1 ‘Here I Stand’
The Reichstag in Worms (1521) is regarded as one of the main dates in the birth of the Reformation. It was there that Martin Luther allegedly uttered the famous words ‘Here I stand’, which became a symbol of rebellion against the established order and a declaration of individual independence.1 Luther’s supporters in Worms carried out a very effective campaign to promote his image, also making use of the talent of Lucas Cranach. As early as December 1520, Luther was depicted as a clergyman and even a martyr or saint.2 After the proceedings of the Diet, a woodcut by Hans Baldung that portrayed Luther in a halo with the Holy Spirit was placed on the verso of the title page of the account of the Diet of Worms.3 This composition was modelled on an early portrait by Lucas Cranach the Elder and supplemented by a dove motif.4 Cranach’s portrait bore the inscription: ‘Luther left an eternal image of his own mind / but Lucas’ wax manifests his passing features’.5
At Worms, the emperor forbade preaching Luther’s views or disseminating his works. Further, Luther himself was sentenced to banishment. The imperial edict, signed on 26 May 1521, echoed the papal bulls Exsurge Domine and Decet Romanum Pontificem, which had been published in Rome between 1520 and 1521 and gradually reached European courts. The Worms edict portrayed Luther as a heretic and rebel who attacked the clergy and criticised the sacraments, calling on his followers to ‘wash their hands in priestly blood’ (‘ir Hende in der Prieste Blud zu waschen’, ‘ad lavandas sibi in sacerdotum sanguine manus’).6
We can identify at least three consequences of these intertwined events related to the Diet of Worms. First, the earliest anti-Lutheran legislation was enacted in the Reich and neighbouring territories, with some cases leading to the persecution and breaking up of Reformation foci. Second, this persecution sometimes had the paradoxical effect of forcing preachers to change their places of ministry frequently, which furthered the spread of Reformation ideas. Third, the clash at the Reichstag set in motion a powerful media machine that made Luther a true hero in mass imagination. All these phenomena and processes have already been the subject of scholarly reflection.7
The following chapter raises questions about these processes in Central and Eastern Europe. To date, not many researchers have paid much attention to this part of the Continent, even though Luther’s speech in Worms echoed there too. This chapter argues that the Worms events both influenced the course of the Reformation in these regions and helped shape anti-Reformation reactions. The remainder of the chapter focuses on the Kingdom of Poland, with emphasis on regional connections to the Baltics. First, the chapter gives an overview of the early Reformation in these areas; then, it characterizes Andrzej Krzycki (Andreas Cricius), one of the main anti-Lutheran polemicists in early Reformation Poland. Of Krzycki’s anti-Reformation works, the chapter focuses on his most famous treatise, Encomia Lutheri, published in 1524 and containing direct references to the events at Worms.
2 The Effects of Worms
Luther’s fame went before him. Evidence shows that news of the friar’s critiques of indulgences reached many corners of Europe as early as 1517 or 1518. However, it was only with the emergence of itinerant preachers that the Wittenberg teaching reached wider circles, going beyond academics and church workers. Between 1521 and 1523, the first itinerant preachers arrived in towns along the Baltic coast. The mechanism of their preaching is well illustrated by the story of Premonstratensian congregation friars in Białoboki (Belbuck) in the Pomeranian Duchies, which were part of the Reich.
One of the first to bring news of Luther and the events at Wittenberg to Pomerania was Peter Suawe (1496–1552). Himself a Pomeranian, he studied in Leipzig and then, after the disputation of 1519, moved to Wittenberg. Suawe was among those who accompanied the reformer to Worms in 1521 and participated in his staged abduction after the Diet of the Reich.8 He then returned to Pomerania and began teaching at the monastery in Białoboki, which was then led by Abbot Johann Boldewan (1485–1533), who was open to the cause of Church reform.9 To the monastic circle belonged Johannes Bugenhagen, a teacher in nearby Trzebiatów (Treptow), who soon made direct contact with Luther.10
Soon, the publication of the first anti-Reformation edicts forced many friars to leave the congregation. In April 1521, Bugenhagen arrived in Wittenberg and became a close associate of Luther. Boldewan soon followed to the main hub of the Reformation. The others (Johannes Äpinus, Johannes Kuricke, Bernhard Dedelow, Christian Ketelhut, Andreas Knopke or Georg von Ueckermünde) decided to go to different corners of northern Europe, from Riga to Rostock. Continuing their journey, they then ended up in Stralsund, where in May 1523 Ketelhut preached his first sermon and was soon joined by other preachers.11 Almost at the same time, Jakob Hegge spoke in Gdańsk (Danzig). Confessional historiography assumed that his sermon, delivered on 22 June 1522, marked the beginning of the Reformation in the city. Then in 1523, preachers sent by Luther arrived in Königsberg: Johannes von Briesemann, Paul Speratus and Johannes Amandus.12 In the same year, Paul von Rhode became active in Szczecin (Stettin), Joachim Slüter (Jochim Slyter) preached Reformation sermons in Rostock and Heinrich Never began preaching in Wismar.13 Over time, more and more Reformation sympathisers joined municipal authorities. In Stralsund it was Roloff Möller, in Szczecin Hans Stoppelberg, in Gdańsk Hans Nimptsch, in Toruń (Thorn) Johann Seyfried and in Rostock Johann Oldendorp, who later collaborated with Jürgen Wollenwever in Lübeck. Some defended the ideas they believed in, and others owed their careers to widely popular slogans. With the entry of the Reformation supporters into the municipal authorities, Reformation themes surfaced in correspondences between cities. Not only did the city councils turn to Wittenberg for preachers, but they themselves shared clergymen who preached the new doctrine.
Preachers spoke in almost all major cities. The backdrop to these activities were numerous social conflicts, culminating in the urban revolts at the turn of the fifteenth to the sixteenth century. The beginnings of the Reformation were thus often entangled in a course of events that inextricably linked social and religious issues.14 After the Stralsund riots in 1525, the Catholic clergy repeated the accusations familiar from the Edict of Worms: Protestant preachers allegedly had called on the citizens of Stralsund to ‘wash their hands in the blood of the priests’.15 At the same time, however, the region lacked the typical structural elements to provide momentum for the Reformation movement in the Reich. There was no Protestant university in the entire region; the nearest universities, in Greifswald, Rostock, Frankfurt an der Oder or Krakow, were not only Catholic but also attracted very few humanists who might sympathise with the Reformation.16 There were often no printing houses even in large cities, and those operating were controlled by bishops and the secular authorities. The only historically tangible mechanism for the spread of the Reformation was the word of the preachers. They were able to operate thanks to a network of supporters, which enabled the preachers to constantly change location.
