ResoluteReader: Christopher S. Mackay - False Prophets and Preachers: Henry Gresbeck's Account of the Anabaptist Kingdom of Münster

This is a remarkable account of a remarkable series of events. From February 1534 until the early summer of 1535, the German city of Münster came under the rule of the Anabaptists. Then, Anabaptists were at the forefront of the most radical interpretation of the Reformation, and had developed a significantly radical vision of how society should be run. The Anabaptist Kingdom of Münster began as a radical utopian experiment in living, including the redistribution of wealth and resources. But for a number of reasons, particularly the appaling conditions caused by the siege of the city by the region's hostile bishop and lord, the experiment collapsed into a vicious theocratic state.

The Anabaptists were inspired by a specific reading of sections of the bible, which drove their actions:

Acts 4 seemed to validate direct inspiration of men through the Holy Spirit; verses 32 through 37 were taken to mean that the followers of Christ should share their goods communally, and the radicals’ confiscation of the property of the faithful in Münster was one of the more shocking events to sixteenth-century (and later) sensibilities.

But until Henry Gresbeck's account became available, we've only had second hand sources as to what happened. Gresbeck was the only eyewitness to events within Münster who survived to write down his experiences. His survival was due to his escape from the siege toward its end and his betrayal of the city. This allowed the bishop's forces into the city where they began the most henious repression and pillaging. Hundreds of Anabaptists were killed and their leaders tortured and executed.

Gresbeck's account is, as Christopher S. Mackay explains, extremely important. It is the only first hand account of Anabaptist Münster, and it provides important evidence to collaborate other sources. Mackay has done an amazing job of bringing together and translating the surviving copies of the original documents and creating a readable whole. But as Mackay warns, "Gresbeck’s retrospective account is not without its own difficulties". Principaly Gresbeck is silent on his own role during the period of the siege, and he is writing for a hostile ruler, intending to justify his own role in the capture of the city, and hoping to get back his own wealth and freedom.

Nonetheless, by reading criticially, and with the Mackay's superb annotations and footnotes we can learn alot about those strange and amazing times. Mackay also provides one of the best introductory accounts of the development of Anabaptist thinking, and the background to the Münster events. As he says:

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.

Gresbeck himself may, or may not have believed this. But it is notable that he did stay a lengthy time in Münster, not availing himself of opportunities to leave until absolutely necessary. Though, given that the besieging forces usuaully behaved appalling to those who did escape, and that punishment for those who were captured trying to get out was equally vicious, it's possible this was discretion being better than valour on Gresbeck's part. Mackay suggests however that while "abstract theological doctrines were not an issue of great concern to him. One is left with the impression that Gresbeck was an enthusiastic supporter of the idea that a community of socially and economically equal Christians was to be established in Münster."

That said, in his writing for the bishop, Gresbeck certainly hedges his bets. Here are some of his comments written after the defeat of Münster, about the redistribution of wealth:

The preacher Stutenberent continued, “It’s not appropriate for a Christian to have any money. Be it silver or gold, it’s unclean for a Christian. Everything that the Christian brothers and sisters have belongs to one person as much as to the next. You shall lack nothing, be it food or clothing, house and hearth. What you need you shall get, God will not let you lack anything. One thing should be just as common as the next, it belongs to us all. It’s mine as much as yours, and yours as much as mine.” This is how they convinced the people, so that they (some of them) brought their money, silver and gold, and all that they had. But in the city of Münster, the idea that the one person was to have as much as the next turned out unfairly.

Gresbeck's final caution here reads much like those who admonish 21st century revolutionaries that "it will never work". Nonetheless socialists today might be interested in reading about how the redistribution took place:

After the property became common in this way, they appointed three deacons in each parish who were to guard the property consisting of produce, grain, and meat, and any sort of foodstuffs that there were in the city. These deacons entered all the houses and examined what in the way of food, grain, and meat each person had in his house, and they wrote a list of everything that each person had in his house. These deacons went through the city. Each group of deacons went around their parish and were to examine what sort of poor people there were in the city and not let them lack anything. At first, they did this two or three times, but this practice was eventually forgotten because they still had provisions enough in the city. It was with a good appearance that they carried out this procedure in Münster. After they drew up the list for each house, no one had control over his possessions. But if they’d hidden on the side something that wasn’t listed, they were able to retain it.

This redistribution of wealth was popular, and people did flock to Münster - no surprise given the prevailing poverty in wider society. But I am wary of those who suggest (as writers like Ernest Belfort Bax did) that Anabaptist Münster was some sort of precursor of the revolutionary Paris Commune. One reason for this was there was no democracy. As the siege progressed and deprivation increased power in Münster was concentrated in the hands of the self-declared king, John of Leiden. Gresbeck details how John of Leiden put himself at the top of a hierarchy of power that used violence to ensure his bidding was followed. While Gresbeck gives some account of events for laughs, he does give us an insight into how the "king" created a new, military, state that allowed him to enjoy wealth and food, while the masses inside the besieged town were reduced to eating cats, dogs and rats to survive. Hardly a socialist utopia. Instead this was a theocratic terror state that ruled by fear and murder.

One aspect of the Münster events that has led to much commentary was the institution of polygamy. This makes for some of the most distressing parts of Gresbeck's account. The rulers allowed men in Münster to take multiple wives, against the will of those women. This was justified on the basis of Old Testament scripture, suggesting that the men should have multiple wives and produce multiple offspring to spread Christianity. Whatever the ideological justification, it is clear that this was an incredibly oppressive experience for almost every women, and led to violence and rape, even of children. In fact this situation caused a small uprising against the Anabaptist rule, which John of Leiden stopped with brutal force. Gresbeck does detail other examples of hidden resistance, and people did escape and try to get messages out. But this was not the majority experience. It begs the question, why did Münster hold out so long? In part this is because of the threat of violence - both from the besiegers and from internally. It also was because people seemed to genuinelly believe, or were led to believe, that relief from outside was on its way - and there's so credibility to this. We know that sympathetic Anabaptists did try to rise up and come to the city's aid. But by the time it was desperately needed this was now just fantasy from King John, desperate to offer some hope to hold onto power.

By the time that Gresbeck escaped and led in Münster's enemies, it is clear from his account that the city was on its knees. That does not, however, justify the pillaging and mass murder of civilians by the invading forces. One of the reasons that Gresbeck's is the only account from an eyewitness, is that nearly everyone else was murdered. Münster's enemies wanted to end the rebellion. They also wanted to rub out any other idea that radicals should try and redistribute wealth elsewhere. One might speculate how things could have been different had the bishop not moved to isolate and break the rebellion immediately the Anabaptists were elected to power.

Henry Gresbeck's account of Münster is remarkable, if at times hard to read. It does however repay reading and Christopher S. Mackay has done a superb job of framing and producing Gresbeck's work in a format that is easily accessible to the contempoary reader. For those interested in the Radical Reformation and its consequences, it is a must read. Highly recommended.