Appendix

{285} Document 1

Letter of Henricus Graes to the inhabitants of Münster, January 1(?), 1535

This is the text of the letter that the treacherous preacher Henricus Graes sent back to Münster after making off with the Anabaptists’ secrets and money (Gresbeck, 77r). For the original German, see Stupperich, Die Schriften B. Rothmanns, 429. Now that he is out of harm’s way, Graes comes close to taunting his erstwhile comrades.

God grant us all His spirit out of mercy and mild compassion, so that we may know the path of righteousness, amen. Dear inhabitants! Since the situation has turned out that God has opened my eyes so that I’ve seen the false, poisoned collapse of the business that’s being carried on now in Münster, and God has therefore conveyed me out of the city as a mirror so that everyone may see himself reflected in me, that all the business that’s now being conducted in Münster is a fraud, accordingly, it’s my humble prayer that you will finally open your eyes—it’s high time!—and see of your business that it’s clearly contrary to God and His Holy Word. The previous prophets have all been prophets just like me, so that you poor, stupid people can’t recognize that in its entirety what you’re engaged in is fraud and deception. I know for sure that if you would yet convert and shun the ungodly business, you will all remain in possession of life. With this, be commended to God! For greater recognition, so that you may believe what’s written, I’ve impressed my signet underneath, which is known to you.

{286} Document 2

Letter of Master Henry the Cabinetmaker to His Lords

This is the text of the letter that Gresbeck tried to sneak out of the city in the late spring of 1535. Its preservation in the Landesarchiv in Münster presumably indicates that the letter had been intercepted by the besieging forces and turned over to the prince-bishop. The German was first published in Cornelius, Berichte der augenzeugen, 322–24.

My poor service,1 which my poor self is capable of!

My dear, honorable squires, as I, your poor servant, Master Henry the cabinetmaker, went from you by your leave, I was going to be with you again in fourteen days. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. I remained in Münster for the sake of my poor mother, and for the sake of the poor possessions that I had in Münster.2 I hadn’t imagined that things would go so far in Münster. I got a housewife whom your Worships certainly know, as I’m told by your miller Bernard, who’s also in Münster.

Also, my dear squires, I stayed with my wife at her mother and brother’s residence. If I hadn’t done this, a foreigner would have lived there or they would have torn it down and burned it, so I had to remain in Münster.3 For they say all of that was godless property. If I hadn’t lived there, that would all have been torn down, and I would have forfeited all my property.

Also, my dear squires and your dear mother, I am asking you to write for me and to request of My Gracious Lord of Münster that I may receive mercy so that I can rush out and rush to one of the blockhouses. My dear squires, your dear mother told me the truth before: “Master Henry, if you {287} go to Münster, you’ll get yourself baptized too.” For she told me the truth. I wouldn’t believe it. My dear squires, I request of you for God’s sake that if I’ve angered you, you’ll forgive me this. For I’ve certainly been your poor dear servant, and I am asking to be your poor servant, as I live.

Also, my dear squires, I can’t hold out with my wife any longer, because in the next days I must either die of hunger or rush out and get myself killed.4 So I am asking you not to forget me. For we poor burghers who remained there on the Friday were forced to it there and couldn’t avoid it. For I’ve never had any guilt in this, as Your Worships certainly know.5

Also, my dear squires, I hope that I’ll attain mercy from my wife’s mother and brothers. [v] Her family is that of the Clevorns: the blessed [i.e., deceased]6 Albert Clevorn’s daughter, her brothers named William and Albert Clevorn and Lord Christian Clevorn, and her mother, Clevorn’s wife.7 If I should have mercy from My Gracious Lord and from you, I ask that you write and make the request for me. Otherwise, I have no idea how I shall get away. My dear squires, do try your best in this! I urgently make this request of you. My service for all time, no more than a thousand good nights! Because of my distraught heart, I can’t write any more. If I live to see the day when I may come to you, then you’ll certainly learn everything. My dear squires, I request for God’s sake that you do remember me to My Gracious Lord if possible. All my good friends will have good nights! Whether I live or die, may God help us all!

{288} Also, my dear squires, I have my watch post opposite the Cleves blockhouse outside the city of Münster, by the Cross Gate. I can certainly be called to there in the evening or the light of day, and call “Hans of Brilen” and not “Master Henry Carpenter.” Otherwise, they’ll notice in the city, and then I’d surely be done in. I would rush out as soon as I can. My dear squires, do try your best in this! I will be your servant for as long as I live.