3 The Anti-reformation Response and Andrzej Krzycki
Territorial rulers reacted to the spread of the Reformation with scepticism and even hostility. In Saxony, George the Bearded published the first anti- Lutheran edicts even before Rome issued its bull against Luther.17 Similarly, King Sigismund I of Poland issued the first anti-Protestant edict on 4 May 1520 and another on 24 July, a year before the bull Exsurge Domine appeared in print in Krakow and before Emperor Charles V issued the Edict of Worms.18 Over the next two decades, the king of Poland issued more than twenty anti-Lutheran edicts.19 The edicts were primarily directed against the importing, printing and sale of Luther’s writings, and over time the spreading of the reformer’s views was also banned. Anti-Protestant polemics also began to be printed at the same time as the edicts.
Among the most important authors of the polemics and edicts in Poland was Andrzej Krzycki (1482–1537).20 He came from an aristocratic family associated with the closest circle of Cardinal Frederick Jagiellon (1468–1503).21 He received his first ecclesiastical dignity in 1501 thanks to the patronage of the Bishop of Poznań, Jan Lubrański (1456–1520). He owed his rapid career also to the support of his uncle, Piotr Tomicki, who from 1515 had been the bishop of Przemyśl. A year later as vice-chancellor, Tomicki became the righthand man of King Sigismund I. He served as the chief architect of the policy for the Krakow court until his death in 1535.22 Thanks to Tomicki’s support, Krzycki quickly climbed the career ladder: in 1510 he became the provost of Środa, in 1512 a member of the Krakow Chapter and in 1515 the king’s secretary, meaning he joined the highest circles of the kingdom’s central administration and the monarch’s closest aides. Accumulating numerous ecclesiastical dignities and offices, Krzycki managed the Diocese of Poznań after Lubrański’s death (June 1520) until Tomicki took over (July 1520). Finally, he obtained the bishopric of Przemyśl in 1522 and the bishopric of Płock in 1527. Despite having strong support and being close to the court, Krzycki’s efforts to obtain further ecclesiastical honours were not always successful; he strove for the richer bishopric of Poznań in vain. The culmination of a long journey through ecclesiastical institutions was the archbishopric of Gniezno, which Krzycki received in 1535, two years before his death.
Krzycki owed his success to both his aristocratic background and Tomicki’s patronage, as well as his own talent. Educated at, among others, the University of Bologna, he was considered by his contemporaries to be the most gifted Latinist. Leonard Cox, a humanist who resided in Krakow for a long time, counted him among the most eminent humanists involved with the University of Krakow.23 Krzycki’s outstanding abilities were often praised in the correspondence of humanists.24 His talent was regularly used to add splendour to court ceremonies. Krzycki used his pen to grace the wedding of Sigismund I to Barbara Zapolya in 1512 and then to mourn the queen’s death in 1515.25 When the king remarried in 1518 to Bona Sforza, Krzycki honoured the celebrations with a poetic contest with Jan Dantyszek (Joannes Dantiscus) and Rudolph Agricola.26 His works also praised the king’s glory after his military victories, namely in 1512 in a clash with the Tatars and in 1515 after his victory over Moscow at Orsha.27 Finally, in 1525 Krzycki justified to Christian Europe King Sigismund’s acceptance of the homage from Prince Albrecht of Prussia, the first Lutheran ruler in Europe.28 The work was a rationalisation of the policy pursued by the royal court and was immediately published in print and distributed to European centres of power.29
One of the recipients of this treatise was Erasmus of Rotterdam, with whom Krzycki exchanged letters. Erasmus praised Krzycki as the greatest poet and spoke favourably of him in letters to his friends.30 In return, Krzycki not only sent expensive gifts to Basel but in December 1525 also invited Erasmus to Poland, praising him as an outstanding theologian.31 This letter is the only surviving example of Krzycki’s correspondence with Erasmus. It attracted the interest of researchers because in the invitation, the bishop promised Erasmus the support of the king, a position at the university and access to a printing house. Krzycki describing his own works as ‘follies’ was also an important element of the letter. As the bishop-poet explained, he had been forced to publish the works to silence the critics who had attacked him for defending Erasmus’ position and some of Luther’s theses.32
The accusation that Krzycki defended Luther’s position may come as a surprise, since part of the tasks delegated to him as royal secretary and then as bishop was to prepare anti-Protestant edicts and polemics. As in the case of the Worms edict, legal acts prohibiting the preaching of Reformation ideas were issued in Poland by the king and on his behalf, not by the Sejm or on behalf of the estates. Therefore, the edicts concerned the area of the king’s immediate jurisdiction, and the nobility, as a social group enjoying judicial immunity since the fifteenth century and participating in the legislative process since the beginning of the sixteenth century, could demand release from these prohibitions. The legal status of the documents could also have been undermined by the fact that the royal officials did not enter all edicts into the Royal Chancery Registers (Metrica Regni Poloniae), where they were required to copy all documents signed by the king.
Undoubtedly, the preparation of documents was the exclusive responsibility of the royal chancery, including king’s secretaries such as Krzycki. In fact, in his letter of July 1523, Krzycki provided a detailed description of the origins of the edicts.33 To interpret his testimony, however, it is necessary to put the anti-Protestant legislation of the royal court into context. Indeed, in 1523 the royal chancellery issued at least three general decrees against the Reformation: 7 March, 21 August and 5 September. In addition, a separate edict was also issued on 23 November.34
The first of these edicts was issued by the king in March during the Sejm, sitting in Krakow from February to April 1523.35 The atmosphere of the meeting was extremely tense. The king came from Vilnius and, with the help of the voivodes, wanted to persuade the nobility to pass additional taxes for the defence against the Tartar invasions.36 The senate, consisting of the highest officials of the kingdom and the bishops, supported the king’s efforts. The nobility deputies, on the other hand, demanded a ‘correction of the laws’, involving the realisation of royal obligations as well as the implementation of state privileges.
These demands, called ‘executive’ (from Latin ‘executio’), were formulated by the nobility during the Sejms of Toruń (1519) and Bydgoszcz (1520), convened by Sigismund in the face of the war with the Teutonic Order.37 The threat of war and the need to pass new taxes meant that the deputies could express their demands more forcefully. In 1519, Bishop Tomicki reported to Bishop Jan Konarski that the deputies ‘by their custom present their demands before agreeing to any taxes’.38 And so, the nobility then presented forty demands in writing, among which was the demand to charge the Catholic clergy with a war tax.39 The Sejm of 1520 in Bydgoszcz was held in a war camp (campestraliter), which led the deputies to agree to pass taxes for enlisting the army in exchange for promises from the king that their demands would be considered at the next Sejm.40 A year later (1521–1522) at the next tumultuous Sejm, however, the matter was not resolved. Therefore, in 1523, Bishop Tomicki feared that the nobility at the Sejm in Krakow would again demand that the clergy be charged with the costs of war expeditions and the defence of the country.41 Moreover, news of a riot in larger cities such as Toruń and Gdańsk was reaching Krakow. The bishops were concerned that the social friction was underpinned by Reformation influences that undermined social order.42
Very little is known about the proceedings of the short Krakow Sejm of 1523. However, historiography has passed on a story of an attempt on the king’s life, said to have taken place on 5 May, and which may have reflected the heated atmosphere of the Sejm.43 It was during the first weeks of proceedings, on 7 March, that the king signed the anti-Lutheran edict. In this document, the monarch recalled his earlier decrees of 1520, which banned the import and sale of Luther’s works under penalty of confiscation and exile. News reached the monarch that these works were being sold in Krakow and Luther’s views publicly propagated despite the royal prohibitions.44 The king, as guardian of unity and peace (‘unitas et tranquillitas’), again forbade the ‘open or clandestine importing, selling and buying of the works of the said Luther or his associates’, as well as the propagation and defence of Luther’s views under penalty of confiscation of goods and burning of written works.45
What led up to the preparation and issuing of this edict, like the course of the Sejm, remains unknown. Certainly, the document was prepared hastily, as indicated by both its laconic nature and the repetition of the contents of the edicts of 1520. The tenor of the document was also unchanged: Luther was still not branded a heretic, the prohibition applied primarily to his works (‘opera cuiusdam Martini Luteri’) and the imposed punishment was very mild. The monarch explicitly mentioned Krakow in the document, which also impacted the townspeople in Poland as a social group. After the turbulent course of the Sejm, the monarch was careful not to further stir up the sentiments of the nobility, but he still sought to strengthen the bishops’ support of the throne.
