt than Münzer, whose circumspection, energy, and intrepidity, made him the central figure in the revolutionary movement of the exploited classes in Thuringia, and gave him an extensive influence far beyond the borders of that province.

The activity of the man can be measured by the accusations against him which poured into the ears of the reigning Princes of Saxony. For example, a certain Friedrich Witzleben complained that his dependents in Wendelstein, Wollmerstadt, and Rosleben had sent delegates to Münzer, asking his permission for the formation of a league against their master, on the ground that he had prevented their attending the Münzer form of Divine worship. Münzer gave his consent, and very probably showed them how to organise themselves. He managed the organisation of the numerous and warlike Mansfeld miners, and sent a letter to the subjects of Duke George of Saxony at Sangershausen, in which he urged them to stand fast to the Gospel (i.e., by the democratic cause), and to resist its enemies.

Münzer also addressed himself to the Orlamünders, with a view to forming an alliance with Karlstadt, who occupied a position similar to his own at Allstätt. But Karlstadt and his followers belonged to a party who deprecated all violent measures. In a reply, written by the people of Orlamünda “to those at Allstätt”, stating how “Christians should fight” (printed at Wittenberg, 1524), Karlstadt says: “We will not have recourse to swords and spears; rather should we be armed against the enemy with the armour of faith. You write that we should join you, and make an alliance with you. Were we to do so, we should no longer be free Christians, but dependent on men. Such an act would raise a cry of ‘Death to the Gospel!’ and the tyrants would exult and say, ‘These fellows boast of being God’s elect, yet form leagues among themselves, as if God were not strong enough to defend them!’”

While this letter was of no avail to Karlstadt, it really amounted to a denunciation of Münzer, whom Luther put in the same category as the Orlarmünd agitator.

The most serious incident, however, was the betrayal to the Princes by Nicol Rugkert of a secret league in Allstätt, instituted by the agitator. Melancthon informs us that “Münzer kept a register of all who had bound themselves to him, and had sworn to punish unchristian Princes and to establish a Christian government” The league had adherents outside of Allstätt for example, in the Mansfeld valley, Sangerhausen, and even in Zwickau. In his Confession, Münzer sets forth the aim of the organisation to be “An alliance against those who persecute the Gospel.” In regard to what was to be understood by “the Gospel,” he asserts: “It is an article of our creed, and one which we wish to realise, that all things are in common [omnia sunt communia], and should be distributed as occasion requires, according to the several necessities of all. Any prince, count, or baron who, after being earnestly reminded of this truth, shall be unwilling to accept it, is to be beheaded or hanged.”

We do not know to what extent the Saxon Princes were acquainted with the aims of the league at that time; but what they did learn was enough, in conjunction with other indictments, to make them summon the dangerous instigator to Weimar; a step to which Luther’s animosity to Münzer was an additional incentive.

Münzer was fearless enough to obey the summons, and go to Weimar on the 1st of August. Duke John submitted him to an examination, from which, however, he was dismissed unharmed, to await the Duke’s final decision.

But Münzer did not remain for this, as his position in Allstätt had already become untenable. The Princes were threatening the little town with chastisement, and now the Council declared against the agitator, who fled in the night of the 7th-8th of August. He tells us in his Apology that: “When I returned home from the interrogation in Weimar, I intended to preach the earnest Word of God but the Councilmen wanted to deliver me over to the arch-enemy of the gospel; upon perceiving which my longer stay became impossible. I shook the dust from off my feet, for I saw with my own eyes that they esteemed their oath and allegiance far more highly than they did God’s Word.”

The weak renegade Melancthon endeavours here as elsewhere, to cast the odium of cowardice on Münzer. “Thomas’ high spirit,” he says, “ forsook him at that time he ran away and hid himself for six months.”

How small a part cowardice had in Münzer’s flight from Allstätt, and how little disposed he was to hide himself, are shown by the fact that he went from Allstätt direct to a new theatre of war, Mühlhausen, where we find him as early as the 15th of August. Moreover Melancthon’s statement cannot have been merely an error; for in 1525 he must have had a lively remembrance of the fright which seized Luther and his friends in 1524, when they learned that Münzer had gone to Mühlhausen.

Luther at once wrote to his confrères in that town, urging Münzer’s banishment, and asking the Council to summon the impostor and force him to declare who had authorised him to preach. “If he says that God and His Spirit have sent him, like the Apostles, then make him prove it with signs and wanders but forbid his preaching, for when God would change the natural order of things, He signifies it by all manner of miracles.”