Master Henry, carpenter in Münster

Remember me!

Document 3

Justinian of Holzhausen’s Account of the Capture of Münster

(Written on July 1, 1535)

Justinian of Holzhausen was an officer in the besieging army. The excerpt here comes from a much longer letter written by him to the city council of Frankfurt. For the original German, see Cornelius, Berichte der augenzeugen, 361–67 (the excerpt is on 364–67).

[364] For the sake of capturing the city, we kept a captured cabinetmaker from Münster for about four or five weeks. He reported, depicted, and showed in the earth how the city is equipped on the outside with defenses, especially in the place where he did watch duty.8 Upon this information and report of his and with trust in him, we decided to inspect the city in the reported place.9 Although it was decided among us to persevere in this until the arrival of us (the military councilors), the confirmed bishop made the plan through another prisoner10 [365] who was also familiar with the place, ordered gangways and other gear helpful for the purpose,11 and in {289} our absence decided with the commander together with the captains to undertake the matter and put it to the test. Therefore, on St. John’s Day,12 towards evening around eleven or twelve o’clock, they were sent with everything. Our prisoner was in the forefront together with the bishop’s informant,13 and our man swam across the outer canal, which is about thirty feet wide, and he towed across the gangway, which was tied to his body by a long line, and fixed it firmly in place.14 Then, sixteen men ordered to do so followed him over the gangway, and pulled down the iron stakes in the canal. This took place by the Cross Gate between two great walls. They got over the wall onto the great sconce raised up with earth, and on it and directly under it they stabbed the sleeping watchmen to death, two on their guns, the others in their beds in the guardhouses. Meanwhile, the other knechts who had been waiting here secretly headed off. These men followed.15 Right away, the first men then took possession of the small door that was in the city door and remained open unlocked all night. Once forty to fifty men got across the gangway, it broke apart.16 The knechts rushed to the wall that our knechts had possession of, and there they fixed the ladders in place (though they were a bit too short). About five hundred got on top and then into the city, with four banners and their captains.17 In the city, these men began to engage the enemy, as they were now headed for the shouting, the longer the stronger, and in the city they pressed and stabbed and shot each other hither and yon, up and down, around the squares and streets. In the meanwhile, the little door up on the wall was closed again.18 No one knows how it actually closed, except that some people would say that our own knechts did it, with the intention that they could then plunder all the more at leisure.19 The pursuing in the city lasted until towards daylight at around six {290} o’clock, without anyone being able to get in or out. At that point, the confirmed bishop’s informant came with the chief lieutenant and some knechts [366] and reopened the little door, although the main body, which was still outside the city, couldn’t know whether they were defeated or not. As soon as day broke, they were also shot at from their encampment on the other sconce, so that they had to fall back completely, all the way to a small group that included the main captain20 and Lord George Weiss and Marx Hessen, the Trier military councilor,21 who were staying in an old trench close up to the city and waiting for what God would grant. In the meanwhile, an ensign with some of our knechts came back on top of the wall. Our knechts fell upon an exit close by the same wall and shoved the gate open, so that they lowered the drawbridge. At this point, the main captain and the main body rushed in, killed any men that defended themselves. Up to about three hundred, including the new king,22 enclosed themselves within a wagon fort with their artillery up at the cathedral square.23 They asked for mercy. Mercy was proclaimed to them, and with white batons they were expelled from the territory across the sea.24 Otherwise, none of the women or children perished, provided that they didn’t defend themselves. Thus, it was by the especial grace of God and not through the skill of the soldiery that the city was conquered. For when the first gangway broke apart and the little door was closed, the knechts who were in the city and gave more thought to plunder and theft than defense would never have conquered the city. For those who were capable of arms bearing were still up to eight hundred strong, which could hardly have been anticipated, even with the {291} report of all the prisoners who’d previously gotten out.25 They also captured the first king26 and Knipperdolling, and the bishop put them in prison. The location of Stutenberent, their leading privy councilor, still remains hidden.27 They are still being likewise found and stabbed.28 Little money in gold was found—so little that the bishop, to whom belonged half of it, threatened not to pay the landsknechts from it—although it’s known that there was a lot there. Where it has gone, God knows.29 They say that the people in Münster buried it before this time . . .