Four months after issuing this edict, Andrzej Krzycki wrote a letter to his patron, Bishop Piotr Tomicki, describing the events taking place at the royal court.46 Reportedly, it was the archbishop of Gniezno, Jan Łaski, who called on the royal secretaries present at court to prepare a new decree against the Lutherans. Due to the incompetence of the pseudo-scholars and friars, this work turned into a farce.47 It was then that archbishop was to approach Krzycki, asking him to prepare a document, which Krzycki did, convinced, as he writes, that everything was being done in the king’s name and in accordance with the law.48 However, according to the letter, the document was not signed at the time. Krzycki only sent a draft asking Tomicki for comments and corrections.49
Since two almost identical-sounding anti-Lutheran edicts were published on 22 August and 5 September, we can assume that Krzycki wrote about a preliminary version of one of these documents. Before analysing the content of the edict, however, it is worth elucidating the context of this communication. Krzycki was a relative and protégé of Tomicki who had been in acute conflict with Archbishop Łaski for several years. The scope of this aristocratic feud, well-documented in several printed pamphlets, extended to encompass the direction of the Krakow court’s politics. Eventually, Tomicki, as vice-chancellor, succeeded in removing Łaski from influence over the king and court politics in the 1520s. During this conflict, both Krzycki and Tomicki referred to the archbishop in contemptuous terms, portraying him as talentless yet deceitful. For example, in a letter from July 1523 on the anti-Lutheran edict, Krzycki called him ‘a hydra’. Therefore, the story of the nearly failed initiative should be treated cum grano salis.
The edict of 22 August 1523, to which Krzycki contributed, was also issued by the king during the Sejm, which was then meeting in Piotrków.50 The Sejm became the battleground for a clash between the nobility’s representatives and the king, backed by the Senate and bishops. The debates were disrupted by a dispute between the nobility from two regions of Poland, Lesser Poland and Greater Poland, and a conflict over the dignities and offices held by the political elite incompatible with the relevant laws (incompatibilia).51 Additionally, news of social friction in the towns of Pomerania, where Protestant preachers were already active, disrupted the proceedings. Before the Sejm in Krakow and during the Sejm in Piotrków, representatives of all the warring parties came to the king from Toruń and Gdańsk.52 On the top of that, letters sent by the diplomat (and, in a few years, bishop) Jan Dantyszek, who visited Luther in Wittenberg, circulated during the Sejm.53 Dantyszek extensively described a meeting with the reformer that took place in a convivial atmosphere, although, he added, Luther insulted the bishops and rulers. In his report, Dantyszek noticed that the reformer’s face reflected the ideas expressed in his books.54
The tone of the proceedings can be discerned in the anti-reform edict of 22 August, which opened with a lament at the plebeians’ (‘humanis vulgi’) predilection for novelties. It was thus the duty of the sovereign to ‘pluck the tares from the field’ (‘zizaniam ex agro amputari ac eradicari’). The king, as a Christian ruler (‘pro officio Christiani principis’), was obliged to defend the Christian religion as established by the saints, administered by the church, handed down by the ancestors and defended by the tribute of blood against heresy.55 The monarch therefore forbade the importing, printing or selling of books and sermons by Luther and his associates (‘libri Lutheri cuiusdam eiusque sequacium quorumcunque’). Under the pretext of preaching Christian freedom and pointing out the inevitable errors of the clergy (‘pretextu libertatis christiane, pretextu vitiorum ordinis ecclesiastici et scandalorum, quae in hominibus fieri necesse est’), the reformer spread his views to the plebeians (‘vulgus’). To prevent the spread of these errors, the king sent his officials to Krakow to search the houses of the townspeople and subject printing houses and bookshops to inspection. Other cities were to follow suit. However, the question of the sanction with which these restrictions were imposed is an open research question because the royal document is known from dozens of historical records.
The oldest version of this document is believed to be an entry in the Royal Chancery Registers.56 The royal chancellor or, in his absence, the vice- chancellor exercised control over the Registers. It should be recalled that the vice-chancellor at the time was Bishop Tomicki, who was not only present at the Sejm in Piotrków but also, despite his illness and old age, an active participant in the deliberations. This version of the document provided for a very severe sanction: burning at a stake and confiscation of property (‘sub poena concremacionis et bonorum omnium confiscacionis’). It is worth noting that researchers have found no evidence of this document’s expedition from the Royal Chancery. In other words, officials of the royal chancellery entered a copy of the document in the Registers, but today we do not have any original document bearing the royal signature and seal. Furthermore, four years later, in 1527, the document (in the same form and with the same date, August 22, 1523) was re-entered into the Royal Chancery Registers, prompting one to wonder if the Chancery was intending to re-announce or remind of it.57
Another version of this document can be found in Bishop Tomicki’s private collection of correspondence, called Acta Tomiciana. The collection was compiled by Tomicki’s secretary, Stanisław Górski (1497–1572).58 In the early modern era, this multi-volume collection of manuscripts has been copied many times and survives in several copies. It also contains the anti-Lutheran August edict (admittedly undated). The copies, however, describe the sanctions imposed differently: one as exile and confiscation of property (‘sub pena exilii et confiscationis bonorum omnium’) and one as death penalty and confiscation (‘sub pena capitis et confiscationis bonorum omnium’).59
4 Anti-reformation Praise
At the same time, the anti-Lutheran edict in question appeared in print alongside Krzycki’s letter to the king. Later, it was published by Archbishop Jan Łaski in 1527 and 1528, thus ensuring its lasting presence in anti-Protestant literature.60
At the beginning of 1524, Krzycki published in Krakow a pamphlet entitled Encomia Lutheri (The Praise of Luther).61 The text, printed by Hieronim Wietor (Hieronymus Vietor), opened with King Sigismund’s anti-Lutheran edict of 22 August 1523, here quoted without date.62 The sanction referred to in this version of the document was the death penalty and confiscation of goods (‘sub poena capitis et confiscationis bonorum omnium’), the same that appears in some manuscript accounts from Bishop Tomicki’s collection. From then on, only this sanction would appear in printed versions of the edict.
