Sollich faul anschleg vnnd vnnütz kriege kommen auß den zechen / Der wir in 40. jaren vil gehabt haben / das sünd vnd schande ist / das vmb ein solchen tauben dreck / ein solch pluotuergiessen Christenlichs pluots soll angericht werden.
(400)
[Such terrible attacks and useless wars are the result of heavy drinking which we have witness over forty years many times. It is a sin and a shame that there has been so much Christian bloodshed for nothing but such pigeon shit.]
The Peasant War (1525), for instance, is explained along those lines insofar as individuals who had been dedicated too much to wine had caused it all (400). Franck, who entirely disregards any social, economic, or political conditions, moves from here to a general condemnation of alcohol, which he identifies as the culprit for all sinfulness and vice. But he does not perceive any real hope for the world because everything has reached an extreme development, including evilness, cheating, deception, etc. In light of this development, he believes that the world will have to collapse first before it can become better (408). Both the physical greed for food and the desire to drink in excess emerge, hence, as the critical culprits of all that is evil in this world (400). Considering the overarching tenor of this text, with its specific target of attacking ordinary vices, this would not be a surprising conclusion.54
However, at a time in which Protestant ideals and Counter-Reformation/Jesuit campaigns bitterly clashed with each other—the Jesuits, however, were not founded until 1540—we can only note with amazement that Franck does not take aim at the Catholics, for instance, the Jews, or the Muslims, and does not even consider spiritual, religious, or broadly theological issues. That kind of criticism found expression in his earlier works, such as the translation of Simon Fish’s Klagbrieff oder suppplication der armen duerfftigen (against the Catholic clergy), or in his translation of Georgius of Hungary’s Chronica vnnd beschreibung der Türckey (targeting the Turks).55 Even though Franck condemns the Turks for their lack of the true faith in the Christian God, not taking into account that they are faithful Muslims, he refers to the Turks in the same terms as when he comments on the Catholics or even Protestants who pretend to be good Christians but are lacking in the spirit: “es ist nuor alles ein schein on wesen” (323; it is all only an illusion without essence). However, Franck does not close his eyes to the model behavior by the Turks, which impresses him at least in terms of their external life. Hence, he appeals to the Christians to outdo the Turks and to aim for a life pleasing to God not only formally, but in deeds as well (324).
To his own shame, as he admits, most Christians would lack in modesty and piety as displayed by the Turks (325). Because of their religious constraints, they do not “sauffen / spilen / Gots lestern / jhrem Mahomet / wie wir vnsern Christum creutzigen / martern / vnd taeglich mit fuessen tretten” (325; binge drink, gamble, blasphem their God Mahomet, as we crucify our Christ, torture Him, and step on Him with our feet). The Christians make a sham of themselves and do a great disservice to their own religion through their blameworthy comportment. The existence of the ethically and morally upright Turks would be God’s challenge for the Christians to follow their model and live up to their practiced ideals.
The chronicle account about the Turks, hence, serves him as a severe warning about Christian hypocrisy through which they pretend to be pious and yet lack in their faith (326). This, then, allows Franck to conclude:
Also fueren der Bapst / Tuercken / vnd alle vnglaubigen / schein on wesen / werck on glauben / So fueren wir vermainten Christen vnd Euangelischen vil glauben on werck / wesen / wie wir achten / on schein / warheyt on ausspruch / liecht on schein vnd glast.
(326)
[Thus the pope, the Turks, and all non-believers project an illusion without essence, deeds without faith. So we pretense Christians and Evangelical people project much faith without deeds or essence, though we think otherwise, then truth without confirmation, light without brilliance and gleam.]
Consequently, we are “weder Tuercken noch Christen” (326; neither Turks nor Christians). The former represent the model behavior on the outside, whereas the latter should display the inner values. However, for Franck, only the symbioses of inside and outside would create the truly pious person in words and deeds.