Document 4

Count Wirich of Falkenstein’s Account of the Capture of Münster

(Written on November 6, 1535)

This excerpt comes from a long report to the bishops of Mainz, Cologne, and Trier and the princes of Jülich, Hesse, and Nassau (the rulers who took over the besieging army in the fall of 1534) that was written by the commander of the besieging forces and his military councilors some months after the capture. For the German text, see Cornelius, Berichte der augenzeugen, 383–98 (excerpt on 393–98).

[393] Around this time, two of them—the one being Little Hans of Longstreet and the other called Master Henry Grossbeck, cabinetmaker and burgher in Münster—betook themselves from the city one night (Trinity Sunday30), though one without the knowledge of the other. Little Hans of Longstreet was previously a trench master outside the city and defected {292} to it, becoming the king’s attendant. But with assistance and knowledge, as we think, this man Little Hans got through the ditch and then all the way to Hamm, where he kept himself for a while, unbeknownst to us.31 The other, however, Master Henry the cabinetmaker, was captured towards daylight and delivered to me (the commander).32 In order to save his life, this man described every situation in the city and also how the fortifications are laid out all around, and then, at our request, the artillery, walls, and gate through which he supposed it to be possible to get in most skillfully, thoroughly drawing clearly in the earth as a model how the right gate is defended.33 When we noted the skillfulness and it pleased us, we had this gate and canal inspected at night in the presence of him and one of our men together with military councilors and certain captains, and at once he swam across the first ditch all the way to the palisade fence on the wall.34

Upon this inspection, we took counsel with him according to all urgency, and as soon as the night, which at that time was quite short and light, got somewhat darker,35 we decided to put the plan to the test with the help of God. In the meanwhile, we were informed that Little Hans of Longstreet was at Hamm, and as soon as we learned this, we ordered him to wait so that we could question him, just like our prisoner, about a sure situation for conquering the city. [394] There comes to us other information, that Little Hans obtained a hearing with My Gracious Lord of Münster to offer certain good plans, and for this reason Your Princely Graces gave him a free and totally sure safe conduct for body and life.

When Little Hans got the safe conduct from Your Princely Graces and was negotiating with Your Princely Graces, we stopped our undertaking with him.

Upon this, we reached an agreement, at the request of Their Princely Grace, with the councilors about having Little Hans and our captive cabinetmaker come together in order to hear the plans of both of them at the same time. They came to a complete agreement in every regard just as our {293} prisoner had advised before.36 Upon this previously suggested plan the confirmed bishop ordered the preparation of all the gear that was helpful for it. When all equipment was in hand, and the night was somewhat darker,37 an agreement about the day and hour for undertaking this was to be made . . .

At this point, during our absence, the councilors of the confirmed bishop of Münster reached an agreement with the commander together with the [395] captains in the blockhouses about the day and hour for conquering the city, which was fulfilled with the help of God, as follows . . .

After this, the common man38 was warned and admonished on St. John’s Day39 to prepare themselves in full armor in their blockhouses and to stay sober,40 and when night came on, between ten and eleven, they moved out for the designated Cross Gate.

When enough men were gathered, there was over the outermost canal an arranged gangway, over which our captive cabinetmaker swam with a line that was attached to the gangway tied around his body and positioned correctly. First, some knechts with short weapons were ordered across, who secretly got through the stick fence and, on the wall as far as the sconce, stabbed to death the watch that was on it. Some more men followed them, and the gangway broke apart under them.41 Those who got across it found the small door in the gate open and took possession of the gate. The rest of our knechts rushed with the assault ladders to the sconce and one helped the other up it on the spears and hafted axes, so that in a short time up to about five hundred knechts with some captains and ensigns got on top of the sconce and into the city. Now that they dropped in in squads, and the people in the city were on the move, a strong squad in the city came to the rebaptizers by the Cross Gate, they fell upon our knechts, few of whom {294} [396] at that time perished by this, and thrust them out, kept possession of the gate and slammed it closed, so that no more of our men could get in and the rest could not get out.42 Meanwhile, they chased each other up one street and down the next, and forced each other all over the place, with hostile shouting and crying. In this engagement, some knechts of ours perished. This engagement in and outside the city continued until the second hour in the day.43 During this, it happened that our men in the city opened the Jew Fields Gate, the one next to the Cross Gate, which was most weakly defended. Through it, I (the commander) came in with the main body of our army. Now that the people in the city were for the most part overcome, the rest enclosed themselves together within a wagon fort up at the marketplace, wishing to put themselves on the defensive there. When they noticed that they were too weak, however, they pleaded for the mercy of sparing their lives, which was granted to them after a council was held, and they were immediately expelled from the city and territory. During this negotiation, the king John of Leiden and Knipperdolling were found and seized. The king was presented to me (the commander) by a landsknecht, but he was extorted back by Wilcken and the knechts and brought and delivered to the Münster councilors. After the city was conquered in this way through the assistance of God, the confirmed bishop moved in on the Monday after St. John’s Day.44 The aforementioned Wilcken, together with some captains, rode to meet His Princely Grace, carrying with him the king’s crown on his hand and his sword, presenting these to the confirmed bishop of Münster as booty. . . .