Luther had good grounds for energetically combating the communistic agitator. Not only were the signs cf the impending insurrection beginning to multiply, but Münzer was more dangerous in Mühlhausen than in Allstätt, as it was a larger town, containing about 6000 inhabitants and controlling a district of nearly 220 square kilometres. Handicrafts and trade were in a very flourishing condition; woolweaving and cloth manufacture being in an advanced stage of development. “A very large quantity of cloth was woven in Mulhausen, a profitable trade being carried on with it in Russia, and in other countries in that part of the world” (Galletti, Geschichte Thuringens, p.491). The town was not only rich and powerful, but also independent of the Saxon Princes, as it was one of the few free cities still remaining in Thuringia; and if it were to fall into the hands of the communist enthusiasts, they would have a point d’appui which would make them rather dangerous.

Internal affairs were not unfavourable to a popular insurrection in the town, where the great extension of woollen manufacture for export must have produced a fertile soil for rebellious and communistic ideas. In addition to this, Miihlhausen was controlled by “an oppressive, aristocratic government. This free imperial city did not contain more than ninety-six really free burgesses, who formed the Council, and these filled its vacancies exclusively from the patrician class.”

Rebellious sentiments in Mühlhausen were not limited to the urban proletarians, the suburban population and the peasants of the surrounding districts dependent on the town the guild craftsmen were also similarly disposed, although elsewhere they belonged to the privileged classes. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Reformation movement led to a series of violent uprisings among the citizens against the patrician government, in which the populace was led by Heinrich Pfeiffer, a monk who, like so many others of that period, had renounced his vows. Pfeiffer was par excellence the leader of the opposition faction among the well-to-do citizens, such as the guild-craftsmen and merchants, so far as the latter did not belong to the patricians the latter, however, were too strong to allow Pfeiffer to ignore the peasants and proletarians. He therefore addressed himself to these classes, and urged them to unite in a struggle against the town aristocracy.

Moreover Pfeiffer had another ally in the Saxon Princes, who had long craved the possession of the powerful imperial city, and whose purpose seemed to be served by its internal commotion.

The rebellion was encouraged at its outset by Duke John of Saxony, although he afterwards had Pfeiffer executed as a rebel when he became inconvenient.

In spite of all these opponents, the Council must have had a strong following in the town, for the democrats did not achieve a lasting success. Pfeiffer and his partisans won their first victory in 1523, of which the spoils fell to the well-to-do citizens, who alone received a share in the municipal government, while the proletarians and petty craftsmen in the suburbs, and especially the peasants, came off empty-handed.

We are now led to inquire if this unequal distribution of the fruits of victory gave rise to a change in the disposition of the lower classes. One thing is certain the Town Council soon succeeded in banishing Pfeiffer, and Duke John in vain interceded for his return. Nevertheless before long we find him back in Mühlhausen in hot conflict with the Council, fortune smiling first on the one side, then on the other. In the midst of this struggle Münzer arrived in Mühlhausen. The Council was at that time too feeble to comply with Luther’s demands for a citation of the agitator, however willing it might have been to do so. “The honourable Council were as little pleased with Münzer as with Pfeiffer, but the populace retained him by force for he and his confederate Pfeiffer had just incited and led a rebellion against the others.”

Just at this time we find Pfeiffer’s party executing a change of front to the left. They raised claims for the peasants and suburban population as well, and carried the day August 27, 1524. It is impossible to determine how far, if at all, Münzer influenced this change.

Another rupture like that of the year 1523, now began to make its appearance among the victors. In 1523 it was the peasants and suburban population who were discontented; now the burgesses, craftsmen, and tradesmen became alarmed at the peasants and proletarians, who, since Münzer’s arrival, had certainly lost none of their confidence. The burgesses sided with the Council, and as early as September 25th Pfeiffer and Münzer suffered defeat, Münzer being banished, and soon after, Pfeiffer also.

Münzer betook himself to South Germany, like so many others of political prominence in Saxony, e.g., Karlstadt, whom Luther had prevailed upon his sovereign to banish, because he had been very badly received by the Orlamünders in a tour of agitation against that reformer. Münzer’s retreat, however, did not imply even a temporary halt in the movement, but merely the search for a new field of activity. He must have been well informed of the events preparing in South Germany; for Germany (at least South and Central Germany) was at that time covered with a network of secret revolutionary societies, which were in constant intercommunication. The communistic sects in particular supplied a large number of itinerant agitators who kept the different leagues in touch with each other. From the very first establishment of Waldenses, the confidential agents of the communists (“Apostles,” “poor priests,” or whatever name they might have borne) were as a rule, and with only short interruptions, continually wandering hither and thither. The development of migratory habits among the craftsmen was an additional instrument in bringing about a closer union between these classes of society, as it was for every other class. “All migrating craftsmen belonging to the association, masters as well as journeymen, became ‘apostles’.”

Hence, when Münzer repaired to South Germany, he must have been well informed of the condition of things, and have seen that an insurrection was everywhere imminent. At all events, he knew that at the end of August the peasants in Stühlingen had actually revolted, and that the insurrection had rapidly spread to the Swiss frontier. This was sufficient to induce him to go thither as soon as all scope for his activity in Saxony had ceased, beyond all hope of recovery so long as the existing conditions of government continued in that country.