All this cannot be taken as evidence that Franck embraced the Turkish Muslims as ideals against which the Christians would have to be measured. But he pays much respect to them, just as to the Jews, to teach people as a model for Christians how to change their lives, at least in formal terms. The report by Georgius of Hungary served him well to outline his criticism of both the Catholics and the untrustworthy Protestants, especially because most of the vices as were commonly represented in Christian Europe could not be found in the Turkish territory.56
It would go much too far to claim all this as the basis of toleration or even tolerance. However, Franck was most willing and prepared to project the Turks as role models whom the Christians should imitate, at least in their public performance, and then also excel them in order to achieve their own ideals. He still rejected the Muslims and the Jews as aliens to the Christian faith, but he was certainly not opposed to incorporating them into his own discourse on ethics, morality, and religion.
In his monumental Chronica, which I can finally discuss only in passing, Franck emphasizes that he collected much knowledge and wisdom from many different authors. In this regard, he pays considerable respect also to the learned authorities outside of Christendom (iii r–v). After all, as he emphasizes, God has shared his goodness with people all over the world, “daß jederman von seiner guet zu sagen wisse” (iii v; that that everyone could speak about His goodness). He himself would not follow any sect or any individual teacher since he wants to rely only on his own inner sense of God:
bin keiner Sect oder Menschen auff Erden also gefangen / daß mir nicht zugleich alle Frommen zu hertzen gehen / ob sie schon in viel vnnoetigen stueck ein faehlgriff thund / vnd bin in keines Menschen wort geschworen / dann Christi meines Gottes vnd Mittlers / in deß gehorsam ich mein vernunfft allein gefangen nim.
(iii r)
[I am not the prisoner of any sect or any person here on the earth, which would prevent me from feeling in my heart for all pious people, whether they do something wrong in many unnecessary circumstances I am also not obliged to any person’s word except for Christ my God and intermediator to whom I have committed my reason as a prisoner alone.]
Subsequently, Franck also pronounces explicitly that all people here on earth would deserve the same love: “daß ich keinen Menschen auff dem Erdboden darumb hass / sonder mich selbst / mein elend vnd Condition / in jenn bewein / erkenne vnd sihe” (iii v; I do not hate [envy] any person here on earth for that reason; instead I recognize my own misery and condition in them and cry about it, understand, and perceive it).
Although there are many different faiths here on earth, he hopes that everyone will forgive him his own errors, “sonderlich / wenn er mich neben jm frey glauben vnd bleiben laeßt / vnd mich nicht gefangen nimpt” (iii, v; especially if he lets me believe freely next to him and leaves me alone and does not take me prisoner). He goes so far as to claim that any Christian man could legitimately marry a heathen woman and have children with her, which he supports with a reference to 1 Corinthians 7 (St. Paul) (iii, v).
In fact, Franck ridicules many of his contemporaries who think that they have to set up their own church and condemn everyone else, which would lead to much hypocrisy (iii, v). True faith could be found among many different communities: “Darumb sollen wir nit also gering einander wegen / ketzern / hinwerffen / noch secten / als koendten wir nicht / wie Bruder Niclaus in Schweitz / on allen anhang fromm seyn / ein jeder fuer sich selbst” (iii, v; We should not condemn each other as worthless, or as heretics, or members of sect, as if we could not be pious like Brother Claus [Nicholas of Flüe, 1417–1478] in Switzerland, each for himself). After all, as Franck emphasizes, “wir koennen vnd wissens alle nicht alles” (iii, v; we cannot do everyt
hing and do not know everything). It would be so convenient simply to call the others heretics who deviate from the standard faith or who simply make a mistake: “Dann macht ein jeder jrrthumb zum Ketzer / so helff Gott vns allen / auch allen Heiligen / die so klaeglich fuer jre thorheit / vnwissenheit vnd jrrsal bitten” (iii v; If every error makes someone to a heretic, then God must help us, and also all saint who plead so lamentably for their foolishness, ignorance, and mistake). As he summarizes, “es ist mehr daß der Mensch wisse was Gott mit jm woelle anheben vnd außrichten / dann das jemand auff die gantze Welt gaffe” (iiii, r; it is more important that a person knows what God wants to do and achieve with him, instead of someone staring onto the world).