The core of the work was a letter to King Sigismund I, whom Krzycki addressed as Bishop of Przemyśl. According to Krzycki, the history of the church knew innumerable examples of heresy, the sources of which were egoism and pride (‘sensu suo et spiritu superbie’) and the aim of which was to break up the unity of the church and ‘rock the boat’ (‘naviculam obruere’). All heretics in the history of the church took their inspiration from the Bible and ‘spread their poison’ under the pretext of preaching the Word of God.63 This was also the case with Luther, whose intentions were so noble and whose conduct so gentle and in accordance with Christian ideals, that it was hard to imagine anything more impertinent, shameless, deceitful, and repulsive: not only did he deride kings as executioners, jesters, and impostors; popes as antichrists, pimps, and idols; and temples as brothels, but he also slandered and insulted the saints and Mary.64 Luther’s idea of the priesthood of all the faithful (‘sacerdotes omnes ex equo facit’) abolished the distinction between priests and laity and thus deprived the priesthood of forbearance, humility and poverty. Luther used the slogans of Christian liberty (‘libertas Christiana’) to abolish all order and all obedience, which after all (according to Krzycki) should also be shown to corrupt authority. Moreover, the reformer defended greed and the plundering of church property to encourage the laity to partake in pillage and desecration.65
Luther founded his position on a very radical criticism of the transgressions of the clerical state. ‘He paints the morals of the clergy in very dark colours, as if the people could be or were blameless’, as evidenced by the words of Christ (Mt 26:31–35, Mk 14:29–31, Lk 22:33–34, J 13:36–38) or the fate of the Apostles.66 Radical demands opposed the Word and the primacy of Peter established by Christ (Mt 16:18–19). As Krzycki ironically notes, Luther used to ‘humbly’ say, ‘the pope will fall and Luther will stand firm’, denying the function of the vicar of Christ, whom he called as his patron, contrary to the biblical account (J 21:1–17).67 Moreover, Luther not only attacked superiors and ecclesiastical authority but also demanded the abolition of church property, contrary to the injunction to give to God what belongs to God and to the emperor what belongs to the emperor (Mt 22:21). He also called to abolish ceremonies and established laws, abolish fasts and prayers, condemn the vows of chastity and the celibacy of the clergy and demand the abolition of religious orders and congregations.68
Luther deliberately made all these claims seem more serious by calling himself a Doctor of the Church, a preacher or an evangelist.69 ‘He claims to have received his doctrine from heaven, like the apostle James, pure, peaceful, humble, accessible, full of mercy and bearing good fruit, neither controversial, nor hypocritical. However, it turns out to be demonic, treacherous, virulent and very contentious’.70 Moreover, his position was full of contradictions and mutually exclusive elements; he spoke of bringing about the decline of the Church and religious life but found applause among the crowd for whom Luther, like a new Delphic oracle, proclaimed enigmatic freedom.71 The crowd of Luther’s followers regarded as evangelical only those truths that came out of Luther’s mouth and from under his pen in Wittenberg. But how could he reconcile this popularity with the biblical saying that no one is a prophet in his own country (Mt 13:57; Mk 6:4; Lk 4:24; Jn 4:44)?72
Summing up this argument full of irony and depicting Luther as a staunch heretic and dangerous populist, Krzycki added that he took the reformer’s views directly from his writings. ‘For, as Erasmus [of Rotterdam] remarked, no one portrayed Luther better than he himself’ as an angry Hekuba.73 However, to explain the true nature of his doctrine, Krzycki referred to Jesus’ words in the Gospel of Matthew (7:16), which states that we can recognize prophets, true or false, by their fruits. In contrast to images showing Luther as guided by the Holy Spirit and raising his eyes piously to heaven, Krzycki described the reformer as owing his fame to the hatred of the laity for the clergy and the curiosity of the mindless mob for news.74
The purpose of Krzycki’s argument, which was in a way a commentary on the king’s anti-Lutheran edict, was obviously to demonstrate the duty of secular and ecclesiastical authorities to act against heresy. The essence of the parable of the tares (Mt 13:24–30) lay, in the bishop’s view, not only in the fact that heresy must accompany the church until the final judgment but also in the underlying message that heresy could not reign over the church.75 Therefore, in the conclusion of his long epistle, Krzycki called on the king to defend both his kingdom and the Christian world, which were threatened not only from outside by Turks or Tartars but also by domestic enemies: the new heretics (‘a domesticis hostibus Apostatis et hereticis’).
The Krakow edition of this short but highly eloquent epistolary treatise was also embellished with short poems to provide commentary or illustrate the argument. The authors of these paratexts included the bishop’s nephews Jan Krzycki, Piotr Rydzyński and Stanisław Słomowski, as well as Piotr Potulicki (Petrus Potulicius), Feliks Ciesielski (Felix Ceselius), Piotr Sadowski (Petrus Sadovius), Paweł Głogowski, Jan Ostroróg, Jost Ludwig Decius, Mattheus Conorovius (Maciej Konarzewski?) and Joannes Tirvesius.76 The authors were either closely tied by family colligations with Krzycki or stayed at Tomicki’s court to soon take up clerical positions. The two most important poems, In imaginem Lutheri (On the Image of Luther) and Conditiones boni Lutherani (The Lutheran Commandments), have been attributed to Krzycki himself.
Both of Krzycki’s poems can be read as poetic illustrations to the letter. Conditiones are a parody of the Ten Commandments and constitute a call to break all the rules of religious life. A good Lutheran should challenge priests, disregard fasts, prayers, religious rites and other customs. He should also disregard the Bible, rulers and scholars, and value himself most highly, being a good impostor (‘bonus impostor’). He should call his opponent, who wishes to preserve the rites, laws and faith, a papist (‘papistam’).
Krzycki’s poem on the image of the reformer followed a similarly ironic style. Luther addresses the reader in the first person, boasting that he argued against the Church Fathers, the decisions of councils and accepted customs (‘conciliis, patribus, mori contraria scribo’). Under the pretext that Christ had abolished the Law, any norm could be broken (‘Christi effero leges, praetextu quarum carpere cuncta licet’). Luther himself resorted to libels (‘maledicta’, ‘impura lingua’) and thus gained universal applause. In his homeland, he was worshipped more than Christ, depicted in a halo and with the Holy Spirit (‘Pingit et hanc faciem, radios, santamque columbam’), even though no one could be a prophet in his own country (‘acceptus patriae nemo prophaeta suae’). This word-painted image of Luther in a halo with a dove was undoubtedly a reference to Cranach’s depictions known from the Diet of Worms, where the reformer was shown in monastic robes with a Bible in his hand.