He remained but a short time in Nurenberg, not (as many believe) to kindle a revolt (and he would have found partisans enough in that ancient centre of Beghardism), but only to have a tract secretly printed. Affairs in that town did not seem ripe for an insurrection.

His stay in Nurenberg is best explained by Münzer himself in a letter to Christoph N., in Eisleben. The following passage shows the sad state of his circumstances at that time: “If you can,” he says, “help me towards my living expenses. But if this angers you, I will not have a farthing.” It is evident, therefore, that Münzer had not grown rich in Allstätt and Mühlhausen.

The result of his sojourn in Nurenberg is briefly given by an ancient chronicler named Johann Müllner: “A bookprinter of Nurenberg made bold to print a tract by Thomas Münzer but the Council seized all the copies, and imprisoned the journeyman, who had acted without the knowledge of his master.”

The most high and wise Council, however, by no means succeeded in getting possession of all the copies. Not only was the work circulated before the peasant rebellion, but, in spite of the war to the knife carried on against all insurrectionary writings after that rebellion, copies of this work have been preserved to this day. It is the most vehement and revolutionary of all Münzer’s writings, and is entitled Hoch verursachte Schutzrede, or Apology. With his usual scorn for the prevalent servility of the theologians, he dedicates it to “The Most High First Born Prince and Almighty Lord, Jesus Christ, the gracious King of all kings, the brave Leader of all believers, my most merciful Sovereign and faithful Protector; and to his afflicted Bride, Suffering Christendom.”

After a series of attacks on Luther (Dr. Ludibrii), he goes on to say that he has summoned the Princes of Christendom to seize the sword in defence of the Gospel appealing at the same time to the Bible in justification of his summons. “Nevertheless there comes an eavesdropping gossip – ah! the sly fellow! – and says that I wished to raise a rebellion, as he had discovered from my missive to the miners. He accuses me of this, but conceals another most discreet matter to wit that I proved to the ruling powers that a whole province had the sword within their grasp, as well as the key for the unlocking, and showed from Daniel vii., Rev. vi., and Rom. xiii. 1-8, that the rulers are not masters, but servants of the sword. They should. not act as pleaseth them (Deut. xvii.), but do righteously. It is the greatest abomination on earth that no one will relieve the necessities of the poor ... Look ye! Our sovereign and rulers are at the bottom of all usury, thievery, and robbery; they take all created things into possession. The fish in the water, birds in the air, the products of the soil – all must be theirs (Isaiah v.). Moreover, they proclaim God’s command among the poor, and say: God hath ordained thou shaft not steal; but themselves do not follow it. Wherefore they oppress the poor husbandmen and craftsmen, and fleece and flay all who are in like condition (Micah iii.). If one of these poor fellows breaks the least jot or tittle of the law, he must hang for it. To all this Dr. Liar (Luther) says: ‘Amen.’ The rulers themselves make the poor man their enemy by their deeds. If they will not abolish the cause of tumult, how can things be well for any length of time? Because I say this, it follows that I must be rebellious. Verily!” The remainder of the work consists of an exceedingly bitter polemic against Luther.

After Münzer had delivered this Parthian shot at his opponent, he left Nurenberg, and went to the Swiss frontier, where he passed the winter. The exact place of his sojourn is unknown. According to Cochläus, he extended his journeyings at that time as far as Halle in Tyrol, a mining district which subsequently became the centre of Anabaptism. Many ascribe to his authorship the celebrated Twelve Articles, in which the rebel peasants formulated their demands while others even assert that he was the cause of the South German insurrection. The last two statements are certainly without foundation, and that of Cochläus is probably equally so.

The reference in Münzer’s Confession to his stay on the Swiss frontier is limited to the following passage, which probably contains all the essential particulars of his activity during that period of his career: “At Klettgau and Hegau I proposed certain Articles on the proper form of government others presented a modified form of these. They would willingly have received me as one of themselves, but, though grateful to them, I declined. I did not incite the revolt in those places, for it was already in progress. Oekolampadius and Hugowaldus requested me to preach to the people there, and I finally complied.”

Münzer, therefore, was not the author of the Twelve Articles, though he had an influence in their production. He looked upon his stay as only temporary; yet he did not remain inactive but continued to agitate “preached to the people,” as he says, or, as Bullinger expresses it: “Sowed his poisonous seed of the peasant insurrection.”

While on the Swiss frontier, he had an opportunity of meeting with the leaders of the Swiss Anabaptists; but though his relations with these men are important to that sect, they afford out little insight into the character of the Thuringian communist and his work. An account of these relations would demand an inquiry into the beginnings of the Anabaptist order. In order, therefore, to avoid undue interruption in the course of this description, we will not pursue this point further at present, but will return to it in the next chapter.