The Bible itself would not be worth anything if the individual would not understand the workings of God here in this world and would not grasp what his own purpose would be on earth (iiii, r). As a consequence, he formulates that a truly pious person would learn more from the study of nature and the creatures than an unholy person would learn from the study of the Bible and God’s words (iiii v): “darumb must du das Wort nit allein in der Schrifft / sonder in allen dingen ergreiffen” (iiii v; therefore you must understand the word not only in Scripture, but in all things). Without personal experience of God’s grace, neither the Bible nor the Christian teachings (“Historien”), or any words uttered by God or any of His works, would be comprehensible (viiii v). In other words, “die Lehr ist allein ein todter Buchstab” (v r; the teaching alone is a dead letter). The true church would be invisible and would require that the faithful rely on the Holy Spirit to reach out for God.57 Because people would not understand the divine truth and would be lost in this world, they splinter into many different sects and heretical groups (v r), none of which would be able to find the real faith. The world chronicle, however, serves as a vehicle to gain a comprehensive understanding of how God operates with all people (v v).
In terms of worldly rules and law, however, this chronicle would offer good examples from Jews, heathens, Christians, and Turks (v v), all who have provided valuable experiences and role models. Franck does not differentiate between the various religions, but searches for ideal behavior all over the world. The author does not pursue a ‘multicultural’ or ‘interfaith’ perspective, as we would call it perhaps today. He certainly intends to create a chronicle of the world as it developed throughout time, but he pursues primarily a Universalist approach outside of all traditional church teachings.
The individual who is seeking God must pay attention to God’s works and words on the inside, spiritually (vi r). He promotes a faith that is based on the inner experience with God. In this regard, he advocates a religious approach that would be independent from the external church and that would free the individual from all formal matter. Without stating so explicitly, he supports a spiritual relationship with God free from institutional constrains. Correspondingly, Franck does not begin with the accounts as contained in the Old Testament, but he first reflects on the teachings of the ancient Greek and Egyptian philosophers (A iii r) and defines the material world as the microcosm, in contrast to the macrocosm.
Then, however, Franck also turns to the origin of all beings, discusses the emergence of heaven and hell, and so traces the biblical account as well, without ignoring traditional philosophical insights and definitions. Insofar as his purpose rests on outlining the history of the world, he also discusses the various kingdoms and peoples, individual heroes and cities; consequently, he follows both a chronological order and pursues a theological and philosophical discourse.
At the end, however, he returns to some of the fundamental problems in the Church and laments that the true faith has been lost on earth because everyone has joined a particular sect and clamors for the status of representing the true understanding of God: “Es sind viel Secten vnd Partheyen / als Carstadt / Luther / Zwingel / Widertaeuffer / Papisten / Hussiten / Picarder / etc.” (p. CCXXXV r; There are many sects and parties, such as they aligned with Karlstadt, Luther, Zwingli, the Anabaptists, the Papists, the Hussites, the Picards, etc.). The saints and the pilgrimages would not be of any value, and there would not be anymore any love and faith on earth (ibid.). Out of a sense of the imminent apocalypse, the author targets virtually everyone and doubts that there would be any truly faithful individuals left. However, he does not return to his initial concerns about the equality of all people in the world and the parallels between the various types of religions.58