[397] . . . Straightaway, the confirmed bishop reenlisted three banners to occupy the city with.

In these days, everything in the way of household goods that there still was in the houses was listed by the booty masters, three of whom were appointed by each banner. Those who had withdrawn45 were granted leave to buy back their property. If they were not present, and in the case of those {295} who were dead, everyone was permitted to buy; at any rate the resident natives of the territory were. Whatever was sold in this way was all brought to a common booty, and one half of the whole booty was distributed to our much mentioned Gracious Lord and the other half to knechts and captains, apart from us (the commander) and the military councilors.

All captured guns, large and small, were retained by the confirmed bishop of Münster . . .

Notes

1. This phrase is a late medieval/early modern form of greeting suitable for a subordinate addressing his superior(s).

2. Gresbeck’s mother was a widow named Margaret. In the aftermath of the city’s conquest, she abjured Anabaptism and retained possession of her house, which she left to her son Henry because of the merit he earned in the city’s capture (presumably meaning that he got the house rather than his brother?) upon her death in 1542. For such details as are known about her, see Kirchhoff, Die Täufer in Münster, 223.

3. Gresbeck’s new wife was of surprisingly high social status (see also note 7 below), and her property would be subject to plunder by the Anabaptists if left unguarded (for property taken from the homes of rich people, see Gresbeck, 57v, Kerssenbrock, Anabaptistici furosis, ed. Detmer, 542–43).

4. For a similar expression, see Gresbeck, 124r, 137r.

5. What he means is no guilt in the Anabaptist enterprise. But how would the squires have any knowledge of what he was up to in the city? Presumably, he means that they would know that he’d shown no interest in it in the earlier period and could extrapolate from that.

6. I.e., deceased.

7. Kerssenbrock lists an Albert Clevorn among the patrician magistrates who successfully administered the city in the days before the Anabaptists (Anabaptistici furosis, ed. Detmer, 393), and Albert Clevorn is also listed among the members of the first city council after the city’s recapture, which was appointed by the prince-bishop in 1536 (ibid., 889). That Gresbeck should have married a woman connected with this family is at first sight surprising. The patrician families had ambitions to associate themselves with the knighthood of the bishopric, and once the knights began to reject intermarriage with them in the early fifteenth century, the patricians restricted themselves to marriages within their social circle, generally disdaining intermarriage with the notables of towns around Münster and with the non-patrician families of the city’s ruling class (Lahrkamp, Deutches Patriziat, 197). Hence, it would normally be out of the question for the daughter of a patrician family to marry a man of such comparatively low status as Gresbeck. Undoubtedly, the unexpected marriage is to be explained with the supposition that his future wife was one of the women left behind by rich families to guard their property when the menfolk opposed to Anabaptism withdrew or were forced out of the city in February 1534 (Gresbeck, 40v; cf. 12v).

8. For Gresbeck’s account of his sketch of the city’s defenses, see 144v.

9. For the initial investigation of the city’s defenses, see 145v–146r.

10. I.e., Little Hans of Longstreet.

11. For the construction of the gear, see 147v. The gangways must have struck everybody’s imagination, as they are mentioned both here in the Gresbeck passage and in Overstein’s report (appendix, document 4).

12. June 24.

13. Note how clearly Little Hans is associated with the prince-bishop, while Gresbeck is considered by the officers of the besieging army as “their man.” This distinction would explain why the prince-bishop chose to give all the credit for proposing and carrying out the plan for the city’s capture to Little Hans alone.