Krzycki’s original work fits well into the anti-Lutheran polemic of the first half of the 1520s. Luther was portrayed primarily as a heretic and a revolutionary, speaking out against the church and tradition and thereby undermining the foundations of social order. The reformer’s views were acclaimed by the mob, who looked for an excuse to plunder. It is apparent, therefore, that Krzycki formulated his criticism from the point of view of the academic community of the time. He invoked the words of Erasmus and also used irony, which at times makes it difficult to comprehend the message. It is perhaps for this reason (in addition to the telling title) that the work found its way onto the index of prohibited books in 1557.77
Before it was on the list of forbidden books, however, the Krakow edition of 1524 received a very lively response. It was immediately reprinted in Dresden, Regensburg and Cologne.78 Interestingly, the printers omitted the anti-Lutheran royal edict. It was instead published that same year in Speyer under a different title.79 For thirty years Krzycki’s work was part of the mainstream of European polemical literature.
5 Conclusion
The events of the Reichstag in Worms and the Edict of Worms reverberated beyond the borders of the Reich. On the one hand, they translated into an increase in the popularity of the steadfast reformer, while on the other, they triggered repression that forced the greater mobility of the preachers of the new doctrine. The result was a wave of early public appearances by these preachers in Baltic cities, which historiography has presented as the birth of the Reformation. These actions corresponded with local social conflicts and, thus, sparked a wave of criticism. Among the accusations made against the preachers by their Catholic opponents, we can hear the echo of those already formulated in the edict of Worms, including the alleged incitement to wash one’s hands in the blood of priests.
The urban conflicts and the early efforts of the preachers also forced a response from the secular authorities, who probably reacted to requests for intervention from a part of the urban and ecclesiastical elite. Krzycki’s participation in the creation of the edicts shows that the anti-Lutheran legislation was drafted by intellectual elites whose education had already been strongly influenced by humanism and Erasmus of Rotterdam. It can be argued that, in contrast to the first anti-Reformation edicts of 1520–1522, the second wave depicted a more complex picture of the early Reformation and Luther himself. In Poland, an example of such an elaborate anti-Lutheran decree was the August 1523 edict by Krzycki, considered at the time to be the most prominent Latinist and correspondent of Erasmus of Rotterdam.
Krzycki’s edict was commissioned by the archbishop of Gniezno but was probably modified several times by humanists and clerics gathered around the court. A trace of such work on the document was the change in the range of sanctions envisaged: from the stake to the death penalty to the punishment of exile. Some wordings of the act (e.g. ‘under the pretext of Christian liberty’) betrayed familiarity with the reformer’s writings and anti-Lutheran polemics. At the same time, however, the edict confirmed that Luther’s views (‘poison in honey’) were rapidly gaining popularity. The plebeians (‘vulgus’) were particularly interested in the new doctrine.
The edict of 1523 projected a rather unambiguous social profile: de iure and de facto, it primarily targeted the cities and characterised the groups threatened by ‘heresy’ as the lowest social strata. It described the Reformation itself as a revolutionary event that undermined social order. This profile of the document was probably both a product of historical circumstances, an echo of polemics and edicts (from papal bulls to the Edict of Worms) and, perhaps in part, a legacy of the humanist and elite formation of the authors of the decree.
When Krzycki included the edict in his literary polemic against the reformer’s views a year after its publication, the events of the Reichstag in Worms and the Wittenberg propaganda that arose around them were his most powerful point of reference. This framework of the text may also have been the reason for its popularity in the Reich, where the edict, originally published in Krakow, was immediately reprinted many times. Krzycki’s treatise thus provides evidence that the echoes of the Reichstag in Worms first reached Poland, then made their way back to the Reich.
Acknowledgement
The article was written thanks to the generous support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation during the author’s research stay at the Leibniz Institute of European History in Mainz.
On the events at Worms and Luther’s words in light of historical accounts: Martin Brecht, Martin Luther (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1981) I. 439; Heinz Schilling, Martin Luther: Rebell in einer Zeit des Umbruchs (München: Beck, 2012), 223. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer of this chapter for pointing out the difference between the content of the historical sources and the version conveyed in confessional polemics and historiography.
Paul Kalkoff (ed.), Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander vom Wormser Reichstage 1521 (Halle: Niemeyer, 1886), pp. 34–35.
Acta res gestae D. Martini Lutheri in comitiis principum Wormaciae anno MDXXI (Strasbourg: Johann Schott, 1521), USTC 608615, 608616; see also: London, British Museum, items no. 1845, 0809.1486 (Hieronymus Hopfer); no. 1903,0408.21.
Robert W. Scribner, For the Sake of Simple Folk. Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), pp. 17–19; Joseph L. Koerner, The Reformation of the Image (London: Chicago University Press, 2004), pp. 114–124; Grażyna Jurkowlaniec, Maciej Ptaszyński, ‘Ptaki reformatorów’, in Piotr Borusowski etc. (eds.), Ingenium et Labor. Studia ofiarowane Profesorowi Antoniemu Ziembie z okazji 60. urodzin (Warsaw: Uniwersytet Warszawski–Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie, 2020), pp. 119–128.
‘Aeterna ipse suae mentis simulacra Lutherus Exprimit, at uultus cera lucae occiduos MDXX’; London, British Museum, no. 1854,1113.232.
Peter Fabisch, Erwin Iserloh (eds.), Dokumente zur Causa Lutheri (Münster: Aschendorff, 1991) II. 484–565, here: 518–19. The phrase appears in: Sylvester Mazzolini (Prierias), Epitoma responsionis ad Martinum Luther ab ipso Martino Luthero editum (Wittenberg: Melchior Lotter, 1520), USTC 652930, ed. in: WA VI. 347, l. 22–27.
Christopher W. Close, ‘Der Reichstag zu Worms und das Heilige Römische Reich’, in Alberto Melloni (ed.), Martin Luther. Ein Christ zwischen Reformen und Moderne (1517–2017) (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017), pp. 327–342; Joachim Knape, 1521. Martin Luthers rhetorischer Moment oder die Einführung des Protests (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017); Markus Wriedt, Werner Zager (eds.), Martin Luther auf dem Reichstag zu Worms. Ereignis und Rezeption (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2022); Thomas Kaufmann, ‘Hier stehe ich!’ Luther in Worms: Ereignis, mediale Inszenierung, Mythos (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann KG, 2021); Philip K. Haberkern, Patron, Saint, and Prophet. Jan Hus in the Bohemian and German Reformations (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016), p. 152.
Martin Brecht, Martin Luther (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1981) I. 427, 450.
Walter Paap, ‘Kloster Belbuck um die Wende des 16. Jahrhunderts’, Baltische Studien, Neue Folge, 16 (1912), pp. 1–73.
Otto Vogt (ed.), Dr. Johannes Bugenhagens Briefwechsel (Stettin: Saunier, 1888), p. 8.
Date on the epitaph in the church of St Nikolai in Stralsund. DI 102, Inschriften Stadt Stralsund, Nr. 177 (†) (Christine Magin), from: www.inschriften.net,https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0238-di102g018k0017706 (accessed: 27th March 2023).