Following Erasmus of Rotterdam’s footsteps, that is, his anti-war treatise Querela pacis from 1517 and printed many times thereafter,59 Franck also composed, though in some versions under a pseudonym, a treatise in which he argued against all wars and demanded religious tolerance in every respect.60 Specifically, the author underscores that no one can or should be forced to accept a faith other than his own: “soll keyner mit gewalt darzu zwungen werdenn / das ehr neme glaube vnd entpfahe / das er nit wil” (13v–14r; no one should be forced violently to accept a faith and receive what he does not want). This is exactly the same notion as formulated already in the anonymous Reinfrid von Braunschweig (late thirteenth century), as I have discussed previously. Those who explicitly refuse to turn to God, hence to accept Christianity for themselves, would simply have to be subject under God’s laws and judgment at the end of their lives (14 r). Referring to Luther, he remarks that those who proceed the other way and try to coerce the non-believers to accept the Christian faith would have to be regarded as insane and crazy (14 r). After all, as he states one more time: “weyl der glaub ein ankleben des willens vnnd der seel ist / die eusserlich nit genoet werden moegen” (14 r; because faith is attached to the will and the soul which cannot be enforced from outside). In a way anticipating modern ideas about individual freedom, Franck formulates, “Gedancken seind zolfrey” (14 r; ideas cannot be charged a toll).61
In fact, Franck accuses those who want to spread their faith with the help of weapons that they have no understanding of the teachings in the Old and the New Testament (15 r). True Christian faith would be free of all constraints, and most ecclesiastics would have to be charged for their hypocrisy and deception. Everything is based, as he emphasizes, on the Spirit, and no law or rule could be imposed to force people to follow God (16 r). Even though all people would embrace the idea of peace and try to achieve it, in reality, the opposite appears to be the case because, as Franck asserts, justice is missing (22 v). War itself emerges here as a beastly matter—with no pun intended against animals—and against all nature and reason (24 v). Most important, however, would be the inner peace—the one granted by Christ—whereas the situation in the world would be rather different and mostly disturbing (29 v). Just as much as no one can influence another person’s mind and ideas, no one can disturb that inner peace (30 r). War would never take place among animals, whereas people who commit such a crime against mankind would have to be identified as devils (36 r) or human beings in the shape of devils (38 r).
Insofar as all people descend from the first man (Adam), they are all brothers and should treat each other accordingly (40 r). The critical question for Franck proves to be how Christians can fight against each other, since Christ had taught them only peace (56 v). He grants that it would be understandable that the Israelites of the Old Testament fought against foreign people, whereas the wars that the Christians wage against each other would be incomprehensible (57 v). Even more absurd would be that some Christian rulers would align themselves with the Turks but would carry out military operations against each other (57v–58r), such as the French against the English, both driven to their evil behavior by Franciscan monks (60 r). In fact, those who would then suffer would always be the innocent poor and peasant (63 r).
In respect to the Turks, it would be better “mit leer / wolthaten / vnschuldem leben zum glauben Chrsiti reitzen dann mit gewapgneter hand verfallen / vnd antasten” (63 v; to appeal to them with teaching, good deeds, and an innocent/pure life style to attract them to the Christian faith than to attack them w
ith armed hands and hurt them). He also warns about the real material costs of any war, while peaceful negotiations would always be of much higher profit (64 v). We might question the practicality and realism of such ideas, especially considering the imperialist wars by the Ottomans against the Balkans and the lands further north, but within the framework of his treatise, Franck certainly deserves credit for questioning the basic justification and legitimization of war, especially when it is launched by Christians. After all, as he points out over and over again, war ultimately results in “wuettende morderey / rauberey / verraeterey” (76 r; raging murder, robbery, treason). Every war engenders more wars, since every people vanquished by another will ultimately fight for its freedom, and so forth (77 r).
But the confrontation with the Turks tortured Franck, like many of his contemporaries, because he wants to argue against war altogether and yet knows only too well of their hostile, military campaigns against the Christians. As in the early parts of his treatise, he advocates a loving and peaceful approach, as unrealistic as that might be, even in our modern eyes: “Wilt du die Türcken zum glauben bringen / so muß es mit vnschuldigem leben / wolthat / gebet / demuot / gedult / vernichtung / des brachts / guots / glorie etc. gschehen” (99 v; if you want to convert the Turks to [the Christian] faith, it has to happen by way of a pure life, good deeds, prayer, humility, patience, and the removal of external splendor, goods, and fame).
Toleration and Tolerance in Medieval European Literature Page 40