14. For Gresbeck’s escapade with the gangway, see 149v–150r.

15. This and the preceding sentence are not entirely clear, but apparently Justinian means that while the sixteen men first mounted the walls and killed the guards, the remainder of the attack force waited and then followed once surprise was assured.

16. Gresbeck, 150r, puts at thirty-four the number who got across before the gangway collapsed.

17. For the significance of “banners,” see main text, note 457.

18. For Gresbeck’s discussion of the closing of the postern gate, see Gresbeck, 150r.

19. This rumor is clearly ridiculous. No one in his right mind would intentionally trap himself in an enemy-held city with an eye to improving his chances of plundering without interference before the perilous task of defeating the enemy has even begun, much less been achieved. The way in which Justinian repeats the rumor shows that he has no particular faith in it and is merely repeating it as the only known explanation for the failure of the attackers to retain possession of the door. Carelessness in the heat of battle is much more likely to be the real explanation. After all, no one had expected the door to be open, so no provision had been made about seizing it (and presumably the importance of keeping it open did not occur to anyone as they rushed into the city). In any event, Gresbeck accepted this explanation (151v).

20. For “main captain,” see main text, note 293.

21. Kriegsrat.

22. For the mistaken report that when Bernard Krechting was appointed as a subordinate to John of Leiden, he actually replaced him as king, see Gresbeck, 145r.

23. For Gresbeck’s account of the final battle by the wagon fort, see Gresbeck, 152r.

24. Presumably, this is the source of Gresbeck’s uncertain report that the expelled women went to England (156r).

25. I.e., captured escapees from the city.

26. Again, this refers to the mistaken idea that John of Leiden had been replaced as king by his subordinate Krechting. Hence, the phrase “first king” must signify John.

27. He was never found.

28. That is, a week after the city’s capture, hidden Anabaptists were still being discovered (and executed).

29. For the affair of the landsknechts’ dissatisfaction with the booty and their attempt to track down the supposedly hidden gold, see Gresbeck, 154r–155r.

30. Trinity Sunday is the first Sunday after Pentecost, and Pentecost is the fiftieth day after Easter. Since Easter fell on March 28 in 1535, Pentecost was Monday, May 17, with the following Sunday being May 23.

31. For Gresbeck’s account of Little Hans’s escape to Hamm, see Gresbeck, 146r.

32. As in Justinian of Holtzhausen’s account, Gresbeck is clearly associated with the officers of the besieging army, while Little Hans is the prince-bishop’s man.

33. For Gresbeck’s account of his sketch of the city’s defenses, see Gresbeck, 144v.

34. For the initial investigation of the city’s defenses, see Gresbeck, 145v–146r.

35. Since the Julian calendar was running ten days ahead of the solar calendar in the sixteenth century, the summer solstice would have fallen on about June 11 by the calendar, so the nights would only have started getting longer after that date (and the actual assault took place nearly two weeks later).

36. This passage confirms Gresbeck’s claims (144v, 146v) to have been as instrumental in formulating the plan for the city as Little Hans was.

37. The attack on June 24 by the calendar actually took place on Gregorian July 4. In point of fact, the night on that date would have been only about eight minutes longer than it had been on the solstice, so the additional darkness was minimal.

38. I.e., common soldiers.

39. June 24. This day was theoretically associated with the solstice (or at least the start of summer), but due to the Julian calendar running ahead of the solar calendar, the solstice had taken place about seven days earlier.

40. No doubt the debacle of the first storm on the city that was caused by drunkenness was very much on the commanders’ minds (see main text, note 180). Gresbeck, 149r, notes the prohibition against selling liquor to the troops.

41. For Gresbeck’s escapade with the gangway, see Gresbeck, 149v–150r.

42. Note that Overstein attributes the capture of the postern gate to a counterattack by the Anabaptists rather than to carelessness on Little Hans’s part (see Gresbeck, 150v, for a rather different version of this event).

43. On July 5 (the relevant date by the Gregorian calendar), the sun rises in Münster around 4:15 a.m. (standard time), so the second hour of the day would have started around 5:15 a.m.

44. June 28.

45. I.e., those who had fled the Anabaptist regime and were not held culpable for their behavior.