Bernhart Jähnig, Preußenland, Kirche und Reformation. Geplantes Zusammenspiel von geistlicher Macht und weltlicher Herrschaft (Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2019).
See Eberhard Völker, Die Reformation in Stettin (Cologne: Böhlau, 2003) and Karl Schmaltz, Kirchengeschichte Mecklenburgs (3 vols., Schwerin: Bahn, 1935–1952).
Heinz Schilling, ‘The Reformation in the Hanseatic Cities’, Sixteenth Century Journal, 14 (1983), pp. 443–456.
Maciej Ptaszyński, ‘Words Spoken and Unspoken. Preachers and the Baltic Reformation in the Younger Europe’, in Mirosława Hanusiewicz-Lavallee, Robert A. Maryks (eds.), Defining the Identity of the Younger Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2023).
Paul W. Knoll, ‘A Pearl of Powerful Learning’. The University of Krakow in the Fifteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 2016).
Christoph Volkmar, Reform statt Reformation. Die Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs von Sachsen, 1488–1525 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), pp. 79, 564–567; Doreen von Oertzen Becker, Kurfürst Johann der Beständige und die Reformation (1513–1532). Kirchenpolitik zwischen Friedrich dem Weisen und Johann Friedrich dem Großmütigen (Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 2017), pp. 222–246.
The original of the edict from 4 May 1520, not recorded in the Royal Chancery Registers (Metrica Regni Poloniae), is in the State Archives in Gdańsk [hereafter APG], 300D, 5a, no. 935. The edict from 24 July is in: Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych, Metryka Koronna [hereinafter: MK], vol. 35, pp. 59–60, ed. in: Oskar Balzer (ed.), Corpus iuris Polonici (St Petersburg: s.n., 1908) III. 583–584, no. 237.
Maciej Ptaszyński, ‘Czy reformacja w Polsce była luterańska? O polemikach antyluterańskich w Polsce w pierwszej połowie XVI wieku’, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, 63 (2019), pp. 5–62.
Stefan Zablocki, ‘Andrzej Krzycki’, in Emanuel Rostworowski (ed.), Polski Słownik Biograficzny (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich – Wydawnictwo PAN, 1970), XV. 544–549; Witold Wojtowicz, Szkice o poezji obscenicznej i satyrycznej Andrzeja Krzyckiego (Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, 2002), pp. 170–185; Leszek Barszcz, Andrzej Krzycki – poeta, dyplomata, prymas (Gniezno: Tum, 2004); Natalia Nowakowska, ‘Lamenting the Church? Bishop Andrzej Krzycki and Early Reformation Polemic’ in: A. Suerbaum etc. (eds.), Polemic: Language as Violence in Medieval and Early Modern Discourse (Farnham: Ashgate 2015), pp. 223–236.
Natalia Nowakowska, Church, State and Dynasty in Renaissance Poland. The Career of Cardinal Fryderyk Jagiellon (1468–1503) (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007).
Anna Odrzywolska-Kidawa, Biskup Piotr Tomicki (1464–1535). Kariera polityczna i kościelna (Warsaw: Semper, 2004).
Leonard Cox, De laudibus Celeberrimae Cracoviensis Academiae (Krakow: Hieronim Wietor, 1518), USTC 240358, f. b3r–v; on Cox, see Andrew Breeze, ‘Leonard Cox, a Welsh Humanist in Poland and Hungary’, National Library of Wales Journal, 25 (1988), pp. 399–410.
Tytus Działyński (ed.), Acta Tomiciana. Epistole, legationes, responsa, actiones, res geste serenissimi Principis Sigismundi Primi, Regis Polonie et Magni Ducis Lithuanie (Poznań: L. Merzbach, 1855), IV. 298: Jost Ludwig Decius to Piotr Tomicki, Krakow, 10 May 1518: ‘nam quis Andrea Cricio, nepote tuo concentu moduloque auditus unquam dulcior? quis Hieronymo Balbo doctior? Laurentio Corvino quis venustior? Ursino Gasparo quis facundior? Dantisco Joanne quis eleganti ubertate copiosior? Agricolaque quis gravior esse poteri?’.
Andrzej Krzycki, Epitalamion Sigismundi regis et Barbarae regine Polonie (1512) and Deploratio immaturae mortis Barbarae (1515), in: Kazimierz Morawski (ed.), Andreae Cricii Carmina (Krakow: Academiae Litterarum Cracoviensis, 1888), pp. 21–27, 57–60; Mirosław Brożek (ed.), Szesnastowieczne epitalamia łacińskie w Polsce (Krakow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 1999).
Andrzej Krzycki, Epitalamium divi Sigismundi Primi Regis et inclytae Bonae (Krakow: Jan Haller, 1518), USTC 240630; reprinted in: Morawski (ed.), Andreae Cricii Carmina, pp. 62–75; Zygmunt Wojciechowski, Zygmunt Stary (1506–1548) (Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1979, p. 137; see poems in: Acta Tomiciana, IV. 276–297.
Encomium divi Sigismundi (1512) and Ad divum Sigismundum … post partam de Moscis victoriam (1515), in: Morawski (ed.), Andreae Cricii Carmina, pp. 30–35, 36–41; Cantilena de victoria e Moscis parta, in: ibidem, pp. 42–53; Cantilena de victoria Moscitica in laudem Sigismundi regis Poloniae, in: ibidem, pp. 56–57.
A. Krzycki, Ad Joannem Antonium Pulleonem Baronem Brugii, nuntium apostolicum in Ungaria, de negotio Pruthenico epistola (Krakow: Hieronim Wietor, 1525), USTC 240098; Henryk Damian Wojtyska (ed.), Acta Nuntiaturae Polonae (Rome: Fundatio Lanckoroński, 1990) II. 185–194; Acta Tomiciana, VII. 249–256, A. Cricius to G.A. Buglio, Krakow [1 May 1525].
Maciej Ptaszyński, ‘Religiöse Toleranz oder politischer Frieden? Verhandlungen über den Religionsfrieden in Polen-Litauen im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert’, in Johannes Paulmann etc. (eds.), Unversöhnte Verschiedenheit. Verfahren zur Bewältigung religiös-konfessioneller Differenz in der europäischen Neuzeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), pp. 161–178.
P.S. Allen etc. (eds.), Opus Epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934) VIII. 400–405, no. 2299, Erasmus to Crostóbal Mexía, Freiburg 30 March 1530: ‘In eadem Polonia est Andreas Critius, episcopus Plocensis, qui me frequenter et humanissimis litteris et eruditissimis carminibus recreat exitatque’.
Feliks Kopera, ‘Dary z Polski dla Erazma z Rotterdamu w historycznym muzeum bazylejskiem’, Sprawozdania Komisyi do Badania Historyi Sztuki w Polsce, 6 (1898), pp. 110–138; Konstanty Żantuan, ‘Erasmus and the Cracow Humanists. The Purchase of his Library by Łaski’, The Polish Review, 110 (1965), pp. 10–11. See also Allen (ed.), Opus, VI. 236–239, no. 1652. Cricius to Erasmus, Krakow [20] December 1525: ‘proinde horum studiorum et prisce illius cultoris theologie evo nostro principem et assertorem meum Erasmum non potui iampridem, quantumlibet mihi de facie ignotum, non impense amare et suspicere’.
Ibid., p. 237: ‘Verum mihi displicet sane eas nenias ad te, virum tantum, perlatas, que quodam modo invito mihi exciderunt. Nosti enim, mi Erasme, quam hoc seculo nullus angulus suis censoribus et vitilitigatoribus non abundet, quantumque istiusmodi sive crabrones sint sive etiam scarabei exhibere soleant negotii bonis viris, etiam summatibus. Eorum morsus clandestinos neque ego vitare potui, quod et tua semper omnia et Luteri nonnulla que initio recte monuisse videbatur, interdum tueri solebam’.
Balzer (ed.), Corpus iuris Polonici, IV/1. 21–28.
Ibid.
Wacław Uruszczak etc. (eds.), Volumina constitutionum (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Sejmowe, 2000) I/1. 381–385, no. 31.
Działyński (ed.), Acta Tomiciana, VI. 264–265, no. 227, Sigismund to palatines, Krakow 10 May 1523: ‘In conventu preterito cum nihil decerni potuerat pro defensione regni et stipendio Tartaris dando et intelligeremus, quam inutilis sit et omni statui perniciosa generalis motio bellica, decrevimus secreto consilio cum primariis consiliariis nostris, ut in iis conventibus, quod ad consulendum de ordine proficiscendi ad bellum indiximus, fierent per palatinos motu proprio ipsorum non nostro nomine tractatus cum nobilitate de aliquo alio modo defensionis quam per bellicam motionem tam noxiam’.
Wacław Pociecha, ‘Walka sejmowa o przywileje Kościoła w Polsce w latach 1520–1537’, Reformacja w Polsce, 2 (1922), pp. 161–184.
Działyński (ed.), Acta Tomiciana, V. 123, no. 119, Piotr Tomicki to Jan Konarski [1520]: ‘quod usque huc ad nullum effectum perductum propter difficultatem, quam nuncii terrarum more suo faciunt extorquere volentes prius sua petita, quam ad aliquam contributionem consentiant’.
Ibid.: ‘Sed nuncii terrarum per hos omnes dies nos articulis suis occuparunt, quos, etsi prohibiti fuerunt scribere, tamen scripserunt supra quadraginta, inter quos potissimi sunt: … Spirituales iam darentur et coequarentur illi in expeditione bellica nobilitati et alia multa’.
Działyński (ed.), Acta Tomiciana, VI. 7.
Działyński (ed.), Acta Tomiciana, VI. 203–204, no. 182, Piotr Tomicki to Chapter of Poznań [1523]: ‘quia haud dubie dni. seculares venient ad ipsum conventum bene instructi, quo nos sui argumentis et instantia eo adigerent, ut equaliter cum illis onus defensionis ferremus, ad quid nos non adeo sumus obligati, presertim habitis aliis oneribus nostris non modicis’.
Maciej Ptaszyński, Reformacja w Polsce a dziedzictwo Erazma z Rotterdamu (Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2018), pp. 96–117, 180–207.
Wojciechowski, Zygmunt, p. 190, fn. 23.
Balzer (ed.), Corpus Iuris Polonici IV/1. 3: ‘intelleximus tamen, quod comperiuntur in hac regia nostra civitate Cracoviensi, qui opuscula eiusdem Luteri invehere et ad venundandum exponere et manifeste illud doma latiferum profiteri ac tueri in offendiculum bonarum metium hominumque perturbationem ac contemptum auctoritatis et mandate nostri non formidant’.
Ibid.: ‘praeserti publico edicto nostro statuimus, ut nullus aliqua opera praedicti Luteri aut eius sequacium ad hoc regnum nostrum et dominia nobis subiecta invehere, vendere et emere palam vel occulte audeat, nec invecta habeat, legat, aut illud pestiferum dogma praedicet, approbet et tuetur, sub poena huiusmodi libellorum et operum Luteri eiusque sequacium et illius, qui praemissa ausus fuerit, incendii et concremationis bonorumque confiscationis et amissionis’.
Działyński (ed.), Acta Tomiciana, VI. 291–292, no. 253, Krzycki to Piotr Tomicki, Krakow, 4 July 1523.
Ibid.: ‘Conduxerat etiam nos omnes, qui sumus hic tam spirituales quam seculares consiliarios in pretorium de statuendo modo inquisitionis adversus Lutheranos, aderat et ingens doctorum et monachorum examen inibique quantis ineptiis quantisque et quam longis monologiis ea commedia sit acta, scribi satis non potest’.
Ibid.: ‘Rogavit me impense, ut ejusce actus aliquas literas conficerem, quod onus subii libens vel ea causa, ne ipse actus noster deridiculo esset omnibus. Scripsi igitur, ut mihi videbatur nomine regio et legi sue Mti. annuenti et approbanti totum non gravatim’.
Ibid.: ‘mitto copiam Rme. Dominationi vre., ut priusquam imprimi detur, dignaretur rescribere, si quid addendum, minuendum, mutandumve illi videretur, quod ut faciat citra moram plurimum illam rogo et obsecro’.
AGAD, MK, vol. 37, f. 496; AGAD, MK, vol. 43, f. 247; print in Działyński (ed.), Acta Tomiciana, VI. 289–290, no. 248; Balzer (ed.), Corpus Iuris Polonici, IV/1. 28–31, no. 9.
Działyński (ed.), Acta Tomiciana, VI. 338, no. 304, Piotr Tomicki to Queen Bona, Piotrków, 30 October 1523; ibid., pp. 338–339, no. 305, Piotr Tomicki to Jan Boner, Piotrków, 30 October 1523; ibid., pp. 339–340, no. 306, Piotr Tomicki to Jan Konarski, Piotrków, 30 October 1523.
Ptaszyński, Reformacja, p. 99f.
Anna Skolimowska etc. (eds.), Corpus of Ioannes Dantiscus’ Texts and Correspondence [online], no. 186, Jan Dantyszek to Piotr Tomicki, Krakow, 8 August 1523 (‘Qui non Romae pontificem et Vitenbergae Lutherum vidissent, vulgo nihil vidisse crederentur’). From: http://dantiscus.al.uw.edu.pl (accessed: 27th March 2023).
Ibid.: ‘Talem habet Lutherus vultum, quales libros edit. … Quis sit aliis in rebus, libri eius clare eum depingunt’.
Balzer (ed.), Corpus Iuris Polonici IV/1. 29, no. 9: ‘nos pro officio christiani principis eam ipsam religionem a sanctis patribus ordinatam ac per sanctam Romanam ecclesiam directam, nobisque ac maioribus nostris per manus traditam, ac per nos denique et gentes nostras multo sanguine et clarissimis, gratia Dei, victoriis hactenus defensam, etiam a labe heretica, his temporibus in vicinia emergente, integram et immaculatam in regno et dominiis nostris conservare volentes’.
AGAD, MK, vol. 37, f. 496–467.
AGAD, MK, vol. 43, f. 125–126.
Ryszard Marciniak, ‘Acta Tomiciana’ w kulturze politycznej Polski okresu odrodzenia (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwa Naukowe, 1983).
Działyński (ed.), Acta Tomiciana, VI. 289–290, no. 248 and VIII.145–146, no. 112.
Jan Łaski, Statuta nova (Krakow: Maciej Szarfenberg, 1528), USTC 240844, k. HH2v: ‘sub pena capitis et confiscatione bonorum omnium’.
Andrzej Krzycki, Encomia Luteri (Krakow: Hieronim Wietor, 1524), USTC 240741.
Ibid., f. A2r–3r.
Ibid., f. A4r: ‘Inter tot autem, ac tam varios, qui hactenus fuerunt hereticos, nemo fuit qui non ex Evangelio Basim doctrine sue statuisset, non verbis dei pretextum, et illicem veneni sue fecisset’.
Ibd. f. A4r: ‘sicuti in presens agit, novum sui anguli numen: Lutherus, quod ita humiliter, ita caste, ita mansuete et pacifice, juxta doctrinam Christi et Apostolorum, tractat, ut nihil arrogantius, nihil impudentius, nihil seditiosus ac virulentius dici vel excogitari possit, ut qui nedum reges carnicifices, scurras et nebulones; Pontifices antichristos, lenones, et idola vocet, que potestates, quales sunt, a deo tamen sunt, et templa dei immortales, que ipse Christus suam domum testatur, lupanaria appellat; sed et sanctos, atque adeo ipsam deiperam virginem lingua sacerrima, ut ex plerisque eius argumentis constat, vilipendit ac elevat’.
Ibid.: ‘Avaritiam et rapinas spiritualium praetendit, ut laicos, quos illis oppido infestos scit, ad rapinas et sacrilegium inducat’.
Ibid, f. A4v: ‘Mores ecclesiasticorum miris coloribus depingit ac incessit, quasi absque vitiis homines esse possint, aut fuerint: etiam hi pauci quos Christus sibi delegerat, ut pote[m] quorum alii illum vendiderunt, alii abnegarunt, reliqui ab omni fide post passionem illius a lapsi fuerunt, et quasi non doceat Apostolus pontificem offerre debere pro semetipso, quemadmodum pro populo, cum eadem sit infirmitate circumdatus’.
Ibid., f. B1r: ‘Licet ipse dicat spiritu humilitatis et intellectu. Papa cadet et Lutherus stabit’.
Ibid., f. B2r.
Ibid., f. B2r–v: ‘Vocat se doctorem, vocat ecclesiasten, vocat evangelistam; cum scriptum sit; nemo assumat sibi honorem, nisi fuerit vocatus a deo; vocatur autem a deo quisquis ab his quos deus prefecit; non a semet ipso vocatur’.
Ibid., f. B2v: ‘Doctrinam suam doctrinam e coelis se habere iactat; quam cum Jacobus Apostol. castam; pacificam; modestam; tractabilem; plenam misericordie et fructibus bonis, absque diiuidicatione et simulatione testetur. Demoniamcam vero seditiosam; amarulentam et contentiosam plane apparet, cum scribat Lutherus se provocatum ad maledicta; quibus totus scatet; ex quo spiritu, et quali homini doctrina hec sua prodeat; cum ex abundantia cordis os loquatur; et cum qualis virsitalis oratio’.
Ibid., f. B3r: ‘Numina celestia nephariis in contemptum. Et bona spiritualium harpyis in predam dat. Vulgusque omne libertate; quam asserit Christiana a legibus et obedientia missum facit, et alia huiusmodi scelerum ac turbarum lactari, quibus fit; ut hic novus evangelista; noc novum Pythii oraculum habeat tot diversa farine adoratores’.
Ibid., f. B3v: ‘Evangelium hoc solum putant, quod et quatenus Lutherus doceat, ceterum quod in ecclesia canitur, cum nihil aliud, quam hoc, vel ad illlud pertinens canatur, aut legatur; credunt esse meras nugas et nenias. Hoc egregio oraculo gaudet et nobilitatur specula orbis Wittenberg, in quo si quid divini aut prophetici videretur, acceptus illi non esset Lutherus: cum nemo propheta acceptus sit in patria; siquidem verba Christi sunt vera’.
Ibid., f. B4r: ‘quod et decus literarium Erasmus censet: ut nemo melius Lutherum quam semetipse conficiat: inconstantia videlicet: et maledicentia sua: qua in omnes passim: ceu furens illa Hecuba fertur’.
Ibid.: ‘Sed ut manifestum sit tandem hinc et inde, Lutherum non spiritu sancto, quo plenus videri vult, non doctrina, qua turget, et os in celum point, non ulla sanctimonia: qua fingitur a suis famigeratum esse: sed odio secularium quorundam in ecclesiasticos, studio rerum novarum imperiti vulgi, insolentia, ac libidine apostatarum, cupiditate prede et sacrilegii improborum hominum, neque horum omnium quod scribat Lutherus intelligentium, eo illuviem hanc elatam, ut merito diceri hi omnes possint’.
Ibid, f. A3r: ‘Necesse sit usque ad diem iudicii, quod etiam Apostolus testatur: hereses venire, ut et vitia que succrescunt, et ea que ab initio iusta et pia ratione statuuntur, ac tempore, ut sunt humana ingenia, in abusum abeunt, tali conflictatione purgentur, ac reticiantur, quod tamen nunquam absque ingenti aliqua inactura et perturbatione rei Christiane venire solebat. Et proinde recte pestes iste divinis ac humanis legibus damnantur et puniuntur’.
Jacek Wiesiołowski, ‘Z kórnickiego kodeksu Corpus Cricianum’, Pamiętnik Biblioteki Kórnickiej, 15 (1979), p. 242, fn. 11.
Jesús Martínez de Bujanda (ed.), Index des livres interdits, VIII: Index de Rome 1557, 1559, 1564. Les premiers index romains et l’index du Concile de Trente (Sherbrooke: Centre d’Études de la Renaissance, Université de Sherbrooke, 1990), no. 009, p. 213.
For Dresden and Regensburg editions, see VD16 2478; 2479; for Cologne edition see Electronic Database for the Estreicher Bibliography (EBBE), 146785; 146786 (https://www.estreicher.uj.edu.pl).
The Speyer edition from 1524 was entitled: Epistola Andree Cricii et Edictum Regis Polonie in Martinum Luterum (USTC 651484). The author of the preface was the humanist Ferenc Bácsi (Franciscus Bachiensis), who was soon to be among Jan Zapolya’s supporters. Bálint Lakatos, ‘Bachiensis, Franciscus (Ferenc Bácsi, Bachy, de Bachya)’, in Companion to Central and Eastern European Humanism [forthcoming].